An Economic Assessment of Banana Genetic Improvement and ...
An Economic Assessment of Banana Genetic Improvement and ... An Economic Assessment of Banana Genetic Improvement and ...
134 CHAPTER 9 Table 9.2 Summary statistics and hypothesized effects of variables used in the analysis Variable Description Mean Standard deviation Dependent variables Hybrid use Household grows a hybrid cultivar (yes = 1; no = 0) 0.19 0.39 Yield loss Average expected yield loss to joint biotic pressures (percent) 4.23 7.31 Explanatory variables Gender Gender of primary production decisionmaker (1 = male) 0.70 0.46 Education Average aggregate household education level (years of 6.30 1.98 schooling) Experience Years of experience tending for the banana grove 20.57 13.87 Dependency ratio Ratio of children and elderly to active adult household 0.48 0.22 members Extension Number of contacts with extension agents 1.63 4.01 Exogenous income Income received in previous period (ten thousand Tsh) 20.34 62.69 Livestock assets Value of total livestock assets (ten thousand Tsh) 20.28 43.92 Farm size Size of landholding (acres) 1.72 1.43 Elevation Elevation (stratification variable; 1 = low) 0.85 0.36 Probability BS Perceived frequency of occurrence of black Sigatoka disease 0.09 0.18 Probability FW Perceived frequency of occurrence of Fusarium wilt disease 0.23 0.23 Probability WE Perceived frequency of occurrence of weevils 0.34 0.28 of the landholding, another indicator of wealth and the scale of production. Exposure to banana hybrids and elevation are two stratification variables. Only elevation is included as an instrument in the use equation, allowing for the identification of the treatment effect in the impact equation. The strength of the exposure variable in capturing the effect of use of formally distributed hybrids was compromised by the markedly informal means of transfer of planting material from one farmer to another (this interpretation is supported by descriptive information summarized in Chapter 5). With as many as 20 percent of farmers in nonexposed areas reported to grow banana hybrids, the treatment effect of exposure was dissipated. Geographical location is believed to better explain use behavior, with 96 percent of households growing banana hybrids (that is, 48 of the 50 households using hybrids) residing in low-elevation areas. Determinants of Production Vulnerability Among the variables hypothesized to have an effect on production vulnerability are the acquired human capital variables and scale of production (farm size). These characteristics are intended to capture preferences for management of the banana grove and scale of production, which have implications for yield loss, whereas the frequencies of occurrence of the three biotic pressures reflect the direct effects of disease and pest constraints on production vulnerability. Production vulnerability is also hypothesized to depend on the use of banana hybrids. As hybrids are bred for resistance to biotic pressures (in
USE OF HYBRID CULTIVARS IN KAGERA REGION, TANZANIA 135 particular to black Sigatoka and weevils), they are expected to reduce the average production vulnerability for households that grow them. Results Before the treatment effect model was estimated, the exogeneity of the dichotomous variable for use of banana hybrids was tested in the impact equation. The test was achieved through several steps. First, the use equation was estimated using logit, and the residuals were saved. Then the impact equation was estimated using the actual observations for use of banana hybrids, as well as the saved residuals. No statistical indication of correlation between the errors of the impact and use equations was found (p-value = 0.194 for residuals), supporting the inclusion of use of banana hybrids as an explanatory variable in the impact equation (Woodridge 2001). The treatment effect model is estimated using maximum likelihood methods. The statistical validity of a simultaneous estimation of both equations is evidenced by the significance of the hazard function (p-value = 0.045 for lambda). The information from one behavioral process (that is, treatment regression) influences the outcomes of another process (that is, the impact equation), similarly to the Mills ratio in a Heckman estimation approach. Estimated coefficients are presented in Table 9.3 separately for the use and impact equations. here> 9.3near
- 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 112 and 113: 96 CHAPTER 7 Table 7.2 Definition o
- 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 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
- Page 162 and 163: 146 CHAPTER 10 Table 10.4 Predomina
- Page 164 and 165: here> 7near 10. 148 CHAPTER 10 Tabl
- Page 166 and 167: 150 CHAPTER 10 Table 10.8 Present v
- Page 168 and 169: 152 CHAPTER 10 In terms of specific
- Page 171: Part IV. Conclusions
- Page 174 and 175: 158 CHAPTER 11 in cooking, brewing
- Page 176 and 177: 160 CHAPTER 11 sumption and income
- Page 178 and 179: 162 CHAPTER 11 4. 5. for which the
- Page 181 and 182: APPENDIX A Banana Taxonomy for Ugan
- Page 183 and 184: BANANA TAXONOMY FOR UGANDA 167 Tabl
- Page 185 and 186: BANANA TAXONOMY FOR UGANDA 169 Tabl
- Page 187 and 188: BANANA TAXONOMY FOR TANZANIA 171 Ta
- Page 189 and 190: BANANA TAXONOMY FOR TANZANIA 173 Ta
- Page 191 and 192: APPENDIX C Use of Improved Banana V
- Page 193 and 194: DETAILS OF SAMPLE SURVEY DESIGN 177
- Page 195 and 196: DETAILS OF SAMPLE SURVEY DESIGN 179
- Page 197 and 198: DETAILS OF SAMPLE SURVEY DESIGN 181
- Page 199 and 200: VILLAGE SOCIAL STRUCTURE IN UGANDA
USE OF HYBRID CULTIVARS IN KAGERA REGION, TANZANIA 135<br />
particular to black Sigatoka <strong>and</strong> weevils),<br />
they are expected to reduce the average production<br />
vulnerability for households that<br />
grow them.<br />
Results<br />
Before the treatment effect model was estimated,<br />
the exogeneity <strong>of</strong> the dichotomous<br />
variable for use <strong>of</strong> banana hybrids was<br />
tested in the impact equation. The test was<br />
achieved through several steps. First, the<br />
use equation was estimated using logit, <strong>and</strong><br />
the residuals were saved. Then the impact<br />
equation was estimated using the actual<br />
observations for use <strong>of</strong> banana hybrids, as<br />
well as the saved residuals. No statistical<br />
indication <strong>of</strong> correlation between the errors<br />
<strong>of</strong> the impact <strong>and</strong> use equations was found<br />
(p-value = 0.194 for residuals), supporting<br />
the inclusion <strong>of</strong> use <strong>of</strong> banana hybrids as an<br />
explanatory variable in the impact equation<br />
(Woodridge 2001).<br />
The treatment effect model is estimated<br />
using maximum likelihood methods. The<br />
statistical validity <strong>of</strong> a simultaneous estimation<br />
<strong>of</strong> both equations is evidenced by the<br />
significance <strong>of</strong> the hazard function (p-value<br />
= 0.045 for lambda). The information from<br />
one behavioral process (that is, treatment<br />
regression) influences the outcomes <strong>of</strong> another<br />
process (that is, the impact equation),<br />
similarly to the Mills ratio in a Heckman<br />
estimation approach. Estimated coefficients<br />
are presented in Table 9.3 separately for the<br />
use <strong>and</strong> impact equations. here> 9.3near