Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Conservation agriculture in Ecuador’s highlands: a discrete choice experiment

  • Published:
Environment, Development and Sustainability Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Conservation agriculture has successfully spread in a number of developing country contexts, resulting in both positive production and environmental impacts. However, there are ongoing questions about the appropriateness of conservation agriculture for small-scale farming as poor farmers tend to be risk averse, typically lack access to credit, and may have planning horizons associated with heavily discounted future benefits. This study investigates farmer attitudes toward how a hypothetical set of conservation agriculture production practices will affect yield, labor use, erosion, and cost in two communities of Bolivar province, Ecuador, through the implementation of a discrete choice experiment. Results show producers are most concerned with future yields, planting labor, and overall costs. While off-farm erosion impacts are of concern, producers only placed small values on these impacts. Results provide support for conservation agriculture outreach to highlight practices that increase long-run production and reduce the time and technical skills associated with planting.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Melloco, from the Basellacae family, is an edible tuber produced in the Andean region.

  2. United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

  3. Due to financial and time constraints, all surveys had to be completed over 3 weeks (15 days, M-F). The geography of each watershed is such that producers are not in close proximity to one another nor are their farms necessarily adjacent to the road. These conditions mean that enumerators had to walk long distances to conduct the interviews. After multiple discussions with INIAP researchers, it was determined that completing on average 15 surveys per day was a realistic goal. This is how the initial target of 225 (15*15) producer surveys was determined, providing a survey coverage of more than 20% of the watersheds’ population.

  4. For an overview of the type and scope of on-farm field trials conducted in both sub-watersheds, please see Barrowclough et al. (2016). Additional information on CA practices is available in Lal (2001) and Hobbs et al. (2008).

  5. ‘Jab-planting’ refers to the practice of using a pole (or stick) to manually ‘jab’ a hole into the untilled ground and placing seed directly into the formed hole.

  6. A labeled design occurs when alternatives are assigned to represent a specific good or service; e.g., alternatives assigned to signify a particular CA practice. An unlabeled (generic) design occurs when the alternative is given no identifiable marking except for the attributes used to describe said alternative.

  7. Cost is assumed to be fixed to ensure attribute WTP estimates fell within the anticipated prior boundaries.

  8. The DCE chart design, pictograms, attribute definitions, and script were validated prior to application during pilot interviews. Fortunately, agricultural researchers at INIAP have worked with producers in the study watersheds over an extended period. Preceding the pilot interviews, the authors collaborated with INIAP researchers who are familiar with the cultural and educational backgrounds of watershed producers. This ensured clarity of the research design with survey respondents. Following the pilot interviews, modifications were made to further ensure respondents understood the questions/tasks that were asked of them.

  9. Using observed characteristics of the respondent and the respective agricultural practice in question, along with unobserved characteristics (stochastic portion of utility (ε ij )), Eq. 2 specifies the probability that a respondent will choose an alternative over another. Equation 2 means the respondent’s choice will be whichever alternative provides the highest level of utility.

  10. For additional information on the econometric techniques used here and in Discrete Choice Experiments in general, please see Louviere et al. (2000), Train (2009), and Hensher et al. (2005).

  11. The log-normal distribution of −1*Cost and −1*Planting Labor was taken to ensure the proper theoretical sign.

  12. Assigning Cost, Four-Year Yield, Planting Labor, Low Erosion, and Medium Erosion a log-normal distribution implies heterogeneous preferences, whereas assigning One-Year Yield and Weeding Labor to be fixed implies homogeneous preferences. Homogenous, or fixed, preferences assume the marginal utility of those attributes is the same among respondents whereas heterogeneous, or diverse, preferences assume the marginal utility differs among respondents.

  13. The RPL model was estimated in Stata using the mixlogit command developed by Hole (2007).

  14. However, it is possible that labor markets are imperfect and are therefore driving higher than anticipated WTP values.

  15. The sign of the variable’s effect is in parentheses. A positive (negative) sign suggests that, on average, that variable is associated with greater(lower) utility from the application of CA.

References

  • Alwang, J., Barrera, V., Andrade, R., Hamilton, S., & Norton, G. (2009). Adaptive watershed management in the South American highlands: Learning and teaching on the fly, Chapter 10. In K. Moore (Ed.), The sciences and art of adaptive management: Innovating for sustainable agriculture and natural resource management. Ankeny: Soil and Water Conservation Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alwang, J., & Sowell, A. (2010). Socioeconomic factors affecting soil and water conservation in South America, Chapter 18. In T. Napier (Ed.), Human dimensions of soil and water conservation. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrade, R. (2008). Livelihood strategies of farmers in Bolivar, Ecuador: Asset distribution, activity selection and income generation decisions in rural households. Master’s Thesis, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Virginia Tech.

  • Barrera, V., Cruz, E., Alwang, J., Escudero, L., & Monar, C. (2010). Experiences in integrated management of natural resources in the sub-watershed of the Chimbo River, Ecuador. In 21st Century watershed technology: Improving water quality and environment, CD-Rom proceedings, 21–24 February 2010.

  • Barrowclough, M., Stenhouwer, R., Alwang, J., Gallagher, R., Barrer, V., & Dominguez, J. (2016). Conservation agriculture on steep slopes in the Andes: Promises and obstacles. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 71(2), 91–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barsky, R., Juster, F., Kimball, M., & Shapiro, M. (1997). Preference parameters and behavioral heterogeneity: An experimental approach in the health and retirement study. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 537–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman, I. J., Carson, R. T., Day, B., Hanemann, W. M., Hanley, N., Hett, T., et al. (2002). Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: A manual. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bayer, C., Martin-Neo, L., Mielniczuk, J., Pavinato, A., & Dieckow, J. (2006). Carbon sequestration in two Brazilian Cerrado soils under no-till. Soil and Tillage Research, 86, 237–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennet, J., & Birol, E. (2010). Choice experiments in developing countries: Implementation, challenges and policy implications. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bond, C., Hoag, D., & Kipperberg, G. (2011). Agricultural producers and the environment: A stated preference analysis of Colorado corn producers. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 59(1), 127–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carson, R., & Czajkowski, M. (2013). A new baseline model for estimating willingness to pay from discrete choice models. Paper presented at the International choice modeling conference, 3–5 July 2013, Sydney.

  • Cerda, C., Barkmann, J., & Marggraf, R. (2013). Application of choice experiments to quantify the existence value of an endemic moss—A case study in Chile. Environment and Development Economics, 18(2), 207–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chowdhury, S., Meenakshi, J., Tomlins, K., & Owori, C. (2011). Are consumers in developing countries willing to pay more for micronutrient-dense biofortified foods? Evidence from a field experiment in Uganda. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 93(1), 83–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delgado, J., Dillon, M., Sparks, R., & Essah, S. (2007). A decade of advances in cover crops. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 62(5), 110A–117A.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dumanski, J., Peiretti, R., Benetis, J., McGarry, D., & Pieri, C. (2006). The paradigm of conservation Tillage. In Proceedings of world association of soil and water conservation (pp. 58–64).

  • Feder, G., & Umali, D. (1993). The adoption of agricultural innovations: A review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 43(3), 215–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2015). What is conservation agriculture? http://www.fao.org/ag/ca/1a.html. Accessed 08 Feb 2017.

  • Francisco, J., Budds, J., & Boelens, R. (2013). Payment for environmental services and unequal resource control in Pimampiro, Ecuador. Society and Natural Resources, 26(10), 1217–1233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedrich, T., & Kienzle, J. (2007). Conservation agriculture: Impacts on farmers’ livelihoods, labor, mechanization and equipment. http://www.fao.org/ag/ca/CA-Publications/ACSAD%202007.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2015.

  • Giller, K., Witter, E., Corbeels, M., & Tittonell, P. (2009). Conservation agriculture and smallholder farming in Africa: The heretics’ view. Fields Crop Research, 114(1), 23–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Govaerts, B., Sayre, K., & Deckers, J. (2005). Stable high yields with zero tillage and permanent bed planting? Field Crops Research, 94(1), 33–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanna, S., Gutter, M., & Fan, J. (2001). A measure of risk tolerance based on economic theory. Financial Counseling and Planning, 12(2), 53–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, K., McPake, B., Nakamba, P., & Archard, L. (2005). Preferences for hospital quality in Zambia: Results from a discrete choice experiment. Health Economics, 14(7), 687–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvest Choice. (2011). Total livestock population (TLU) (2005). International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, and University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN. http://harvestchoice.org/node/4788.

  • Hensher, D., Rose, J., & Greene, W. (2005). Applied choice analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hine, R., & Pretty, J. (2008). Organic agriculture and food security in Africa, Geneva and New York, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

  • Hobbs, P., Sayre, K., & Gupta, R. (2008). The role of conservation agriculture in sustainable agriculture. Philosophical Transactions B, 363(1491), 543–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hole, A. (2007). Estimating mixed logit models using maximum simulated likelihood. The Stata Journal, 7, 388–401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmstrom, D., DeHaan, R., Sanderson, J., & MacLeod, J. (1999). Residue management for potato rotation in Prince Edward Island. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 54(1), 445–448.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). (2004). Conservation agriculture as a labor saving practice for vulnerable households. Rome: FAO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jack, B. (2011). Constraints on the adoption of agricultural technologies in developing countries. White paper, agricultural technology adoption initiative, J-PAL (MIT) and CEGA (UC Berkeley).

  • Knowler, D., & Bradshaw, B. (2007). ‘Farmers’ adoption of conservation agriculture: A review and synthesis of recent research. Food Policy, 32(1), 25–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lai, C., Chan, C., Halbrendt, J., Shariq, L., Roul, P., Idol, T., et al. (2012). Comparative economic and gender, labor analysis of conservation agriculture practices in tribal villages in India. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 15(1), 73–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lal, R. (2001). Managing world soils for food security and environmental quality. Advances in Agonomy, 74, 155–192.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster, K. (1966). A new approach to consumer theory. The Journal of Political Economy, 74(2), 132–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louviere, J., Hensher, D., & Swait, J. (2000). Stated choice methods—Analysis and application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers in econometrics (pp. 105–142). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pretty, J., Noble, A., Bossio, D., Dixon, J., Hine, R., De Vries, F., et al. (2006). Resource-conserving agriculture increases yields in developing countries. Environmental Science and Technology, 40(4), 1114–1119.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Putte, A., Govers, G., Diels, J., Gillijns, K., & Demuzere, M. (2010). Assessing the effect of soil tillage on crop growth: A meta-regression analysis on European crop yields under conservation agriculture. European Journal of Agronomy, 33(3), 231–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saturnino, H., & Landers, J. (1997). O meio ambiente e o plantio direto. Goiania: Associacao do Plantion Direto Direto no Cerrado.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management Collaborative Research Support Program (SANREM). (2013). USAID SANREM CRSP annual report.

  • Thierfelder, C., & Wall, P. (2012). Effects of conservation agriculture on soil quality and productivity in contrasting agro-ecological environments of Zimbabwe. Soil Use and Management, 28(2), 209–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Train, K. (2009). Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vyn, T., & Raimbault, B. (1993). Long-term effect of five tillage systems on corn response and soil structure. Agronomy Journal, 85(5), 1074–1079.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Agriculture, Illinois State University, 137 Ropp Agriculture Building, Campus Box 5020, Normal, IL, 61790, USA

    Michael J. Barrowclough

  2. Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 250 Drillfield Drive #215I, Blacksburg, VA, 24073, USA

    Jeffrey Alwang

Authors
  1. Michael J. Barrowclough
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeffrey Alwang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael J. Barrowclough.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 6 and Fig. 3.

Table 6 Willingness-to-pay estimates (all respondents)
Full size table
Fig. 3
figure 3

Discrete choice experiment attributes and level

Full size image

Survey 1: Discrete choice experiment introduction script

N.B.: Writing below in italics and enclosed by parenthesis () is not read to respondents but rather a cue for the enumerator to follow during the DCE introduction process

This section involves a set of farming methods known as ‘Conservation Agriculture.’ The main objective of these methods is to increase soil fertility and decrease soil erosion. We have identified six farm production factors that may potentially change after adopting these types of practices and we would like to know your preferences toward them. The six production factors are: Change in yield 1 year after adoption, Change in yield 4 years after adoption, Change in number of days spent on labor for planting, Change in number of days spent on labor for weeding, Change in soil erosion, and Change in cost of production

In a moment I will ask you to choose between three different farming scenarios. Two of these scenarios will describe a hypothetical outcome were you to adopt a conservation agriculture practice. The third scenario will be if you were to continue with the farming practice(s) that you currently use. The three farming scenarios are described by the six farm production factors that I previously mentioned. These farm production factors can take different values, which I will describe now

(After this script is read aloud by the enumerator, respondents are shown a print of the six DCE attributes and their respective levels as shown in Fig. 3 . The enumerator describes the six attributes and their respective levels using the attribute description given in Table 3 . After this has been completed, the enumerator continues with the introductory script below.)

When making your choice between the three different farm scenarios please assume all production factors, other than the six just discussed, regarding your farm operation will be no different across the three farming scenarios

When you make your choice, please do so under the assumption that given the alternative you choose, the levels of the farm production factors shown would come true. It is very important to remember your farm income and budgetary constraints your family faces when making your choice. Before we begin, we will go through an example together

(The enumerator shows the respondent a choice scenario example as seen in Fig. 2 and reiterates the previous points from the DCE introduction. Once the respondent and enumerator complete the choice scenario example, the eight choice scenarios are presented.)

Survey 2: Risk assessment experiment

1. Suppose that your farm is the only income your family earns and the income you earn currently from your farm can be guaranteed for life. You are given the opportunity to implement at no additional costs the 4 CA practices previously mentioned: Cover Crop, Crop Rotation, Reduced Tillage, and Contour Cropping, with a 50–50 chance it will double your income after 4 years and a 50–50 chance that it will cut your income after 4 years BY 20%. After 4 years, the change will be permanent

Would you adopt the practices? YES/NO

 If your answer to #1 is NO, go to question #2

 If your answer to #1 is YES, go to question #5

2. Suppose the chances were that there was a 50–50 chance it will double your income made over 4 years and a 50–50 chance that it will cut your income made over 4 years BY 10%

Would you adopt the practices? YES/NO

 If your answer to #2 is NO, go to question # 3

 If your answer to #2 is YES, your risk tolerance is MODERATE

3. Suppose the chances were that there was a 50–50 chance it will double your income made over 4 years and a 50–50 chance that it will cut your income made over 4 years BY 8%

Would you adopt the practices? YES/NO

 If your answer to #3 is NO, go to question #4

 If your answer to #3 is YES, your risk tolerance is LOW

4. Suppose the chances were that there was a 50–50 chance it will double your income made over 4 years and a 50–50 chance that it will cut your income made over 4 years BY 5%

Would you adopt the practices? YES/NO

 If your answer to # 4 is NO, your risk tolerance is EXTREMELY LOW

 If your answer to #4 is YES, your risk tolerance is VERY LOW

5. Suppose the chances were that there was a 50–50 chance it will double your income made over 4 years and a 50–50 chance that it will cut your income made over 4 years 33%

Would you adopt the practices? YES/NO

 If your answer to #5 is NO, your risk tolerance is MODERATELY HIGH

 If your answer to #5 is YES, go to question 6

6. Suppose the chances were that there was a 50–50 chance it will double your income made over 4 years and a 50–50 chance that it will cut your income made over 4 years BY 50%

Would you adopt the practices? YES/NO

 If your answer to #6 is NO, your risk tolerance is VERY HIGH

 If your answer to #6 is YES, your risk tolerance is EXTREMELY HIGH

  1. Risk Tolerance descriptions taken from Hanna et al. (2001)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Barrowclough, M.J., Alwang, J. Conservation agriculture in Ecuador’s highlands: a discrete choice experiment. Environ Dev Sustain 20, 2681–2705 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-017-0011-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-017-0011-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation