Farmers’ willingness to pay for virus-free sweetpotato vines in Central Uganda
-
Upload
ilri -
Category
Technology
-
view
1.214 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Farmers’ willingness to pay for virus-free sweetpotato vines in Central Uganda
1
Farmers’ Willingness to Pay for Virus-free sweetpotato
vines in Central Uganda
Sylvia NakanyikeMakerere University
First Bio-Innovate Regional Scientific ConferenceUnited Nations Conference Centre (UNCC-ECA)Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 25-27 February 2013
2
Scarcity of quality planting material is a key constraint affecting sweetpotato productivity in Uganda (Yanggen and Naggujja, 2006; CIP,2009; Hagenimana,1999; Kapinga et al.,1995 ).
Yet, use of farmer saved planting material is associated with the spread of SPVD.
SPVD caused yield losses of up to 90% and disappearance of the would good varieties.
Fortunately, biotechnological initiatives (e.g. TC and virus indexing) are now available that could be used in rapid production of virus free sweetpotato planting material (PM).
BACKGROUND
3
A sustainable use of such initiatives will depend on farmers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for the virus–free sweetpotato vines, whose price will certainly be higher than for farmer-saved PM.
Thus, use of QPM may have a cost implication which could make the technology less affordable by resource poor sweetpotato farmers.
And, adoption of QPM will depend on farmers’ willingness to pay.
Problem Statement
4
Major Objectives: To assess farmers’ WTP for Virus-free sweetpotato vines
Specific Objectives:1. To characterize sweetpotato farmers in C.Ug 2. To determine the value farmers are willing to
pay for virus- free sweetpotato vines3. To determine factors affecting famers’ WTP
for virus- free sweetpotato vines4. To estimate the market potential for Virus –
free sweetpotato vines
Objectives
5
Study done in Mpigi and Wakiso district 200 farmers sampled and questionnaire used Contingency valuation methods used to
estimate price Data AnalysisObjective 1: Farmers categorized into 2 groups Descriptive statistics, t tests and chi square
tests used to test significance Objective 2: Means estimated and compared
using t test
Methodology
6
Objective 3: Tobit model specified as:
Ai* - latent variable indexing WTP.
βo – Intercept
β1…………… β10 are parameters to be estimated
X1…………X10 are the various independent variable
Methodology Cont’d
ebbbbb +------------++++= 10103322110* XXXXAi
7
Description of independent variables used in Analysing Factors Affecting
Farmers’ WTP for Virus-free Sweetpotato Vines
Variable Description Unit of measurement
1X Age of the farmer Number of years
2X Education level of hoousehold head Number of years spent in school
x3 Membership in Association 0 = no, 1 = yes
x4 Access to extension services Number of times per year
x5 Access to credit s ervices 0 = no, 1 = yes
x6 Farmer sells sweetpotato 0 = no, 1 = yes
x7 Access to quality vines 0 = no, 1 = yes
8X Revenue from sweetpotato Uganda shillings
9X Market access Distance (km)
10X Total area under sweetpotato production acres
8
Objective 4:
Where: MP = is the market potentialN= Number of farmers willing to buy virus-free vines.P= Mean WTPQ=Number of planting seasons per yearA= Average number of bags required by each farmer
Methodology Cont’d
9
Results: Obj. 1Socio-economic characteristics
Unit of measure
Farmers not willing to pay more than 8000/=
Farmers willing to pay more than 8000/=
P value
Age Years 39.29(13.40)
45.12(14.12
0.005
Education level
Number of years spent in school
6.78(3.82)
6.68(3.41)
0.849
Land access Acres 4.77(4.51)
5.54(4.94)
0.321
Family size People 5.92(3.31)
5.69(3.41)
0.636
10
Socio-economic characteristics
Unit of measure
Percentage numbers of farmers not willing to pay more than 8000/=
Percentage number of farmers willing to pay more than 8000/=
P value
Gender MaleFemale
51.5652.89
48.4447.44
0.863
Experiencing SPVD
YesNo
50.9165.00
49.0935.00
0.233
Access to good quality vines
YesNo
51.5552.87
48.4547.13
0.624
Results Obj.1. cont’d
11
T-test Results Comparing mean prices
Results: Obj.2
Variable Mean
(UShs)
Confidence
interval
(UShs)
P Value
Price for
virus-free
vines
8459
(4239)
7,844 -9,074 0.0000
Price for
farmer-saved
vines
2611
(1991)
800 - 4421
12
Results Obj.3 Dependent variable Price of Virus-free Vines
Units of measure Uganda Shillings
Coefficient t-statistic Pvalue
Constant 6958.685 2.48 0.014 Age of the farmer Years 40.740 1.72* 0.088 Education of the farmer years in school 15.094 0.16 0.871 Membership in association (0 = no, 1= yes) -206.814 -0.26 0.797 Access to extension services No. of times/yr -98.60 -0.46 0.644 Access to credit services (1= no, 2= yes) 792.045 1.14 0.255 Farmer sells sweetpotato Access to quality vines Revenue from sweetpotato
(1= no, 2= yes) (1= no, 2= yes)
Uganda Shillings
1751.372 709.1317 0.0037
2.09** 1.12 2.34**
0.038 0.262 0.021
Market access Distance (km) -169.5612 -3.30*** 0.001 Total area under sweetpotato (Acres) 654.739 1.91* 0.058 No. Observations=180 Prob>chi2 = 0.012
Pseudo R2= 0.0067 Loglikelihood = -1672.1928
Note: 1. (*) is significance at 10%, (**) Significance at 5%, (***) significance at 1%.
Observation Summary: 4 left- censored observations at WTP<=1000;
13
Results Obj.4
Detail Amount Units
Number of possible
buyers
532,543 Farmers
Mean WTP Price 8400 Uganda Shillings
Average annual
purchasing rate
2 planting
seasons
Average purchasing
quantity
4 bags per season
Market potential 35.8 Billion Uganda Shillings
14
There is no major variation between the two categories of farmer. Only variation is age, implying more experience and better appreciation of effects of SPVD
Farmers were willing to pay for quality vines
Commercial oriented sweetpotato farmers expressed a higher WTP than subsistence sweetpotato farmers
There is a big market potential for virus-free sweetpotato vines
Key findings
15
Thank you for listening!
Cassava Potato and Sweetpotato Bioinnovate Consortium - MAK