Accelerated soil erosion is one of the major constraints to agricultural production in many parts of the Tanzanian highlands. Although several soil and water conservation technologies have been developed and promoted, the adoption of many recommended measures is minimal and soil erosion continues to be a problem. This research was conducted in order to determine the social and economic factors that influence adoption of soil and water conservation (SWC) measures in the West Usambara highlands, Tanzania. For this research a household survey, group discussions and transect walks were undertaken. A total of 104 households were interviewed and several fields were visited during the transect walks. Data was analysed with the use of cross-tabulation, cluster analysis, factor analysis and chi-squared methods. The results obtained indicate that involvement in off-farm activities, insecure land tenure, location of fields and a lack of short-term benefits from SWC are among the major factors that negatively influence adoption of SWC measures. Membership in farmer groups, level of education, contacts with extension agents and SWC programmes were found to be positively influencing the adoption of SWC measures. Recommendations to facilitate adoption of different SWC measures include: integration of social and economic factors into SWC plans; the creation of more awareness among farmers of soil-erosion effects and long-term benefits of SWC; the development of flexible SWC measures to cater for different farm patterns and a participatory approach to SWC at catchment level rather than at individual farmers' fields.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the social sciences are typically not double‐blind, so participants know they are “treated” and will adjust their behavior accordingly. Such effort responses complicate the assessment of impact. To gauge the potential magnitude of effort responses we implement a conventional RCT and double‐blind trial in rural Tanzania, and randomly allocate modern and traditional cowpea seed varieties to a sample of farmers. Effort responses can be quantitatively important—for our case they explain the entire “treatment effect on the treated” as measured in a conventional economic RCT. Specifically, harvests are the same for people who know they received the modern seeds and for people who did not know what type of seeds they got; however, people who knew they had received the traditional seeds did much worse. Importantly, we also find that most of the behavioral response is unobserved by the analyst, or at least not readily captured using coarse, standard controls.

No abstract

No abstract

based on secondary and primary data. Primary data were collected from a random sample of 300 households in four regions namely: Rukwa, Mbeya, Morogoro and Shinyanga. Secondary data were collected from the Ministry of Agriculture Food Security and Cooperatives (MAFC), Agro dealers and Local Government Authorities. Results indicate that 88% of farmers reported delayed subsidized inputs significant at p = 0.05. The inputs become available during planting season when most of the household food stocks and income is exhausted and this makes top up price unaffordable. It was also observed that the top up price is more than stipulated cost sharing of 50% between farmers and the government. Other pitfalls reported in the system include input adulteration and violation of NAIVS guidelines for input distribution. It is recommended that inputs and crop calenders be established that would ensure inputs arrived to beneficiaries ahead of the planting season In addition, efficient monitoring and evaluation system should be put in place to minimize inefficiency emanating from violation of NAIVS guidelines.