4.6 Article

Lead-farmer extension and smallholder valuation of new agricultural technologies in Tanzania

期刊

FOOD POLICY
卷 97, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101955

关键词

Lead-farmer extension; Improved bean varieties; Experimental auctions; Willingness-to-pay; Tanzania; Sub-Saharan Africa

资金

  1. CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM)
  2. CGIAR
  3. American People through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) [AID-OAA-L-14-00006]
  4. US Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Institute of Food and Agriculture and Michigan AgBioResearch [MICL02501]
  5. University of Florida's Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Encouraging the widespread adoption and use of new on-farm technologies is an important part of productivityled strategies to promote agricultural transformation. While many interventions have been designed to promote adoption through extension and education, little is known about how these efforts influence farmer willingnessto-pay (WTP) for new technologies. We use a Becker-DeGroot-Marschak (BDM) mechanism to elicit farmer WTP for two improved seed varieties and a new seed treatment product, Apron Star, under two different lead-farmer extension treatments in Tanzania: (i) a demonstration plot showcasing the technologies within a village; and (ii) a demonstration plot coupled with distribution of trial packs enabling some farmers to test the technologies on their own land. In the BDM, farmers were presented with six products - the two bean varieties: without Apron Star, with Apron Star already applied, and with a sachet of Apron Star for the farmer to treat the seed him/ herself. Our results suggest that neither extension treatment significantly affects WTP for these technologies. However, we find that farmers are willing to pay more for seed that is pre-treated with Apron Star than for seed bundled with a sachet of Apron Star for self-treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据