Advertisement

Food Security

, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp 513–524 | Cite as

The roles of risk and ambiguity in the adoption of the system of rice intensification (SRI): evidence from Indonesia

  • Kazushi Takahashi
Original Paper

Abstract

Given the recognized yield-enhancing potential of the System of Rice Intensification (SRI), its low adoption and high discontinuance rates in some locales are puzzling. Combining experimental measures of risk and ambiguity aversion with household-level and plot-level panel data collected in rural Indonesia, this study empirically explores factors shaping SRI’s adoption and discontinuance. Employing multivariate and Heckman probit models to control unobserved heterogeneities, we find that farmers’ risk aversion significantly reduces their likelihood of using all individual SRI practices. However, once the effects of risk aversion on the use of SRI in the previous year are statistically controlled, risk aversion does not significantly explain farmers’ subsequent decisions to continue or discontinue SRI practices. Farmers’ ambiguity preferences play no significant role in decisions to use most practices, except alternate wetting and drying, which requires proper coordination of irrigation among neighboring farmers and thus amplifies the uncertainty of effective implementation. The results also show that access to irrigation is a significant factor in the use of SRI and its continuance. Moreover, as SRI requires greater input of labor and therefore curtails time for alternative household activities, including off-farm work, family composition is a significant factor determining its adoption and continuing use. Although these findings are not necessarily generalizable, our study expands the existing knowledge of factors underlying SRI’s slow diffusion.

Keywords

System of rice intensification Risk Ambiguity Experiments 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I thank Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) for permission to use the data. I am grateful to Chris Barrett, Nobuhiko Fuwa, Hisaki Kono, Kazutoshi Nakamura, Takeshi Sakurai, Shuichi Sato, Yasuyuki Sawada, Aya Suzuki, Yasuyuki Todo, seminar participants of the Tokyo workshop on international development and 23rd Japan Society for International Development’s Annual Meeting, and the editors and two anonymous referees of this journal for their helpful comments. I also gratefully acknowledge the financial support for this research by JICA, Institute of Developing Economies, and Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B), Japan. Any remaining errors are solely the author’s responsibility.

References

  1. Alpizar, F., Carlsson, F., & Naranjo, M. A. (2011). The effect of ambiguous risk, and coordination on farmers’ adaptation to climate change: a framed field experiment. Ecological Economics, 70, 2317–2326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anthofer, J. (2004). The Potential of the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) for poverty reduction in Cambodia. Presentation at the Conference on Rural Poverty Reduction through Research for Development and Transformation: International research on food security, natural resource management and rural development. Deutscher Tropentag, October 5–7, at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.Google Scholar
  3. Arrow, K. J. (1965). Aspects of the theory of risk bearing. Helsinki: Yrojo Jahnsonin saatio.Google Scholar
  4. Barker, R., & Herdt, R. (1985). The rice economy of Asia. Resources for the future. Washington: Resource for the Future.Google Scholar
  5. Barnett, B. J., Barrett, C. B., & Skees, J. R. (2008). Poverty traps and index-based risk transfer products. World Development, 36(10), 1766–1785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barrett, C. B., Moser, C. M., McHugh, O. V., & Barison, J. (2004). Better technology, better plots, or better farmers? Identifying changes in productivity and risk among Malagasy rice farmers. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 86(4), 869–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berkhout, E., & Glover, D. (2011). The evolution of the system of rice intensification as a socio-technical phenomenon: A report to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Wageningen: Wageningen University and Research Centre.Google Scholar
  8. Binswanger, H. P. (1981). Attitudes toward risk: theoretical implications of an experiment in rural India. The Economic Journal, 91, 867–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bouman, B. (2012). What is the system of rice intensification (SRI) and where is it going? International Rice Research Institute, Unpublished results.Google Scholar
  10. Bryan, G. (2010). Ambiguity and Insurance. Yale University, Unpublished results.Google Scholar
  11. Cappellari, L., & Jenkins, S. P. (2003). Multivariate probit regression using simulated maximum likelihood. The Stata Journal, 3(3), 278–294.Google Scholar
  12. David, C. C., & Otsuka, K. (1994). Modern rice technology and income distribution in Asia. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Dobermann, A. (2004). A critical assessment of the system of rice intensification (SRI). Agricultural Systems, 79(3), 261–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, ambiguity and the savage axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75, 643–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Engle-Warnick, J., Escobal, J., & Laszlo, S. (2007). Ambiguity aversion as a predictor of technology choice: Experimental evidence from Peru. CIRANO, Working Papers 2007s-1.Google Scholar
  16. Engle-Warnick, J., Escobal, J., & Laszlo, S. (2008). Ambiguity aversion and portfolio choice in small-scale Peruvian farming. McGill University, Unpublished results.Google Scholar
  17. Glover, D. (2011). The system of rice intensification: time for an empirical turn. NJAS- Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 57(1), 217–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hayami, Y., & Otsuka, K. (1993). The economics of contract choice: An agrarian perspective. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  19. Johnson, B., & Vijayaragavan, K. (2011). Diffusion of system of rice intensification (SRI) across Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh in India. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education, 11(3), 72–79.Google Scholar
  20. Kassam, A., Uphoff, N., & Stoop, W. A. (2011). Review of SRI modifications in rice crop and water management and research issues for making further improvements in agricultural and water productivity. Paddy and Water Environment, 9, 163–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Knight, F. (1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  22. Ly, P., Jensen, L. S., Bruun, T. B., Rutz, D., & de Neergaard, A. (2012). The system of rice intensification: adapted practices, reported outcomes and their relevance in Cambodia. Agricultural Systems, 113, 16–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Marenya, P. P., & Barrett, C. B. (2007). Household-level determinants of adoption of improved natural resources management practices among smallholder farmers in western Kenya. Food Policy, 32, 515–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McDonald, A. J., Hobbs, P. R., & Riha, S. J. (2006). Does the system of rice intensification outperform conventional best management? A synopsis of the empirical record. Field Crop Research, 96, 31–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moser, C. M., & Barrett, C. B. (2003). The disappointing adoption dynamics of a yield-increasing, low external input technology: the case of SRI in Madagascar. Agricultural Systems, 76(3), 1085–1100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moser, C. M., & Barrett, C. B. (2006). The complex dynamics of smallholder technology adoption: the case of SRI in Madagascar. Agricultural Economics, 35(3), 373–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moya, P., Hong, L., Dawe, D., & Chongde, C. (2004). The impact of on-farm water saving irrigation techniques on rice productivity and profitability in Zhanghe irrigation system, Hubei, China. Paddy and Water Environment, 2, 207–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Namara, R.E., Weligamage, P., & Barker R. (2004). Prospects for adopting system of rice intensification in Sri Lanka: A socioeconomic assessment. International Water Management Institute Research Report 75.Google Scholar
  29. Osorio, C.G., Abriningrum, D.E., Armas, E.B., & Firdaus, M. (2011). Who is benefiting from fertilizer subsidies in Indonesia?” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 5758.Google Scholar
  30. Otsuka, K., Estudillo, J. P., & Sawada, Y. (2009). Rural poverty and income dynamics in Asia and Africa. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Palanisami, K. (2010). Adoption of SRI under different irrigation sources and farm size categories. Unpublished results.Google Scholar
  32. Pratt, J. W. (1964). Risk aversion in the small and in the large. Econometrica, 32, 122–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rakotomalala, H. W. (1997). Comparaison entre la Riziculture Traditionnelle et le Syst`eme de Riziculture Intensive dans La R´egion de Ranomafana. Thesis, Universit´e d’Antananarivo.in Tamil Nadu, India. International Water Management Institute. Unpublished results.Google Scholar
  34. Rejesus, R. M., Pails, F. G., Rodriguez, D. G. P., Lampayan, R. M., & Bouman, B. A. M. (2011). Impact of the alternate wetting and drying (AWD) water-saving irrigation technique: evidence from rice producers in the Philippines. Food Policy, 36(2), 280–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sato, S., & Uphoff, N. (2007). A review of on-farm evaluations of system of rice intensification methods in eastern Indonesia. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources, 54, 1–12.Google Scholar
  36. Sato, S., Yamaji, E., & Kuroda, T. (2011). Strategies and engineering adaptions to disseminate SRI methods in large-scale irrigation systems in Eastern Indonesia. Paddy and Water Environment, 9, 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Senthilkumar, K., Bindraban, P. S., Thiyagarajan, T. M., de Ridder, N., & Giller, K. E. (2008). Modified rice cultivation in Tamil Nadu, India: yield gains and farmers’ (lack of) acceptance. Agricultural Systems, 98(2), 82–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sheehy, J. E., Peng, S., Dobermann, A., Mitchell, P. L., Ferrer, A., Yang, J., Zou, Y., Zhong, X., & Huang, J. (2004). Fantastic yields in the system of rice intensification: fact or fallacy? Field Crop Research, 88, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. SRI International Network and Resources Center (SRI-Rice). (2012). <http://www.sri.ciifad.cornell.edu/index.html> (accessed 7.05.12).
  40. Stigler, G., & Becker, G. (1977). De gustibus non est disputandum. American Economic Review, 67, 76–90.Google Scholar
  41. Stoop, W. A., & Kassam, A. (2005). The SRI controversy: a response. Field Crop Research, 91, 357–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stoop, W. A., Uphoff, N., & Kassam, A. (2002). A review of agricultural research issues raised by the system of rice intensification (SRI) from Madagascar: opportunities for improving farming systems for resource-poor farmers. Agricultural Systems, 71, 249–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Styger, E., Ag Attaher, M., Guindo, H., Ibrahim, H., Diaty, M., Abba, I., & Traore, M. (2011). Application of system of rice intensification practices in the arid environment of the Timbuktu region in Mali. Paddy and Water Environment, 9, 137–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Takahashi, K., & Barrett, C.B. (2013). The system of rice intensification and its impact on household income and child schooling: Evidence from rural Indonesia. Cornell University, Unpublished results.Google Scholar
  45. Thakur, A., Rath, S., Roychowdhury, S., & Uphoff, N. (2010). Comparative performance of rice with system of rice intensification (SRI) and conventional management using different plant spacings. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 196, 146–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thakur, A., Rath, S., & Kumar, A. (2011). Performance evaluation of rice varieties under the system of rice intensification compared with the conventional transplanting system. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, 57, 223–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Uphoff, N. (2006). Development of the system of rice intensification in Madagascar. Cornell University, Unpublished results. <http://sri.ciifad.cornell.edu/aboutsri/CIP_UPWARD_SRICase.pdf> (accessed 1.18.13)
  48. Uphoff, N. (2011). The system of rice intensification: an alternate civil society innovation. Technikfolgenabschätzung - Theorie und Praxis, 2, 45–52.Google Scholar
  49. Uphoff, N., Fernandes, E.C.M., Yuan, L.P., Peng, J.M., Rafaralahy, S., & Rabenandrasana, J., eds. (2002). Assessments of the system for rice intensification (SRI). Proceedings of an International Conference, Sanya, China, 1–4 April.Google Scholar
  50. Uphoff, N., Kassam, A., & Stoop, W. (2008). A critical assessment of a desk study comparing crop production systems: the example of the ‘System of Rice intensification’ versus ‘Best Management Practice’. Field Crop Research, 108, 109–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zhao, L., Wu, L., Li, Y., Xinghua, L., Zhu, D., & Uphoff, N. (2009). Influence of the system of rice intensification on rice yield and nitrogen and water use efficiency with different N application rates. Experimental Agriculture, 45, 275–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht and International Society for Plant Pathology 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Developing EconomiesChibaJapan

Personalised recommendations