Eliciting Smallholder Farmers’ Tradeoffs and Preferences on the Attributes of Climate Smart Agriculture in the Breadbasket Areas of Tanzania Using a Conjoint Experiment Method
International Journal of Environmental Protection and Policy
Volume 3, Issue 6, November 2015, Pages: 188-193
Received: Oct. 11, 2015;
Accepted: Oct. 26, 2015;
Published: Nov. 17, 2015
Views 4023 Downloads 117
Kassim R. Mussa, Department of Physical Sciences, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro-Tanzania
Josephat A. Saria, Department of Environmental Studies, Open University of Tanzania, Dar es Salaam-Tanzania
Lughano J. M. Kusiluka, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro-Tanzania
Noorali T. Jiwaji, Department of Environmental Studies, Open University of Tanzania, Dar es Salaam-Tanzania
Brown Gwambene, Institute of Resource Assessment, University of Dares Salaam, Dar es Salaam-Tanzania
Noah M. Pauline, Institute of Resource Assessment, University of Dares Salaam, Dar es Salaam-Tanzania
Nangware K. Msofe, Department of Environmental Studies, Open University of Tanzania, Dar es Salaam-Tanzania
Juma A. Tegeje, Department of Physical Sciences, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro-Tanzania
Innocent Messo, Department of Environmental Studies, Open University of Tanzania, Dar es Salaam-Tanzania
Sixbert S. Mwanga, Institute of Resource Assessment, University of Dares Salaam, Dar es Salaam-Tanzania
Follow on us
While policy and decision-makers are striving to enhance food security amidst maddening impacts of climate change, climate smart agriculture is thought of as a promising breakthrough for responding to climate change impacts in Tanzania and elsewhere in the world as it strives to increase food productivity; build resilience of agricultural systems to climate change impacts and reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emission. Studies show that agricultural sector is both, a cause and a victim of climate change. It significantly contributes greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. However, achieving climate change mitigation through agriculture without compromising food security is a huge policy and research challenge, some scientists say, it is practically impossible. This study sought to determine tradeoffs and preferences of smallholder farmers on the attributes climate smart agricultural practices, specifically modeling choices of smallholder farmers using choice experiment method. Upon estimating three different models, positive utilities were observed in high productivity, Moderate and low GHG emission as well as on moderate and high resilient farming systems. Smallholder farmers showed a complete disutility on low and moderate agricultural productivity, high GHG emission and low resilient farming systems. The models therefore justified the fact that, attaining more yield without a compromise in greenhouse gas emission reduction targets is a blue-sky dream. In order to concisely inform policy, more research on farmers’ preference and tradeoff on the attributes is needed to establish a scientific and logical progression about the tradeoffs people are willing to make with regard to the attributes of climate smart agriculture practices.
Smallholder Farmers, Preference Modeling, Climate Smart Agriculture, Choice Experiment
To cite this article
Kassim R. Mussa,
Josephat A. Saria,
Lughano J. M. Kusiluka,
Noorali T. Jiwaji,
Noah M. Pauline,
Nangware K. Msofe,
Juma A. Tegeje,
Sixbert S. Mwanga,
Eliciting Smallholder Farmers’ Tradeoffs and Preferences on the Attributes of Climate Smart Agriculture in the Breadbasket Areas of Tanzania Using a Conjoint Experiment Method, International Journal of Environmental Protection and Policy.
Vol. 3, No. 6,
2015, pp. 188-193.
Copyright © 2015 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
AGRIFOR Consult ( 2006). Tanzania - Country Environment Study Draft Report. (Unpublished)
Brouwer, R. and Schaafsma, M. (2013) Modelling risk adaptation and mitigation behavior under different climate change scenarios. Climatic Change (2013) 117:11–29 pp.
Claire Schaffnit-Chatterjee (2011). Mitigating climate Change through Agriculture: An untapped Potential. Trend Research. September 19, 2011.
GACP (2011). The economics of climate change in the United Republic of Tanzania. GCAP, January, 2011. Pp 149. Available at http://economics-of-cc-in-tanzania.org. accessed on 5 April 2014.
Hensher D. A. (2004). How do Respondents Handle Stated Choice Experiments? - Information processing strategies under varying information load, DoD Paper #5, Institute of Transport Studies, The University of Sydney, March.
IFPRI (2007). Climate Change Impacts on Food Security in Sub-Saharan Africa. Insights from Comprehensive Climate Change Scenarios. Ringler C., Zhu, T., Cai, X., Coo, J, and Wang, D. (eds.). Cambridge and New York, Cambridge University Press.
IPCC (2007). Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Annex I. M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp.976.
Kangalawe, R. Y. M. (2012). Food security and health in the southern highlands of Tanzania: A multidisciplinary approach to evaluate the impact of climate change and other stress factors. African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology Vol. 6(1), pp. 50-66.
Lancaster, K. (1966). A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy: 74 (1): 132–157.
Lasco, R.D., Habito, C. M. D, Delfifino, R. J. P., Pulhin, F.B. and Concepcion, R.N. (2011). Climate Change Adaptation for Smallholder Farmers in Southeast Asia. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Laguna, Philippines. pp. 69.
McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka, P. (Ed.), Frontiers in Econometrics. Academic Press, New York.
Mongi, H.. Majule, A and J. G. Lyimo (2010). Vulnerability Assessment of Rain Fed Agriculture to Climate Change and Variability in Semi-Arid Tanzania. African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 4: (6): pp. 371-381.
Msangi S, Rosegrant MW, You L (2006). Ex post assessment methods of climate forecast impacts. Clim Res 33:pp.67–97.
Mussa, K. R., Mjemah, I.C and Malisa, E.T. (2012). The role of development projects in strengthening community-based adaptation strategies: The case of Uluguru Mountains Agricultural Development Project (UMADEP)-Morogoro-Tanzania. International Journal of Agricultural Sciences, Vol. 2 (6), pp.157-165.
Mwandosya, M. K. (2007). Report to Plenary Session of the United Nation High Level Meeting on Adaptation to Climate Change. Permanent Mission of the United Republic of Tanzania to the United Nation, Dar es Salaam, 2007.
Rajmis, S, Barkmann, J., and Marggraf, R. (2009). User community preferences for climate change mitigation and adaptation measures around Hainich National Park, Germany. Climate Research. 61-73pp.
Train, K. (2003), Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation, New York: Cambridge University Press.
United Republic of Tanzania (2007). National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA). Vice President’s Office, Division of Environment. Dar es Salaam, 2007.
Veldhuizena, L.J.L., Tapsuwanb, S. and Burtonc, M. (2011). Adapting to climate change: Are people willing to pay or change? 19th International Congress on Modeling and Simulation, Perth, Australia, 12–16 December 2011. pp.7.
Wongbusarakum, S and Loper, C. (2011). Indicators to assess community‐level social vulnerability to climate change: An addendum to SocMon and SEM‐Pasifika Regional Socio-economic Monitoring Guidelines. pp. 41.
Yanda, P. Z. Kangalawe, R. Y. M. and Sigalla, R. J. (2006). Climatic and Socio-Economic Influences on Malaria and Cholera Risks in the Lake Victoria Region of Tanzania. ICIFAI Journal of Environmental Economics, Vol. 4, No. 3, 2006, pp. 44-70.