| Literature DB >> 28700605 |
Adewale Oparinde1, Tahirou Abdoulaye2, Djana Babatima Mignouna2, Adebayo Simeon Bamire3.
Abstract
Analysis of market segments within a population remains critical to agricultural systems and policy processes for targeting new innovations. Patterns in attitudes and intentions toward cultivating Provitamin A GM cassava are examined through the use of a combination of behavioural theory and k-means cluster analysis method, investigating the interrelationship among various behavioural antecedents. Using a state-level sample of smallholder cassava farmers in Nigeria, this paper identifies three distinct classes of attitude and intention denoted as low opposition, medium opposition and high opposition farmers. It was estimated that only 25% of the surveyed population of farmers was highly opposed to cultivating Provitamin A GM cassava.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28700605 PMCID: PMC5507399 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0179427
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1a: LGAs where the selected EAs are located in Benue State. b: LGAs where the selected EAs are located in Oyo State.
Opinion statements on Farmers’ attitude towards Provitamin A GM cassava.
| s/n | Belief Category | Behavioural belief statement ( | Likert scale for | Outcome evaluation statement ( | Likert scale for |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nature | Developing GM cassava goes against nature | Strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5) | Cultivating GM cassava would make me feel as though I am doing something unnatural | Very unlikely (-2) to very likely (2) | |
| Religion | Developing GM cassava goes against my religion | Strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5) | Cultivating GM cassava would make me feel as though I am acting against my religious beliefs | Very unlikely (-2)to very likely (2) | |
| Pest Resistance | Cultivating GM cassava will increase pest resistance | Strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5) | The potential increase in pest resistance resulting from cultivation of GM cassava will be… | Very undesirable (-2) to very desirable (2) | |
| Pesticide usage | Cultivating GM cassava will increase the need for pesticides and pesticide usage | Strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5) | The potential increase in pesticide usage resulting from cultivation of GM cassava will be… | Very undesirable (-2) to very desirable (2) | |
| Fertiliser Usage | Cultivating GM cassava will reduce the need for fertiliser usage | Strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5) | The potential reduction in the need for fertiliser use resulting from cultivation of GM cassava will be… | Very undesirable (-2) to very desirable (2) | |
| Consumer safety | Consuming GM cassava will be safe for human beings | Strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5) | Consuming GM cassava would make me feel as though I am eating something unsafe for my health | Strongly disagree (-2) to strongly agree (2) | |
| Consuming GM cassava will be good for me and my family because it will be more nutritious | Strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5) | The potential improvement in nutrition resulting from consumption of GM cassava will be… | Very undesirable (-2) to very desirable (2) | ||
| Price | GM cassava will be cheaper than conventional varieties | Strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5) | The potential affordability of GM cassava compared to conventional cassava varieties will make GM cassava | Very undesirable (-2) to very desirable (2) | |
Note: Total number of question items = 8; b′s likert scale range = 1 to 5; e′s likert scale range = -2 to +2; Maximum Attitude Score for 8 items = (Max * Max) * 8 = be * 8 = (5*±2)*8 = ±80.
Socioeconomic characteristics by state.
| Variable | Oyo | Benue |
|---|---|---|
| % Respondent is male | 66.4 | 66.0 |
| % Respondent planted cassava (last 12 months before survey) | 94.5 | 97.9 |
| % Respondent heard about GM before survey | 11.6 | 2.1 |
| % Respondent heard about GM cassava before survey | 9.6 | 1.4 |
| % Respondent is household head | 65.1 | 69.4 |
| % Married monogamy | 58.2 | 50.0 |
| % Married polygamy | 32.2 | 33.6 |
| % Single never married | 4.1 | 5.7 |
| % Widowed | 5.5 | 9.3 |
| % Separated | 0.0 | 0.7 |
| % Divorced | 0.0 | 0.7 |
| Respondent’s Age (years) | 50.9 (15.0) | 45.3 (15.0) |
| Respondent’s education (years) | 4.2 (4.9) | 9.1 (5.0) |
| Household size | 7.4 (4.1) | 9.9 (5.1) |
| Number of children under five years of age | 1.1 (1.3) | 3.0 (2.7) |
| Area of land cultivated with cassava (ha) | 1.9 (2.3) | 3.0 (8.2) |
Share of cassava land area farmers were intending to dedicate to the cultivation of Provitamin A GM cassava.
| Benue (N = 144) | Oyo(N = 144) | Both states(N = 288) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0–5 | 9.84 | 0.00 | 4.51 |
| 6–10 | 1.64 | 11.11 | 6.77 |
| 11–20 | 11.48 | 10.41 | 10.91 |
| 21–30 | 12.30 | 9.72 | 10.9 |
| 31–40 | 5.74 | 4.17 | 4.89 |
| 41–50 | 38.52 | 29.86 | 33.84 |
| 51–60 | 4.10 | 4.17 | 4.14 |
| 61–70 | 2.46 | 0.69 | 1.50 |
| 71–80 | 6.56 | 8.33 | 7.52 |
| 81–90 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 91–100 | 7.38 | 21.53 | 15.04 |
| Total | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
Fig 2TPB conceptual path to farmers’ intentions towards cultivating provitamin A GM cassava (***p<0.01, **p<0.05, *p<0.10).
Correlation between TPB variables (Pearson’s r).
| Subjective Norm | 0.1653 | ||
| PBC | 0.1514 | -0.2137 | |
| Intention | 0.1666 | 0.0757 | 0.1012 |
***1% significance level.
Models of farmers’ intention towards cultivating provitamin A GM cassava (OLS regressions).
| Variable | Dependent Variable: Intention | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Basic (Benue) | Basic (Oyo) | Basic (POOL) | Benue With socio-economic variables | Oyo With socio-economic variables | POOL With socio-economic variables | |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| Coeff. (std err) | Coeff. (std err) | Coeff. (std err) | Coeff. (std err) | Coeff. (std err) | Coeff. (std err) | |
| Attitude | 0.34 (0.16) | 0.14 (0.31) | 0.33 (0.15) | 0.31 (0.18) | 0.22 (0.33) | 0.18 (0.17) |
| 0.13 (0.21) | 0.68 (0.35) | 0.21 (0.19) | 0.05 (0.24) | 0.80 (0.36) | 0.27 (0.21) | |
| 0.09 (0.51) | 1.10 (0.47) | 0.50 (0.32) | -0.23 (0.58) | 1.19 (0.48) | 0.65 (0.35) | |
| State (Benue = 1, otherwise 0) | - | - | - | - | - | -5.97 (5.03) |
| Gender (Male = 1, otherwise 0) | 9.66 (5.72) | 2.77 (6.08) | 3.40 (4.27) | |||
| Married (married = 1, otherwise 0) | 6.91 (7.10) | -11.77 (8.67) | -2.91 (5.76) | |||
| Age (years) | -0.48 (0.18) | -0.08 (0.19) | -0.25 (0.13) | |||
| Education (years) | -1.64 (0.55) | 0.73 (0.62) | -0.47 (0.43) | |||
| Household size | 0.63 (0.51) | -0.25 (0.63) | 0.07 (0.42) | |||
| Wealth Index | -0.67 (2.10) | 0.22 (2.44) | 0.06 (1.67) | |||
| Cassava land area (ha) | 0.15 (0.42) | -3.83 (1.19) | -0.42 (0.45) | |||
| Heard about GM before survey | -5.72 (15.24) | 18.29 (8.15) | 9.53 (6.87) | |||
| Trust in government extension officers (1: Distrust very much = 1 to 5: Trust very much) | 1.91 (4.15) | -2.51 (3.05) | -1.62 (2.49) | |||
| Constant | 35.73 (4.56) | 40.87 (8.89) | 37.12 (4.09) | 50.71 (22.58) | 65.16 (20.38) | 64.46 (14.38) |
| 121 | 143 | 264 | 101 | 139 | 240 | |
| 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.19 | 0.17 | 0.08 | |
***1% significance level
** 5% significance level
*10% significance level
(): Robust standard error
TPB variables and socioeconomic characteristics by cluster.
| Early Adopters | Late Majority | Laggards | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| n = 132 | n = 84 | n = 71 | ||
| 46% | 29% | 25% | ||
| High Attitude, Low SN, High PBC | High Attitude, High SN, Low PBC | Low Attitude, Low SN, High PBC | ||
| Attitude | 29.58 (6.40) | 25.49 (7.33) | 5.91 (9.57) | Aa, Ba, Ca |
| SN | -0.61 (6.05) | 12.66 (7.39) | -0.47 (9.94) | Aa, Ca |
| PBC | 8.83 (2.42) | 2.99 (7.31) | 6.13 (5.14) | Aa, Ba, Ca |
| Intention to cultivate Provitamin A GM cassava (% cassava land area) | 50.45 (30.07) | 52.13 (28.87) | 41.30 (22.81) | Bb, Cb |
| State (Benue = 1, Oyo = 0) | 0.37 | 0.49 | 0.73 | Ac, Ba, Ca |
| Gender (Male = 1, Female = 0) | 0.71 | 0.60 | 0.63 | Ac |
| Married | 0.86 | 0.89 | 0.87 | |
| Age (years) | 48.75 (15.43) | 49.71 (15.62) | 45.20 (14.39) | Cc |
| Education (years) | 6.12 (5.36) | 6.01 (5.65) | 8.26 (5.44) | Ba, Cb |
| Household size | 7.88 (4.20) | 8.35 (4.79) | 10.27 (5.46) | Ba, Cb |
| Wealth Index | 1.50 (1.35) | 1.57 (1.44) | 2.16 (1.37) | Ba, Cb |
| Cassava land area(ha) | 1.98 (2.72) | 2.53 (8.28) | 3.12 (7.14) | |
| Heard about GM | 0.08 | 0.04 | 0.08 | |
| Trust in government extension officers (1: Distrust very much = 1 to 5: Trust very much) | 4.48 (0.74) | 4.63 (0.77) | 4.68 (0.75) | Bc |
*a– 1% significance level, b– 5% significance level, c– 10% significance level, () standard deviation, A–One-sided t-test between clusters 1 and 2, B–One-sided t-test between clusters 1 and 3, C—One-sided t-test between clusters 2 and 3
Fig 3Percentage of farmers by cluster and state.
Parameter estimates from a multinomial logit model estimation for group membership (Base outcome: Cluster 2).
| Cluster 1 | Cluster 3 | |
|---|---|---|
| Variable | Coeff. (std err) | Coeff. (std err) |
| Attitude | 0.09 | -1.20 |
| State (Benue = 1, Oyo = 0) | -0.59 (0.43) | -0.01 (1.25) |
| Gender (male = 1, female = 0) | 0.54 (0.36) | 1.89 (1.42) |
| Married (1, otherwise = 0) | -0.46 (0.55) | -1.50 (1.65) |
| Age (years) | -0.01 (0.01) | -0.04 (0.04) |
| Education (years) | 0.30 x 10−3 (0.04) | -0.15 (0.15) |
| Household size | -0.02 (0.04) | 0.19 |
| Wealth Index | 0.11 (0.15) | -0.45 (0.56) |
| Cassava land area (ha) | -0.02 (0.04) | -0.01 (0.06) |
| Heard about GM | 1.01 (0.72) | 0.90 (3.80) |
| Trust in government extension officers | -0.33 (0.24) | -0.48 (0.87) |
| Constant | -0.10 (1.47) | 23.01 |
***1% significance level
*10% significance level, () standard error