Eliciting Smallholder Farmers’ Tradeoffs and Preferences on the Attributes of Climate Smart Agriculture in the Breadbasket Areas of Tanzania Using a Conjoint Experiment Method

Abstract

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.

Evaluating smallholder farmers' preferences for climate smart agricultural practices in Tehuledere District, northeastern Ethiopia

“…However, low climate resilience agriculture, high GHG emission, low crop yield and organic fertilizers as supplementary production input showed a negative utility. This result is also supported by Mussa et al (2015), who revealed that low and moderate agricultural productivity, high GHG emission and low resilience farming systems showed negative utility value.…”

“…This result is also supported by Mussa et al . (), who revealed that low and moderate agricultural productivity, high GHG emission and low resilience farming systems showed negative utility value.…”

“…This result is in conformity with Mussa et al . (), who pointed out that a positive utility for high productivity, moderate and low GHG emission, as well as for moderate and high resilience farming systems, was observed on choice‐based conjoint analysis. However, low climate resilience agriculture, high GHG emission, low crop yield and organic fertilizers as supplementary production input showed a negative utility.…”

“…A similar result was found by Mussa et al . () who reported that maximum negative utility (‐0.973) was found for both low resilience farming and high GHG emissions and maximum positive utility (1.143) was observed for high agricultural productivity.…”

“…Research has been done on climate change adaptation strategies, but little has been reported on CSA and its preference in the rural communities of east Africa in general, and Ethiopia in particular. For example, research conducted in southwestern Tanzania indicated that increasing production and resilience were the most desirable outcomes for smallholder farmers' in undertaking CSA (Mussa et al, 2015). A scoping study in Ethiopia also shows the existing CSA practices are not well reported and documented (Jirata, 2016).…”