Advertisement

Adoption of intercropping in rubber smallholdings in Kerala, India: a tobit analysis

  • 509 Accesses

  • 23 Citations

Abstract

Natural rubber (Hevea brasiliensis) is one of the major plantation crops of the state of Kerala in India and intercropping is practised during the initial gestation period of the crop. In this paper a to bit model was used to study the decision making behaviour of farmers in adoption and extent of adoption of intercropping in three regions of Kerala. The availability of family labour and the type of intercrops were found significant in explaining the adoption behaviour in all three regions. The perception of profitability of intercropping was also found to influence decision on adoption. The probability of adoption of intercropping was highest for three intercrops, banana (Musa spp.), cassava (Manihot esculenta) and pineapple (Ananas comosus). Targeting extension efforts to groups of farmers with available family labour and popularising selected intercrops may result in higher rates of adoption of intercropping in all three regions of the state.

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

References

  1. Adesina AA and Zinnah MM (1993) Technology characteristics, farmer's perceptions and adoption decisions: a tobit model application in Sierra Leone. Agricultural Economics 9: 297-311

  2. Amemiya T (1984) Tobit models: a survey. Journal of Econometrics 24: 3-61

  3. Akinola AA and Young T (1985) An application of tobit model in the analysis of agricultural innovation adoption process: a study of cocoa spraying chemicals among Nigerian cocoa farmers. Oxford Agrarian Studies, 14: 26-51

  4. Ashby J and Sperling L (1992) Institutionalising participatory, client-driven research and technology development in agriculture, pp 115-122. Paper presented at the meeting of the CGIAR social scientists, 15-22 September, The Hague, The Netherlands

  5. Chandrasekara LB (1984) Intercropping Hevea replantings during the immature period. Proceedings of the International Rubber Conference, Sri Lanka, 1 (Part II) pp 390-391

  6. CIRAD (1997) Centre de cooperation internationale en recherche agronomique pour le development, p 34.

  7. Eppen M (1994) Rural non-agricultural employment in Kerala: some emerging tendencies. Economic and Political Weekly 29: 1285-1296

  8. Ervin CA and Ervin DE (1982) Factors affecting the use of soil conservation practices: hypotheses, evidence and policy implications. Land Economics 58: 277-292

  9. Goodwin BK and Schroeder TC (1994) Human capital, producer education programmes and the adoption of forward pricing methods. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76: 936-947

  10. Gould BW, Saupe WE and Klemme RM (1989) Conservation tillage: the role of farm and operator characteristics and the perception of erosion. Land Economics 65: 167-182

  11. Greene WH (1993) Econometric Analysis, 2nd Edition, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York

  12. Hassan RM (1996) Planting strategies of maize farmers in Kenya: a simultaneous equation analysis in the presence of discrete dependent variables. Agricultural Economics 15: 137-149

  13. Ismail T and Arshad NL (1988) Maximising land use in rubber smallholdings: Proceedings of the 6th Seminar on the Progress and Development of Rubber Smallholders. Palembanj, Indonesia, July 1986, pp. 67-74.

  14. Lynam JK, Sanders JH and Mason SC (1986) Economics and risk in multiple cropping. In: Francis CA (ed) Multiple Cropping Systems, MacMillan Company, New York

  15. Lynne G, Shonkwiler J and Rola L (1988) Attitudes and farmer conservation behaviour. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70: 12-19

  16. McDonald JE and Moffitt RA (1980) The uses of tobit analysis. Review of Economics and Statistics 62: 318-321

  17. Nkonya E, Schroeder T and Norman D (1997) Factors affecting adoption of improved maize seed and fertiliser in Northern Tanzania. Journal of Agricultural Economics 48: 1-12

  18. Norman D (1974) Rationalising mixed cropping under indigenous conditions: the example of Northern Nigeria. Journal of Development Studies 11: 3-21

  19. Nowak P (1992) Why farmers adopt production technology. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 47: 14-16

  20. Raintree JB (1983) Strategies for enhancing the adaptability of agroforestry innovation. Agroforestry Systems 1: 173-187

  21. Rajasekharan P (1989) Pineapple intercropping in the first 10 three years of rubber plantings in smallholdings: an economic analysis. Indian Journal of Natural Rubber Research 2: 118-124

  22. Schutjer W and Van der veen M (1977) Economic constraints on agricultural technology adoption in developing countries. US Agency for International Development, Occasional Paper No. 5, Washington DC

  23. Sreenivasan KG, Ipe VC, Haridasan V and Mathew M (1987) Economics of intercropping in the first three years among new/replanted rubber. Rubber Board Bulletin 23: 13-17

  24. Tobin J (1958) Estimation of relationship for limited dependent variables. Econometrica 26: 24-36

  25. Vandermeer J (1989) The ecology of intercropping. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  26. Voh JP (1982) A study of the factors associated with the adoption of recommended farm practices in a Nigerian village. Agricultural Administration 9: 17-29

  27. Zainol E, Mahmud AW and Sudin MN (1993) Effects of intercropping systems on surface processes in an acid ultisol 2. Changes in soil chemical properties and their influence of crop performance. Journal of Natural Rubber Research 8: 124-136

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to P. Rajasekharan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rajasekharan, P., Veeraputhran, S. Adoption of intercropping in rubber smallholdings in Kerala, India: a tobit analysis. Agroforestry Systems 56, 1–11 (2002) doi:10.1023/A:1021199928069

Download citation

  • elasticity of adoption
  • family labour
  • marginal effects