Assessing Factors Affecting Adoption of Agricultural Technologies: The

Case of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in Kumi District, Eastern

Uganda


J ackline Bonabana-Wabbi


Thesis submitted to the faculty of the
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of


Master of Science
in
Agricultural and Applied Economics


Daniel B. Taylor, Chair
Valentine Kasenge
Michael Bertelsen
Anya McGuirk



November 18, 2002
Blacksburg, Virginia



Keywords:
Integrated Pest Management, Adoption, Multivariate logit, Uganda

Copyright 2002, J ackline Bonabana-Wabbi

Assessing Factors Affecting Adoption of Agricultural Technologies:
The Case of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in Kumi District, Eastern Uganda

J ackline Bonabana-Wabbi

(Abstract)

Improper pesticide use on crops causes adverse effects on humans, livestock, crops
and the environment. Integrated pest management practices emphasize minimal use
of pesticides in controlling pests, and their adoption by farmers can reduce the use of
pesticides and their adverse impacts. The introduction of IPM CRSP activities in
Uganda to institutionalize IPM methods focused on priority crops in the country. This
study analyzed adoption of eight IPM technologies on cowpea, sorghum and
groundnuts. Low levels of adoption (<25%) were found with five of these technologies
while three technologies had high adoption levels (>75%). Results indicate that
farmers participation in on-farm trial demonstrations, accessing agricultural
knowledge through researchers, and prior participation in pest training were
associated with increased adoption of most IPM practices. Size of farmers land
holdings did not affect IPM adoption suggesting that IPM technologies are mostly scale
neutral, implying that IPM dissemination may take place regardless of farmers scale of
operation. Farmers perception of harmful effects of chemicals did not influence
farmers decisions in regard to IPM technology adoption despite their high knowledge
of this issue, suggesting that these farmers did not consider environmental and health
impacts important factors when choosing farming practices. Farmers managerial
capabilities were not important in explaining cowpea IPM technology adoption.



iii

Dedication


To my dad
and
my late mom


And to Bobby



iv
Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
for funding this research through the Integrated Pest Management Collaborative
Research Support Program (IPM-CRSP), Grant Number LAG-G-00-93-00053-00. Many
thanks also go to the Office of International Research and Development at Virginia
Tech: its Director, Dr. S. K. De Datta, the management entity including Dr. Brhane
Gebrekidan, Dr Keith Moore, and Dr. Greg Luther for supporting this, and other
studies in Uganda. In addition, I am truly grateful to the IPM CRSP Uganda site chair
Dr. Mark Erbaugh at Ohio State University and the Uganda site coordinator Dr.
Samuel Kyamanywa for the opportunity to study at Virginia Tech.

I cannot say exactly how grateful I am to Prof Dan Taylor. His guidance in this study
was beyond measure. Dr. Taylor, I used to read acknowledgements by students you
have advised and always wondered how they could heap you so many endearments.
Now I know better. Your guidance is invaluable. Thank you also for providing me
facilities and various supplies that facilitated my comfortable study and stay at
Virginia Tech. In addition with Barbara, Alex and Claudia, I always had a family away
from home.

I would also like to extend my sincere thanks to Dr. Anya for reading through the last
draft and giving insightful comments. Many thanks go to Dr. Bertelsen for serving on
my committee and for providing valuable suggestions. Dr. Kasenges review of the first
three chapters was helpful in highlighting issues that would otherwise have gone un-
noticed.

Sincere thanks go to the farmers who volunteered to be interviewed. Without
sacrificing their valuable time to answer the survey questions, this study would not
have been possible. I am grateful to the field staff who assisted in collecting the data.
The District Agricultural Officer of Kumi Mr. Valdo Odeke was instrumental in making
the data collection process effective. Many thanks go to all my friends both in USA and
in Uganda. To my brothers J acob and J osephat and sisters J oan and Dona, thank you
for encouraging me. Stella, your assistance with data entry is appreciated.



v

Lastly I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my husband, Bobby, for his love,
care and patience. Bobby, your emotional support lifted me up every day, encouraged
me and gave me a reason to always look towards my goals. For these, I cannot thank
you enough.




vi
Table of Contents

Abstract.. .ii
Dedication...iii
Acknowledgements...iv
Table of Contents..vi
List of Tables..ix
List of Figures xi

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION....1

1.1 THE GENERAL PROBLEM....................................................................................................... 1
1.1.1 IPM Interventions on Cowpea, Groundnuts and Sorghum:....................................... 5
1.1.2 Rationale for IPM Interventions....................................................................................... 6
1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT........................................................................................................... 7
1.3 OBJ ECTIVES.......................................................................................................................... 10
1.3.1 General Objective............................................................................................................. 10
1.3.2 Specific Objective............................................................................................................. 10
1.4 HYPOTHESIS ........................................................................................................................... 10
1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY................................................................................................. 11
1.6 SUMMARY OF RESEARCH METHODS.................................................................................. 11
1.7 ORGANIZATION OF THESIS .................................................................................................. 12

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW........................................................................................... 13

2.1 OVERVIEW OF UGANDA ....................................................................................................... 13
2.1.1 Physical Characteristics................................................................................................. 13
2.1.2 The Ugandan Economy................................................................................................... 13
2.2 THE COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH SUPPORT PROGRAM (CRSP) ..................................... 19
2.2.1 The IPM CRSP .................................................................................................................. 19
2.2.2 Why IPM? .......................................................................................................................... 20
2.2.3 IPM in Uganda.................................................................................................................. 22
2.3 TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION..................................................................................................... 23
2.3.1 Measuring Adoption........................................................................................................ 25
2.3.2 Determinants of Adoption.............................................................................................. 26
2.3.3 The Combined effect........................................................................................................ 33
2.4 SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................. 34

CHAPTER 3 METHODS............................................................................................................... 35

3.1 THE STUDY AREA, SAMPLE, AND DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES ................................ 35
3.1.1 The Study Area................................................................................................................. 35
3.1.2 The Sample and Sampling Procedure.......................................................................... 37
3.1.3 Data Sources, Collection and Transformation ........................................................... 40



vii
3.2 DATA ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES AND THEIR LIMITATIONS ................................................... 43
3.2.1 Descriptive Analysis........................................................................................................ 43
3.2.2 Crosstabs Chi-Square Tests .......................................................................................... 43
3.2.3 Discriminant Analysis: ................................................................................................... 43
3.2.4 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) ....................................................................................... 43
3.2.5 Ordinary Least Squares (OLS)....................................................................................... 44
3.2.6 Correlation Analysis........................................................................................................ 44
3.2.7 Tobit, Logit and Probit Models ...................................................................................... 44
3.3 DESCRIPTION OF CONCEPTUAL MODEL I .......................................................................... 46
3.4 EMPIRICAL MODEL I ............................................................................................................ 50
3.4.1 Explanation of Variables and Apriori Expectations .................................................. 51
3.4.2 IPM Packages on Sorghum, Cowpea, and Groundnuts............................................ 53
3.4.3 Sorghum models:............................................................................................................. 54
3.4.4 Cowpea models ................................................................................................................ 55
3.4.5 Groundnut models .......................................................................................................... 56
3.5 A TWO TIERED ANALYTICAL PROCESS............................................................................... 56
3.5.1 Description of Conceptual Model II .............................................................................. 57
3.5.2 Empirical Model II ........................................................................................................... 58
3.6 COLLINEARITY DIAGNOSIS................................................................................................... 59
3.7 MODEL SELECTION............................................................................................................... 60
3.8 ANALYTICAL SOFTWARE ....................................................................................................... 62
3.9 SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................. 62

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS................................................................................................................. 63

4.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS...................................................................................... 63
4.2 ADOPTION OF IPM PRACTICES - UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS.................................................. 66
4.2.1 Sorghum............................................................................................................................ 67
4.2.2 Cowpea.............................................................................................................................. 72
4.2.3 Groundnut ........................................................................................................................ 76
4.3 ADOPTION OF IPM PRACTICES - MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS ............................................. 80
4.3.1 Multivariate analysis results: Sorghum...................................................................... 80
4.3.2 Multivariate analysis results: Cowpea......................................................................... 83
4.3.3 Multivariate analysis results: Groundnut................................................................... 86
4.4 ADOPTION OF IPM - MODEL FITTING ................................................................................ 88
4.4.1 SORGHUM............................................................................................................................ 89
4.4.2 Cowpea.............................................................................................................................. 90
4.4.3 Groundnuts ...................................................................................................................... 91
4.5 TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION INDICES....................................................................................... 92
4.6 SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................. 95

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS......................................................................... 96

5.1 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................... 96
5.2 SUMMARY OF THESIS........................................................................................................... 96
5.3 SUMMARY OF METHODS: .................................................................................................... 98



viii
5.4 SUMMARY OF LEVEL OF IPM ADOPTION: .......................................................................... 98
5.5 SUMMARY OF FACTORS AFFECTING ADOPTION: ............................................................. 100
a) Economic factors: ................................................................................................................ 101
b) Social factors:....................................................................................................................... 102
c) Management related factors: ............................................................................................. 102
d) Institutional factors: ........................................................................................................... 103
5.6 POLICY IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................... 103
5.7 FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTION ....................................................................................... 107

REFERENCES............................................................................................................................. 108

APPENDIX116

APPENDIX A: LIST OF ACRONYMS.116
APPENDIX B: MAP OF UGANDA SHOWING VEGETATION (APPENDIX B1).117
MAP OF UGANDA SHOWING STUDY AREA (APPENDIX B2)....118
MAP OF KUMI DISTRICT SHOWING LOCATION OF FOCAL POINTS AND
SURROUNDING AREAS (APPENDIX B3)...119
APPENDIX C: INTRODUCTORY LETTER120
APPENDIX D: SURVEY FORM...121
APPENDIX E: SOURCES OF OFF-FARM INCOME (E1).133
SORGHUM VARIETIES GROWN IN KUMI DISTRICT (E2)...133
WEED SPECIES IN SORGHUM IN THE STUDY AREA (E3)....134
COLLINEARITY DIAGNOSTIC RESULTS (E4)..134

VITA...135



ix
List of Tables


TABLE 1.1: STATUS OF POPULATION AND FOOD AVAILABILITY IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES ...................... 2
TABLE 2.1: CULTIVATED AREA OF MAJOR FOOD CROPS IN UGANDA ....................................................... 17
TABLE 3.1: SUMMARY OF SOCIAL, DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF KUMI DISTRICT
FARMING SYSTEM.............................................................................................................................. 37
TABLE 3.2: DESCRIPTION OF VARIABLES USED IN THE ANALYSES ............................................................. 42
TABLE 4.1: SUMMARY STATISTICS OF CONTINUOUS VARIABLES ............................................................... 65
TABLE 4.2: SUMMARY STATISTICS OF NON-CONTINUOUS VARIABLES....................................................... 65
TABLE 4.3: CROPS GROWN: SUMMARY STATISTICS................................................................................... 66
TABLE 4.4: PEST INCIDENCE ON SORGHUM ............................................................................................... 68
TABLE 4.5: CHARACTERISTICS OF FERTILIZER ADOPTERS AND NON-ADOPTERS IN SORGHUM
PRODUCTION CONTINUOUS VARIABLES ......................................................................................... 69
TABLE 4.6: CHARACTERISTICS OF FERTILIZER ADOPTERS AND NON-ADOPTERS IN SORGHUM
PRODUCTION NON-CONTINUOUS VARIABLES................................................................................. 69
TABLE 4.7: STRIGA ADOPTERS VERSUS NON- ADOPTERS CONTINUOUS VARIABLES................................. 70
TABLE 4.8: STRIGA ADOPTERS VERSUS NON- ADOPTERS COMPARISON WITH NON-CONTINUOUS
VARIABLES ......................................................................................................................................... 70
TABLE 4.9: CHARACTERISTICS OF CROP ROTATORS AND NON-CROP ROTATORS CONTINUOUS VARIABLES
............................................................................................................................................................ 71
TABLE 4.10: CHARACTERISTICS OF CROP ROTATORS AND NON-CROP ROTATORS NON-CONTINUOUS
VARIABLES ......................................................................................................................................... 71
TABLE 4.11: DISTRIBUTION OF COWPEA VARIETIES IN STUDY AREA......................................................... 73
TABLE 4.12: CHARACTERISTICS OF ADOPTERS AND NON-ADOPTERS OF TIMELY PLANTING FOR COWPEA
PRODUCTION CONTINUOUS VARIABLES........................................................................................... 73
TABLE 4.13: CHARACTERISTICS OF ADOPTERS AND NON-ADOPTERS OF TIMELY PLANTING FOR COWPEA
PRODUCTION NON-CONTINUOUS VARIABLES ................................................................................... 74
TABLE 4.14: CHARACTERISTICS OF ADOPTERS AND NON-ADOPTERS OF INTERCROPPING WITH CEREALS
FOR COWPEA PRODUCTION CONTINUOUS VARIABLES..................................................................... 74
TABLE 4.15: CHARACTERISTICS OF ADOPTERS AND NON-ADOPTERS OF INTERCROPPING WITH CEREALS
FOR COWPEA PRODUCTION CATEGORICAL VARIABLES ................................................................... 75
TABLE 4.16: CHARACTERISTICS OF ADOPTERS AND NON-ADOPTERS OF IMPROVED VARIETY FOR COWPEA
PRODUCTION CONTINUOUS VARIABLES........................................................................................... 75



x
TABLE 4.17: CHARACTERISTICS OF ADOPTERS AND NON-ADOPTERS OF IMPROVED VARIETY FOR COWPEA
PRODUCTION NON-CONTINUOUS VARIABLES ................................................................................... 76
TABLE 4.18: GROUNDNUT VARIETIES, AND THEIR PERFORMANCE IN THE STUDY AREA............................ 77
TABLE 4.19: CHARACTERISTICS OF ADOPTERS AND NON-ADOPTERS OF CLOSE SPACING IN GROUNDNUT
PRODUCTION - NON-CONTINUOUS VARIABLES................................................................................... 77
TABLE 4.20: CHARACTERISTICS OF ADOPTERS AND NON-ADOPTERS OF CLOSE SPACING IN GROUNDNUT
PRODUCTION - NON-CONTINUOUS VARIABLES................................................................................... 78
TABLE 4.21: CHARACTERISTICS OF ADOPTERS AND NON-ADOPTERS OF IMPROVED VARIETY IN
GROUNDNUT PRODUCTION CONTINUOUS VARIABLES.................................................................... 78
TABLE 4.22: COMPARISON OF PEST OCCURRENCE AND CONTROL EFFORTS AMONG SORGHUM, COWPEA
AND GROUNDNUT CROPS .................................................................................................................... 79
TABLE 4.23A. MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES FOR FERTILIZER (FTIS) ADOPTION MODEL .............. 81
TABLE 4.23B. MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES FOR ECAT (CELOSIA) ADOPTION MODEL................. 82
TABLE 4.23C. MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES FOR ROTN (CROP ROTATION) ADOPTION MODEL.... 83
TABLE 4.24A. MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES FOR TPCP (TIMELY PLANTING) ADOPTION MODEL . 84
TABLE 4.24B. MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES FOR ICCP (INTERCROPPING) ADOPTION MODEL....... 85
TABLE 4.24C. MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES FOR ICPV (INTERCROPPING) ADOPTION MODEL ...... 86
TABLE 4.25A. MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES FOR CLSP (CLOSE SPACING) ADOPTION MODEL...... 87
TABLE 4.25B. MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES FOR IGNV (IGOLA) ADOPTION MODEL..................... 88
TABLE 4.26: MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES FOR THE FITTED SORGHUM IPM ADOPTION MODELS.. 89
TABLE 4.27: SUMMARY GOODNESS-OF-FIT TESTS FOR SORGHUM MODELS ............................................... 89
TABLE 4.28. MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES FOR THE FITTED COWPEA IPM ADOPTION MODELS.... 90
TABLE 4.29: SUMMARY GOODNESS-OF-FIT TESTS FOR COWPEA MODELS.................................................. 90
TABLE 4.30: MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES FOR THE GROUNDNUT IPM ADOPTION MODELS ......... 91
TABLE 4.31: SUMMARY GOODNESS-OF-FIT TESTS FOR GROUNDNUT MODELS........................................... 91
TABLE 4.32: DISTRIBUTION OF TECHNOLOGIES.......................................................................................... 92
TABLE 4.33: CUMULATIVE LOGIT MODEL ESTIMATES FOR ADOPTION OF ONETECH AND TWOTECH
SORGHUM TECHNOLOGIES................................................................................................................. 92
TABLE 4.34: CUMULATIVE LOGIT MODEL ESTIMATES FOR ADOPTION OF ONETECH TWOTECH AND
THREETECH COWPEA TECHNOLOGIES......................................................................................... 93
TABLE 4.35: CUMULATIVE LOGIT MODEL ESTIMATES FOR ADOPTION OF ONETECH AND TWOTECH
GROUNDNUT TECHNOLOGIES ............................................................................................................ 94



xi
List of Figures


FIGURE 2.1: THE ADOPTION CURVE ............................................................................. 25
FIGURE 3.1: RESPONDENT SELECTION .......................................................................... 39
FIGURE 3.2: LOGISTIC REGRESSION CURVE FOR [0,1] RESPONSE MODELS......................... 49
FIGURE 3.3: COMPONENTS OF THE IPM PACKAGES ON COWPEA, SORGHUM, AND
GROUNDNUTS. .................................................................................................... 54
FIGURE 3.4: MODEL BUILDING PROCEDURE................................................................... 61
FIGURE 4.1: FARM INPUT ACQUISITION: DISTRIBUTION OF PURCHASE DECISIONS................ 67
FIGURE 4.2: DISTRIBUTION OF SORGHUM VARIETIES AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL SORGHUM
ACREAGE FOR THE SAMPLE .................................................................................. 67
FIGURE 4.3: REASONS FOR COWPEA DEFOLIATION ......................................................... 72
FIGURE 4.4: PEST OCCURRENCE AND CONTROL ............................................................. 79
FIGURE 5.1: LEVELS OF IPM ADOPTION.....98
FIGURE 5.2: FACTORS AFFECTING IPM TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION.....100

Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 The General Problem
In the past several years following the advent of the green revolution, concerted efforts to
raise food production resulted in substantial increments in global food output. The
distribution of the increase was heavily skewed towards the more developed nations while
other regions of the globe realized less than impressive increments. Food output in Africa
lags behind the rest of the worlds production levels. In the last decade, the continents
share of world food production was a meager 3.9%. By comparison, Asia, North America
and Europe produced 47.7%, 14.8% and 12.2% respectively (Oerke, et al., 1994). By 1990,
Africas population was 615 million and was projected to increase to 813 million by the
end of 2002 (FAOSTAT, 2002), a 32% population increase in just over a decade. Moreover,
even within Africa, there are variations in these trends with some countries exhibiting
higher population growth with low agricultural development. Sub-Saharan Africas
agricultural performance has been variably called the worlds foremost global challenge
(United Nations, 1997) and as still very far behind the rest of Africa (Odulaja and Kiros,
1996 p.86). Moreover, the regions population is increasing, and is expected to account for
30% of the underdeveloped world by the year 2010 (Table1.1).

Low food production and high population growth rates inevitably lead to problems of per
capita consumption. Not surprising, the worlds most hungry people also live in the Sub-
Saharan region of the continent (von Braun, Teklu and Webb, 1999; Wilson, 2001).
According to FAO (The Food and Agricultural Organization), Sub-Saharan Africa is
expected to have 264 million chronically
1
undernourished people by the year 2010 (FAO,
1996). Several demographers have studied the situation and hypothesized numerous ways
of avoiding the Malthusian trap that is likely to envelop the continent. No wonder world
organizations such as FAO, the World Bank, and IFPRI (International Food Policy and
Research Institute) have defined their core objective towards increasing food output and
improving the quality of life for the rural poor on the continent.

IFPRI suggests that the supply of food will need to rise by around 70% by the year 2020 if
the 6.5 billion people who are expected to be living in developing countries, including
Uganda, are going to be food secure (Leisinger, 1996). With only 18 years to this deadline,

1
Chronically undernourished people are defined by FAO as those whose estimated annual food energy intake falls
below that required to maintain body weight and support light activity.



2
food production has remained stagnant, or declined in most of Sub-Saharan Africa (von
Braun, Teklu and Webb, 1999; McCalla, 1999). IFPRI
2
already realizes that food problems
in Sub-Saharan Africa will persist well beyond 2025 (McCalla, 1999).

Table 1.1 Status of population and food availability in developing countries
Number of chronically
undernourished people
(Millions)
Share of regions
Population
(Percent)
Share of total
undernourished
Population
(Percent)




Region 1990-92 2010 1990-92 2010 1990-92 2010
East Asia 268 123 16 6 32 18
South Asia 255 200 22 12 30 29
Sub-Saharan Africa 215 264 43 30 26 39
Latin America and the
Caribbean
64 40 15 7 8 6
Middle East and N.
Africa
37 53 12 10 4 8
Total 839 680 21 12 100 100
Source: FAO (1996)

The goal of increasing food production is both externally and internally challenged by
various factors. External factors such as natural calamities like droughts and floods are
well beyond the control of the local subsistence farmer. Other broad external factors
include poor farming technologies and bad government policies. Internal factors include
pests, soil infertility, land availability and population increase with a subsequent rise in
food demand. Although these broad external and internal factors may not be directly
controllable, they can be influenced by human behavior. While the increase in population
will exacerbate, rather than improve the food availability situation (Wilson, 2001) -
especially if the population is malnourished - this study confines itself to perhaps what is
considered the most limiting factor to food production increase, that is insect pests and
diseases.

Africas overall crop loss due to pests stands at an astonishing 96.2% of its production
(Oerke et al., 1994). In Uganda, although literature does not provide quantitative losses, it
is estimated that crop losses due to pests are larger than those causes by drought, soil
infertility, or poor planting material (Kyamanywa, 1996). As a result, addressing the effects
of pests on Ugandas agricultural production captures a lot of attention from both local
and international bodies. Not surprisingly, a number of agricultural research efforts are

2
Appendix A contains a list of acronyms used in this thesis.



3
currently underway aimed at reversing the trend of pest damage to Ugandas agricultural
produce.
3
As noted above, Ugandas current 4.8% annual increase in crop production is
perhaps most attributable to the numerous agricultural research activities (Odulaja and
Kiros, 1996; United Nations, 1997) in the country, many of which encompass pest control
programs.

The aforementioned agricultural research is mainly supported through governmental, non-
governmental, private and other funding sources. Moreover, this research requires
sustained investment of resources. The success or failure of this research inevitably plays
a pivotal role in the continued investment in such programs in the country. Needless to
say, prioritization of funding for these research programs is necessary due to the limited
availability of scarce resources and competing uses of these resources for other
investments. As Alston, Norton and Pardley (1995) correctly state, research administrators
are increasingly facing sharper pressure to justify budgets and prioritize programs.

Probably the most important determinant of the effectiveness of such programs is the level
of adoption of innovations that these programs generate, and on their profitability
(Griliches, 1957; Caswell et. al, 2001). In addition, the faster the research can be
completed, the higher the turnover of benefits. Moreover, the more evident research results
are, the easier it is to justify the implementation of, and continued investment in research
programs. A common problem for many individuals and organizations is how to speed up
the rate of diffusion of a research programs innovations (Rogers, 1995). Yet, speeding up
the rate of adoption of technologies requires knowledge of the underlying factors that
influence adoption decisions. It is therefore not unexpected that economists and others
conduct studies to determine these factors.

Rogers (1995) demonstrates that adoption of technologies depends on their characteristics:
compatibility with the existing values and norms, complexity, observability, trialability,
and relative advantage. This definition pertains to technologies in a variety of disciplines,
and may be as relevant in other fields as it is in agricultural related technologies. In dairy
production in 5 states in the US for instance, El-Osta and Morehart (1999) identify age of
operator, size of operation and specialization as important factors in increasing likelihood

3
This is in spite of IFPRIs recent statement that international and national support for agricultural research is
eroding due to perceptions of agriculture as a major source of environmental pollution (IFPRI, 2001) implying that
those who fund research may shift their emphasis from agricultural research to natural resource management
(Hassan, 1998; Wilson, 2001).



4
of technology adoption, while research by Caswell, et al., (2001) ascertains that high levels
of farm operator education are likely to induce adoption of management technologies.
Others say lack of adequate inputs and active information
4
(Feder and Slade, 1984) may
be obstacles to adoption. These studies pertain to technologies in the developing countries
but could apply to less developed countries.

In developing countries, studies related to Integrated Pest Management (IPM) have not
been as prevalent as in developed countries. This realization has led to a number of recent
studies on IPM being done in the Philippines (Tjornhom, 1995), J amaica (Ogrodowczyk,
1999; Patterson, 1996), Ecuador (Yamagiwa, 1998) and other developing nations. The
Ecuadorian study identifies over-valuation of the local currency for pesticide importers,
lowering the cost of pesticides, subsidized credit to farmers and exemption from sales
taxes as policies that encourage pesticide use and are thereby limiting adoption of pest
control alternatives such as IPM. The Ecuadorian study is in agreement with the
Philippines study which found that among others, the lower the cost of pesticides, the
more likely it is for farmers to use pesticides instead of IPM technologies.

No such study has however been done for adoption of IPM technologies in Uganda. IPM is
a set of technologies that aims at reducing pest damage to crops while emphasizing non-
chemical pest control methods. In Uganda, the rejuvenation of IPM activities through the
Integrated Pest Management Collaborative Research Support Program (IPM CRSP)
5
efforts
was welcomed with much enthusiasm with expected benefits including higher yields,
reduced pests and reduced expenditures on pesticides. At the time, it was anticipated that
pioneering participating farmers would act as role models and other farmers would adopt
the practices thereafter. The IPM practices were thus expected to diffuse beyond the
original area of operation.

However, several years after its introduction, the activities of the IPM CRSP program have
not been evaluated in terms of adoption. According to a recent study evaluating farmer
knowledge and awareness of IPM in Uganda, IPM CRSP program involvement and
exposure by potential adopters was thought to explain the trend of adoption of targeted

4
Active information is that obtained purposively. Unlike passive information, active information involves costs to
the information seeker in terms of time, cash or both.
5
More about the IPM CRSP is explained in later sections.



5
practices (Erbaugh et al., 2001). However, no attempt to quantify these assertions was
made.

Since the introduction of IPM CRSP research in Uganda, researchers have developed
several pest control strategies for important crops including cereals, legumes, vegetables
and other horticultural crops. In Ugandas agricultural production arena, cereal and
legume crops are of major importance. In Eastern Uganda, three such crops include
sorghum (Sorghum bicolor), groundnut (Arachis hypogaea) and cowpea (Vigna unguiculata).
Their priority status is due to both acreage planted and their nutrition content.
Groundnuts and Cowpea are the second and third most important legume food crops in
Uganda after beans (IPM CRSP Annual Report, 2001), Sorghum is among the most
important cereal crops ranked third to maize and millet in providing for the carbohydrate
needs of the Ugandan diet (FAOSTAT, 2002). Current statistics (FAOSTAT, 2002) estimate
64,000ha, 208,000ha and 282,000ha as national acreage for cowpea, groundnuts and
sorghum while production levels are estimated at 64,000 Mt, 146,000 Mt and 423,000 Mt
respectively. These crops are often said to be food-security crops because of their drought
resistance. However, these crops are not without their share of problems. Pest attacks on
these crops calls for control strategies. A brief review of pest control activities and the
rationale for IPM intervention on the three crops is given below.
1.1.1 IPM Interventions on Cowpea, Groundnuts and Sorghum:
The IPM CRSP field monitoring of 1996 revealed high pest levels on cowpea in eastern
Uganda. Major insect pests on cowpea identified included blister beetles (Epicauta spp.),
aphids (A. craccivora Koch), pod-borers (Maruca testularis) and thrips (Megalurothrips
sjostedti) and leafhoppers (IPM CRSP Annual Report, 1996). Aphids (A. craccivora) cause
damage by sucking plant sap and damage pods by forming honeydew deposits. The pod-
borer (M. testularis) is reportedly worst during the rainy season. In Kumi district, pest
damage contributes to 24-48% of the total variation in cowpea grain yield with thrips (M.
sjostedti) accounting for the greatest damage (Karungi et al., 1999). In addition, cowpea is
one of the crops that are consistently sprayed by farmers probably because pesticide
application has a significant effect on limiting the severity of diseases (Adipala et al, 1999).
By 1995, 92% of cowpea farmers in Kumi were using insecticides as their main pest
control strategy (IPM CRSP Annual Report, 1996). And, as an IPM practice, farmers are
increasingly planting with the first sign of rains to enable the cowpea crop to escape
damaging populations of certain pests by harvesting before peak pest populations.



6

Striga is considered a major pest of Sorghum (Parker, 1980) and was found to be the most
serious weed affecting sorghum yields in Uganda. In Kumi district, the parasitic weed has
a widespread distribution. Ninety seven percent of sampled farmers involved in the 1996
IPM CRSP participatory assessment were able to identify it (Erbaugh et al, 2001). The
gravity of the Striga problem is thought to stem from the fact that the seed evolved in such
a way that it only germinates naturally when in the vicinity of a sorghum root (Parker,
1980). Furthermore, the seed is very small and can persist for many years in the soil.

Two diseases are of major consequence to groundnut production in Kumi namely
groundnut rosette (GRV) and cercospora leafspot (Cercospora arachidicola) which
frequently lead to total crop failures. Major groundnut pests include aphids (A. craccivora),
thrips (M. sjostedti) and leaf miners (Aroarema modeicella) (IPM CRSP Annual Report,
2001).
1.1.2 Rationale for IPM Interventions
Disease and insect infestation on many crops occurs simultaneously. Sorghum,
groundnuts and cowpeas are no exceptions. Therefore controlling insects and diseases
simultaneously necessarily calls for an integrated approach, which IPM packages address.

For cowpea, a number of studies revealed that cowpea production could be improved and
increased through well-defined IPM systems (Isubikalu, Erbaugh and Semana, 1997;
J ackai et al., 1985). Among the most promising technologies developed by IITA are
varieties resistant to Striga,
6
aphids (A. craccivora Koch), and bruchids (Callosobruchus
maculates), improved storage techniques using solar drying, and the use of botanical
pesticides in the field and in storage (CGIAR, 2002). Current IPM CRSP practices
disseminated to farmers in Uganda for control of Cowpea insect pests have included close
spacing, and strategic insecticide application. In addition, well-timed defoliation, and
intercropping with Sorghum are encouraged.

In regard to Sorghum, although farmers are generally less likely to use pesticides on
cereals, heavy weed infestations cause considerable crop loss and therefore provide an
incentive for weed control. It is suggested in literature (Parker, 1980 and IPM CRSP

6
In West Africa, Striga is a problem on cowpea (CGIAR, 2002)



7
Annual Report, 1999) that crop rotation is one of the most potent methods for reducing
striga. Planting a more rapidly growing cultivar that suppresses and shades weeds,
growing resistant varieties and good irrigation, in addition to high nitrogen levels are
thought to reduce the weed. However, because of the nature of the weed, several studies
have demonstrated that no purely cultural control system is fully effective thereby calling
for an integrated approach. IPM CRSP measures on striga in Uganda include intercropping
Sorghum and silver leaf desmodium, a legume that suppresses striga weeds; planting
resistant genotypes (such as Sekedo); crop rotations (Cotton/ Sorghum/ Cowpea); and
recommended fertilizer application (40-8-8 kg of NPK/ ha). Other measures include seed
coating with herbicide, two weedings and other cultural practices involving modified
planting dates and crop management practices (IPM CRSP Annual Reports, 1998-2000).

On Groundnuts, practices developed by researchers include: early planting, manipulation
of plant density, planting a resistant variety, and minimum spray schedule of 2-3
Dimethoate or 1-2 sprays of Dimethoate and Dithane M45. The crop is also often
intercropped with maize as a control strategy (IPM CRSP Annual Reports, 1998-2000).

IPM CRSP researchers hypothesize that these alternative methods (IPM activities) can be
disseminated to more farmers through establishing field schools and through interacting
with other partners such as non-governmental organizations (IPM CRSP Annual Report,
1999). The effectiveness of this dissemination approach however, greatly depends on how
farmers perceive IPM CRSP activities. Moreover, these alternative methods require farmers
to abandon age-old methods involving the use of conventional non-farm inputs including
reducing their dependence on reliable pesticides for control.

1.2 Problem Statement
In many countries, including Uganda, non-farm chemical inputs play a large role in
agricultural production, especially because of the need to increase production.
Unfortunately the use of some of these inputs is associated with degradation of the
environment, and health of living organisms, including humans. Mitigating the effects of
these necessary evils therefore became a focus for many research programs. Alternative
methods of production that reduce negative effects of chemicals and yet maintain at least
the same level of production are continuously sought. Alternatives such as cultural



8
methods, organic, and biological control methods are increasingly emphasized to improve
land productivity and control of pests.

One such alternative is Integrated Pest Management. As mentioned earlier, the IPM
approach emphasizes the use of non-chemical inputs and judicious use of chemical inputs
in production to reduce pest incidence on crops, thereby increasing farmers yields and
returns. This approach is recommended globally for increasing agricultural production
without upsetting the balance of nature while controlling pests. Although some literature
indicates uncertainty of IPM profitability (Abara and Singh, 1993), or profitability of some,
but not all parts of the total package (Smith, Wetzstein and Douce, 1987), several studies
demonstrate that benefits accrue from IPM. These include its effect on reducing pesticide
residue on crops, lessening the negative impacts of pesticides on the environment and
humans, lowering production costs, and increased pest management effectiveness.

A linear programming model developed in 1982 on a national level indicated that
widespread adoption of farming practices without the use of pesticides (and fertilizers)
would increase net farm incomes in the US (Olson, Langley and Heady, 1982). In an
evaluation of pest management characteristics Smith, Wetzstein and Douce (1987) showed
that different characteristics of pest management affected net benefits in Georgia, USA.
They specifically found that proper spraying
7
and using beneficial insects significantly
increased net returns. In Virginia, Mullen, Norton and Reaves (1997) quantified annual
environmental returns of approximately $844,000 from implementation of the Virginia
peanut IPM program, while on J amaican vegetable crops, IPM led to increase in profits on
all the three crops studied by Ogrodowczyk (1999). Furthermore, because of the high
potential IPM has in the Near East
8
, IPM implementation was stated as a necessary
requirement to improve crop protection in vegetable cultivation (Alebeek and Lenteren,
1992). In addition, in a study on the environmental and economic consequences of IPM in
Viticulture (Fernandez-Cornejo, 1996), IPM adoption was found to positively affect both
yields and profits in grape production.


7
They define proper spraying as (number of sprays after the threshold - number of improper sprays)/total number
of sprays.
8
Countries in the region referred to as The Near East include Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco



9
Similar studies in Uganda show potential benefits from IPM adoption. Bashaasha et al.,
(2000) establish benefits ranging between Shs 101,378 and Shs 255,908
9
from adopting
IPM systems in the control of striga in sorghum fields in Kumi district. In another study
assessing IPM systems in Groundnuts, Bonabana et al., (2001) established a Marginal
Rate of Return of 870% in adopting a disease resistant variety as an IPM strategy for
control of major groundnut insect pests in the same district. These net benefits translate
into profits for farmers. Therefore IPM has been demonstrated to be potentially profitable
and in such cases society can benefit from its adoption.

Economic theory suggests that practices proved to be profitable are likely to be adopted by
producers. Yet according to Giliomee (1994), IPM, a profitable venture, has not been widely
adopted. For instance, only 4% of all US farms are said to practice true IPM (Ehler and
Bottrell, 2000). This pattern is also found in small-scale farming communities in J amaica
(Patterson, 1996). In Uganda, only a few farmers use complete IPM packages (Kyamanywa,
1996). Moreover, extent and level of IPM use in Uganda is still largely unknown. As such,
several questions arise: What is the current level of adoption of IPM? How can adoption be
accelerated? What factors influence IPM adoption?

There is a general lack of understanding of the factors affecting the adoption of IPM
technologies in farming systems in Uganda. Moreover, as noted above, although economic
analyses show potential benefits, no attempt has been made to ascertain reasons for the
observed levels of adoption. Only with a thorough understanding of these factors can
further insight be developed concerning strategies to promote IPM.

Most of those who attempt to explain the adoption of IPM in Uganda base their assertions
on subjective beliefs about the conventional practices of smallholder farmers, and not on
analytical evidence. Therefore, an empirical description regarding factors affecting
adoption is necessary. Several underlying factors may be the cause of the observed level of
adoption. For example a complex set of interactions or conditions involving the technology
(IPM), the institution (administration), the potential/ targeted adopter (the farmer) or the
general setting in which the technology is introduced may affect adoption. As Diebel,
Taylor and Batie (1993) state, these factors may either be barriers or enhancers of
adoption. It is therefore imperative to study these conditions farmers social

9
1US$=1760UGShs (May 2001)



10
characteristics, economic setting, institutional factors and managerial aspects to identify
the conditions that are affecting IPM adoption.

1.3 Objectives
1.3.1 General Objective
This studys objective is to establish whether social, economic, management and
institutional factors that affect adoption of IPM technologies on three major crops in Kumi,
Eastern Uganda.
1.3.2 Specific Objective
The specific objectives of the study include the following:
(i) To establish factors that affect adoption of IPM practices specific on cowpea,
groundnuts and sorghum.
(ii) To estimate the relative contribution of each factor in affecting adoption, thereby
establishing the factors that have the greatest impact on technology adoption.
(iii) To establish the level of adoption of eight IPM technologies in Kumi

Achieving the above objectives will be a major step towards designing a system that can
encourage adoption in the study area and up-scaling the adoption pattern to other
geographical areas with similar agro-ecological characteristics.

1.4 Hypothesis
The following hypotheses will be tested:
(i) Cost of a technology negatively influences its adoption while per capita farm income
positively influences technology adoption.
(ii) Farm size and education level of farmers positively influence technology adoption.
(iii) Adoption is negatively influenced by length of farming experience, farmers age and
household labor.
(iv) There is no significant difference in IPM adoption between men and women.




11
1.5 Significance of the study
By pointing out the factors that influence IPM technology adoption, this study will provide
guidance to the IPM administrators and researchers for enhancing the programs
effectiveness. The added knowledge on which factors have the greatest influence on IPM
adoption will help administrators make more informed decisions on how to promote IPM
adoption.

Another benefit from the research will be provision of an explanation of the current state of
technologies used by farmers. Moreover, since IPM involves a variety of practices that are
specific to individual crops, measuring its adoption on various crops may provide a strong
case for increasing investment in various IPM research.

Also because of the importance of cowpea, sorghum and groundnut in the Eastern region,
it is envisioned that technological spillovers are likely outside of this study area. IPM
adoption on these three crops outside the study area could be projected.

In addition, this study will provide a basis for gauging how policy changes may affect
farmers. Policy issues that constrain or enhance the provision of inputs that are required
to carry out IPM practices have a direct effect on how IPM farmers react to them. The
results will provide useful information to enhance the success of the IPM CRSP project,
and indeed any other related program that attempts to introduce practices for adoption in
settings that are similar to those in this study area. Results of this study will thus have
implications well beyond the confines of the study area.

Finally, in Uganda the IPM CRSP is an externally funded project whose continued support
is dependent on the effectiveness of the program. Therefore, for continued funding, the
IPM CRSP must demonstrate benefits. Yet these benefits do not accrue if farmers do not
adopt the practices. A crucial step therefore seems to be to identify the forces that enhance
IPM adoption. This thesis aims to fulfill this important task.

1.6 Summary of Research Methods
Survey data were collected from a random sample of farmers in the study area. Using
statistical methods yield differences between adopters and non-adopters are obtained. A



12
multivariate logit analysis identifies factors and their relative importance in explaining
adoption of eight IPM technologies.

1.7 Organization of Thesis
The thesis is organized into five main chapters. Chapter 1 has presented an introduction
to the problem - the main thrust of the study, a delineation of underlying assumptions and
objectives of the study. Chapter 2 addresses the general theory and description of the
agricultural system in Uganda. Chapter 3 provides the methods of data collection and data
sources; a description of the study area, the sampling and analysis techniques, and
develops a conceptual framework used to analyze the empirical data, while Chapter 4
comprises the empirical results of the study and discussion. The final chapter gives a
summary, policy implications and conclusions of the study.



13
Chapter 2 Literature Review

This chapter describes Ugandas economy with major emphasis on the agriculture sector
and IPM activities in the country. It also examines relevant literature on technology
adoption: trends, the process of adoption, measurement of adoption, and factors affecting
adoption.
2.1 Overview of Uganda
2.1.1 Physical Characteristics
Uganda is a landlocked country located between 1.45
0
N 29.94
0
E and 4.25
0
N 35.01
0
E in
the Great Lakes region in Sub-Saharan Africa. The country has substantial natural
resources, including fertile soils, regular rainfall, and sizeable mineral deposits of copper
and cobalt. It has five major lakes, two major rivers and several seasonal and non-
seasonal rivers, swamps and wetlands providing a variety of fish species all year round.
The natural vegetation is mainly savanna grassland, woodland, bush land and tropical
high forest. See Appendix B1 for a map of geographical features of Uganda. Uganda has a
tropical climate, with two rainy seasons from December to February, and from J une to
August, providing two crop-growing seasons. There are slight variations in rainfall from
one region to another. Over the last several years, the mean annual rainfall was 750mm in
the North East and 1,500mm in the high rainfall areas of the shores of Lake Victoria,
around the highlands in the East and southwestern region. Average temperatures of 21
0
C
(70F) have prevailed in the last decade. The tropical climate with fertile soils, regular
rainfall and favorable temperatures enable production of a diversity of crops and livestock
(EIU, 2001).
2.1.2 The Ugandan Economy
Uganda has had wide fluctuations in its economic performance. In the late 1960s political
instability caused by a dictatorial government and state-run intervention in almost all
sectors of the economy destroyed the countrys physical infrastructure and many
economic and social amenities. By the early 1980s, Uganda had become one of the
poorest countries in the world. At that time, education and health systems broke down,



14
human indices
10
were poor, and the civil service had been destroyed by low wages and
poor morale. Consequently, real GDP per capita was at its lowest (EIU, 2001).

Around the mid 1980s a new government came into power. This government, with the help
of donors mainly the IMF and World Bank embarked on an economic recovery program
aimed at reducing poverty by rehabilitating infrastructure (economic, social and
institutional). Further, the recovery program encompassed civil service reform, revised
investment and incentive structures, and made a rapid move to a market-determined
exchange rate thereby giving the country a robust economic performance (EIU, 2001).

From the mid 1990s, an economic downturn set in again. Prior to this period, specifically
around 1994, Uganda had attained a GDP growth of 11.5%. By the end of 1996 real GDP
growth had dropped to 7%. Although this was one of the highest in the Sub-Saharan
region at the time (UN, 1997), it still represents a significant drop. This downturn has
continued to the present. In 1999 GDP was estimated at US $6.3 billion but by 2000, it
had dropped to US $5.9 billion and to US $5.7 billion by the end of 2001 (World Bank,
2002). Export of goods has been declining from US $639.2 million in 1996 to US $390.8
million in 2000, and remaining constant in 2001 (World Bank, 2002). The significant
decline in the 2000 exports was attributed to a drought in the third quarter of 2000 that
resulted in a low level of coffee production (from 236,200 tons in 1999 to 186,000 tons in
2000). Considering that coffee accounts for over 40% of the countrys export receipts, the
poor harvest severely depressed export receipts. In addition, coffee prices are falling. This
decline in coffee production is attributed to excess production (internationally) that
currently outstrips demand. The EIU (2001) estimated Ugandas earnings from coffee fell
from US $162 million in 2000 to US $149 million in 2001.

In 2002 coffee export earnings continue to fall due to depressed prices. However,
predictions of a more robust economic performance indicate that real GDP growth may
increase to 6.6% in 2002 due to increased output in other agricultural activities: cotton,
tobacco, fish, maize and flowers. In addition non-agricultural sector development, which is
largely funded by donor inflows, is increasingly supporting growth (EIU, 2001).


10
Human indices include infant mortality rate, maternal mortality rates, birth weight, average life expectancy,
literacy rates and percentages below/above poverty line.



15
Ugandas terms of trade continue to deteriorate. In addition, the total outstanding debt is
increasing. While the total debt was estimated at US $3.48 billion in 1999 (World Bank,
2000), it had reached US $3.7 billion by 2000 (EIU, 2001). It is probably because of these
deteriorating terms of trade that Uganda was the first country to benefit from the Heavily
Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative of the World Bank given that it was faced with a
serious debt problem (World Bank, 2000). Under the initiative, the country would be able
to reduce its external debt by 20% of the net present value (Uganda, 1998a) and to redirect
resources to priority poverty reduction efforts. HIPC relief in 2002 is expected to reduce
debt-service payments to US $106 million (EIU, 2001). Moreover, reports (Uganda, 1998a)
show that Ugandas poverty reduction strategy is very effective, which has prompted the
World Bank to shift emphasis from project-based assistance to direct budgetary support
for the governments poverty eradication plan.

Ugandas current (mid-2002) population of 23.9 million (US Bureau of the Census, 2002)
is increasing, expected to reach 28 million by 2010. In 1991, the total population was 16.7
million and by 1999, it had reached 21.5 million. Between the period 1969 and 1980,
Ugandas population grew at an average rate of 2.7% per annum and was expected to grow
even faster. However, the period 1980-1991 saw a decline in the growth rate to 2.5% per
annum. The current annual population growth rate of 2.9% partially outstrips the labor
force, which is lagging behind at a 2.7% annual increase. If this trend continues, it might
suggest an increase on stress caused by dependant populations on the working
population. However, Ugandas urban population (12.5% in 1995) as a percentage of the
total population was about the lowest in Sub-Saharan Africa and other low-income
countries. This could present a higher opportunity for success and effectiveness of rural
based programs (CIA, 2000).

It is not possible to talk about Ugandas economy without mentioning the countrys
agricultural sector. Agriculture accounts for the biggest proportion of the countrys GDP.
Its performance closely predicts the economys overall behavior. Agriculture has been
referred to as the backbone of the Ugandan economy. It is not surprising that the
devastating effects of the 1997 El Nino weather phenomenon on Ugandas agricultural
output affected the whole economy. Agriculture provides food for domestic consumption,
raw materials for local industries, is the major source of export earnings, and employment.
In 1990, approximately 80% of the countrys total work force was employed in agriculture.
Ugandas principal exports are coffee, fish and fish products, tea, cotton and tobacco. In



16
1999, the country generated US $549 million in exports (FoB) from agricultural trade.
Owing to the great contribution of this sector, more will be mentioned in the next section.

The second most important economic sector in Uganda is the service industry (including
but not limited to tourism, construction, hotels, and transportation). The service industry
provides critical support to the other sectors of the economy. This sector employs about
13% of the total work force. In a span of 10 years, its contribution to the economy has
been increasing from 28.7% in 1987, to 30.3% in 1992, and to 34.2% in 1997 (Uganda,
1998a). In 2001, the service industry accounted for over 70% of the value added to
manufactured goods in the country (Uganda Export Promotion Board, 2002).

During the same time frame, the share of the manufacturing sector (the third most
important sector) in the total national GDP steadily rose. In 1987, it contributed 4.9%, and
6.1% and 9.0% to GDP in 1992 and 1997 respectively. The manufacturing sector employs
about 6% of the total work force in Uganda. This sector is, however, heavily dependent on
imports of materials. Therefore increases in prices of imports hinder growth.
2.1.2.1 The Uganda Agricultural Sector
As mentioned in section 2.1.2.0 above, the agricultural sector makes the largest
contribution to Ugandas economy. In 1989 it contributed 56.8% of the national GDP, a
percentage that has, however, been declining since. In 1999 agricultures share of GDP
was 41.9%, which represents a drop of over 14% in just a decade. This is despite its
increasing annual growth rate from 4.0% in 1990 to 4.6% in 1996. This is confirmation
that the value of agricultural production has declined both in absolute terms and in
relation to other sectors (Uganda, 1998a).

Of the countrys total area of approximately 236,046 sq. km, land area accounts for over
199,710sq. km of which 25% is arable, 9% is under permanent crops, another 9% under
permanent pasture and the rest under other uses (roads, buildings and other
infrastructure). Available information (World Bank, 1993) suggests that only 30% of the
total cultivable area is under use. In 1990, an estimated 4.6 million ha were cultivated,
and of this, 36% was under Coffee, Banana, Tea, and Sugar, while cereal crops like maize,
millet, and sorghum took up about 23%. Table 2.1 shows selected 1981 to 2001 figures of
land area under various food crops in the country.




17
The amount of cultivated area currently fluctuates around 3.6 million ha from its high of
5.5 million ha in 1978. The majority of farm production (80%) is carried out on an average
of one - two hectare farms. Cultivated area per farm shows a substantial increase in farm
size in the central and southwestern region.

Table 2.1: Cultivated Area of Major Food Crops in Uganda ('000 ha)
Crop 1981 1986 1989 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2001
Millet 293 341 374 373 396 412 400 401 384 389
Maize 260 321 566 401 438 563 584 616 629 652
Sorghum 170 207 245 240 250 260 271 280 280 282
Rice 12 18 73 39 50 55 58 64 72 76
Wheat 4 5 4 2 5 5 5 5 7 8
Sweet potato 33 407 300 413 442 473 516 544 555 572
Irish potato 24 19 35 32 37 44 53 60 68 73
Cassava 309 361 495 412 362 320 335 356 401 390
Beans 289 396 431 495 536 574 615 645 699 731
Field peas 18 17 27 24 26 28 29 31 29 36
Cowpeas 40 49 46 49 49 53 56 60 64 64
Groundnut 110 176 217 186 184 189 195 200 199 208
Pigeon peas 54 66 67 62 62 67 71 74 78 78
Soybeans 5 11 20 37 59 68 76 80 106 127
Sesame seed (Simsim) 70 70 133 124 143 158 172 179 194 203
Source: The Worl d Bank (1993), FAOSTAT (2002)

More than 70% of the farms are primarily crop-production oriented. In the western areas,
over 90% of crop production farms are in monocrop stands while in the other regions
mixed cropping systems predominate (World Bank, 1993). Labor is primarily from family
sources. During peak seasons like land preparation, weeding and harvesting, hired labor
is used especially in the central region. In the northeastern region, labor-sharing
arrangements are common while in the north, communal labor is widely used.

Food crop production increased over the last decade in almost all crop categories with the
highest increase noticeable in cereal crops (FAOSTAT, 2002). In the same period, the
livestock sector experienced moderate increases and accounted for 17% of agricultural
GDP. More than 90 percent of agricultural output is consumed domestically.




18
Generally, cash crop production has experienced wide fluctuations. Coffee yields have
been low and declining over the past fifteen years. Recently there has been some increase
in cash crop production (mainly cotton). In J anuary August 2000, tea output increased
by 22% compared with the same period in 1999 (CIA, 2000). In 2001, tea production
experienced a 12% reduction. Coffee production increased from 196,800 tons in 1998 to
198,000 tons in 1999, but dropped to 186,000 tons (EIU, 2001). Cottons increase was
from 45,100 tons in 1998 to 46,000 tons in 1999.

Part of the increase in crop production was prompted by the high urban demand for food
(World Bank, 1993), favorable government policies (McCalla, 1999; CIA, 2000; EIU, 2001)
and the expansion in cultivated area for food crops (Odulaja and Kiros, 1996; also
illustrated in Table 2.1). Sound government policies, including the continued investment
in the rehabilitation of infrastructure, improved incentives for production and exports, and
reduced inflation also led to boosting of production. Incentives for production and export
included subsidizing producers of export crops (CIA, 2000).
2.1.2.2 The Ugandan Agricultural Research and Extension Network
Numerous agricultural research activities on major crops in the country are one of the
biggest contributing factors to Ugandas increase in agricultural production. Uganda has
had a long tradition of crop research. Agricultural research began in 1908, the major focus
then, being the improvement of production of major export crops (such as cotton and
coffee) to increase Ugandas share of these crops in the international market (Uganda,
1988). Progressively, research focus shifted, and grain crops such as beans and maize
were introduced to the research arena. The establishment of the National Agricultural
Research Organization (NARO) in 1992 was aimed at increasing the amount of research on
all major crops in the country (Kyamanywa, 1996).

Prior to the establishment of NARO, agricultural research activities were scattered and
uncoordinated in three ministries: the Ministries of Agriculture and Forestry, Animal
Industry and Fisheries, and Regional Cooperation (Uganda, 1988). However, with the
launching of the Rehabilitation and Development Plan 1987-1999, which aimed at a rapid
recovery of the agricultural sector and the improvement and stabilization of its
contribution to the GDP, the need for organized research to contribute more effectively
and efficiently to development became even more urgent (Uganda, 1988, p.1). As such,
NARO was formed to act as a catalyst in the development process of Uganda. Its aim was



19
to improve the efficiency of the utilization of resources allocated to research and enhance
research activities in the agricultural sector. In carrying out these duties, NAROs board
was expected to pay special attention to obtaining, through government and other
appropriate sources, financial and other resources required for the implementation of the
National Agricultural Research (NAR) strategy and plans. These resources are obtainable
from donors, the international community, research agencies and the public.

Donor sources of funding are important to many developing countries, in part because of
the component of foreign exchange that they represent (Uganda, 1988). In the agricultural
sector, under the umbrella of NARO, a number of donor sources were identified. The
extent of investment by each varies depending on the scope of the activity and the progress
of the sector involved. The World Bank and other donors reacted positively to Ugandas
economic reform effort and mounted an expanded level of donor support (World Bank,
2000).

Clearly, Ugandas agricultural research stands to benefit from this expanded support.
Uganda currently is a member of a number of local, regional and international agricultural
organizations. These provide support to agricultural research in many forms. Some are
purely donors while many still are in collaborative agreements and/ or partnerships
between the major funding body and the host countrys private and public institutions.

2.2 The Collaborative Research Support Program (CRSP)
2.2.1 The IPM CRSP
Collaborative Research Support Programs were created by the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID) and the Board for International Food and Agriculture
Development (BIFAD) as a long-term mechanism to focus capabilities of US Land Grant
Colleges to carry out the international food and agricultural research mandate of the US
Government (IPM CRSP, 2001). In September 1993, the IPM CRSP was initiated under the
International Development and Food Assistance Act of 1975 (IPM CRSP, 2001), funded by
USAID and participating universities. In the USA, participating institutions include Ohio
State, Purdue, University of Georgia, Penn State, Montana State, USDA Vegetable lab and
Virginia Tech. Virginia Tech serves as the Management Entity for the IPM CRSP for the
program.



20
The IPM CRSP engages in research, education/ training and information exchange through
collaborative partnerships among US and developing country institutions. These
developing countries include Bangladesh and Philippines in Asia, Albania in Eastern
Europe, J amaica in the Caribbean, Ecuador and Guatemala in Latin America, and Mali
and Uganda in Africa. As some of its major objectives the IPM CRSP seeks to evaluate
appropriate participatory IPM approaches, describe technical factors affecting IPM and
identify and describe the social, economic and institutional factors affecting pest
management. In doing these, the IPM CRSP supports research activities in the host
countries. In Uganda, Makerere University and National Agricultural Research
Organization (NARO) are the participating institutions.
2.2.2 Why IPM?
The concept of Integrated Pest management (IPM) was first conceived after World War II
when it was determined that a control system was required to check overuse or abuse of
pesticides used to control major pests of cotton in the USA. It required a compatible
control strategy, which was a mix of biological and reduced chemical control tactics. In
1972, IPM was formulated into national policy and under US president J immy Carter; an
interagency coordinating committee was formed in 1979 to ensure development and
implementation of IPM practices (Ehler and Bottrell, 2000).

The focus of IPM research is to reduce pesticide usage on crops while maintaining a high
level of pest control. In general, IPM calls for a much greater reliance on non-chemical
approaches to pest management (IFPRI, 1998) while maintaining agricultural production
and preserving profitability (Mullen, Norton and Reaves 1997). In doing this, IPM
encourages strategies that include greater dependence on biological approaches, cultural
approaches and judicious use of some pesticides. A broader definition of IPM is that given
by Wightman (1998):

IPM consists of management activities carried out by farmers that maintain
the intensity of potential pests at levels below which they become pests, without
endangering the productivity and profitability of the farming system as a whole,
the health of the farm family and its livestock and the quality of the adjacent
and down stream environments. (Wightman, IFPRI homepage, 1998).




21
Pests have been known to attack crops virtually at every stage of crop development: at pre-
germination, budding, flowering, harvest and in post harvest/ storage thereby leaving the
crop with no "breathing space." This necessarily calls for pest control. Various methods of
pest control may be employed and can be categorized into two broad groups: Chemical and
non-chemical - each with its advantages and disadvantages.

The range of non-chemical options is diverse, including biological control, cultural control,
plant host resistance, sanitation and genetic transformations. Biological control, the use of
natural enemies of pests and entomopathogens is somewhat limited in its applicability and
its application for subsistence level farming although the potential for expanding its use is
great (J ackai, et al., 1985; Pimentel, 1986).

Chemical means have a number of benefits like ease in application (although not
necessarily safe application), effectiveness and fast action on target pests. However, their
disadvantages, especially in interfering with the ecosystem, are well documented.

Cultural methods include manipulation of planting dates and cropping patterns, such as
crop diversity and crop rotation. These methods achieve their pest control abilities from
having one or more crops in the rotational sequence that are resistant to a key pest. For
weed suppression, the success of rotation systems appears to be based on the use of crop
sequences that create varying patterns of resource competition, soil disturbance, and
mechanical damage to provide an unstable and frequently inhospitable environment that
prevents the proliferation of a particular weed species, (Liebman and Dyck, 1993).
Rotations offer an opportunity to increase production, either through direct yield increases
or through reductions in some of the inputs required for the present or next crop. Greater
benefits are usually obtained by rotating two distinctly unrelated crops. Crop diversity
makes the environment less favorable to certain pests while manipulation of planting time
avoids reduction in yields caused by pests. In addition, cultural controls are far less
ecologically disruptive than the standard chemical control practices.

However, cultural methods are often labor intensive (Pimentel, 1986). Considering that
most subsistence farms use family labor, one might infer that this should not be a
problem. However, with the fast paced life that is expected in the near future, and the
subsequent value of time, these two resources: time and labor will become constraints to
cultural control means. Furthermore in subsistence production systems, family labor is



22
often in short supply at times such as sowing, weeding and harvesting. In addition, these
methods may have added risks. For instance, in a bid to control the known pests, altering
planting time may create a more favorable environment to more destructive pests. Also
planting time manipulations may be constrained by climatic changes. Moreover the
effectiveness of these cultural methods is highly unpredictable (Pimentel, 1986).

In general, each method (biological, cultural or chemical) may contribute to pest
suppression. However, according to J ackai et al., (1985), no one method provides
satisfactory results. Hence, an integrated approach that avoids the use of a single control
tactic is necessary. In effect when several methods are employed, the amount of each
component (biological, cultural, chemical), including the use of pesticides in the package
may be reduced - this is the basic principle in Integrated Pest Management programs.
2.2.3 IPM in Uganda
In many developing countries, IPM systems and practices have been pursued for over two
decades. In Uganda, early IPM practices were focused on coffee and cotton. This was
probably because of these crops importance as major cash crops and foreign exchange
earners for the country and hence the urgent need to protect them from devastating yield
loss due to pests. Post harvest systems were also developed under these early Uganda IPM
efforts by various agricultural research institutes in the country. Both cultural and
chemical methods were used to control pest populations on these crops. The system was
based on a careful analysis of pest populations and pest patterns and determining a
suitable strategy for their control. However, the period of political and civil strife saw the
collapse of this otherwise effective IPM system.

However, this was not the end of IPM efforts in Uganda. Kyamanywa (1996) mentions that
efforts to rejuvenate IPM were pursued in 1994 when under funding from the IPM CRSP,
the Uganda IPM Network was formed. Its initial focus was directed towards raising
knowledge and awareness of fundamental IPM concepts. Subsequently, efforts to develop
pest management alternatives for priority pests with an added emphasis on environmental
quality were incorporated and more aspects of agricultural production were considered.

The new IPM CRSP crop focus expanded to include key food crops many of which were
grain crops - Beans, Maize, Cowpeas, Sorghum and Groundnut. Other additions to IPM
CRSP trials in Uganda included disease and pest control strategies on two high-value



23
horticultural crops: tomatoes and potatoes. Mold incidence on stored maize and
groundnuts and coffee wilt incidence are currently being investigated. Among the crops the
IPM CRSP has had active programs on a long-term basis include sorghum, groundnuts
and cowpeas. Thus this study focuses on these crops.

2.3 Technology Adoption
Various authors define the term technology in a variety of ways. Rogers (1995) uses the
words technology and innovation synonymously and defines technology as the design for
instrumental action that reduces the uncertainty in the cause-effect relationship involved
in achieving a desired outcome.

A more meaningful definition may be that a technology is a set of new ideas. New ideas
are associated with some degree of uncertainty and hence a lack of predictability on their
outcome. For a technology to impact on the economic system, blending into the normal
routine of the intended economic system without upsetting the systems state of affairs is
required. This entails overcoming the uncertainty associated with the new technologies. It
therefore comes as no surprise that several studies set out to establish what these factors
are, and how they can be eliminated (if constraints) or promoted (if enhancers) to achieve
technology adoption.

Perhaps a clearer definition of the term technology can be obtained from the work by
Enos and Park (1988), who, in their study of adoption of imported technology, define
technology as the general knowledge or information that permits some tasks to be
accomplished, some service rendered, or some products manufactured (p.9). Abara and
Singh (1993) explain that it is the actual application of that knowledge that would be
termed technology. Although in the Enos and Park (1988) study, the focus was non-
agricultural, this definition fits agricultural technologies too. From their definition, it is
clear that technology is aimed at easing work of the entity to which it applies. Most
technologies are therefore consequently termed labor-saving, time-saving, capital-saving
or energy-saving and so forth. To economists this implies saving on resources that are
scarce.

Adoption is an outcome of a decision to accept a given innovation. Feder, J ust and
Zilberman (1985) while quoting Rogers earlier work of 1962 define adoption as a mental



24
process an individual passes from first hearing about an innovation to final utilization
p.256. Much scholarly interest on adoption falls in two categories: rate of adoption, and
intensity of adoption. It is usually necessary to distinguish between these two concepts as
they often have different policy implications. Rate of adoption, the relative speed with
which farmers adopt an innovation, has as one of its pillars, the element of time. On the
other hand, intensity of adoption refers to the level of use of a given technology in any time
period.

Clearly, a technology that is being adopted has an edge over conventional practices.
Usually, a technological innovation encompasses at least some degree of benefit for its
potential adopters (Rogers, 1995). In this study, a technology, as it relates to IPM, is a set
of practices (new or old) integrated into a package that aims to control specific pests on
select crops in a manner that is proven more effective than the conventional means.

Several stages precede adoption. Awareness of a need is generally perceived as a first step
in adoption process (Rogers, 1983). The other stages are: Interest, Evaluation, Acceptance,
Trial, and finally, Adoption (Lionberger, 1960). The Lionberger analysis also notes that
these stages occur as a continuous sequence of events, actions and influences that
intervene between initial knowledge about an idea, product or practice, and the actual
adoption of it. However, not all decisions involve a clear-cut sequence. In fact most recent
literature suggests that these stages may occur concurrently and some may/ not occur in
adoption decision processes.

According to Cameron (1999) the dynamic process of adoption involves learning about a
technology over time. In fact many innovations require a lengthy period often of many
years from the time they become available to the time they are widely adopted (Lionberger,
1960; Rogers, 1995; Enos and Park, 1988). The average time between initial information
and final adoption varies considerably by person, place and practice. Alston, Norton and
Pardley (1995) demonstrate that the time after the initial investment in research through
the generation of pre-technology knowledge up to maximum adoption by producers
involves many long, variable and uncertain lags.

The literature on this subject (Griliches, 1957; Lionberger, 1960; Rogers, 1983; Alston,
Norton and Pardley, 1995), describes the process of adoption as taking on a logistic
nature. It increases with time (as the stock of knowledge increases), reaches a maximum



25
level, and later decreases as the technology depreciates or becomes obsolete. Fig 2.1 below
shows the shape that most adoption processes take.













Figure 2.1: The adoption curve Source: Alston, Norton and Pardley (1995)

The research stage may take up to 5 years and the development stage another five years.
However, this is a generalization. Some adoption processes are shorter or longer than the
model shown above. Underlying conditions may shorten or lengthen this period.
2.3.1 Measuring Adoption
Although studies by Mullen, Norton and Reaves (1997), suggest that adoption of IPM is
usually a matter of degree, this is not to state that the measurement of adoption is simple.
In fact, in his study, Nowak, (1996) did agree that measuring the adoption of IPM can be
more complex than it sounds: At first glance, it appears to be nothing more than a
question of whether a grower is or is not using a specific practice. Yet this simplistic view
quickly changes as one begins to assess how it is being used, where it is being used, and
the appropriateness of that use relative to actual pest conditions (Nowak, 1996, p. 99).
Much more work is needed in refining methods and in compiling the data needed to
credibly measure and monitor IPM adoption.
The rate of adoption is usually measured by the length of time required for a certain
percentage of members of a system to adopt an innovation. Extent of adoption on the other
hand is measured from the number of technologies being adopted and the number of
1
0

3
0

Adoption Process
Research and
Development lag
A
d
o
p
t
i
o
n

o
f

n
e
w

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

Time
(Years)



26
producers adopting them. The current study focuses on the extent of adoption and the
factors affecting it.

Depending on the technology being investigated, various parameters may be employed to
measure adoption. Measurements also depend on whether they are qualitative or
quantitative. For instance in the study investigating the adoption of improved seed and
fertilizer in Tanzania, Nkonya, Schroeder and Norman (1997) estimated the intensity of
adoption by examining the area planted to improved seed and the area receiving fertilizer.
For another study that investigated the adoption of use of single-ox technology, pesticide
and fertilizer use, the dependent variable was the number of farmers using pesticide and
fertilizer (Kebede, Gunjal and Coffin 1990).

In another study on factors affecting peanut producer adoption in Georgia, McNamara,
Wetzstein and Douce, (1991) used the producers decision to adopt or not to adopt and
subdivided respondents into two groups: Adopters and non-adopters. Similarly, farmers
perceptions are examined in several studies including the one by Adesiina and Baidu-
Forson, (1995) and that by Tjornhom, (1995). In the former, farmers perception of
characteristics of sorghum and modern varieties are taken into account. In the latter,
farmer perceptions on harmful effects of pesticides on water quality, on health of
individuals and on natural enemies of insects are sought. Baidu-Forson, (1999) examined
farmers perceived utility from adopting half-crescent shaped earthen mounds - a land-
enhancing technology.

While direct qualitative attributes are harder to measure, several studies have used
estimates of probabilities (Shakya and Flinn, 1985; Harper et al, 1990; Green and
Ng'ong'ola, 1993; Kebede, Gunjal and Coffin 1990). In soliciting respondents subjective
perceptions, researchers capture the qualitative aspects that influence farmers decisions
probably because farmers technology choices are based on their subjective probabilities
(Feder, J ust and Zilberman, 1985). Farmers perceptions are interpreted as perceived
profitability of a technology and translate into more resources being devoted to it hence
adoption.
2.3.2 Determinants of Adoption
A variety of studies are aimed at establishing factors underlying adoption of various
technologies. As such, there is an extensive body of literature on the economic theory of



27
technology adoption. Several factors have been found to affect adoption. These include
government policies, technological change, market forces, environmental concerns,
demographic factors, institutional factors and delivery mechanism. Although not tested, it
appears that only four of these broad items may be related to IPM technology adoption.
They include Market forces: availability of labor, technology resource requirements, farm
size, level of expected benefits, and level of effort required to implement the technology;
Social factors: Age of potential adopter, social status of farmers, education level and
gender-related aspects, household size, and farming experience; Management factors:
membership to organizations, the capacity to borrow, and concerns about environmental
degradation and human health of farmers; Institutional/ technology delivery mechanisms:
information access, extension services, and prior participation in, and training in pest
control practices.

Some studies classify the above factors into broad categories: farmer characteristics, farm
structure, institutional characteristics and managerial structure (McNamara, Wetzstein
and Douce, 1991) while others classify them under social, economic and physical
categories (Kebede, Gunjal and Coffin 1990). Others group the factors into human capital,
production, policy and natural resource characteristics (Wu and Babcock, 1998) or simply
whether they are continuous or discrete (Shakya and Flinn, 1985). By stating that
agricultural practices are not adopted in a social and economic vacuum, Nowak (1987)
brought in yet another category of classification. He categorizes factors influencing
adoption as informational, economic and ecological.

There is no clear distinguishing feature between elements within each category. Actually,
some factors can be correctly placed in either category. For instance, experience as a factor
in adoption is categorized under farmer characteristics (McNamara, Wetzstein and Douce,
1991; Tjornhom, 1995) or under social factors (Kebede, Gunjal and Coffin 1990; Abadi
Ghadim and Pannell, 1999) or under human capital characteristics (Caswell et al., 2001).

Perhaps it is not necessary to try and make clear-cut distinctions between different
categories of adoption factors. Besides, categorization usually is done to suit the current
technology being investigated, the location, and the researchers preference, or even to suit
client needs. However, as some might argue, categorization may be necessary in regard to
policy implementation.




28
Extensive work on agricultural adoption in developing countries was pioneered by Feder,
J ust and Zilberman, (1985). Since then the amount of literature on this subject has
expanded tremendously. Because of this extensive literature, the following section provides
a review of selected factors as they relate to agricultural technology adoption.
2.3.2.1 Economic Factors

Farm Size
Much empirical adoption literature focuses on farm size as the first and probably the most
important determinant. Farm size is frequently analyzed in many adoption studies
(Shakya and Flinn, 1985; Harper et al, 1990; Green and Ng'ong'ola, 1993; Adesiina and
Baidu-Forson, 1995; Nkonya, Schroeder and Norman 1997; Fernandez-Cornejo, 1998;
Baidu-Forson, 1999; Boahene, Snijders and Folmer, 1999; Doss and Morris, 2001; and
Daku, 2002). This is perhaps because farm size can affect and in turn be affected by the
other factors influencing adoption. In fact, some technologies are termed scale-dependant
because of the great importance of farm size in their adoption.

The effect of farm size has been variously found to be positive (McNamara, Wetzstein, and
Douce, 1991; Abara and Singh, 1993; Feder, J ust and Zilberman, 1985; Fernandez-
Cornejo, 1996, Kasenge, 1998), negative (Yaron, Dinar and Voet, 1992; Harper et al, 1990)
or even neutral to adoption (Mugisa-Mutetikka et al., 2000). Farm size affects adoption
costs, risk perceptions, human capital, credit constraints, labor requirements, tenure
arrangements and more. With small farms, it has been argued that large fixed costs
become a constraint to technology adoption (Abara and Singh, 1993) especially if the
technology requires a substantial amount of initial set-up cost, so-called lumpy
technology. In relation to lumpy technology, Feder, J ust and Zilberman, (1985) further
noted that only larger farms will adopt these innovations. With some technologies, the
speed of adoption is different for small- and large- scale farmers. In Kenya, for example, a
recent study (Gabre-Madhin and Haggblade, 2001) found that large commercial farmers
adopted new high-yielding maize varieties more rapidly than smallholders.

Furthermore, access to funds (say, through a bank loan) is expected to increase the
probability of adoption. Yet to be eligible for a loan, the size of operation of the borrower is
crucial. Farmers operating larger farms tend to have greater financial resources and
chances of receiving credit are higher than those of smaller farms.




29
A counter argument on the effect of farm size can be found in Yaron, Dinar and Voet,
(1992) who demonstrate that a small land area may provide an incentive to adopt a
technology especially in the case of an input-intensive innovation such as a labor-intensive
or land-saving technology. In that study, the availability of land for agricultural production
was low, consequently most agricultural farms were small. Hence, adoption of land-saving
technologies seemed to be the only alternative to increased agricultural production.
Further, in the study by Fernandez-Cornejo (1996), farm size did not positively influence
adoption.

The majority of the studies mentioned above consider total farm size and not crop acreage
on which the new technology is practiced. While total farm size has an effect on overall
adoption, considering the crop acreage with the new technology may be a superior
measure to predict the rate and extent of adoption of technology (Lowenberg-DeBoer,
2000). Therefore in regard to farm size, technology adoption may best be explained by
measuring the proportion of total land area suitable to the new technology.

Cost of Technology
The decision to adopt is often an investment decision. And as Caswell et al, (2001) note,
this decision presents a shift in farmers investment options. Therefore adoption can be
expected to be dependent on cost of a technology and on whether farmers possess the
required resources. Technologies that are capital-intensive are only affordable by wealthier
farmers (El Oster and Morehart, 1999) and hence the adoption of such technologies is
limited to larger farmers who have the wealth (Khanna, 2001). In addition, changes that
cost little are adopted more quickly than those requiring large expenditures, hence both
extent and rate of adoption may be dependent on the cost of a technology. Economic
theory suggests that a reduction in price of a good or service can result in more of it being
demanded.

Level of Expected benefits
Programs that produce significant gains can motivate people to participate more fully in
them. In fact, people do not participate unless they believe it is in their best interest to do
so. Farmers must see an advantage or expect to obtain greater utility in adopting a
technology. In addition, farmers must perceive that there is a problem that warrants an
alternative action to be taken. Without a significant difference in outcomes between two
options, and in the returns from alternative and conventional practices, it is less likely



30
that farmers, especially small-scale farmers will adopt the new practice (Abara and Singh,
1993). Farmers may receive little long-term benefits from IPM adoption, which negatively
influences adoption. A higher percentage of total household income coming from the farm
through increased yield tends to correlate positively with adoption of new technologies
(McNamara, Wetzstein, and Douce, 1991; Fernandez-Cornejo, 1996)

Off-farm hours
The availability of time is an important factor affecting technology adoption. It can
influence adoption in either a negative or positive manner. Practices that heavily draw on
farmers leisure time may inhibit adoption (Mugisa-Mutetikka et al., 2000). However,
practices that leave time for other sources of income accumulation may promote adoption.
In such cases, as well as in general, income from off-farm labor may provide financial
resources required to adopt the new technology.
2.3.2.2 Social Factors

Age of Adopter
Age is another factor thought to affect adoption. Age is said to be a primary latent
characteristic in adoption decisions. However there is contention on the direction of the
effect of age on adoption. Age was found to positively influence adoption of sorghum in
Burkina Faso (Adesiina and Baidu-Forson, 1995), IPM on peanuts in Georgia (McNamara,
Wetzstein, and Douce, 1991), and chemical control of rice stink bug in Texas (Harper et
al., 1990). The effect is thought to stem from accumulated knowledge and experience of
farming systems obtained from years of observation and experimenting with various
technologies. In addition, since adoption pay-offs occur over a long period of time, while
costs occur in the earlier phases, age (time) of the farmer can have a profound effect on
technology adoption.

However age has also been found to be either negatively correlated with adoption, or not
significant in farmers adoption decisions. In studies on adoption of land conservation
practices in Niger (Baidu-Forson, 1999), rice in Guinea (Adesiina and Baidu-Forson,
1995), fertilizer in Malawi (Green and Ng'ong'ola, 1993), IPM sweep nets in Texas (Harper
et al., 1990), Hybrid Cocoa in Ghana (Boahene, Snijders and Folmer, 1999), age was either
not significant or was negatively related to adoption.




31
Older farmers, perhaps because of investing several years in a particular practice, may not
want to jeopardize it by trying out a completely new method. In addition, farmers
perception that technology development and the subsequent benefits, require a lot of time
to realize, can reduce their interest in the new technology because of farmers advanced
age, and the possibility of not living long enough to enjoy it (Caswell et al., 2001; Khanna,
2001). Furthermore, elderly farmers often have different goals other than income
maximization, in which case, they will not be expected to adopt an income-enhancing
technology. As a matter of fact, it is expected that the old that do adopt a technology do so
at a slow pace because of their tendency to adapt less swiftly to a new phenomenon
(Tjornhom, 1995).

Education
Studies that have sought to establish the effect of education on adoption in most cases
relate it to years of formal schooling (Tjornhom, 1995, Feder and Slade, 1984). Generally
education is thought to create a favorable mental attitude for the acceptance of new
practices especially of information-intensive and management-intensive practices (Waller
et al. 1998; Caswell et al., 2001). IPM is frequently stated to be a complex technology
(Pimentel, 1986; Boahene, Snijders and Folmer, 1999). What is more, adoption literature
(Rogers 1983) indicates that technology complexity has a negative effect on adoption.
However, education is thought to reduce the amount of complexity perceived in a
technology thereby increasing a technologys adoption. According to Ehler and Bottrell
(2000), one of the hindrances to widespread adoption of IPM as an alternative method to
chemical control is that it requires greater ecological understanding of the production
system. For IPM, the relevance of education comes to play in a number of ways. First,
effective IPM requires regular field monitoring of pests conditions to identify the critical
periods for application of a pesticide or other control measures (Adipala et al, 1999).
Farmers knowledge of insect life cycles is also crucial when precision is required about the
best stage of the life cycle to apply a particular control strategy. In addition, knowledge of
the possible dangers from improper use of particular practices may direct farmers to the
safest application procedure regarding a given control strategy especially where chemicals
are involved.

The ability to read and understand sophisticated information that may be contained in a
technological package is an important aspect of adoption. In the case of IPM, the ability to
comprehend pesticide application instructions and proper measurement required in



32
certain control strategies becomes useful. Furthermore, distribution of knowledge reduces
the risk of adopting a new technology. Increased education is thus expected to improve
IPM adoption.

In recent studies reviewed, including Daku (2002) and Doss and Morris (2001), education
positively affected IPM adoption. A study on IPM practices on potatoes identified level of
education as one of the major factors that positively affected the observed level of IPM
practices with Ohio potato growers (Waller et al, 1998). However, in adoption of IPM insect
sweep nets in Texas, higher education was negatively related to adoption (Harper et al.,
1990).

Gender Concerns
Gender issues in agricultural production and technology adoption have been investigated
for a long time. Most show mixed evidence regarding the different roles men and women
play in technology adoption. In the most recent studies, Doss and Morris (2001) in their
study on factors influencing improved maize technology adoption in Ghana, and Overfield
and Fleming (2001) studying coffee production in Papua New Guinea show insignificant
effects of gender on adoption. The latter study notes effort in improving womens working
skills does not appear warranted as their technical efficiency is estimated to be equivalent
to that of males (p.155). Since adoption of a practice is guided by the utility expected from
it, the effort put into adopting it is reflective of this anticipated utility. It might then be
expected that the relative roles women and men play in both effort and adoption are
similar, hence suggesting that males and females adopt practices equally.
2.3.2.3 Institutional Factors

Information
Acquisition of information about a new technology demystifies it and makes it more
available to farmers. Information reduces the uncertainty about a technologys
performance hence may change individuals assessment from purely subjective to objective
over time (Caswell et al., 2001). Exposure to information about new technologies as such
significantly affects farmers choices about it. Feder and Slade (1984) indicate how,
provided a technology is profitable, increased information induces its adoption. However in
the case where experience within the general population about a specific technology is
limited, more information induces negative attitudes towards its adoption, probably



33
because more information exposes an even bigger information vacuum hence increasing
the risk associated with it. A good example is the adoption of recombinant bovine
Somatotropin Technology (rbST) in dairy production (McGuirk, Preston and J ones, 1992;
Klotz, Saha and Butler, 1995).

Information is acquired through informal sources like the media, extension personnel,
visits, meetings, and farm organizations and through formal education. It is important that
this information be reliable, consistent and accurate. Thus, the right mix of information
properties for a particular technology is needed for effectiveness in its impact on adoption.

Extension Contacts
Good extension programs and contacts with producers are a key aspect in technology
dissemination and adoption. A recent publication stated that a new technology is only as
good as the mechanism of its dissemination to farmers (IFPRI, 1995 p. 168). Most studies
analyzing this variable in the context of agricultural technology show its strong positive
influence on adoption. In fact Yaron, Dinar and Voet, (1992) show that its influence can
counter balance the negative effect of lack of years of formal education in the overall
decision to adopt some technologies.
2.3.3 The Combined effect
Although most adoption literature concentrates on single technology adoption - for
example adoption of fertilizer (Green and Ng'ong'ola, 1993), improved varieties like beans
(Kato, 2000), hybrid cocoa (Boahene, Snijders and Folmer, 1999) and many more, other
studies investigate adoption of a combination of technologies such as improved varieties
and fertilizer (Nkonya, Schroeder and Norman 1997; Shakya and Flinn, 1985). As such,
some literature (Feder, J ust and Zilberman, 1985; Rogers, 1995) suggests that adoption of
technologies may in effect be enhanced because of complementarities that exist between
the technologies.

Complementarities occur at two levels: at the factor level and at the technology level. At
the factor level, complementarities occur from the manner in which combinations of
factors act together to influence adoption (Lionberger, 1960). Additionally,
complementarities between factors occur where all inputs considered together have a
significant effect on adoption but when the influence of one is held constant, the
correlation between the other remaining inputs and technology adoption is greatly lowered



34
(Lionberger, 1960). As such where inputs that are critical for adoption are in short supply
for instance water supply that is critical for irrigation technology adoption, the
unavailability may hinder adoption. Thus, crucial inputs must be readily available in order
to encourage adoption.

At the technology level, complementarities occur because one technology enhances the
positive impacts of another. For example in some cases, the high yield potential of seed
can be realized only if fertilizer is applied. In fact, in most studies addressing the use of
improved seeds and fertilizer, a complementary relationship is found between them. For
example, in Northern Tanzania, farmers tend to adopt improved maize seed in combination
with fertilizers (Nkonya, Schroeder and Norman (1997).

The site-specificity of agricultural practices leads to some authors asserting that adoption
studies in every region experiencing a technological change are warranted. This might be
because populations are heterogeneous and individual behavior is dynamic (Feder, J ust
and Zilberman, 1985). Furthermore, there are numerous differences in factor endowments
and farmer characteristics among regions. Thus an adoption study on a technology in a
geographical setting does not imply that a similar study of the same technology is
unwarranted in another geographical setting. Moreover, even within a geographical
setting, different regions have varying adoption patterns for the same type of technology.
Yaron, Dinar and Voet (1992) assert that extrapolations of adoption results should be
avoided and that where possible region specific studies should be encouraged.

2.4 Summary
From the preceding discussions, and review of literature, it is clear that several factors
may help to explain the pattern of technology adoption. However, to attempt to include all
these in a model is generally not a viable option. Limited research funds may limit the
amount of data that can be collected. In addition, collinearity generally exists among a
number of these factors, precluding their inclusion in modeling efforts. Considering this
limitation, therefore, those factors hypothesized to exert the largest influence on
technology adoption, given the circumstances in the study area, are investigated in the
analyses. As discussed above, they include, market forces, social factors, management
characteristics, institutional factors and information delivery mechanisms. These factors
may act as either incentives or barriers to IPM adoption.



35
Chapter 3 Methods

This chapter contains a description of: the study area, the methods used in the collection
of data, and the sampling frame. A review of techniques used to analyze this kind of data,
including their limitations is presented, and the conceptual models used for data analysis
are developed.
3.1 The Study area, Sample, and Data collection techniques
3.1.1 The Study Area
Kumi district is located around 1
0
25N, 35
0
55E in Eastern Uganda bordered by Mbale
district to the East, Soroti to the North and West, and Pallisa to the South.
Topographically the district lies at an altitude of between 1,036 and 1,127 meters above
sea level (masl). The vegetation is mainly short- grass savanna land. Appendix B2 shows
the location of Kumi in relation to other districts in the country. With an estimated land
area of 2,457 sq. km of which 350 hectares is forest reserve area, the district occupies
about 1.2 % of the countrys total land area (Uganda, 1998b). Administratively, Kumi
district is subdivided into three counties: Kumi, Bukedea and Ngora. In 1991, the district
had a population of 236,700 people (Rwaboogo, 1998) with a population density of 96
people per sq. km, which was among the least densely populated districts in eastern
Uganda. It has a gender ratio of 91 males: 100 females (Uganda, 1998b).

The district is mainly rural with only 5% of its population classified as urban. Agriculture
is the main economic activity. The districts soils are broadly categorized as moderately
fertile sandy loams (World Bank, 1993) but with poor water holding capacity (FARMESA,
1998). Main crops grown include grains like millet, groundnuts, sorghum, rice, cowpea,
and soybeans, which are predominantly intercropped. Other crops include potatoes,
cassava, onions, sunflower and bananas. Crops are grown under a bimodal rainfall
pattern the longer first rains from March to J uly and shorter second rains from
September to December. Annual rainfall ranges from 700-1,300mm/ annum. Short
intermittent rainfall and poor water retention capacity of soils are said to be the major
constraints to increased food production in the area. Cotton is the major traditional export
crop grown in the area.

During the period 1980-1991, the districts of Eastern Uganda experienced a decline in
their population, which was attributable to out migration resulting from civil war. At that



36
time, Kumi districts annual population growth rate was one of the lowest in the country at
minus 0.1%. Ugandas eastern region has had one of the highest poverty indices since the
early 1990s, although this figure is decreasing (Uganda, 1998b). In the years 1995/ 96 the
poorest 10% of the population in Kumi had 2.3% (approximately UShs 5,902 per capita)
share of the income while the richest 10% had over 31% of the share of income
(approximately UShs 560,000 per capita). Poverty in the eastern region can at least in part
be attributed to low levels of manufacturing, and service-related activities such as
transportation. Nationally, growth in these sectors has lead to substantial improvement in
living standards (Uganda, 1997).

Kumi district was selected for study for a number of reasons. The eastern region of
Uganda is the largest producer of groundnuts and second largest producer of sorghum in
the country. According to the 1995-96 National Household Survey (Uganda, 1997), the
eastern region produced 31% and 22% of the national totals of groundnuts and sorghum
respectively. In that survey, results for cowpea production in the region were not reported.
However, the 1996 IPM Participatory Appraisal in Eastern Uganda and the 1999 baseline
survey (Erbaugh et al., 2001) identified cowpea, sorghum and groundnuts as priority crops
in Kumi district. The crops are grown by about 80% of farmers. Considering the
importance of these crops in Kumi district, identifying the factors that induce IPM
adoption on these crops can be important in explaining factors affecting adoption for a
large part of the cowpea, sorghum and groundnut producing areas of the country. Finally,
Kumi is one of the IPM CRSPs primary research sites in Uganda.

The study area covers two of the districts three counties namely Kumi and Bukedea.
These counties are selected because the bulk of IPM CRSP work in the district has been
done there. A previous study examined the basic demographic, social and economic status
of Kumi and Iganga (Erbaugh et al., 2001). To put the current study in perspective, the
results of Kumi district study are summarized below.



37
Table 3.1 Summary of Social, Demographic and Economic Characteristics of Kumi
District Farming System

Characteristics
Mean/ %
(n=100)
Age (Years) 43
Household size (Number of people) 9.8
Farm size (hectares) 5.45
Farm labor (Number of people) 6.8
Area in crops (hectares) 3.4
Educational level (Years) 6.6
Major sources of income
Agriculture (%) 76
Brewing (%) 9
Trading (%) 9
Salary (%) 8
Casual labor (%) 3
Total Household income range (000 Ushs) 152-300
Cultivation methods
Rent animal traction (%) 39
Own animal traction (%) 57
Rent tractors (%) 3
Own tractors (%) 1
Time spent on agricultural activities
Full time (%) 35
Half time (%) 33
Less than half time (%) 32
Use of credit, labor and production inputs
Formal credit (%) 30
Hire labor (%) 90
Exchange labor (%) 74
Fertilizer use (%) 4
Use of insecticides, herbicides and fungicides (%) 93
Source: Erbaugh et al., 2001

These results parallel the FARMESA study of 1998 in Kumi that revealed farm size range
of 2.5-10ha and household sizes of 6 persons on average and up to 20-25 people per
household. That study also identified off-farm income sources as mainly fishing, trading,
charcoal manufacture (burning) and casual labor. Average annual income for the area was
very difficult to estimate since not all earnings are in cash and farmers are reluctant to
provide information on actual household income. The FARMESA study estimated annual
income in Kumi in the range of $180-200, an equivalent of UShs180, 000-200,000.
11


3.1.2 The Sample and Sampling Procedure
To obtain respondents for this study, first, the four initial IPM on-farm trial farmers were
identified and traced back to sub county, parish and village level, which formed focal or

11
US$1=1,000 UShs in 1998



38
reference points creating three focal sub-counties that is, Kumi sub-county, Malera sub-
county and Bukedeya sub-county (two of the active IPM farmers are located in Kumi sub-
county). Within each focal sub county, two parishes were selected: the focal parish in
which the active farmer(s) is (are) located, and another parish geographically neighboring
the focal parish. For example in Bukedeya sub-county, Bukedeya was the focal parish and
Okunguro was the adjacent parish. In addition, the initial IPM farmer group in Aturtur
sub-county (Kumi county) was identified and traced back to parish level (Refer to Figure
3.1 below).

Within each selected parish two villages were identified: the focal village and another
village within proximity to the focal village. In Bukedeya focal parish, for example,
Achabule was the focal village and Oswapai the adjacent village (Figure 3.1). With the help
of agricultural extension officials, farmers growing sorghum, cowpeas, and groundnuts on
their farms were identified in each village. Fifteen farmers were then randomly selected
from this group and interviewed.



39


KUMI DISTRICT
Okoba Omolokonyo
Okoba
Parish
Odiding Ameje
Kabata**
Parish
Kumi*
S/County
Aturtur Apapayi
Aturtur
Parish
Aturtur
S/County
Kumi
County
Oswapai Achabule
Bukedeya**
Parish
Kaloko Okunguro
Okunguro
Parish
Bukedeya
S/County
Kalou Kachede
Kachede**
Parish
Kakori Kabarwa
Kabarwa
Parish
Malera
S/County
Bukedeya
County

Green shade indicates focal points



Figure 3.1 Respondent Selection

County
S/County
Parish
Village



40

This selection procedure resulted in 210 respondents from fourteen villages. Using the
focal point criterion in respondent selection was reasonable. It ensured data collection
from farmers within a reasonable distance of the IPM CRSP area of operation (See
Appendix B3). It is assumed that farmers geographically close to IPM CRSP activities (as
opposed to those further away) are more likely to have had exposure to IPM and would be
more likely to use its practices.
3.1.3 Data Sources, Collection and Transformation
Pre-testing of the questionnaire was conducted in March of 2002 by interviewing the active
IPM CRSP farmers. An informal group discussion was held with the district agricultural
officer and sub-county extension personnel from the selected sub-counties in order to
obtain general farming information on the studys sub-counties prior to formal data
collection. Adjustments were made to the survey following the pre-testing. Several
questions were dropped and others added to ensure the correct format for data collection
and that the final survey questions were appropriate. To avoid respondent bias, and by
way of introduction of the research, a one-page statement of intent preceded the survey
questions (see Appendix C). Twelve sub-county extension personnel with Diploma-level
training in agriculture who were also conversant with the local language of respondents
undertook an intensive one-day training session on data collection techniques prior to the
survey. Each field assistant completed a total of seventeen questionnaires.

Data collection took place in April 2002. Both qualitative and quantitative primary data
were collected by way of open-ended and structured questions administered through
personal interviews with the selected respondents as outlined in the previous section. The
final coded questionnaire is contained in Appendix D. The questionnaire contained 8
sections. Section A obtained demographic information from respondents. Section B
contained background questions including information on general farming practices.
Section C was more specific containing questions about farmers knowledge of IPM
practices. Sections D-F had crop specific questions for sorghum, cowpea and groundnuts
respectively, and the IPM CRSP technologies for each. Sections G and H are each one-
question sections requiring information on producers use of pesticide and fertilizers and
sources of off-farm income.
12
This last section was a modification from a more detailed
section prior to pre-testing.

12
During pre-testing, these were portrayed as sensitive questions. Thus the final questionnaire left them as stand-
alone questions.



41

Data from the coded questionnaire were transferred into excel spreadsheets. Using excel,
all binary variables represented by a 2 from the questionnaire were recoded as 0 in
conformity with the analytical software requirements (SPSS Inc. 1999) for ease in
interpretation of coefficients.
13
Continuous variables were retained in the format of the
coded questionnaire. For non-continuous variables, responses were obtained to
statements about farmers perceptions to requirements of various IPM practices in
comparison with conventional practices. Possible responses were: High, Equal, Low,
or Do not know while others required: No, Yes, Do not know. In the analysis, some
of these categories were reduced to binary variables (i.e. 1=High, 0 otherwise, or 1=Yes, 0
otherwise) to aid in exposition without altering the basic conclusions (McGuirk, Preston
and J ones, 1992), and where responses were heavily skewed to one side the categories of
the independent variables were collapsed to eliminate zero cell situations.
14


The dependent variable, a binary response was farmers decision to use or not to use a
given practice. For testing multiple adoption decisions, the dependent variable was
obtained by summing the dependent variables for the different technologies and ranking
them to obtain an index of adoption. Thus a 0 for example, represented farmers with no
adoption of IPM technology, 1 for those with one IPM technology, and so on, for each crop
under study.

The potential variables used to explain adoption of the various practices include proxies
for four broad categories: Economic, social, management and institutional factors. To
allow for a comparison of results between different models, a common definition of
variables is adopted. Except for a series of core variables that are common to all models,
the complete set of potential variables in a model varies depending on the IPM technology
being investigated. Table 3.2 defines these variables. The rationale for including each
variable in a model is explained in section 3.4.

13
For binary variables, the value of 1 represents the presence of a condition, while the value of 0 represents the
absence of a condition. The advantage of this format is that the average of such a variable is the probability of
occurrence.
14
Zero cells in regression models yield point estimates of either zero or infinity which is undesirable and
meaningless (Hosmer and Lemeshow, 2000).



42

Table 3.2 Description of variables used in the analyses
Variable
Name
Type Description [Value]
Economic Factors
PEST Discrete Incidence of insects (INSECT)/ weeds (WEED)/ diseases (DZZ) on
crops [0=No, 1=Yes, 2=Dont know]
HIRE Binary If farmer hires labor [1=Yes, 0=No]
FMSZ Continuous Total farm size (ha)
YIELD Continuous Crop yield in last season (kg) [SGYD, CPYD, GNYD]
FTANY Binary If farmer uses fertilizers on any other crops [0=No, 1=Yes]
RACRE Continuous Proportion of total farm acreage under specific crop (ha)
FMLBR Continuous Number of family members working on farm
OFFLBR Continuous Family members working off the farm
INCMSC Binary If farmer has off-farm income sources [0=No, 1=Yes]
RFMLBR Continuous Proportion of family members working on farm
RSCEREQ Discrete Resource requirements: Management Time (MGT), Labor (LBR),
Land (LND), Cost (COST), Knowledge/ Skill (KNOW) for IPM practice
(Fertilizer use FTIS, Crop rotation ROTN, Timely planting TPCP,
Intercropping ICCP and Close spacing CLSP relative to
conventional practices [1=High, 0=Otherwise]
Social Factors
AGE Continuous Age of respondent
MSF Dummy Farmers marital status [0=Not married 1=Married
2=Divorced/ Widowed/ Separated]
HHSZ Continuous Number of household members (Persons)
EDUC Continuous Number of years of formal schooling (Years)
FMEXP Continuous Length of farming experience (Years)
GENDER Binary Gender of farmer [0=Female, 1=Males]
RFMEXP Continuous Proportion of farming years to age of respondent

Management Factors
BFCP Binary Whether farmer borrows to finance crop production
[0=No, 1=Yes]
HARM Dummy Perception of hazardous effect of pesticides
[0=No harm, 1=Harm, 2=Dont know]
PURCH Binary Who makes input purchase decisions (Fertilizer, Pesticide, Seed,
Farm implement) [1=Exclusively Males, 0=Otherwise]
ONFTR Binary If farmer participates in on-farm trial demonstrations
[0=No, 1=Yes]
BFMORG Binary If farmer belongs to a farmer organization [0=No, 1=Yes]
OWNIPM Binary If farmer owns plots with any IPM recommended practice
[0=No, 1=Yes]
VARIETY
15
Binary If farmer grew improved variety [0=No, 1=Yes]

Institutional Factors
EXTS Dummy Frequency that farmer has had contacts with extension staff
[0=None, 1=Few, 2=Many]
TRNNG Binary If farmer had had other training in pest control[0=No, 1=Yes]
HDIPM Binary If farmer has heard of IPM [0=No, 1=Yes]
INFOSC Continuous Number of farming information sources available to farmer
INFOTYPE Information from MUK, MAAIF& Farm organizations (RSCH)/
NGOs, neighbors & friends (INFNNF) / radio & newspapers (MEDIA)

15
Only for improved cowpea and groundnut variety adoption models.



43

3.2 Data Analysis Techniques and their Limitations
There are several methods of data analysis commonly used in survey work including:
Descriptive analysis including frequencies and means, Chi-square tests of association,
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), Discriminant analysis, Correlation analysis, Ordinary Least
Squares (OLS), Tobit model analysis and Logit and Probit analyses. These methods are
briefly considered below.
3.2.1 Descriptive Analysis
This method of analysis provides statistics that are used to describe the basic features of
the data in a study. They provide simple summaries of the characteristics of the sample
such as measures of dispersion and central tendency. The limitation with this analytical
procedure is that descriptive statistics do not show the relationship among the variables
and the influence that each variable may have on the response. Descriptive analysis does,
however often provide guidance for more advanced quantitative analyses.
3.2.2 Crosstabs Chi-Square Tests
Cross tabulations are useful for summarizing categorical variables. The crosstabs chi
square test is used to measure whether there is some level of association among
categorical variables in two-way and multi-way contingency tables. Variables for which the
test statistic is significant at a set cut-off point are considered associated, while those for
which the test statistic is not significant are not associated. However, the test does not
indicate the direction, or even the magnitude of the association, thus it is not sufficient to
use this analytical approach alone.
3.2.3 Discriminant Analysis:
This is a procedure for classifying observations into categories based on several
explanatory variables and a classification variable defining groups of observations. This
type of analysis is useful in finding linear combinations of quantitative variables that
provide maximal separation between classes or groups. However, when variables are not
linearly related, it provides inappropriate estimates. In addition, the procedure requires
that the predictor variables have a normal distribution.
3.2.4 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
The Analysis of Variance is a procedure used to test the difference between two or more
means. ANOVA does this by examining the ratio of variability between two groups and
variability within each group. Its use in limited dependent variable models is limited
because it assumes that the dependent variable is continuous.



44

3.2.5 Ordinary Least Squares (OLS)
The OLS approach is the most commonly used method in determining the quantitative
importance of various explanatory variables as they influence continuous dependent
variables. This approachs limitation in limited dependent variable adoption studies is that
the assumption that the error term is normally distributed does not hold for such
regressions (since it is impossible to have a normal distribution with only a few values of
the dependent variable). As such, the estimated standard errors and t-ratios produced by
an OLS regression are biased. In addition OLS estimates can produce predictions other
than 0 or 1 for the dependent variable in dichotomous choice adoption models. But these
predictions cannot be interpreted as probabilities because probabilities outside the [0,1]
range are undefined. Use of ordinary linear regression in analyzing non-linear adoption
decisions thus gives biased and inconsistent results.
3.2.6 Correlation Analysis
This analytical procedure can be used to examine pair-wise associations between
continuous variables. The degree of association is given by the Pearson r coefficient. The
sign of the Pearson r coefficient indicates the direction of the effect of the variables on each
other while the magnitude of the coefficient indicates the strength of effect. A Pearson r of
1 indicates perfect negative linear association, an r of 0 indicates zero linear association,
while an r of +1 indicates a perfect positive linear association between the variables.
However when the variables are not linearly related, the results are biased. Furthermore,
this pair-wise approach between the dependent and independent variables may overlook
the interactions among variables affecting an adoption decision hence using this approach
alone may provide incomplete information. Nonetheless, correlations may identify variables
that are highly related to each other.
3.2.7 Tobit, Logit and Probit Models
Logistic regression models are used when the dependent variable is categorical.
Categorical variables are defined as those for which the measurement scale consists of a
set of categories. For such responses, the use of continuous data analytical methods is
inappropriate. These models include Probit, Logit, and Tobit.

Coefficients of the Tobit model can be disaggregated to determine the effect of a change in
an individual explanatory variable on the probability of adopting. Its biggest advantage is
that the dependent variable can take on a number of discrete values. Several studies
including those on fertilizer adoption by Shakya and Flinn (1985); land enhancing



45

technologies by Baidu-Forson (1999); and sorghum variety adoption by Adesiina and
Baidu-Forson (1995) among others used Tobit models. The dependent variable in these
models is measured as the proportion of area under the improved technology.

Both probit and logit approaches are probabilistic dichotomous choice qualitative models.
These models are statistically similar (Amemiya, 1981), except that the probit model
assumes a normal cumulative distribution function (thus has fatter tails) while the logit
model assumes a logistic distribution of the dependent variable. Although parameter
estimates may differ in the two models because the two distributions have different scales,
Amemiya, (1981) and Agresti (1996), note that it would require enormous sample sizes to
have significant differences in the two models.
16
Use of either model is thus discretionary.

Variants of the logit model include the ordinary logit (binary logit), the ordinal logistic,
nominal logistic and the multinomial logit. Binary logistic
17
models are the most popular
type because binary data are a common type of categorical data - the response is either a
success or a failure. The ordinal logistic regression model is used when the dependent
variable is ordered while nominal logistic handles nominal categorical responses.
Multinomial logistic modeling is a special case of ordinary logistic approach, developed to
address the case where the dependent variable can take on more than two values that are
not ordered.

Probit models lack flexibility in that they do not easily incorporate more than one
prediction variable (Montgomery, Peck and Vining, 2001) unlike logit models. As such
these models are less widely used in limited dependent variable models. However, in
studies such as those by Klotz, Saha and Butler (1995), Fernandez-Cornejo (1996), and
Doss and Morris (2001), probit models were employed. Other studies of factors influencing
insect management technology adoption by Harper et al. (1990); fertilizer adoption by
Kebede, Gunjal and Coffin (1990), pesticide misuse by Tjornhom, (1995) and hybrid Cocoa
by Boahene, Snijders and Folmer, (1999), binary logit models were employed. In all these
studies of adoption, the dependent variable is constrained to lie between 0 and 1. The

16
This is especially true for univariate analysis. Amemiya (1981) argues that in multivariate analysis, the results of
the two models may differ significantly
17
Some analytical packages may provide different procedures for logit and logistic models. The main difference
between the two is that logit models display coefficients while logistic models display both coefficients and odds
ratios. The conclusions from both procedures are the same. In this thesis the term logit model is used
interchangeably with logistic model.



46

advantage with these models is that their assumptions are realistic for binary adoption
study data.

3.3 Description of Conceptual Model I
Most econometric modeling used to estimate the effect of explanatory variables on the
observed economic phenomena employs linear models:
e X b a y
i i
n
i
+ + =

=1
(1)
Where y is a continuous random variable, X

=X
1
X
n
are the variables that explain y, a is a
constant and b=b
1
b
n
are the parameters that ultimately describe the effect a change in X
has on y. i denotes the i-th individual and n is the number of observations. But for
adoption decisions, such as adoption of IPM technologies, the random variable y is not
continuous. Instead it can be discrete or dichotomous.

When dichotomous,
p =P(Y=1 X ) (2)
is the probability that Y=1 X and
1-p=P(Y=0 X ). (3)
Y=1 X could, for example, mean adoption of IPM practices and Y=0 X mean non-
adoption given all Xs. Note that this adoption is an end-result of farmers decisions based
on economic theory. An economic unit (a farmer in this case) makes rational decisions to
maximize expected utility. The utility associated with each technology is a function of the
possible outcomes from adopting each technology, thus:
U
0
=f (b [X
0
]) (4)
U
1
=f (b [X
1
]) (5)
Where:
U
1
,U
0
,

are the expected utility levels with and without the technology,
X
1
,X
0
,

are socio-economic and other characteristics of farmers.
b=b
1
b
n
are parameters that describe the effect of farmers characteristics on
utility.




47

When U
1
>U
0
, the assumption is that a farmer adopts a technology, or simply, that
Y=1 X in Equation 2. Now by substituting equation 1 into equation 2, it becomes:
p=P( e X b a
n
i
i i
+ +

=1
) (6)
for Y=1 X . Equation 6 can be expressed as
p e X
n
i
i i
+ + =

=1
(7)
There is a similarity between equation 7 and equation 1. The outcome of a continuous
random variable, y, is replaced by p the probability
18
of adoption. But equation 7 is linear,
hence would show probabilities of <0 and >1 at low levels and high levels of X respectively.
To ensure that p is positive and restricted to the [0,1] range, equation 7 is reformulated as:
e X
e X
e
e
X Y p
+ +
+ +
+
= =


1
) | 1 ( (8)
Where:
p(.) =Probability that an IPM technology is adopted
=Constant term
X =A set of core explanatory variables
=A vector of unknown parameters
e =Disturbance term

Reformulation
19
of equation 8 yields
e X
e
X Y p
X Y p
+ +
=
=
=

) 1 ( 1
) 1 (
(9)
This is the odds ratio, or the probability of adoption of IPM packages divided by the
probability of non-adoption. Transforming Equation 9 into a logistic function gives
ln

=
+ + =
(
(

=
=
n
i
X e
X Y p
X Y p
i i
1
) 1 ( 1
) 1 (
(10)

18
The quantitative expression of the chance that an event will occur, or the number of times an event occurs divided
by the number of times the event could occur.
19
From simple algebra, if
w
w
v
+
=
1
, then ) 1 ( v w v = and w
v
v
=
1




48

Equation 10 is also known as the logit(p). By defining
p
p
1
as the odds of adoption and
modeling p with the logistic function above, it is equivalent to estimating a linear
regression model where the continuous outcome y has been replaced by the logarithm of
the odds of adoption.
20
Thus the logit model is linear in the explanatory variables.

To estimate a logistic model the method of maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) is more
appropriate than Ordinary Least Squares because MLE gives unbiased and efficient
estimates
21
(Amemiya, 1981; Agresti and Finlay, 1997). Maximum likelihood finds the
function that will maximize the ability to predict the probability of the dependent variable
based on what is known about the independent variables. Thus, a maximum likelihood
estimate is the value of the parameter that is most consistent with the observed data in
that if the parameter equaled that estimate, the observed data would have a greater
chance of occurring than if the parameter equaled any other possible value.

One major limitation with logistic regression is that the parameter estimates are difficult to
interpret, as the coefficients do not have a direct interpretation. For instance, in
equation 10 is not the change in probability per unit change in the independent variable.
One way to ease this interpretation issue is to calculate the marginal probabilities for each
parameter estimate. Equation 8 above allows the determination of a change in farmers
adoption behavior if the independent variables change by a given amount and is measured
by taking the first derivative of Equation 8:
(

(
(

+
=

=
+
+
X
Y
e
e
X
X Y p
e Xb
e Xb
2
) 1 (
) 1 (
(11)
Which is,
= )] 1 ( 1 )[ 1 ( X Y p X Y p = = (12)
Thus, the marginal probability for the logistic distribution is the parameter estimate for
the logit multiplied by a standardization factor. The standardized factor is the probability
of adoption multiplied by the probability of non-adoption and is given by:

20
Or the probability that an event occurs divided by the probability that the event does not occur
21
Maximum likelihood is an iterative process that starts out with a guestimate of what the logit coefficients should
be and determines the direction and size of the change in logit coefficients which will increase the log likelihood.
The process continues until there are very small improvements in the log likelihood.



49

[ ]
2
) exp( 1 (
) exp(

X
X
+
(13)
This change in probability of adoption is not constant. It increases or decreases depending
on the value of X. Thus for a continuous variable X, at relatively high values, a large
change will give a relatively smaller change in the probability of adoption (McCullagh and
Nelder, 1989). For instance where farmers characteristics have a mean value and p=0.5, a
straight line drawn tangent to the logistic curve (Figure 3.2) has a slope 0.25 given fixed
levels of the other Xs.
22
When the value of X is larger than the mean, say p=0.9 (or smaller
than the mean, say p=0.1), then the change in probability is given by 0.09 which is a
smaller value. A convenient measure is to evaluate the change in probability at the sample
means of the explanatory variables (Pascale, 1998).
Probability (p)
1
0
Variables (X)


Fig 3.2 Logistic regression curve for [0,1] response models (Source: Agresti and Finlay,
1997 p.577)

However when the independent variables are not continuous, several authors (see Pascale,
1998) suggest a different method for obtaining marginal probabilities. The change in the
probability of a success (Y=1) that results from changing X from zero to one, holding all
other variables at some fixed values, denoted by X
*
, is given by the difference:
P(Y=1 | X=1, X
*
) - P(Y=1 | X=0, X
*
) (14)

22
When p=0.5, the odds p/(1-p) = 1 and the logit log[1]= 0. At that point the slope would be 0.25 , and X= -
/ . This is also the largest slope of any logistic curve. Simply put, a one unit increase in X relates approximately
to a 0.25 increase in the probability of adoption holding other factors constant. The predicted probability of
adoption of IPM technologies is below 0.5 for X values less than - / and above 0.5 for X values greater than -
/ . This X value is sometimes called the median effective level EL
50
because it represents a level at which each
outcome has a 50% chance. Values of p range from (0 1), odds are in the range of (0 ), and logits (- ).
An odds ratio r =p/(1-p) of 1 means that both adoption and non-adoption have equal chances of occurring. This text
is adapted from Agresti and Finlay (1997, p.578).



50

Where X
*
is the value of all other variables in the model. An approach commonly used is to
set values of X
*
to represent a "typical case." A "typical case" is defined by setting all
dummy variables to their modal values and all other variables to their mean values
(SHAZAM, 2002).

The sign of an estimated coefficient gives the direction of the effect of a change in the
explanatory variable on the probability of a success (adoption in this case). When >0, the
probability of adoption increases as the level of factors (X) increases. When =0, the
binary response is independent of X. For different variables, the rate of change increases
as the absolute magnitude of increases.

The success of any logistic regression is assessed by establishing several tests: the correct
and incorrect classifications of the dependent variable, the Wald statistic, the pseudo R-
square measures, and the likelihood tests. The difference between the log likelihood of the
constrained model (Log L
o
) with only the intercept term in the model and the log likelihood
of the unconstrained model (Log L
max
) is the model chi-square which tests the significance
of the logistic model. Several pseudo R
2
measures exist including the McFaddens R
2
also
known as the likelihood ratio index (LRI) and is obtained by (1-Log L
max
/ Log L
o
). Low
values of McFaddens R
2
are typical in logit models. The number of iterations in a logistic
model is an indication of presence of multicollinearity problems. For a normal dataset
convergence is reached in 4-5 iterations. The Wald statistic is a measure of independence
of response and predictor variables. It is obtained by squaring the ratio of the logit
coefficient to its standard error. Wald statistics tests that individual independent variables
have no effect on the probability of the response occurring. In other words, that the
probability of adoption of IPM technologies is independent of the variables (Xs) in the
model.

3.4 Empirical Model I
Farmers decision to adopt or not to adopt a technology is assumed to be the outcome of a
complex set of factors related to the farmers objectives and constraints. In other words,
there are certain factors including market forces, social, institutional, and management
factors that affect the likelihood that farmers adopt a technology. Thus if each farmer and
each technology can be classified based on a core set of variables, then it is possible that
the probability of a farmer adopting that technology could be estimated.



51

3.4.1 Explanation of Variables and Apriori Expectations
Variables used in the models are discussed in the following section. The variable
abbreviation used in the model appears in parenthesis following the more descriptive
variable name.

Age (AGE) As farmers advance in age, risk aversion increases and adopting a new
technology seems less likely. This variable is expected to negatively affect the adoption of
most technologies.

Experience (FMEXP) This is measured by the number of years of farming. Experienced
farmers are assumed to have tried out a number of profitable technologies. Hence the
variable is expected to positively affect close spacing, improved variety, early planting, and
fertilizer use but negatively affect intercropping adoption because of this practices
relatively low skill requirement.

Relative Experience (RFMEXP) Age and experience are not the same. The two variables
hence have distinct influences on farmers adjustment to change. In this analysis another
variable is introduced. It is measured by the number of years of farming as a percentage of
farmers age. Older farmers with say 10 years of farming experience and younger farmers
with the same length of farming experience have different relative farming experience.
Higher relative experience will be positively associated with adoption of improved varieties
and less for labor-intensive practices.

Years of Formal Education (EDUC) Respondents exposure to education will increase the
farmers ability to obtain, process and utilize information relevant to the adoption of IPM
technologies. More education is expected to reduce a producers information acquisition
costs. Again, with the exception of intercropping and close spacing, this variable is
expected to have a positive influence on IPM technology adoption. These two practices do
not heavily draw on educational qualities of farmers and thus their adoption is not likely
to be positively correlated with education.

Family Labor (FMLBR) A large number of family members (relative to household size)
working on the farm reduces the farms external labor requirements and is hence assumed
to positively affect adoption of labor-intensive IPM technologies such as close spacing.




52

Off Farm Labor (OFFLBR) A large number of family members working off the farm for
extra income can increase financial resources available on the farm. It is anticipated that
the effect of this variable on adoption of all practices will be positive.

Respondents Gender (GENDER) Female and male farmers are likely to play different
roles in technology adoption, depending on the nature of the technology. The effect of this
variable is indeterminate.

Number of Information Sources (INFOSC) Sources of information are relevant in
adoption as sources expose the potential adopter to the new technology. The direction of
effect may be mixed. For this study, access to outside information is expected to be
positively correlated with IPM adoption.

Type of Information Source (INFOTYPE) Information from various sources may have a
different impact on farmers perception of farming practices. For exotic practices such as
using improved seed or intercropping sorghum with exotic celosia, information from
research sources such as MUK, MAAIF and farmer organizations (RSCH) may be more
influential than information from neighbors and friends (INFNNF) or from media sources
(MEDIA). These latter sources however may be important in adoption of practices like crop
rotation, timely planting and close spacing.

Perception of Damage by Pesticides (HARM) A negative perception on the effect of
pesticides is likely to positively influence adoption of all technologies that do not have a
chemical component.

Total Farm Size (FMSZ) Farmers total land holding may serve as a good proxy for wealth
and status and income levels. This variable is likely to have a positive effect on adoption of
most practices.

Area under Crops (RACRE) The proportion of land allocated to a specific crop signifies the
importance of that crop to the farmer relative to the others on the farm. For important
crops, adoption is expected to be high therefore this variable is expected to be positively
correlated with adoption.




53

Crop Yield (YIELD) Higher anticipated yields from a crop may increase the probability of
adoption of even more yield-enhancing technologies. Therefore variables GNYD (groundnut
yield) and CPYD (cowpea yield) are expected to be positively correlated with adoption of
improved varieties of groundnut and cowpea respectively.

Pest Incidence (WEED, INSECT, DZZ) The incidence of pests on farmers fields presents
an economic problem that highlights the need for adoption of control strategies. Thus this
variable is anticipated to have a positive relationship with adoption. However, ex-post, that
is, after farmers adopt the practice (and the problem has been solved) this variable may be
negatively related increased adoption.

Frequency of Extension Contacts (EXTS) Extension is a source of information about
better farming practices. Frequent extension contacts are expected to positively impact
adoption of all IPM technologies on cowpea, sorghum and groundnuts.
3.4.2 IPM Packages on Sorghum, Cowpea, and Groundnuts
Because crops are different in nature and different pests attack them, the IPM CRSP
developed different control strategies for the different crops. Three technologies on
sorghum, three on cowpea and two on groundnuts are analyzed in this study (Figure 3.3).
The individual practice may not be a new phenomenon, however, the particular
combination into a set of practices for pest control is a new idea developed and
disseminated by the IPM CRSP. Consequently the proposed models differ slightly based on
the specific characteristics of the technology for each crop. Variables hypothesized to have
theoretical importance to each model are used in the exploratory stage of model building.
In this section models for each crop and each technology are developed and described.
Sub-section 3.4.3 considers the models for sorghum, 3.4.4 considers those for cowpea and
3.4.5 outlines groundnut models.



54

Fertilizer application
Celosia
Crop rotation
Seed coating with herbicides*
Sorghum
Seed dressing*
Defoliation*
Minimum spray schedule*
Close spacing*
Intercropping
Early planting**
Improved variety**
Cowpea
Close spacing
Improved variety
Timely planting*
Minimum spray schedule*
Groundnuts
Integrated Pest Management
Package








* IPM technologies not investigated
23

** Non-IPM CRSP pest control technologies investigated

Figure 3.3 Components of the IPM packages on Cowpea, Sorghum, and Groundnuts.
3.4.3 Sorghum models:
Three technologies developed for striga control that are examined in this study are:
Fertilizer application in sorghum fields, intercropping sorghum with celosia argentia, and
crop rotations involving legumes such as cowpea and groundnuts. The following models
are proposed for the preliminary analyses.

Model specification
24

I a) Fertilizer Use in Sorghum (FTIS)
The sorghum model can be summarized as follows:
FTIS=
0
+
1
COST+
2
INCMSC+
3
FTANY+
4
FTISLBR+
5
MGT+
6
WEED+
7
VARSKDO (15)
Fertilizer use in sorghum is expected to be inversely related to its cost, its high skill,
management time and labor requirements, but positively related to the ability to use it on
any other crops (FTANY), the importance of the crop to be protected (VASKDO), weed
infestation (WEED) and the ability to pay for it (INCMSC).

I b) Intercropping sorghum with celosia argentia (ECAT)
Striga control using an exotic legume celosia is anticipated to be related to sources of
information, contacts with extension personnel, researchers and active participation of
farmers in pest control activities.

23
These practices were mostly found to have either 100% adoption or 0% adoption. In this case, the dependent
variable becomes a constant, hence does not provide enough variability in models if used. In addition, the fitted
probability is either zero or one and this leads to failure to converge (McCullagh and Nelder, 1989). Finally, some of
these practices are new and it is too early to evaluate their adoption.
24
The variables are defined in Table 3.2 and explained in detail in section 3.5.



55

ECAT=
0
+
1
INFOSC+
2
ONFTR+
3
OWNIPM+
4
TRNNG+
5
EXTS (16)
I c) Crop rotations involving legumes (ROTN)
Crop rotation adoption is expected to be influenced mainly by social and economic factors
because of the more indigenous aspect of this practice. Institutional and management
aspects of farmers are not expected to be influential.
ROTN=
0
+
1
VARIETY+
2
OFFARM+
3
MGT+
4
COST+
5
LBR+
6
LND+
7
FMEXP (17)
3.4.4 Cowpea models
A combination of practices involving close spacing of seed, accompanied by 3 sprays at
budding, flowering and podding, in addition to intercropping cowpea with cereal crops
including sorghum were found to significantly reduce pest infestation in cowpea fields. As
explained earlier, defoliation, seed dressing, close spacing and insecticide application on
cowpeas are not analyzed in this study. Although early (timely) planting and growing
improved cowpea variety are not practices disseminated by IPM CRSP on cowpea, farmers
potential to adopt these practices, may be an indicator of their responsiveness to other
technological changes, of which IPM is part. Therefore, adoption of these technologies was
investigated. The following are the hypothesized models:

Model specification
II a) Intercropping cowpea with cereal crops (ICCP)
Intercropping is expected to be influenced by the type of information sources, the presence
of weed problems and availability of hired labor on farms.
ICCP=
0
+
1
MEDIA+
2
WEED+
3
OWNIPM+
4
HIRE (18)
II b) Timely planting (TPCP)
Planting early at the onset of the planting season is anticipated to be positively related
availability of labor and adequate land at planting time, frequency of extension contacts
and farmers perception of the harmful effect of chemicals in pest control as compared to
cultural methods.
TPCP=
0
+
1
HARM+
2
EXTS+
3
TPCPLBR+
4
TPCPLND (19)
II c) Improved cowpea variety (ICPV)
It is expected that growing an improved cowpea variety is positively influenced by access to
information from researchers, the incidence of diseases and availability of off-farm income
sources to purchase improved seed.



56

ICPV=
0
+
1
RSCH+
2
DZZ+
3
INCMSC (20)
3.4.5 Groundnut models
Groundnut research developed the following technologies for groundnuts: Close spacing,
early planting, minimum spray schedules and planting groundnut rosette resistant
varieties. These are rather inexpensive technologies; therefore chances that relatively less
wealthy farmers may adopt them could be high.

Model specification
III a) Close spacing (CLSP)
CLSP=
0
+
1
BFMORG+
2
INCMSC+
3
IGNV+
4
TRNNG (21)
III b) Improved Variety (IGNV)
IGNV=
0
+
1
HHSZ+
2
EXTS+
3
FMLBR+
4
RFMLBR+
4
RSCH (22)

3.5 A Two Tiered Analytical Process
The nature of IPM is that an approach often consists of a package of component
technologies, and this nature calls for a two-tiered analytical process of IPM adoption.
Each set of technologies is considered effective in controlling a pest, or a set of pests, and
could thus be individually adopted. Therefore, rather than require that all components of
an IPM package must be employed in order to consider a farmer an adopter, the
discussion above considers the adoption of each practice individually. This approach
allows the use of simple logit models to estimate the relationships between various factors
and the decision to adopt or not to adopt.

However, this approach alone is not sufficient for examining the extent and intensity of
adoption. Feder, J ust and Zilberman (1985) argue that adopters do not have a binary
choice; that there are varying stages of adoption, hence variations even in the class of
adopters. In fact, adopting farmers may choose to adopt a subset of the technological
package, or all of the components of a package. In such a case, the use of dichotomous
models may misrepresent decisions made by these farmers.
A second approach hence considers that technologies can be complementary. From 3.4.3
above, for example, a sorghum farmer can be said to be an adopter of intercropping,
celosia, fertilizer individually, or a combination of one or more other practices. These
options are possible because farmers decisions to use these practices need not be



57

simultaneous or sequential (unlike in Kebede et al., 1990). In addition, although
technologies are parts of an overall IPM package, they are not necessarily technically
interdependent. In this study thus, unlike several adoption studies, a two-tiered process of
analysis is employed first, to identify adopters and non-adopters of a single technology
(explained in section 3.4. above), and then within the class of adopters, to consider the
level of adoption.
3.5.1 Description of Conceptual Model II
When the outcome of y is able to assume a set of discrete ordinal categories such as 1, 2,
3, etc (also known as multicategory or polytomous responses), binary logistic regression
alone is inappropriate to use to estimate model parameters
25
(Agresti and Finlay, 1997).
For such responses, cumulative (Ordinal) logit analysis that incorporates orderings in
responses potentially has a greater power to explain behavior than the ordinary
multicategory logits (Agresti, 1996) and is thus considered adequate to ensure that the
statistical assumptions of the model are met.

Suppose the dependent variable can take on three values: 1 (one technology adopted), 2
(two technologies), 3 (three technologies adopted), and let

p
1
=P(Y=1) and p
2
=P(Y=2), p
3
=P(Y=3) (23)
The ordinal logistic regression models the relationship between the cumulative logits of Y,
that is,
log
|
|
.
|

\
|

1
1
1 p
p
=log
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
3 2
1
p p
p
and (24)

log
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
+
) ( 1
2 1
2 1
p p
p p
=log
|
|
.
|

\
| +
3
2 1
p
p p
(25)
The model assumes a linear relationship for each logit (like in ordinary logit) but with
parallel regression lines, so that for each cumulative logit the parameters of the models are
the same except for the intercept a.
log
|
|
.
|

\
|

1
1
1 p
p
=a 1 + bX (26)

25
Described as dependent variables with more than two categories of response.



58

log
|
|
.
|

\
| +
3
2 1
p
p p
=a 2 + bX (27)

From the above equations,
|
|
.
|

\
|

1
1
1 p
p
=exp( 1 a + bX ) and (28)
|
|
.
|

\
| +
3
2 1
p
p p
=exp( 2 a + bX ) (29)


=
|
|
.
|

\
|

1
1
1 p
p
*
1
2
a
a
(30)
Equations 28-30 imply that the odds ratio for Y=1 versus Y=2 or 3 and for Y=1 or Y=2
versus 3 are the same. If parameter b>0 then p
1
, the predicted probability of (Y=1) as well
as cumulative probability of (Y=1 or Y=2), p
1
+p
2
, are higher for higher values of X. If b<0,
p
1
and p
1
+p
2
are lower for higher values of X
.


The estimation of a cumulative logit model employs maximum likelihood estimation after
transforming the dependent variable (the decision and level of adoption) into a logit
variable (the natural log of the odds of adoption occurring or not) like in an ordinary
logistic regression. In this way, the model estimates show changes in the log odds of
adoption, and not the changes in adoption itself as OLS regression does.
3.5.2 Empirical Model II
This latter approach gives technology adoption indices based on the level of adoption of
various technologies. The hypothesized relationship that exists between factors affecting
adoption of sorghum (SGTECHS), cowpea (CPTECHS) and groundnut (GNTECHS)
technologies can be represented thus:

SGTECHS= f (INFOSC, TOTCROPS, YDSKDO, GENDER, BFMORG, BFCP,
ONFTR, HDIPM, TRNNG, RSCH, WEED, OWNIPM) (31)

CPTECHS= f (AGE, HHSZ, FMLBR, EBYD, EBACRE, INCMSC, BFMORG, SEEDPURCH,
IMPLPURCH, ONFTR, OWNIPM, EXTS, RSCH, SSNMGT, SSNCOST, SSNKNOW,
INTCRPKN, ICCPLND, EBMGT, INSECT, DZZ, WEED) (32)



59


GNTECHS= f (HHSZ, FMLBR, TOTGNYD, IGOLAYD, INFOSC, INCMSC, BFMORG,
EXTS, HDIPM, INFNNF, RSCH, SPACEKN) (33)
The dependent in the CPTECHS model is a multi-category variable with 1 representing
one technology adopted, 2 and 3 representing respective levels of technologies adopted.
For sorghum and groundnut technologies the multi-category dependent variables
SGTECHS and GNTECHS take on two ordered values (1,2).

3.6 Collinearity Diagnosis
Linear dependencies among regression variables make it difficult to separate out the
unique role of each independent variable on the response variable. Each independent
variable may be nearly redundant in the sense that it can be predicted well using the
others. This is the problem of multicollinearity. This problem may dramatically impact the
usefulness of a regression model and lead to inappropriate conclusions being drawn from
incorrect parameter estimates and confidence intervals, particularly, small changes in the
data values may lead to large changes in the estimates of the coefficients. The problem is
more likely to arise the more independent variables that there are in the model. It is thus
important to test for multicollinearity and remedy it prior to regression modeling.

Although simple correlations between continuous variables and associations between non-
continuous variables provide some guidance about potential multicollinearity, the
preferred method to test for multicollinearity is the use of the Variance Inflation Factor
(VIF). VIF is the reciprocal of tolerance and is given by 1/ (1- R
2
). When the VIF is high, the
R
2
value is high and the interpretation of the coefficients becomes unreliable. Although
logistic regression lacks a perfect analogue for R
2
as in OLS, Garson (1998), Allison, (1999)
suggest the use of collinearity diagnostic statistics produced by linear regression analysis.
Most diagnostics use a VIF of >10 (tolerance <0.1), as rule of thumb. However, for survey
type research, Garson (1998) recommends a more stringent VIF of 4 (tolerance 0.25) to
test for multicollinearity. Hosmer and Lemeshow (1989) suggest examining values of
estimated standard errors, and estimated slope coefficients. Very large values of these
coefficients are an indication of multicollinearity.




60

3.7 Model selection
The number of regression models to be evaluated when building the best possible model is
often large when the set of candidate regressors is large. Although a number of variables in
the model may serve equally well as predictors, it is redundant to use them all as they
make the model more difficult to interpret. In addition, large models have high potential
for multicollinearity (see above, and Agresti, 1996). To avoid these problems, formal
variable selection is necessary to ensure retention of a model that has a limited number of
explanatory variables that are useful in explaining the relationship. These selection
procedures ensure that the final model contains the best
26
variables.

In linear regression models, two major methods include the all possible regressions except
the intercept and the automated selection procedures such as Forward selection,
Backward selection or step-wise selection. Selection is based on values of R
2
, R
2
adj.
27
, and
Mallows C
p
statistic. A high R
2
-value shows that the portion of response explained by the
variables in the model is high. The C
p
statistic describes how well each model fits
compared to the full model with all the predictors (
P
denotes the number of parameters in
the model) and the lower the C
p
value the better the model. Backward elimination involves
a step wise approach where the procedure tries to remove the most non-significant
regressor. This process starts with a complex model progressively eliminating variables
that have the largest P-value thus retaining variables that make significant partial
contributions to predicting the outcome. Forward selection methods work in the opposite
direction. Step-wise procedures combine both methods.

However, these automated selection procedures have been criticized because they are not
guaranteed to find the correct (most practical) model. And as many authors (Hosmer and
Lemeshow, 2000; Agresti and Finlay, 1997) suggest, the use of computer algorithm alone
to select variables for the final model is inappropriate. Inclusion of certain variables of
special interest even when they are not statistically significant may be more important
than reliance on computer-generated models. With non-linear regression models, use of R
2

content procedures may not be possible. As such, model selection procedures in logistic
regression mainly involve stepwise procedures through likelihood ratio tests.


26
Best here is used to refer to a model that is not too small as to be underfit and not too large as to be overfit.
Underfit models miss important information and may be biased while overfit models may suffer the undesirable
effects of multicollinearity.
27
R
2
adj. corrects R
2
to closely reflect the goodness of fit of the model.



61

Clearly, there are many methods of building a regression model. Some authors recommend
beginning with a large model and reducing it to a simpler model with fewer explanatory
variables, while others recommend starting with a more parsimonious model, increasing
its size to incorporate other variables of importance. Hosmer and Lemeshow (1989)
recommend this latter approach through the procedure outlined below:
(1) Univariate analysis; selection of variables of significant relationship individually
with the response variable using chi-square tests of significance, two-sample mean
tests, crosstabs symmetric and directional measures.
(2) Multivariate analysis using all variables retained from the univariate analysis step
and including other variables of theoretical significance,
(3) Elimination of unimportant variables from the multivariate analysis step (using
Wald Tests and Likelihood ratios).

This is the approach followed in the current study. In particular, for this study Figure 3.4
illustrates the model building process.

START
Test for Multicollinearity
Any Highly Correlated Variables?
Yes
Use Judgement
Drop Variables
Use each Variable Separately to
Explain the Response
Run Estimation using all Significant
Variables
Run Final Model
Drop
Drop
No
Yes
Yes
Are Any Significant?
Does Explanatory Power Improve?
Are any Theoretically Important?
No
No
Yes

Figure 3.4 Model building procedure




62

The procedure ensures retention of variables that explain the underlying complexity with
the simplest model.

The criterion used for entry or removal of a variable from a model is the level. A cut-off
of 0.05 is the preferred significance level for most research. However use of a less stringent
level may be necessary to allow more variables to become candidates for inclusion in the
multivariate model and to ensure the selection procedure does not stop too early resulting
in underfit models (Montgomery, Peck and Vining, 2001). Regressors with p-values greater
than are considered for dropping out of the model.

3.8 Analytical software
Two statistical packages are used to take advantages of different features in both
programs. Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS) is especially useful in obtaining
descriptive statistics, comparison of means and running the multivariate logit model. The
Statistical Analysis System (SAS) package was used to test for collinearity and
multicollinearity diagnostics and running cumulative logistic models.

3.9 Summary
This chapter provided a background description of the study area, an explanation of how,
and what data was obtained, and analytical methods used to obtain results for the thesis.
Based on this framework, the chapter highlighted the major strengths of this thesis:

(i) The broad number of technologies analyzed (Figure 3.3)
(ii) The extensive number of explanatory variables considered (Table 3.2), to make
the empirical model more reliable,
(iii) The use of primary data in the analysis, and,
(iv) The studys sufficiently large sample, necessary for reliability in detecting partial
effects of variables on the response using maximum likelihood techniques.




63

Chapter 4 Results

This chapter is presented in five sections. Section 4.1 summarizes the general descriptive
information from the survey; 4.2 gives results of running univariate empirical models and
4.3 gives multivariate estimations, 4.4 gives results of model fitting procedures. Section
4.5 gives empirical results for conceptual model II of chapter 3, and 4.6 is a concluding
section. Each section is organized into three sub-parts, corresponding to each of the crops
in the study: sorghum, cowpea and groundnuts.

4.1 General Descriptive Analysis
Survey responses were obtained from 212 respondents (104 females and 108 males) from
16 villages in 8 parishes
28
with a combined farming experience of 4,409 years and 2,090
acres under various crops. Sorghum, cowpea and groundnut acreage accounted for 13%,
12% and 18% of farmers total cropland respectively.
29
Total acreage owned by producers
was approximately 1,412 acres indicating that producers in the study area rented a large
proportion (at least 32%) of the land they cropped. Tables 4.1-4.3 summarize some of the
descriptive statistics for the sample.

Average household size (HHSZ) was 8.17 people. The mean farm labor (FMLBR) of 4.29
household members shows that over half of the household members worked on the farm.
Twenty eight percent of the producers borrowed to finance crop production (BFCP), while
those who did not borrow cited credit unavailability as a major obstacle to credit
acquisition. Information pertaining to agriculture was obtained from a number of sources
including the Ministry of Agriculture staff (mainly sub-county agriculture/ extension
assistants), from friends, neighbors, and the media (radio). Other information sources
included farmers organizations, bulletins, newspapers, Makerere University researchers,
and NGOs. Thirty two percent of producers belonged to a local farmers organization
(BFMORG). Over 87% of farmers hired laborers (HIRE) to work on their fields. However,
payment for this labor took on many forms including payment in kind (live animals, part
of farm produce, local brew), cash or exchange of labor.


28
The original sample size was 210 (see Chap. 3). However, two farmers from two different villages in neighboring
Parish asked to be interviewed. Thus in total 212 farmers were interviewed.
29
1acre = 0.4047ha



64

Significant differences exist between levels of education (EDUC) for males and females,
with men having more years of formal education (Table 4.1). The means of the other
continuous variables are not significantly different by gender at =0.05. At a less
stringent of 20%, significant differences exit between sorghum acreage (SGACRE) owned
by females and males. As shown in Table 4.2, membership in farmers organizations
(BFMORG), borrowing to finance production (BFCP), and pesticide use on other crops
(PTANY) were significantly different for female and male farmers with more females
belonging to organizations (39% vs. 24%) and borrowing (32% vs. 24%) than males, while
on the other hand, males were more inclined to use pesticides (50% vs. 42%) on crops they
grew than females. None of the other categorical variables presented in Table 4.2 showed a
significant difference by gender.

Half of the respondents had heard of the term Integrated Pest Management
30
(through
MUK, MAAIF, farmer organizations, and others), and were aware of its benefits and
requirements although only 66 (61.7%) of those who heard of IPM had used IPM
recommendations on the crops they grew. Although 84% of farmers (including those who
had not previously heard of IPM) agreed that pesticides were harmful to crops, animals,
birds, humans and other living creatures, they generally perceived IPM practices to require
more knowledge, more labor, more cost and more management time than current
practices. Indeed a good number, (93%) applied pesticides on crops they grew. Note that
14% of the respondents had participated in some form of on-farm trials (ONFTR). Testing
for association between farmers perception of harm by chemicals (HARM) and their gender
found no significant differences.


30
Farmers had varying descriptions of their practices, some of which were in fact, IPM practices.



65

Table 4.1: Summary statistics of continuous variables
Total (N=212) Females (n=104) Males (n=108)

Variables
Mean
31
Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Sig.
32

AGE (Years) 39.9 15.2 39.31 14.89 40.45 15.55 0.584
EDUC (Years) 5.62 3.83 4.94 3.8 6.28 3.77 0.011
FMEXP (Years) 20.8 13.6 21.57 13.56 20.06 13.61 0.419
INFOSC (Number) 3.33 1.67 3.34 1.81 3.31 1.53 0.925
HHSZ (No. of people) 8.17 4.82 8.1 4.85 8.23 4.82 0.839
FMLBR (No. of people) 4.29 2.5 4.1 2.38 4.47 2.61 0.264
OFFARM (No. of people) 1.31 2.15 1.26 2.12 1.36 2.18 0.732
FMSZ (Acres) 6.66 6.06 6.56 6.29 6.76 5.85 0.803
SGACRE (Acres) 1.12 0.62 1.05 0.56 1.19 0.66 0.112
CPACRE (Acres) 1.29 0.79 1.22 0.75 1.36 0.82 0.207
GNACRE (Acres) 1.75 1.22 1.75 1.22 1.76 1.22 0.935
TOTSGYD (Bags) 2.02 1.61 1.91 1.49 1.71 2.02 0.357
TOTCPYD (Bags) 1.73 1.73 1.62 1.92 1.52 1.51 0.676
TOTGNYD (Bags) 6.67 5.31 6.61 5.11 6.72 5.51 0.878

Table 4.2: Summary statistics of non-continuous variables
33

Total Females Males
Variable
(%) (%) (%)
Sig.
34

INCMSC (% yes) 65.0 65.0 64.0 0.467
PTANY (% yes) 46.0 42.0 50.0 0.162
FTANY (% yes) 6.00 6.70 4.60 0.358
BFMORG (% yes) 32.0 39.0 24.0 0.012
HIRE (% yes) 85.0 84.0 86.0 0.379
BFCP (% yes) 28.0 32.0 24.0 0.138
ONFTR (% yes) 14.0 13.0 15.0 0.466
OWNIPM (% yes) 31.0 30.0 32.0 0.398
HARM (% yes) 84.0 80.0 88.0 0.202
HDIPM (% yes) 50.0 45.0 56.0 0.206
TRNNG (% yes) 26.0 23.0 29.0 0.352

During pre-testing of the questionnaires all farmers said that they could not provide an
accurate estimate of farm and off-farm income due to the irregular nature of sales and off-
farm work. These questions were thus eliminated from the survey. However, some income
information was obtained. A significant number of respondents (65%) had sources of
income (INCMSC) outside the farm including petty trading, selling local brew, and
remittances from family members who work off the farm. Cross tabulations by gender

31
Values indicate the mean of the quantitative attribute.


32
Testing difference in means between males and females
33
Values of categorical variables indicate the proportion of farmers taking on particular qualitative attributes.
34
Testing for significant differences between males and females



66

revealed no significant association between gender and off-farm income source (Table 4.2).
Appendix Table E1 shows the frequency table of income sources in the study area.

Farmers grew a wide range of crops. All sampled farmers grew groundnuts on plots
ranging from 0.1 to 6 acres. Table 4.3 below shows the summary statistics of crops grown.
Highest total acreage was in groundnuts with a mean of 1.85 acres per farmer. Grain
crops including sorghum, cowpea, groundnuts, millet, maize, beans, greengrammes (a
popular leguminous crop called Choroko), rice, sunflower, soybean, simsim (sesame)
represented over 67% of the farmed area.
Table 4.3: Crops Grown: Summary Statistics
Total area
in crop
Min
area
Max area Mean
area
Crops
Percent
35

sampled
farmers
growing crop
(%)
Acres Acres Acres Acres
Std.
Dev. of
mean
Sorghum 99.06 262.00 0.10 4 1.236 0.62
Cowpea 98.58 278.88 0.13 6 1.315 0.78
Groundnuts 100.00 392.68 0.10 6 1.852 1.22
Cassava 96.23 383.50 0.50 8 1.809 1.27
Millet 78.30 245.53 0.10 7 1.158 1.13
Potatoes 68.87 164.33 0.10 8 0.775 0.94
Maize 60.38 143.30 0.20 8 0.676 0.87
Beans 21.70 35.30 0.25 3 0.167 0.42
Greengrammes 15.09 37.15 0.25 5 0.175 0.55
Cotton 13.68 42.50 0.50 8 0.200 0.76
Rice 13.21 26.90 0.25 2 0.127 0.35
Sunflower 10.85 27.00 0.50 3 0.127 0.43
Tomato 8.96 8.60 0.02 1.5 0.041 0.17
Soybean 5.19 9.15 0.01 2 0.043 0.22
Eucalyptus 3.77 7.20 0.20 3 0.034 0.25
Simsim 2.83 5.00 0.50 1 0.024 0.14
Banana 2.36 1.86 0.01 1 0.009 0.08
Others 5.66 19.55 0.25 8 0.092 0.61

4.2 Adoption of IPM Practices - Univariate Analysis
Figure 4.1 below contains summary statistics some of which relate to components of some
of the IPM practices. Eighty eight percent of farmers did not purchase fertilizers. In
contrast 93% of farmers purchased pesticides, and 96% purchased seed. While more
men than women are sole purchasers of farm supplies, if the percentages in the both

35
The high percentages of people growing sorghum, cowpea and groundnuts are expected since the selection
procedure targeted these farmers. Nonetheless, these crops popularity in the area can be seen from the mean acreage
devoted to these crops relative to other crops in the farmers fields.



67

category are added to the female category over all it might be reasonable to say that men
and women have about the same levels of purchasing activities.

Pesticide Purchase
Males
46%
Females
9%
Both
38%
Do not
purchase
7%
Seed Purchase
Dont
Buy
4%
Females
15%
Males
39%
Both
42%

Fertilizer Purchase
Both
3%
Females
3%
Males
6%
Do not
purchase
88%
Figure 4.1 Farm input acquisition: distribution of purchase decisions
4.2.1 Sorghum
Farmers generally rotated sorghum some with groundnuts (34%) and with cassava (20%).
The crop was grown mainly in the second season. Popular sorghum varieties included
Seredo, Sekedo - the two improved local varieties, Eidima, other local varieties (that
farmers could name) and other unnamed varieties. Figure 4.2 below shows the
distribution of these varieties. A complete list of local varieties grown in Kumi is presented
in Appendix Table E2
Distr ibution of Sor ghum Var ie tie s
Local variety
named
49% (135)
Eidima
8% (22.1)
Sekedo
19% (45.6)
Seredo
13% (33)
Variety not
known/named
11% (26.3)

Figure 4.2: Distribution of sorghum varieties as a percent of total sorghum acreage
(values in parentheses are total acreages by variety) for the sample




68

Assuming that land attributes and other factors were the same across varieties, Sekedo
had the highest productivity (with 1.76 bags/ acre) compared to Seredo (1.57 bags/ acre) or
Eidima (1.33 bags/ acre). Farmers perceived that growing improved varieties involved high
costs (60%), and had high knowledge requirements (43%) but also felt that labor (87%),
land (83%) and management time (92%) requirements were less than or equal to those for
local varieties.

In the crop season preceding this survey, 66% of sorghum farmers reported that their crop
was harmed by insects, mainly sorghum shoot fly (Atherigona soccata) (41%) and stem
borers (Chilo partellus, Busseola fusca and Sessamia calamistis) (22%). Notable in Table
4.4 below is that although the occurrence of problems was slightly higher with insects,
more farmers focused on controlling weeds than insects. This finding might suggest that
insects are not destructive during sorghum development, that is, why even though
incidence is higher compared to weeds and diseases, controlling them is not as high a
priority to farmers as controlling weeds is. The major weed in sorghum fields was striga
found in 40% of farmers fields. Other common weeds included star grass (Cynodon
dactylon), spear grass (Imperata cylindrica), couch grass (Digitaria scalarum) and goat weed
(Epimedium grandiflorum). Appendix Table E3 gives the complete list of weed species
reported in farmers fields.

Control strategies on striga varied tremendously. Celosia argentia, an exotic legume that is
reported by farmers to chase striga was a fairly new strategy and was employed by about
3% of respondents. However, physical weeding, rotation with cassava (migyera variety),
sweet potatoes and other unidentified local weeds were common striga control practices.
Also effective against striga is fertilizer use and crop rotations involving legume crops like
cowpea and groundnuts. These were practiced by 3% and 92% of sorghum farmers
respectively. Adverse impacts of disease on sorghum were reported by only 40% of the
respondents.

Table 4.4: Pest Incidence on Sorghum (n=210)
Pest problems
Occurrence
n (%)
Control Attempted
n (%)
Insects 139 (66%) 51 (36.7%)
Weeds 131 (62%) 103 (78.6%)
Diseases 84 (40%) 15 (17.9%)



69

4.2.1.1 Fertilizer use (FTIS)
Farmers in the study area generally do not apply fertilizer on sorghum. Although not
significantly different (Table 4.5), producers who use fertilizer on sorghum tended to be
younger (AGE), with more years of formal education (EDUC) than non-adopters. In
addition, these farmers had less farming experience (FMEXP) and smaller total farm sizes
(FMSZ). As might have been anticipated, as indicated in Table 4.6 if farmers use fertilizer
on other crops (FTANY), they are likely to use it on sorghum. Tables 4.5 and 4.6 show
comparative statistics of other social and economic features for the two types of farmers.

Table 4.5: Characteristics of Fertilizer Adopters and Non-Adopters in Sorghum
Production Continuous Variables
Total (N=210) Non adopters (n=204) Adopters (n=6)
Variable
Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev.
Sig.*
AGE (Years) 39.89 15.20 40.03 15.19 35.17 16.22
0.305
EDUC (Years) 5.62 3.83 5.59 3.79 6.50 5.58
0.568
HHSZ (No. of people) 8.13 4.83 8.14 4.87 7.86 3.67
0.878
FMSZ (Acres) 6.66 6.06 6.75 6.11 3.53 1.89
0.144
FMEXP (Years) 20.80 13.57 20.87 13.54 18.33 16.00
0.620
TOTCROPS (Number) 6.99 1.66 6.98 6.14 7.29 2.06
0.628
SGACRE (Acres) 1.13 0.61 1.13 0.62 1.14 0.38
0.958
INFOSC (Number) 3.33 1.66 3.00 1.29 3.34 1.68
0.596
FMLBR (Number) 4.27 2.52 4.25 2.53 4.86 2.27
0.532
OFFARM (Number) 1.32 2.15 1.34 2.18 0.86 1.07
0.561
TOTSGYD (Bags threshed) 2.04 1.60 2.03 1.62 2.18 0.98
0.808
* Testing for significant differences between adopters and non-adopters

Table 4.6: Characteristics of Fertilizer Adopters and Non-adopters in Sorghum
Production Non-continuous Variables
Total Non-adopters Adopters
Variable
(N=210) (n=204) (n=6)
Sig.**
FTANY (% yes) 5.70 4.40 50.0
0.004
BFCP (% yes) 28.0 29.0 00.0
0.134
BFMORG (% yes) 32.0 33.0 00.0
0.101
TRNNG (% yes) 26.0 27.0 00.0 0.164
ONFTR (% yes) 14.0 15.0 00.0
0.392
HARM (% yes) 84.0 84.0 83.0
0.225
FTPURCH (% yes) 7.14 6.37 33.0
0.061
FTISLBR (% yes) 41.0 40.0 83.0
0.043
RSCH (% yes) 69.0 70.0 33.0
0.079
WEED (% yes) 69.0 69.0 83.0
0.549
OWNIPM (% yes) 31.0 31.0 33.0
0.613
GENDER (% Males) 50.0 50.0 50.0
0.351
** Testing for significant differences between adopters and non-adopters.



70

4.2.1.2 Intercropping with root crops, cel osi a and other striga chasers (ECAT)
Eleven percent of interviewed farmers practiced striga control using one or more of these
methods. Table 4.7 shows no significant differences between adopters and non-adopters in
terms of the continuous variables. However, in Table 4.8 it can be seen that adopters were
more likely to belong to farmer organizations (BFMORG), to have participated in some form
of on farm trials (ONFTR), and to have had some form of (even non-IPM) pest management
training (TRNNG) than non-adopters. Forty six percent of striga control adopters obtained
agricultural information from Makerere University researchers, compared to 19% for non-
adopters while 92% of adopters obtained their information for Ministry of Agriculture
extension staff. Not surprisingly, since more adopters belonged to farmer organizations
than non-adopters, significantly more adopters obtained agricultural information from
these organizations than non-adopters.
Table 4.7: Stri ga adopters versus non- adopters continuous variables
Adopters (n=24) Non-Adopters (n=186)
Variable Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev.
Sig.*
AGE (Years) 40.13 18.48 39.95 14.83 0.937
EDUC (Years) 5.92 3.51 5.59 3.89 0.691
FMEXP (Years) 21.75 16.68 20.68 13.17 0.716
FMSZ (Acres) 7.83 7.98 6.51 5.78 0.316
HHSZ (No. of people) 7.63 6.27 8.23 4.62 0.562
FMLBR (No. of people) 3.54 1.86 4.37 2.57 0.128
* Testing for significant differences between adopters and non-adopters.
Table 4.8: Stri ga adopters versus non- adopters comparison with non-continuous
variables
Adopters Non-Adopters
Variable Mean (n=24) Mean (n=186)
Sig.*
BFMORG (% yes) 58.0 28.0 0.004
GENDER (% Males) 75.0 47.0 0.011
HDIPM (%yes) 71.0 48.0 0.099
ONFTR (%yes) 38.0 11.0 0.002
OWNIPM (%yes) 63.0 27.0 0.001
TRNNG (%yes) 67.0 21.0 0.000
INFOTYPE
Neighbors (%yes)*
2
88.0 74.0 0.106
Radio (%yes)*
1
79.0 72.0 0.319
MAAIF (%yes)*
3
92.0 62.0 0.002
Friends (%yes) *
2
67.0 56.0 0.233
Newspapers (%yes) *
1
25.0 23.0 0.319
MUK (%yes) *
3
46.0 19.0 0.006
Farmers organizations (%yes) *
3
37.5 17.0 0.023
NGOs (%yes) *
2
33.0 18.0 0.076
SGDZZ (%yes) 50.0 74.0 0.153
HARM (%yes) 96.0 82.0 0.313
* Testing for significant differences between adopters and non-adopters.
*
1
, *
2
and, *
3
aggregated into MEDIA, INFNNF and RSCH respectively in multivariate analysis.



71

4.2.1.3 Sorghum and Crop rotation (ROTN)
This practice involved rotation of sorghum with legume crops including cowpea and
groundnuts. No significant difference was found between adopters and non-adopters when
examining continuous variables (Table 4.9). As indicated in Table 4.10, there was no
significant difference between where adopters and non-adopters obtained agricultural
information. At of 0.2, there are significant differences in off-farm labor (OFFARM),
management time constraint (MGT), availability of off-farm income (INCMSC) and weed
incidence (WEED) between farmers who used crop rotation and those who did not (Table
4.10). Non-adopters considered crop rotation as management time demanding, and had
higher weed incidence than adopters.

Table 4.9: Characteristics of crop rotators and non-crop rotators Continuous variables
Adopters (n=194) Non-Adopters (n=16)
Variables
Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev.
Sig.*
AGE (Years) 40.32 15.37 35.75 13.37 0.179
EDUC (Years) 5.70 3.88 4.69 3.36 0.397
FMEXP (Years) 21.04 13.65 18.00 13.61 0.401
OFFARM (No. of people) 1.40 2.20 0.37 1.02 0.066
FMSZ (Acres) 6.74 6.03 6.14 6.76 0.566
INFOSC (Number) 3.30 1.67 3.56 1.65 0.542
* Testing for significant differences between adopters and non-adopters.

Table 4.10: Characteristics of crop rotators and non-crop rotators non-continuous
variables
Adopters Non-Adopters
Variables
Mean (n=194) Mean (n=16)
Sig.**
INFOTYPE
Radio (%yes) 72.0 88.0 0.139
Newspaper (%yes) 23.0 19.0 0.481
Friends (%yes) 58.0 50.0 0.349
Neighbors (%yes) 74.0 88.0 0.192
Farmers organization (%yes) 20.0 13.0 0.361
MAAIF (%yes) 64.0 81.0 0.128
MUK (%yes) 22.0 25.0 0.500
BFMORG (%yes) 32.0 25.0 0.395
RSCREQ
MGT (%yes) 22.1 38.0 0.189
COST (%yes) 28.0 25.0 0.253
KNOW (%yes) 24.0 13.0 0.604
LBR (%yes) 18.0 31.0 0.464
LND (%yes) 09.0 13.0 0.803
ONFTR (%yes) 14.0 19.0 0.407
INCMSC (%yes) 63.0 81.0 0.120
IMPLPURCH (%yes) 45.0 75.0 0.023
WEED (%yes) 67.0 94.0 0.058
* Testing for significant differences between adopters and non-adopters.



72

4.2.2 Cowpea
Cowpea is generally grown in the second season, sowing two weeks after the start of rains.
The seed is mainly broadcast rather than precision planted. Although cowpea has
outstanding potential for intercropping, the crop in the study area is seldom intercropped.
However, when intercropped, maize or sorghum is sparsely spaced within the cowpea plot.
This finding is similar to that of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural
Research (CGIAR) findings in West Africa where cowpea is intercropped with millet, maize,
yam and sorghum (CGIAR, 2002).



















Figure 4.3 Reasons for Cowpea Defoliation

During growth, the plant is defoliated several times for reasons ranging from the food
value of the leaves, better health of the plant, and as a control strategy for pests. Figure
4.3 shows the breakdown of these reasons.

Ebelat, a local but highly improved variety is popular among the farmers, grown on fields
ranging from 0.13 to 6 acres (Table 4.3). Other varieties included Large White, Brown tan,
Ecirikukwai and a black seeded type from Kenya, popular for its high yield (Table 4.11).

Selling
1%
Medicinal
Purposes
2%
Pest Control
18%
Good Yield
6%
Good Plant
Health
31%
Food Value
42%



73

Table 4.11. Distribution of Cowpea varieties in study area
Varieties grown Total Acreage
(Acres)
Total Yield
(Bags threshed)
Average Yield
(Bags/ acre)
Ecirikukwai 23.00 26.33 1.14
Ebelat 210.13 246.36 1.17
Large white 14.50 14.27 0.97
Brown tan 0.75 1.00 0.98
Black seeded Kenyan 26.50 32.95 1.24
Un-named varieties 4.00 4.17 1.04

Pest occurrence on the cowpea crop was high. Major insect pests included aphids (A.
craccivora), bollworms (Heliothis armigera), pod-borers (M. testularis) and stinkbugs
(Nezara viridula). Diseases on cowpea were diverse including cowpea mosaic virus (CMV),
leaf rust (Uromyces vignae), and anthracnose (Colletotrichum lindemuthianum). However,
disease control was not as intense as insect control probably because the vectors of the
disease were the insect pests. Disease control strategies were directly employed on only
15% of disease infected cowpea plots compared to 79% of insect-infested plots.

4.2.2.1 Timely planting (TPCP)
Farmers who practiced early planting sowed cowpea seed at the first sign of rains in either
rainy season. Adopters had smaller households (HHSZ), and were less likely to borrow
(BFCP) than non-adopters. However, as indicated in Table 4.12, these differences were not
significant. At a less stringent cut-off of 20%, FMEXP, INCMSC, FMLBR, ONFTR and
OWNIPM were significant (Table 4.12 and 4.13).

Table 4.12: Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of timely planting for cowpea
production continuous variables
Adopters of Timely
planting
Non-Adopters of Timely
planting
Variables
Mean (n=43)
Std. Dev.
Mean (n=169)
Std. Dev. Sig.*
AGE (Years) 41.96
16.10
39.52 14.99
0.320
EDUC (Years) 5.67 3.63 5.63 3.89 0.921
HHSZ (Number of people) 7.49 3.47 8.35 5.15 0.304
FMEXP (Years) 23.47 15.07 20.20 13.20 0.149
FMSZ (Acres) 7.34 7.88 6.53 5.53 0.412
INFOSC (Number) 3.42 1.68 3.30 1.67 0.683
FMLBR (Number of people) 3.81 2.29 4.41 2.59 0.145
OFFARM (Number of people) 0.95 1.70 1.39 2.25 0.221
* Testing for significant differences between adopters and non-adopters.




74

Table 4.13: Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of timely planting for cowpea
production non-continuous variables
Adopters of
Timely planting
(n=43)
Non-Adopters of
Timely planting
(n=169)
Variables
% %



Sig.**
BFMORG (%yes) 35.0 31.0
0.365
BFCP (%yes) 23.0 28.0
0.292
HIRE (%yes) 89.0 87.0
0.306
INCMSC (%yes) 74.0 62.0
0.091
ONFTR (%yes) 21.0 13.0
0.120
OWNIPM (%yes) 42.0 29.0
0.066
** Testing for significant differences between adopters and non-adopters.

4.2.2.2 Intercropping with cereals (ICCP)
At of 20%, farmers who intercropped cowpea (adopters) were significantly younger
(AGE), and had shorter farming experience (FMEXP) (Table 4.14). Significantly more
adopters than non-adopters hired labor (HIRE), applied fertilizer on other crops (FTANY)
and had used some IPM recommendation on their farm (Table 4.15). There was no
significant difference between adopters and non-adopters and their use of the other
sources of information except the media.

Table 4.14: Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of intercropping with cereals
for cowpea production continuous variables
Intercropping
Adopters (n=48)
Intercropping
Non-adopters (n=161)
Variables
Mean Std. Dev Mean Std. Dev
Sig.*
AGE (Years) 36.38
14.73
41.11
15.23
0.068
EDUC (Years) 6.10 3.73 5.50 3.86 0.323
HHSZ (Number of people) 7.50 3.76 8.37 5.13 0.279
FMEXP (Years) 18.02 13.42 21.73 13.62 0.107
FMSZ (acres) 6.18 4.83 6.85 6.40 0.533
INFOSC (Number) 3.44 1.62 3.29 1.68 0.598
FMLBR (Number of people) 4.00 2.21 4.37 2.61 0.378
OFFARM (Number of people) 1.27 1.65 1.31 2.29 0.911
* Testing for significant differences between adopters and non-adopters.




75

Table 4.15: Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of intercropping with cereals
for cowpea production categorical variables
Intercropping
Adopters (n=48)
Intercropping Non-
adopters (n=161)
Variables
% %
Sig.**
INFOTYPE
Radio (% yes) 83.0 70.0 0.049
Newspaper (%yes) 29.0 21.0 0.116
Friends (%yes) 58.0 57.0 0.479
Neighbors (%yes) 73.0 76.0 0.410
Farmer organization (%yes) 19.0 21.0 0.485
MAAIF (%yes) 69.0 64.0 0.334
MUK (%yes) 27.0 21.0 0.219
NGO (%) 15.0 21.0 0.216
BFMORG (%yes) 31.0 32.0 0.551
BFCP (%yes) 25.0 28.0 0.382
HIRE (%yes) 92.0 86.0 0.092
ONFTR (%yes) 19.0 13.0 0.208
OWNIPM (%yes) 44.0 28.0 0.026
TRNNG (%yes) 21.0 28.0 0.235
HARM (%yes) 87.0 83.0 0.304
FTANY (%yes) 10.0 04.0 0.112
** Testing for significant differences between adopters and non-adopters.
4.2.2.3 Improved Variety (ICPV)
The improved local high yielding cowpea variety Ebelat was grown by over 90% of
producers in the study area. Though not significantly different (Tables 4.16 and 4.17),
generally these farmers were younger (AGE) and had less education (EDUC). There were
significant differences between adopters and non-adopters and their membership in
farming organizations (BFMORG), and access to off-farm income sources (INCMSC). More
adopters than non-adopters had off-farm income sources, while non-adopters belonged
more to organizations than adopters.
Table 4.16 Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of Improved variety for cowpea
production continuous variables
Adopters Non Adopters
Variables
Mean (n=191) Std. Dev. Mean (n=18) Std. Dev.
Sig.*
AGE (Years) 39.77 14.89 41.00 18.19 0.729
EDUC (Years) 5.60 3.79 5.86 4.32 0.768
HHSZ (Number) 8.31 4.91 6.81 3.83 0.176
FMEXP (Years) 20.72 13.46 21.52 14.94 0.797
FMSZ (Acres) 6.67 6.03 6.58 6.45 0.946
FMLBR (Number) 4.31 2.53 4.06 2.36 0.684
CPACRE (Acres) 1.30 0.77 1.21 0.93 0.635
* Testing for significant differences between adopters and non-adopters.



76

Table 4.17 Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of Improved variety for cowpea
production non-continuous variables
Adopters
(n=191)
Non Adopters
(n=18)
Variable
% %
Sig.**
INCMSC (% yes) 66.0 48.0 0.057
BFCP (% yes) 26.0 43.0 0.187
BFMORG (% yes) 30.0 48.0 0.071
INFOTYPE
Farmer organization (% yes) 19.0 28.0 0.282
MAAIF (% yes) 64.0 78.0 0.179
MUK (% yes) 23.0 11.0 0.196
** Testing for significant differences between adopters and non-adopters.
4.2.3 Groundnut
All 212 respondents grew groundnuts, sowing two weeks after the onset of the first rains.
Three planting methods were used: measuring plant spacing within and between rows
(36%), chop and drop method without specific plant to plant measurement (45%), and
broadcasting the seed into the ground (24%). A few producers had groundnuts under two
different planting systems. Measurement of plant spacing was perceived as time
consuming, labor intensive, and costly. In addition, the practice was perceived to require
more land and knowledge for correct plant spacing. Fifty five percent of farmers
intercropped groundnuts, mostly with Maize. Intercropping was perceived to be a land-
saving practice. Eight varieties of groundnuts were grown in the study area. The popular
variety Igola-1, a hybrid from India is resistant to most fungal and bacterial diseases and
was grown by over 76% respondents (Table 4.18). Land resources were not constraints to
growing Igola-1, although the cost of purchasing seed was perceived to be high. Etesot, a
local improved variety was not popular because of persistent crop failure due to pests.
Table 4.18 contains summary statistics on area and yield estimates of the varieties grown.



77

Table 4.18: Groundnut varieties, and their performance in the study area


Variety
Percent
farmers with
variety
36

Total Area in
variety
(Acres)

Total Yield
(Bags threshed)

Productivity
(Bags/ acre)
Erudurudu Red 12.7% 30.00 140.50 4.64
Igola-1 76.9% 185.68 712.55 3.84
Otira 17.9% 43.25 147.00 3.39
Matudda 1.9% 4.00 13.50 3.38
Etesot 38.2% 82.70 282.75 3.41
Serenut 1 2.4% 6.25 20.00 3.20
Ebaya 7.5% 16.30 46.50 2.85
Erudurudu White 10.8% 22.25 49.91 2.24
Serenut 2 0.4% 2.25 1.00 0.44

4.2.3.1 Close spacing (CLSP)
Close spacing involved sowing seed in measured plots of 10cm by 30cm or 15cm by 30cm.
Table 4.19 shows that significant differences exist between adopters and non-adopters of
close spacing in terms of yield of groundnuts (TOTGNYD), with adopters of close spacing
obtaining higher yield than non-adopters. Adopters tended to grow the improved Igola-1
(and on a wider scale), had off-farm income sources (INCMSC), and belonged more to
farmer organizations (BFMORG) than non-adopters (Table 4.20).

Table 4.19. Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of close spacing in Groundnut
production - Non-continuous variables
Low plant density Close Spacing
Variables Mean (n=187) Std. Dev. Mean (n=25) Std. Dev.
Sig.*
EDUC (Years) 5.71 3.79 5.00 4.19 0.323
FMSZ (Acres) 6.48 5.82 8.01 7.63 0.237
GNACRE (Acres) 1.76 1.21 1.72 1.28 0.881
FMLBR (Number) 4.22 2.56 4.80 2.22 0.273
OFFARM (Number) 1.26 1.84 1.72 3.76 0.312
IGOLAYD (Bags threshed) 3.46 3.91 2.76 2.36 0.393
IGOLACRE (Acres) 0.87 0.89 0.99 0.73 0.496
TOTGNYD 6.21 4.86 7.32 5.85 0.132
* Testing for significant differences between adopters and non-adopters.


36
Does not necessarily add up to 100% as individual farmers often planted more than one variety



78

Table 4.20. Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of close spacing in Groundnut
production - non-continuous variables

Variable
Low Plant Density
(n=187)
Close Spacing
(n=25)

Sig.**
INFOSC
Ministry of agric (% yes) 63.6 76.0 0.160
Makerere Univ. researchers (% yes) 19.8 40.0 0.026
HIRE (% yes) 84.5 84.0 0.543
IGNV (% yes) 74.9 92.0 0.040
GENDER (% male) 48.0 56.0 0.245
INCMSC ((% yes) 57.0 75.0 0.008
BFMORG (% yes) 24.0 42.0 0.005
INSECT (% yes) 63.1 64.0 0.913
DZZ (% yes) 58.3 48.0 0.809
WEED (% yes) 57.8 72.0 0.085
** Testing for significant differences between adopters and non-adopters.
4.2.3.2 Resistant variety (IGNV)
Igola-1 was grown by about 77% of the respondents on plots averaging 1.15 acres
representing over 64% of all groundnut acreage in the sample area. Igola-1 average yield
was 4.4bags/ farmer. Of significant difference (Table 4.21) was that adopters had bigger
households (HHSZ) than non-adopters and had a greater number of household members
providing farm labor (FMLBR). These improved variety adopters also did less broadcasting
than the non-adopters. Most Igola-1 farmers used close spacing. No differences existed
between adopters and non-adopters in terms of non-continuous variables.

Table 4.21: Characteristics of Adopters and Non-adopters of Improved Variety in
Groundnut Production Continuous variables
With Igola-1 Without Igola-1
Variables
Mean (n=163) Std. Dev. Mean (n=49) Std. Dev.

Sig.*
EDUC (Years) 5.712 3.839 5.327 3.832
0.539
FMSZ (Acres) 6.887 6.246 5.913 5.371
0.325
HHSZ (No. of people) 8.59 4.91 6.76 4.27
0.019
AGE (Years) 40.34 15.55 38.41 14.05
0.437
FMLBR (No. of people) 4.48 2.52 3.63 2.32
0.036
GNACRE (Acres) 1.78 1.27 1.67 1.03
0.579
TOTGNYD (Bags shelled) 6.87 5.20 5.99 5.67
0.309
FMEXP (Years) 21.37 14.04 18.88 11.80
0.260
* Testing for significant differences between adopters and non-adopters.

Pest incidence on groundnuts was fairly high, although little effort was put into controlling
them (Figure 4.4). The common practice for controlling weeds and diseases involved hand
removal of weeds and rouging out of diseased plants while 88% of control practices on
insect pests involved spraying the crop with pesticides (Table 4.22). The most reported



79

constraint to chemical use was the high knowledge requirement involved in the practice.
Figure 4.4 shows pest incidence and the relatively low level of control efforts. Note that
although insect incidence was highest, control practices were more focused on weeds. This
may not suggest that weed incidence was more severe, rather that weed control practices
were more accessible to farmers than other pest controls.

59.40%
65.10%
63.20%
24.60%
57.10%
7.40%
Weeds Insects Diseases
Pest and Disease Occurrence and Control
(Percent of Farmers reporting)
Incidence (%) Control efforts (%)

Figure 4.4: Pest occurrence and control

Table 4.22 below shows a comparative summary of pest occurrences and control efforts on
the three crops considered in this study in the study area.

Table 4.22 Comparison of pest occurrence and control efforts among sorghum, cowpea
and groundnut crops
Sorghum Cowpea Groundnuts

Crop
Incidence
(%)
Control
(%)
Incidence
(%)
Control
(%)
Incidence
(%)
Control
(%)
Insects 66.2 36.7
a
92.2 79.3
c
63.2 24.6
c

Diseases 40.0 17.9
a
93.3 15.4
c
57.1 7.4
a

Weeds 62.4 80.2
b
77.0 40.4
b
59.4 65.1
b

a
Predominantly rouging
b
Predominantly hand removal
c
Predominantly chemical spray




80

4.3 Adoption of IPM Practices - Multivariate Analysis
This section presents results of multivariate estimations in tabular form. Tables 4.23-4.25
give results of the estimations for sorghum, cowpea and groundnut adoption models
respectively. Model goodness-of-fit tests and model implications are presented in tables for
each model. The marginal probability is evaluated at the mean of the continuous variable
and mode of the non-continuous variables.

Correlation analysis (between quantitative variables) and measures of associations
(between qualitative variables) were run prior to logit regression modeling. Examination of
correlation coefficients and measures of association indicate that models were subject to
multicollinearity. For instance FMEXP (length of farming experience) was highly correlated
with relative length of farming experience RFMEXP (r=0.88) and AGE (r=0.87), and also
HHSZ (household size) was correlated with size of family labor FMLBR (r=0.73). Therefore,
RFMEXP, AGE and HHSZ were eliminated from models. Appendix Table E4 shows these
associations and variables retained for estimating logit models.

4.3.1 Multivariate analysis results: Sorghum
4.3.1.1 Fertilizer use (FTIS)
From Table 4.23a below, Wald tests show that three factors are significant in explaining
adoption of fertilizer in sorghum. Overall, the estimated model has a strong explanatory
power, as the included variables correctly predict 97.6% of the observations. The model
chi-square of 19.888 corresponds to a p-value of 0.001 [df=5]. This shows that the model
is significant, that variables in the model other than the intercept term are useful in
explaining fertilizer adoption.

The test of the null hypothesis that FTANY (fertilizer use on other crops) coefficient is zero
against the alternative hypothesis has a Wald test statistic of 7.474 corresponding to
p=0.006 therefore the null hypothesis is rejected in favor of the alternative. The sign of the
coefficient for FTANY is as expected. Based on this data set, on average using fertilizer on
other crops in the producers fields is likely to increase the probability of its use on
sorghum by 0.025. High labor requirement involved in fertilizer application does not
discourage its use as seen from the FTISLBR (fertilizer labor constraint) variables positive
coefficient.



81


Important to note is the sign of the coefficient on RSCH (information from researchers)
that suggests that information from researchers may be negatively associated with
fertilizer use. Farmers obtain information that the use of a high cost input on relatively low
value sorghum results in minimal net returns. Such information is more likely obtained
from researchers than from other sources, hence explaining the sign of the RSCH
coefficient. Neither gendered differentiated input acquisition (FTPURCH) nor size of land
holdings (FMSZ) had an effect on fertilizer adoption.

Table 4.23a Maximum Likelihood Estimates for Fertilizer (FTIS)Adoption Model
37

Logit Standard Significance
Variables Coefficient Errors Wald Odds Ratio Level
Marginal
Probability
Constant -3.916 1.556 6.333 0.020 0.012
FMSZ -0.204 0.203 1.009 0.815 0.315 -0.0002
FTISLBR 2.081 1.262 2.720 8.015 0.099 0.0077
FTANY 3.164 1.157 7.474 23.656 0.006 0.0246
FTPURCH 0.639 1.260 0.258 1.895 0.612 0.0010
RSCH -1.524 1.033 2.176 0.218 0.140 -0.0040
Goodness-of-fit tests
38

Initial 2log likelihood =54.491
-2log likelihood =34.603
Model chi-sq. =19.888 (0.001)[df=5]
Classification =97.6%
McFaddens R
2
=0.365
Iterations =7



4.3.1.2 Intercropping with Cel osi a
Results of the celosia adoption model in Table 4.23b indicate that five variables: gender
(GENDER), family labor (FMLBR), membership in farm organizations (BFMORG), disease
incidence (DZZ) and prior training in pest control (TRNNG) have a significant influence on
celosia adoption (at the 20% level). The model overall correctly predicts 91.0% of the
variations in the response and is highly significant (p=0.000).

The positive value on the gender coefficient indicates that males are more likely to adopt
this practice. Farmers prior training in pest control increased their likelihood of adopting
celosia strategies. The variable farm labor size (FMLBR) was significant at 1%. A one-
person increase in family labor multiplies the odds of adopting celosia by 0.792 (which is a

37
Because the level of adoption of this technology was extremely low only a few individually significant variables
from univariate estimation are used in the multivariate estimation (Amemiya, 1981, Hosmer and Lemeshow, 2000)
38
See section 3.3 for a description of goodness-of-fit tests



82

20.8% decrease in likelihood of adoption). There is a significant difference between
producers whose fields had disease occurrence DZZ(1) and those without DZZ(0). High
disease incidence in sorghum crops is negatively related to celosia adoption implying that
producers who do not adopt the practice would more likely have higher disease incidence
than those who adopt. The positive value on BFMORG indicates that membership in local
farm organizations increases the likelihood of adoption of celosia technologies.

Table 4.23b. Maximum Likelihood Estimates for ECAT (Celosia) Adoption Model

Variables

B

S.E.

Wald

Sig.

Exp(B)
Marginal
Probability
Constant -5.116 1.774 8.318 0.004 0.006
FMLBR -0.233 0.137 2.879 0.090 0.792 -0.0204
INFOSCES 0.248 0.216 1.317 0.251 1.281 0.0217
SKDOYD 0.124 0.269 0.212 0.646 1.131 0.0108
GENDER 1.937 0.660 8.623 0.003 6.939 0.0816
BFMORG 0.868 0.648 1.796 0.180 2.382 0.1604
ONFTR 0.770 0.643 1.432 0.231 2.159 0.1408
TRNNG 1.182 0.566 4.360 0.037 3.262 0.2273
INFNNF 0.405 1.303 0.097 0.756 1.500 0.0301
RSCH 1.361 1.186 1.316 0.251 3.898 0.0701
WEED (1) -0.692 0.594 1.359 0.244 0.501 -0.1255
WEED (2) 0.190 1.467 0.017 0.897 1.209 0.0333
DZZ (1)
39
-1.082 0.626 2.988 0.084 0.339 -0.2053
DZZ (2) -0.538 0.890 0.365 0.546 0.584 -0.0962

Goodness of fit tests
Initial 2log likelihood =149.261
-2log likelihood =100.721
Model chi-sq.=48.539 (0.000)[df=13],
Classification =91.0%,
McFaddens R
2
=0.325
Iterations=6

4.3.1.3 Crop Rotation
Influence of the explanatory variables on the probability of adopting crop rotation is shown
in Table 4.23c. This model containing eight variables correctly predicts 92.9% of the
variation in adoption probability. From Wald statistic tests, all economic variables except
pesticide use on other crops (PTANY) are significant at least at the 20% level. Insignificant
variables include borrowing potential of farmers (BFCP) and sources of information
(MEDIA and RSCH).

39
The reference category with dummy variables is the absence of the value category, that is, when the value of the
category is zero, that category is used as the reference, in this case, DZZ(0) represents farmers without disease
incidence and the other categories are compared with it. DZZ(1) variable compares farmers who had the disease
with those who did not.



83


INCMSC has a negative coefficient implying that having off-farm income sources reduces
the likelihood of adopting crop rotation by 65.8%. This conforms to this practices
relatively low resource requirements practicing crop rotation does not usually require
large cash outlays. As expected, high management requirements involved in crop rotation
(ROTNMGT) reduce this practices adoption. In addition, producers who adopted crop
rotation had lower weed incidences (WEED) than non-adopters. Switching from male farm
implement purchases to female-purchases (IMPLPURCH) has a positive effect on adoption
of the practice. When males purchase farm implements, the probability of adoption
decreases by 0.0185, ceteris paribus.

Table 4.23c. Maximum Likelihood Estimates for ROTN (Crop Rotation) Adoption Model
Variables B S.E Wald Exp(B) Significance Marginal
Probability
Constant 5.919 1.381 18.368 372.005 0.000
INCMSC -1.072 0.709 2.288 0.342 0.130 -0.0123
PTANY -0.589 0.580 1.030 0.555 0.310 -0.0052
IMPLPURC -1.367 0.650 4.420 0.255 0.036 -0.0185
BFCP -0.610 0.587 1.080 0.544 0.299 -0.0054
MEDIA -0.638 0.839 0.577 0.529 0.447 -0.0031
RSCH -0.450 0.712 0.400 0.638 0.527 -0.0023
ROTNMGT -1.090 0.615 3.143 0.336 0.076 -0.0126
WEED (1) -0.513 0.720 0.509 0.599 0.476 -0.0026
WEED (2) -1.955 1.151 2.883 0.142 0.090 -0.0377

Goodness-of-fit tests
Initial 2log likelihood =113.133
-2log likelihood =89.746
Model chi-sq.=23.387 (0.009) [df=9]
Classification =92.9%
McFaddens R
2
=0.207
Iterations=6

4.3.2 Multivariate analysis results: Cowpea
4.3.2.1 Early Planting
Four economic factors: pest (INSECT and WEED) occurrences that suggest the need for
pest control, availability of off-farm income sources (INCMSC) and seasonal labor
constraints (TPCPLBR) affect the adoption of timely planting. The other variables in the
model are not significant at the 20% level (Table 4.24a). The model correctly predicts
82.8% of the observations.




84

The positive coefficient on the WEED variable implies that a high weed incidence in
farmers plots may induce producers to practice timely planting as a control strategy,
increasing the probability of adoption by 0.043. There is a significant difference between
producers whose crop was not affected (WEED(1)) and those who do not know if insect
pests affected their crop (WEED(2)). Sowing is a labor-intensive agronomic practice. Thus
producers plant early to avoid the peak labor requirement season hence the positive
coefficient on TPCPLBR (seasonal labor constraints). Results also show that having off
farm sources of income (INCMSC) positively influences adoption of timely planting. As
measured by the marginal probability, insect incidence (INSECT) had the largest impact on
adoption of timely planting.

Table 4.24a. Maximum Likelihood Estimates for TPCP (Timely Planting) Adoption Model

Variables

B

S.E.

Wald

Sig.

Exp(B)
Marginal
Probability
Constant -1.198 1.031 1.349 0.245 0.302
FMEXP 0.017 0.014 1.373 0.241 1.017 0.0008
FMLBR -0.121 0.095 1.629 0.202 0.886 -0.0062
TOTCROPS -0.105 0.133 0.627 0.428 0.900 -0.0054
GENDER -0.327 0.398 0.672 0.412 0.721 -0.0195
INCMSC 0.614 0.440 1.952 0.162 1.848 0.0417
FTPURCH -1.081 1.114 0.941 0.332 0.339 -0.0353
IMPLPURCH -0.006 0.409 0.000 0.989 0.994 -0.0003
ONFTR 0.211 0.549 0.147 0.701 1.235 0.0119
TRNNG 0.577 0.474 1.479 0.224 1.781 0.0385
TPCPLBR 0.983 0.441 4.959 0.026 2.672 0.0788
TPCPLND 0.699 0.680 1.057 0.304 2.012 0.0493
INSECT (1) -0.434 0.567 0.584 0.445 0.648 -0.0271
INSECT (2) 2.250 1.374 2.684 0.101 9.489 0.2986
WEED (1) 0.632 0.423 2.228 0.136 1.881 0.0432
WEED (2) -0.922 0.755 1.492 0.222 0.398 -0.0320

Goodness-of-fit tests

Initial 2log likelihood =212.453
-2log likelihood =179.048
Model chi-sq. =33.405 (0.004) [df=15]
Classification =82.8%,
McFaddens R
2
=0.157
Iterations=4

4.3.2.2 Intercropping
In this model (Table 4.24b), from the Wald tests, four variables are significant at least at
the 20% level. The model correctly predicts 78.9% of the observations. The level of farmers
experience (FMEXP) is significant at 20%. FMEXP, a social factor, in many technology
studies is found to positively affect adoption. In the statistical sense, however, the



85

hypothesis is not supported in this adoption model. The marginal effect of FMEXP is
0.0029 implying that a one year increase in FMEXP decreases the probability of adoption
of intercropping by 0.29%. Two economic factors, fertilizer use on other crops (FTANY) and
weed incidences (WEED) are significant in predicting adoption of this practice. Fertilizer
use on other crops increases the odds of adoption of intercropping. The effect of this
variable is unexpected. However, since, intercropping involves growing cowpea with other
crops, fertilizer application may be for other components in the intercrop and not
necessarily for cowpea. A high incidence of weeds (WEEDS) on cowpea may influence
farmers to adopt intercropping practices as a weed control strategy.

Table 4.24b. Maximum Likelihood Estimates for ICCP (Intercropping) Adoption Model

Variables

B

S.E.

Wald

Sig.

Exp(B)
Marginal
Probability
Constant -3.072 1.023 9.011 0.003 0.046
FMEXP -0.021 0.014 2.135 0.144 0.980 -0.0029
TOTCROPS 0.111 0.105 1.115 0.291 1.118 0.0153
FTANY 0.908 0.687 1.750 0.186 2.480 0.1633
HIRE 0.643 0.606 1.126 0.289 1.903 0.0705
MEDIA 0.464 0.456 1.035 0.309 1.590 0.0542
ICCPLBR 0.070 0.390 0.032 0.858 1.072 0.0098
ICCPLND 0.770 0.716 1.157 0.282 2.160 0.1336
WEED (1) 0.749 0.381 3.874 0.049 2.116 0.1293
WEED (2) 0.796 0.518 2.361 0.124 2.217 0.1391

Goodness-of-fit tests
Initial 2log likelihood =225.248
-2log likelihood =209.132
Model chi-sq. =16.117 (0.064) [df=9]
Classification =78.9%,
McFaddens R
2
=0.072
Iterations=4

4.3.2.3 Improved Variety
From the Wald tests, three variables are important in explaining the Ebelat variety
adoption. The model correctly predicts 91.9% of the variations in the response. Having off-
farm income sources (INCMSC) increases the likelihood of adoption of improved cowpea
varieties (Table 4.24c). Information from informal sources including friends, NGOs and
neighbors (INFNNF) increase the probability of adoption by 0.17 while information from
researchers (RSCH) does not have the same effect. Information from Makerere University,
Ministry of Agriculture staff and farmers organizations (RSCH) had a negative impact on
adoption of Ebelat variety. Holding other factors constant, farmers membership in local



86

organizations (BFMORG), and their borrowing concerns (BFCP) were not related to their
decision to grow the improved Ebelat variety.

Table 4.24c. Maximum Likelihood Estimates for ICPV (Intercropping) Adoption Model

Variables B S.E. Wald Sig. Exp(B)
Marginal
Probability
Constant 2.271 1.293 3.084 0.079 9.693
FMLBR 0.120 0.114 1.111 0.292 1.127 0.0175
INCMSC 1.061 0.526 4.073 0.044 2.888 0.1081
BFMORG -0.310 0.554 0.312 0.576 0.734 -0.0499
IMPLPURCH 0.704 0.554 1.611 0.204 2.021 0.0811
BFCP -0.305 0.567 0.290 0.590 0.737 -0.0490
INFNNF 0.907 0.633 2.055 0.152 2.478 0.1710
RSCH -2.161 1.076 4.030 0.045 0.115 -0.1534

Goodness-of-fit tests
Initial 2log likelihood =122.674
-2log likelihood =104.956
Model chi-sq. =17.718 (0.013)[df=7]
Classification =91.9%
McFaddens R
2
=0.144
Iterations=6

4.3.3 Multivariate analysis results: Groundnut
4.3.3.1 Close spacing
From the Wald statistic test eight factors are significant in explaining the adoption of close
spacing. The model correctly predicts 68.9% of the variations in the response.

Membership in local farm organizations (BFMORG), having off-farm employment
(INCMSC), informal information sources (INFNNF), and growing the improved Igola-1
(IGNV) increase the likelihood of adoption of close spacing. Males are more likely to adopt
the practice while fertilizer use on other crops (FTANY) is negatively related to close
spacing. Producers ability to hire labor (HIRE) for farm operations involving close spacing
was positively significant at 20%. Land constraints (CLSPLND) had a positive effect on
practicing close spacing.




87

Table 4.25a. Maximum Likelihood Estimates for CLSP (Close spacing) Adoption Model

Variables B S.E. Wald Sig. Exp(B)
Marginal
Probability
Constant -1.786 0.773 5.336 0.021 0.168
IGOLAYD -0.037 0.053 0.496 0.481 0.963 -0.0222
GENDER 0.411 0.316 1.698 0.193 1.509 0.0745
INCMSC 0.890 0.335 7.049 0.008 2.436 0.1984
FTANY -1.236 0.824 2.250 0.134 0.291 -0.1692
BFMORG 0.792 0.377 4.420 0.036 2.208 0.1902
HIRE 0.636 0.485 1.720 0.190 1.888 0.0913
IGNV 1.081 0.458 5.564 0.018 2.948 0.1717
BFCP 0.052 0.359 0.021 0.885 1.053 0.0189
TRNNG 0.480 0.398 1.453 0.228 1.616 0.0865
INFNNF -0.732 0.475 2.377 0.123 0.481 -0.1558
RSCH -0.287 0.374 0.590 0.443 0.750 -0.0728
CLSPLBR -0.340 0.345 0.970 0.325 0.712 -0.1450
CLSPLND 0.676 0.465 2.114 0.146 1.966 0.1081

Goodness-of-fit tests
Initial 2log likelihood =287.751
-2log likelihood =253.436
Model chi-sq. =34.316 (0.001)[df=13]
Classification =69.8%
McFaddens R
2
=0.119
Iterations=3

4.3.3.2 Igola
In Table 5.25b below, results showed that all explanatory variables, except farmers
practice of close spacing (CLSP) and number of family members providing family labor
(FMLBR) were insignificant at the 20% level. The positive estimated coefficients of CLSP
and (FMLBR) imply that, ceteris paribus, adoption of Igola-1 is expected to be higher if
producers plant under high density and if the number of family members providing farm
labor increases. This result is nor surprising as for better performance of Igola-1, growing
it at high plant densities (close spacing) is necessary. This shows that the two IPM
technologies (CLSP and IGNV) are complementary.




88

Table 4.25b. Maximum Likelihood Estimates for IGNV (Igola) Adoption Model

Variables B S.E. Wald Sig. Exp(B)
Marginal
Probability
Constant 0.604 0.744 0.658 0.417 1.829
FMLBR 0.140 0.080 3.064 0.080 1.150 0.0309
INCMSC 0.365 0.354 1.064 0.302 1.441 0.0749
ONFTR 0.626 0.592 1.119 0.290 1.870 0.1210
INFNNF -0.547 0.590 0.860 0.354 0.578 -0.1077
RSCH 0.060 0.375 0.026 0.873 1.062 0.0133
CLSP 0.768 0.373 4.246 0.039 2.156 0.1433
DZZ (1) -0.126 0.423 0.089 0.765 0.881 -0.0283
DZZ (2) -0.507 0.509 0.992 0.319 0.602 -0.1196

Goodness-of-fit tests
Initial 2log likelihood =229.232
-2log likelihood =214.074
Model chi-sq. =15.158 (0.056)[df=8]
Classification =77.4%
McFaddens R
2
=0.066
Iterations=4

4.4 Adoption of IPM Practices - Model Fitting
While there may be many independent variables that could potentially be included in the
model, including all possible variables does not always lead to the best predictions. The
results shown below are an attempt to obtain the best fitting model while minimizing the
number of parameters through model selection procedures suggested by Hosmer and
Lemeshow (1989). Tables 4.26, 4.28 and 4.30 are aggregated summary tables of results of
this procedure for sorghum, cowpea and groundnut models respectively. Tables 4.27, 4.29
and 4.31 show summary statistics of respective goodness-of-fit tests.



89

4.4.1 Sorghum

Table 4.26. Maximum Likelihood Estimates for the fitted sorghum IPM Adoption Models
(FTIS, ECAT and ROTN)

Practice

Variable
Estimate
(B)
Std.
Error

Wald

Test Sig.

Exp(B)
Marginal
Probabilities
FTIS Constant -4.845 1.196 16.423 0.000 0.008
FTANY 3.255 1.013 10.322 0.001 25.922 0.0333
FTISLBR 2.294 1.218 3.546 0.060 9.913 0.0022
RSCH -1.737 1.006 2.983 0.084 0.176 -0.0064

ECAT Constant -4.538 1.176 14.885 0.000 0.011
FMLBR -0.253 0.137 3.428 0.064 0.776 -0.0224
GENDER 1.399 0.547 6.535 0.011 4.051 0.0721
BFMORG 0.888 0.540 2.702 0.100 0.411 0.1666
ONFTR 0.967 0.561 2.971 0.085 2.630 0.1831
TRNNG 1.493 0.517 8.342 0.004 4.451 0.3028
RSCH 2.008 1.068 3.534 0.060 7.446 0.0840

ROTN Constant 4.581 1.000 20.994 0.000 97.617
INCMSC -1.169 0.696 2.823 0.093 0.311 -0.0104
IMPLPURCH -1.345 0.636 4.473 0.034 0.260 -0.0132
ROTNMGT -1.083 0.595 3.316 0.069 0.339 -0.0091
WEED (2) -2.211 1.096 4.071 0.044 0.110 -0.0370

Table 4.27 Summary Goodness-of-fit tests for sorghum models
Sorghum Technologies
Statistic FTIS ECAT ROTN
Initial 2log likelihood 54.491 149.261 113.133
-2 log likelihood 36.960 109.334 93.398
Model Chi-sq
(p-value)
17.531
(0.001)
39.927
(0.000)
19.736
(0.003)
Percent Prediction 98.1% 91.0% 92.9%
McFaddens R
2
0.32 0.267 0.174

Comparing Table 4.23a and Table 4.26 shows that by refitting the fertilizer adoption model
the correct percent prediction increases by 0.5%, and the Wald tests show that all retained
variables are significant at =0.1. The overall model is highly significant (p=0.001). The
fitted ECAT and ROTN models do not show an improvement in correctly predicted
responses. However, since they contain fewer variables they are better since they are less
costly in terms of data collection
40
and in simplicity compared to the full models.


40
For the current study, the cost of data collection including all variables is considered a sunk cost. However, for
future research on these technologies, results of this procedure are important.



90

The retained variables do not show any change in direction of effect, that is, they retain
the same sign. However, the magnitude of their effect changes. In the fitted fertilizer
adoption model, the effects of variables FTANY and RSCH are enhanced while the effect of
farm labor (FMLBR) decreases. For the crop rotation model, all variables retained exerted a
reduced effect. In the fitted celosia adoption model, the effect of gender was diminished
while the other variables exerted an increased effect in the fitted model compared to the
full model.

4.4.2 Cowpea
Table 4.28. Maximum Likelihood Estimates for the Fitted cowpea IPM Adoption Models
(TPCP, ICCP and ICPV)

Practice

Variable

Estimate
Std.
Error
Chi-Square
Statistic
Test Sig.
Exp(B)
Marginal
Probability
TPCP Constant -1.453 0.644 5.082 0.024 0.234
FMEXP 0.024 0.014 3.178 0.075 1.025 0.0033
FMLBR -0.153 0.085 3.216 0.073 0.858 -0.0212
TPCPLBR 0.885 0.386 5.250 0.022 2.423 0.1597
INSECT (2) 2.634 1.338 3.874 0.049 13.924 0.5692
WEED (1) 0.752 0.402 3.504 0.061 2.121 0.1312

ICCP Constant -2.150 0.826 6.774 0.009 0.116
FMEXP -0.025 0.014 3.296 0.069 0.976 -0.0032
TOTCROPS 0.136 0.102 1.769 0.184 1.145 0.0175
WEED (1) 0.841 0.371 5.142 0.023 2.318 0.1416
WEED (2) 0.869 0.508 2.929 0.087 2.384 0.1472

ICPV Constant 2.882 1.220 5.584 0.018 17.846
INFNNF 1.016 0.602 2.846 0.092 2.762 0.0606
RSCH -2.185 1.045 4.369 0.037 0.112 -0.3935

Table 4.29 Summary Goodness-of-fit tests for cowpea models
Cowpea Technologies
Statistic TPCP ICCP ICPV
Initial 2log likelihood 212.453 225.248 122.674
-2 log likelihood 186.869 214.466 111.189
Model Chi-sq 25.584
(0.001)
10.782
(0.029)
11.189
(0.011)
Percent Prediction 81.3% 77.5% 91.4%
McFaddens R
2
0.12 0.048 0.091

At 10% all five variables of the TPCP model are significant. The fitted model correctly
predicts 81.3% of the variation in adoption and is significant at 0.1%. The full model has a
higher correct prediction percentage. On grounds of goodness-of-fit tests, the fitted model
might be said to be a poorer model than the full model. However, for practical



91

considerations this five-variable model performs better than the 16-variable model (Table
4.24a). The eight-variable full ICCP model has a correct classification of 78.9% which is
only 1.4% higher than that for the smaller fitted model. The fitted model is still significant
and is hence better in terms of data collection cost than the full model. Fitting the ICPV
model with just three variables results in a lower model chi-sq, but higher percent
classification. This is a better model than the full model and significance is higher
(p=0.011).

In this analysis no change in directional effects of the retained variables is noticed. The
effect of all variables in the fitted TPCP and ICCP models is enhanced while in the ICPV
model the effect of informal information (INFNNF) is reduced while that of researcher
information (RSCH) is enhanced.

4.4.3 Groundnuts

Table 4.30. Maximum Likelihood Estimates for the groundnut IPM Adoption Models
(CLSP, IGNV)

Practice

Variable
Estimate
(B)
Std.
Error
Chi-Square
Statistic
Test
Sig

Exp(B)
Marginal
Effects
CLSP Constant -2.019 0.460 19.260 0.000 0.133
INCMSC 0.795 0.320 6.187 0.013 2.215 0.1922
FTANY -1.349 0.808 2.790 0.095 0.260 -0.2191
BFMORG 0.900 0.322 7.817 0.005 2.459 0.2183
IGNV 0.844 0.377 5.015 0.025 2.325 0.1568
GENDER 0.487 0.304 2.561 0.110 1.627 0.0985

IGNV Constant 0.196 0.359 0.298 0.585 1.216
FMLBR 0.154 0.077 3.972 0.046 1.166 0.0322
ONFTR 0.690 0.574 1.448 0.229 1.994 0.1225
CLSP 0.850 0.364 5.452 0.020 2.340 0.1444

Table 4.31 Summary Goodness-of-fit tests for groundnut models
Groundnut Technologies
Statistic CLSP IGNV
Initial 2log likelihood 287.751 229.232
-2 log likelihood -261.714 216.734
Model Chi-sq 26.038
(0.000)
12.498
(0.006)
Percent Prediction 67.9 76.9%
McFaddens R
2
0.09 0.05

The fitted CLSP model contains 3 variables significant at 5%. This model is highly
significant [Model Chi-sq is 26.038 (p=0.000)]. Percent correct prediction is lower in the



92

fitted model by 1.9%. Two variables in the fitted IGNV model are significant at the 5% level
and percent correct prediction is lower than that for the full model by 0.5%.

The effect of the retained variables in the fitted IGNV model is increased compared to the
full model. With the CLSP model, the retained variables have a mixed effect. The impact of
variables FTANY (fertilizer use), BFMORG (membership in farmers organizations) and
GENDER are increased, while that of INCMSC (sources of off-farm income) and IGNV
(growing Igola-1) is reduced.

4.5 Technology adoption indices.
Table 4.32 below gives simple summary statistics of technology adoption indices.
Table 4.32 Distribution of technologies
Description Sorghum (n=210) Cowpea (n=209) Groundnuts (n=212)
Non-
Adoption
either
technology
No sorghum technology
adopted (n=15)
No cowpea technology
adopted (n=14)
No groundnut
technology adopted
(n=36)
One Tech Any one of (celosia,
fertilizer use, crop
rotation) technologies
adopted (n=166)
Any one of (improved
variety, intercropping,
Timely planting)
technologies adopted
(n=116)
Any one of (close
spacing, improved
variety) technologies
adopted (n=101)
Two Tech Any combination of two
technologies adopted
(n=29)
Any combination of two
technologies adopted
(n=70)
Two technologies
adopted (n=75)
Three Tech Three technologies
adopted (n=0)
Three technologies
adopted (n=9)
Three technologies
adopted (n=0)

Variables for the cumulative logit models were obtained using procedures explained in
Fig 3.4.

Table 4.33 Cumulative Logit Model Estimates for Adoption of ONETECH and
TWOTECH Sorghum Technologies

Variables

Estimate

Std. Error

Chi Sq

Sig.
Odds
Ratio
Marginal
Probability
INTERCEPT =2 -2.892 1.050 7.584 0.006 0.055
INTERCEPT =1 1.895 1.033 3.362 0.067 6.653
GENDER 0.579 0.362 2.560 0.110 1.784 0.1275
BFMORG 0.595 0.427 1.943 0.163 1.813 0.1471
BFCP -0.798 0.406 3.876 0.049 0.450 -0.1684
ONFTR 0.427 0.520 0.673 0.412 1.533 0.1053
TRNNG 0.809 0.429 3.560 0.059 2.246 0.1995
WEED (1) -1.277 0.956 1.785 0.182 0.279 -0.2419




93

From the analysis above in Table 4.33, only the variable ONFTR (participation of farmers
in on-farm trials) does not have a significant effect on adoption of TWOTECH and
ONETECH, but variables BFMORG (membership in farmers organizations), GENDER,
TRNNG (prior training in pest control) and WEED (weed incidence) do at the 20% level.

The 2 fitted regression lines are as follows:
Logit(p
1
) = 1.895 +0.579GENDER +0.595BFMORG - 0.798BFCP +
+0.81TRNNG-1.28WEED
Logit(p
1
+p
2
) = -2.892 +0.579GENDER +0.595BFMORG - 0.798BFCP +
+0.81TRNNG-1.28WEED

Where p
1
is the probability of adoption of any one sorghum technology and p
2
is the
probability of adoption of two technologies. Positive coefficients on the variable BFMORG
indicate that farmers membership in farm organizations is associated with increased
adoption of at least one sorghum technology. Estimated odds of 1.81 for this variable
indicate that the likelihood of adoption increase almost two-fold when farmers belong to
organizations than when they do not. The adoption of TWOTECH and ONETECH decline
when the availability of crop financing (BFCP) increases, that is, when producers switch
from not borrowing, to borrowing for crop production, adoption decreases. The positive
coefficient on TRNNG variable indicates that the more training farmers obtain, the more
likely they are to adopt one or two IPM sorghum technologies.

The likelihood ratio test statistic is equal to 24.9887, which corresponds to a p-value of
0.0003 hence the model is significant.

Table 4.34 Cumulative Logit Model Estimates for Adoption of ONETECH TWOTECH
and THREETECH Cowpea Technologies

Variables

Estimate

Std. Error

Chi Sq.

Sig.
Odds
Ratio
Marginal
Probability
INTERCEPT =3 -7.191 1.202 35.764 0.000 0.0007
INTERCEPT=2 -3.770 1.146 10.821 0.001 0.0231
NTERCEPT =1 -0.754 1.090 0.478 0.489 0.4705
FMLBR -0.110 0.059 3.522 0.061 0.8958 -0.00000
EBACRE 0.632 0.227 7.741 0.005 1.8814 0.00006
ONFTR 0.378 0.399 0.897 0.343 1.4594 0.00005
TPCPLBR 0.618 0.322 3.679 0.055 1.8552 0.00047
TPCPLND 2.009 0.589 11.624 0.001 7.4559 0.00006
INSECT 2.028 0.997 4.138 0.042 7.5989 0.00006




94

From Table 4.34, at the 20% level, Chi square tests show that participation in on-farm
trials (ONFTR) is not significant in explaining the adoption of various levels of cowpea
technologies. However, availability of family labor (FMLBR), the acreage in improved variety
(EBACRE), insect incidence (INSECT) and labor and land constraints at the time of
planting (TPCPLBR and TPCPLND) are significant in explaining the three levels of cowpea
technology adoption. The negative coefficient on FMLBR (the availability of farm labor on
farms) indicates that the variable is associated with reduced adoption of any cowpea
technology.

Fitted logit models are thus:
Logit(p
1
) = -0.754- 0.110FMLBR +0.632EBACRE +0.378ONFTR
+0.618TPCPLBR+2009TPCPLND +2028INSECT
Logit(p
1+
p
2
) = -3.770- 0.110FMLBR +0.632EBACRE +0.378ONFTR
+0.618TPCPLBR+2009TPCPLND +2028INSECT
Logit(p
1
+p
2
+p
3
) =-7.191 - 0.110FMLBR +0.632EBACRE +0.378ONFTR
+0.618TPCPLBR+2009TPCPLND +2028INSECT

Table 4.35 Cumulative Logit Model Estimates for Adoption of ONETECH and TWOTECH
Groundnut Technologies

Variables

Estimate

Std. Error

Chi Sq.

Sig.

Odds Ratio
Marginal
Probability
INTERCEPT =2 -1.897 0.464 16.708 0.000 0.150
INTERCEPT =1 0.671 0.441 2.318 0.128 1.956
IGOLAYD 0.243 0.054 20.052 0.000 1.275 0.0548
INCMSC 0.826 0.290 8.104 0.004 2.284 0.2010
BFMORG 0.775 0.338 5.241 0.022 2.171 0.1883
ONFTR -0.144 0.428 0.113 0.737 0.866 -0.0317
RSCH 0.153 0.310 0.244 0.621 1.165 0.0336
CLSPLBR -0.390 0.300 1.694 0.193 0.677 -0.0924

Based on the Chi square test, at the 0.05 level RSCH and ONFTR do not have a significant
effect on the probability of adoption of ONETECH and TWOTECH. In this model, higher
yield of Igola-1 (IGOLAYD) is positively related to adoption of groundnut pest control
technologies. Availability of off-farm income (INCMSC) and farmers membership in farm
organizations (BFMORG) positively influences their adoption of technologies.

From Table 4.35 the odds ratio indicate that the likelihood of adoption of two technologies
(TWOTECH) versus adoption of one (ONETECH) or none (ZERO TECH) increase by 27.5%



95

for a unit increase in yield of the improved variety (IGOLAYD). This is also true for
likelihood of adopting two or one technology versus adoption of none.

The fitted logit models are thus:
Logit(p
1
) = 0.671+0.243IGOLAYD+0.826INCMSC+0.775BFMORG-
0.390CLSPLBR
Logit(p
1
+p
2
) =-1.897+0.243IGOLAYD+0.826INCMSC+0.775BFMORG-
0.390CLSPLBR

The model with the independent variables included is significant. The likelihood ratio test
statistic of 46.66 corresponds to a p-value less than 0.0001 indicating that variables in the
model were important in explaining adoption.
4.6 Summary
Based on both univariate and multivariate estimations, measures of the overall fit of
estimated equations are relatively high. Results show that the variables included in each
model explain the variability of the dependent variables, as shown by the values of the
McFaddens R
2
. In addition, the correctly predicted percent is high, ranging from 69.8% to
97.6%. Overall, models were significant at the 0.05 level (except ICCP and IGNV,
significant at the 0.1 level). For both univariate and multivariate models however,
coefficients of many variables are not different from zero (at the 0.05 level), as shown by
the Wald tests.

The model fitting procedures attempted to find the most important variables explaining
adoption. From section 4.4, some models performed relatively poorly in terms of goodness-
of-fit in relation to the full model. For these models (with the exception of Ebelat adoption
model (ICPV), crop rotation adoption model (ROTN) and Igola-1 adoption models (IGNV)),
the McFaddens R
2
and the correctly predicted percentage was lower than the full models.

The overall significance of the fitted models was improved ranging from p=0.000 to
p=0.029. These fitted models (Tables 4.26, 4.28 and 4.30) have substantially fewer
variables, yield better estimates of the effect of the significant variables and therefore are
empirically better than the full more complex models in Tables 4.23-4.25. The results
indicate the importance of parsimony that emphasis needs to be placed only on a few
important variables, as this is less costly in terms of data collection.



96

Chapter 5 Discussion and Conclusions
5.1 Introduction
This chapter summarizes the study, gives policy implications and recommendations for
future research. Section 5.2 gives the summary of objectives of the research, and the
thrust of the thesis. Section 5.3 summarizes analytical methods used and a comparison of
these methods, while section 5.4 and 5.5 give a summary of level of adoption and
discussion of factors affecting IPM technology adoption. Section 5.6 presents policy
implications and study highlights. Section 5.7 provides implications for further research.

5.2 Summary of Thesis
Improper use of pesticides in controlling pests on crops can cause adverse effects on
humans and livestock through ingestion, inhalation and contact; degradation of soils,
water, and the general environment wherein it acts as a non-point pollution source.
Integrated pest management practices emphasize minimal use of pesticides in controlling
pests on farmers fields. Thus the adoption of IPM can reduce the use of pesticides and
their accompanying problems. In addition IPM has been commended for its role in
increasing farm production, net farm incomes and environmental benefits. In general, IPM
methods have been demonstrated to be profitable. The introduction of IPM CRSP activities
in Uganda to institutionalize IPM methods as pest control practices focused mainly on
sorghum, cowpea and groundnuts. These crops have priority status in terms of
agricultural area devoted to their production and their production levels.

Among the technologies encouraged to control striga on sorghum were intercropping the
crop with celosia argentia, fertilizer application and crop rotation with legumes; while in
controlling several cowpea pests including aphids (A. craccivora), blister beetles (Epicauta
spp.), pod-borers (M. testularis), thrips (M. sjostedti) and leafhoppers, intercropping the
crop with cereals, close spacing, defoliation and timely planting were identified as potential
methods. In groundnut production, planting at high plant densities and growing improved
Igola-1 were methods found to control groundnut rosette virus (GRV) and cercospora leaf
spot (Cercospora arachidicola), the two being the most important diseases affecting
groundnuts in Uganda.




97

The emphasis of this study was to determine the level of IPM technology adoption and the
economic, social, management and institutional factors that influence farmers decision to
adopt these practices. In Uganda, where pests are the leading cause of crop loss, this
study is important in a number of ways:

(i) The adoption of the integrated pest management technologies acts as a measure of
success of IPM CRSP research efforts. Thus, establishing the level of adoption of
these technologies indicates to IPM researchers farmers preferences of alternative
pest control practices. This might suggest to program administrators ways to direct
IPM research efforts to those preferred practices to enhance their increased
adoption.

(ii) Determining the unsuccessful IPM strategies could contribute to increased research
on reducing problems associated with those IPM practices and enhance their
adoption.

(iii) IPM practices, like other technologies, are not introduced in a vacuum: the
intended adopters have their own pest control systems. Their pest control practices
are expected to change upon introduction of IPM technologies. In order to effectively
introduce technologies requires that researchers understand the social, economic
and management factors of targeted adopters and the institutional characteristics
that may either inhibit or enhance IPM adoption. Such an understanding might
highlight the importance of integrating effective management, social and economic
aspects of the introduced IPM program into farmers current farming systems.

Results from this study may be important in explaining adoption of similar technologies in
other areas with similar economic, social and other characteristics.

Chapter 2 presented background information on the agricultural and research system in
Uganda. It also reviewed literature pertaining to studies establishing factors affecting
agricultural technology. The review of literature revealed an extensive number of studies
related to adoption of technologies mainly in developed countries. Limited studies on
adoption of agricultural technologies in Uganda were found, and in particular the body of
literature on factors regarding IPM adoption was generally lacking. The review revealed



98

many factors related to technology adoption elsewhere, pointing to the importance of
incorporating them in IPM adoption studies in the Ugandan context.
5.3 Summary of Methods:
Using a pre-tested questionnaire, primary data was collected from 212 farmers in sixteen
villages in eight parishes in Kumi district, Eastern Uganda. Simple statistics on the data
and testing for multicollinearity problems was done prior to advanced econometric
modeling. SPSS and SAS statistical packages were used to run univariate and multivariate
analyses. Univariate analysis established whether there were significant differences
between adopters and non-adopters in terms of various characteristics. Multivariate logit
analysis was deemed appropriate to use to model farmers decisions to adopt or not to
adopt. Ordered logit estimation was done to find the factors that are responsible in
explaining varying levels of adoption. Model fitting procedures attempted to find the
smallest model that best explained adoption. Using marginal probabilities, the most
influential factors affecting each technology adoption pattern were determined.

Important to note is that the three procedures resulted in approximately the same
outcomes. For a given model, variables from either procedure retained the same sign on
their coefficients (although different in magnitude) indicating a similar effect on the
response regardless of the method used. Thus, conclusions drawn from each method apply
to all methods employing the same model. However the above analytical methods
progressively yielded smaller models and for practical considerations, smaller models,
which are generally less costly in terms of data collection, are preferable. Thus, results of
model fitting procedures were considered most appropriate and were discussed.
5.4 Summary of Level of IPM Adoption:
Figure 5.1 shows levels of adoption of the eight IPM practices studied.
41
.
SORGHUM COWPEA GROUNDNUT
Practice % Practice % Practice %
FTIS 3 TPCP 21 CLSP 12
ECAT 11 ICCP 23 IGNV 77
ROTN 92 ICPV 91
Fig 5.1 Levels of IPM Adoption


41
In Figure 5.1 FTIS, ECAT, ROTN, TPCP, ICCP, ICPV, CLSP and IGNV are the IPM practices: fertilizer use in
sorghum, intercropping with celosia, crop rotation, timely planting, intercropping cowpea with cereals, growing
improved cowpea varieties, close spacing and growing an improved groundnut variety respectively.



99

The level of adoption was measured as the percent of farmers taking on a particular
practice. Farmers in the study area generally tended not to apply fertilizers on sorghum.
The high expense involved in fertilizer input purchase may be a limiting factor in its wide
adoption. In terms of marketability, sorghum is considered a low-value crop, and use of an
expensive input would not be consistent with economic rationality of producers decision
making.

Intercropping with sorghum with celosia and other weed chasers also had a low level of
adoption. Eleven percent of farmers intercrop the sorghum crop with weed chasers.
However, considering the short time span since the release of this technology, the 11%
level of adoption might be an indicator of the attractiveness of this technology.
Consequently in time its adoption rate might be quite high.

Both crop rotations involving legumes and intercropping with cereals are considered
indigenous practices. These practices are important in providing carbohydrates and
proteins in alternate seasons or in the same growing season, in improving soil conditions
in addition to reducing pest populations. Twenty three percent and 92% of farmers in the
study area practiced intercropping and crop rotation respectively, suggesting a low
preference for intercropping as compared to crop rotation.

Timely planting involves planting early at the on-set of rains. The importance of this
practice was explained above. Twenty one percent of cowpea farmers planted early. This
level of adoption is the lowest of the three cowpea pest technologies, the highest being 91%
with improved cowpea variety adoption.

Reasons for having high plant density groundnut plots were presented. Close spacing
involved measuring plant-to-plant distance both within rows and between rows. Twelve
percent of farmers practiced close spacing in groundnut production.

The highest levels of adoption were registered with crop rotation and improved varieties of
cowpea and groundnut. Ninety two percent, 91% and 77% of farmers practiced crop
rotation, grew Ebelat and Igola-1 respectively.



100

5.5 Summary of Factors Affecting Adoption:
To summarize the factors affecting IPM adoption requires revisiting the hypotheses of the
study in chapter 1. Results of hypothesis tests vary depending on the technology.
Hypothesis 1 stated that cost of a technology was negatively associated with IPM adoption.
In this study, the direct cost of a technology was not important in explaining its adoption.
However, test of this hypothesis through proxies such as labor, land and skill availability
showed mixed effects of these variables depending on technology. Labor constraints at
planting time positively influenced timely planting while availability of fertilizer as input
positively influenced its adoption in sorghum but negatively influenced the adoption of
close spacing in groundnuts. The availability of off-farm income to farmers had mixed
effect on adoption. It was positively related to adoption of close spacing but negatively with
adoption of crop rotation. Hypothesis two stated that the size of farm holdings positively
influences adoption does not hold true. Farm size was not important in IPM adoption. The
level of education did not show significance with adoption. Hypothesis three is proved
correct in the intercropping model but the reverse holds true with the timely planting
model. The size of household labor force negatively influences celosia adoption but
positively affects growing improved cowpea and groundnut varieties. Hypothesis four holds
true for all technologies except for celosia adoption model.
Practice Economic Social Management Institutional
Sorghum FTIS FTANY+ RSCH-
ECAT FMLBR- GENDER+ ONFTR+ RSCH+
DZZ- TRNNG+
ROTN WEED- IMPLPURCH-
INCMSC-
Cowpea ICCP WEED+ FMEXP-
ICPV INFNNF+
RSCH-
TPCP WEED+ FMEXP+
INSECT+
TPCPLBR+
Groundnut IGNV FMLBR+
CLSP INCMSC+ BFMORG+
FTANY- IGNV+
ONFTR+
Fig 5.2 Factors Affecting IPM Technology Adoption




101

Figure 5.2 above
42
gives a summary of significant factors affecting IPM adoption (using
=0.1)
a) Economic factors:
Two economic factors affect fertilizer adoption in sorghum. Fertilizer use on other crops
(FTANY) in the farmers cropping system promotes its use in sorghum. This is in fact the
most influential factor in fertilizer adoption as gauged from the high value of its marginal
probability. The positive coefficient on the variable representing labor constraints in
fertilizer use (FTISLBR) is unexpected as it indicates that high labor requirements involved
in fertilizer use do not negatively influence its adoption.

Economic factors that are important in explaining adoption of celosia and other Striga
chasers include availability of farm labor and disease incidence, both factors affecting
adoption negatively. High availability of unpaid family labor (FMLBR) negatively affects
adoption of celosia technologies. The negative sign on the disease variable (DZZ) shows the
positive relationship between celosia adoption and disease control, that is, farmers who
adopt celosia have a low level of disease as they are more likely to be actively engaged in
disease control on their farms.

In the sorghum crop rotation model, 80% of the significant variables are economic factors.
The most important variable explaining the adoption of crop rotation was weed incidence.
The negative sign of the coefficients for the weed variable (WEED) imply that farmers who
adopt crop rotation are less prone to experience weed problems. This variable is a proxy for
the level of expected benefits from adoption of a technology. Availability of off-farm income
(INCMSC) acts as a hindrance to adoption of crop rotation. That is, farmers with more
income appear to prefer to use their finances in other practices other than crop rotation.
High management time requirements involved in crop rotation (ROTNMGT) also act as a
barrier to this practices adoption.

A number of economic factors are important in IPM adoption in cowpea production. Crop
losses due to high pest incidences (WEED and INSECT) provide an incentive for pest
control through practicing timely planting. In addition labor constraints at planting time

42
The sign on each variable indicates the direction of each factor on adoption of IPM practices. FTANY, FMLBR,
DZZ, WEED, INSECT, INCMSC, TPCPLBR, GENDER, FMEXP, ONFTR, IMPLPURCH, RSCH and TRNNG
respectively are the variables: Fertilizer use on other crops, size of family labor resource, disease, weed and insect
incidence, availability of off-farm income, labor constraint at time of planting, sex of farmer is male, length of
farming experience, on-farm trial participation, male-driven input purchase decisions, information from researchers
and farmers prior attainment of pest control training.



102

(TPCPLBR) induce farmers to plant early to avoid peak labor demands. This is important to
ensure the cowpea crop reaches maturity before the pest populations peak.
Intercropping cowpea with cereals is positively influenced by weed incidence (WEED) in the
cowpea plots implying that perhaps, as a weed control strategy, farmers who experience
high weed incidences are induced to intercrop. Farmers growing many crops (TOTCROPS)
perceive the need to intercrop cowpea as a way of reducing land availability constraints;
hence it is probable that they practice intercropping both as a land-saving technology and
as a pest control strategy.

None of the economic factors examined in the study were related to improved cowpea
adoption. In groundnuts, close spacing was positively influenced by availability of off-farm
income (INCMSC), but negatively by use of fertilizer on other crops (FTANY). High farm
labor availability (FMLBR) positively influences adoption of the improved groundnut
variety.

b) Social factors:
Social factors were generally not related to sorghum technology adoption except celosia.
The positive coefficient on the gender variable (GENDER) indicates that males were more
likely to adopt celosia than females. In groundnut production the gender variable was
positively associated with practicing close spacing.

Farm experience (FMEXP) positively influenced timely planting of cowpea. Farmers with
accumulated farming experience probably acquire knowledge of seasonal changes that
signal the approaching sowing season and thus prepare resources necessary for sowing. In
addition, these farmers may have acquired encouraging returns from the practice and thus
continue with it anticipating continued benefits. Both these aspects could influence
farmers inclination to plant at the on-set of rains. On the other hand, accumulated
farming experience acted as a barrier to intercropping cowpea with cereal crops. It is
probable that past experience with poor performance of cowpea intercrops may discourage
increased practice of intercropping.

c) Management related factors:
In the fertilizer model, management factors played no significant role, while with celosia,
farmers participation in on-farm trials (ONFTR) increased the likelihood of the practices



103

adoption in sorghum. In the crop rotation model, when males purchase implements
(IMPLPURCH) the probability of practicing crop rotation in sorghum reduces, as seen from
this variables negative coefficient.

None of the management factors analyzed in this study were related to cowpea technology
adoption. In groundnut production, however, results show that adoption of close spacing
was induced by farmers membership in organizations, participation in on-farm
demonstrations, and the variety farmers grew. Farmers who grow the improved groundnut
variety or belong to farmers organizations are more inclined to practice close spacing.
Ideas obtained from farmers organizations may be related to planting at high plant density
because of the benefits gained from either improved yields or from less pest pressure on
the close spaced crop.

d) Institutional factors:
In sorghum models, three institutional factors affect the adoption of celosia and fertilizer
adoption. Information from researchers does not positively influence farmers to use
fertilizer, while it has a pronounced positive effect on celosia adoption. In addition,
attaining pest control training increases the probability of celosia adoption

Adoption of improved Ebelat cowpea variety does not seem to be positively influenced by
information from researchers. This finding is not unexpected. Growing an improved
cowpea variety as a pest control strategy was not an IPM recommendation in the study
area (see Section 3.4.4). This technology was included in this analysis to examine how
responsive farmers were of other potential technological changes. Nonetheless, farmers
access to informal sources of information like friends, neighbors and others had a positive
effect on the likelihood of this technologys adoption. Groundnut technologies were
generally not affected by institutional factors.

5.6 Policy Implications and Conclusions
Results from this analysis reinforce similar findings by other researchers. That labor is
important in adoption models is evident in Bartel and Lichtenberg (1987) and in Green
and Ngongola (1993) among others. Bartel and Lichtenberg (1987) found that it is not the
availability of labor, but rather how skilled the labor is that would be important in
technology adoption. In their study of factors affecting fertilizer adoption in Malawi, Green



104

and Ngongola (1993) found that the availability of regular labor positively influenced a
practices adoption.

Farm labor availability in this study positively influenced growing of improved groundnut
variety Igola-1. This variable was positively correlated with household size suggesting that
a big household yielded a large family labor force. In general, big households have larger
food demands than smaller ones. The improved disease-resistant varieties were also high
yielding. Therefore the high involvement of family members in growing high yielding
varieties is consistent with households food consumption requirements.

The most influential variables in celosia adoption are institutional/ informational factors,
including farmers access to information from researchers and training in pest control
activities. These services have been part of an ongoing IPM CRSP study involving farmer
field schools. The big influence they have suggests that continuing and/ or intensifying
their activities would further enhance technology adoption.

Another important factor with a positive influence on celosia technology adoption was
farmers participation in on-farm trial demonstrations. It should be noted that celosia
technology is largely a new technology, and farmers are likely to attach a higher risk
premium on such a technology than on the more indigenous practices. Its adoption is
thus expected to be enhanced more through farmers having hands-on experience than
would be the case with the more indigenous technologies. This suggests that the
introduction of such exotic practices should be preceded by encouraging higher farmer
participation in on-farm trial demonstrations as a means of increasing farmers practical
experience with the introduced technologies.

The most important variable that was related to fertilizer use in sorghum was the
availability of fertilizer for use on other crops (FTANY) with the largest associated change in
probability. This variable is a measure of farmers willingness to pay for a high cost input
in production. The positive sign of the variable implies that availability of fertilizer input
for the producers other crops would benefit the sorghum crop in terms of pest control if
adopted in sorghum production.

The positive effect that the variable off-farm income (INCMSC) had on adoption of close
spacing highlights how essential availability of non-farm earnings may be in financing the



105

purchase of inputs necessary for practicing close spacing. Results also showed that
females were more inclined to borrow to finance crop production than males. In the event
that the borrowed capital is directed to purchasing these inputs, then providing accessible
credit to women farmers would enhance the adoption of this practice.

Males were more likely than females to adopt celosia technology. Celosia technology is an
exotic control method and accessibility to such technologies is mostly a preserve for males.
To change this, programs that target both gender groups would be necessary to ensure
equitable adoption of practices between males and females.

None of the management factors analyzed in the study were related to cowpea technology
adoption. This suggests that high managerial capacity of farmers may not be an important
aspect in efforts to disseminate cowpea technologies. Management factors in several
studies (McNamara, Wetzstein, and Douce, 1991; Waller et al., 1998) were found to hinder
technology adoption. In the latter study the more intensive management effort required for
integrated pest management hindered potato farmers from adopting these technologies.
The finding here that management factors do not play an important role in cowpea
technology adoption implies that introduction of cowpea IPM technology in Uganda can
take place regardless of cowpea farmers managerial capability.
43


Many factors that were theoretically hypothesized to be influential in explaining adoption
patterns of technologies showed no relationship with the dependent variable. Farmers
perception of the harmful effect of chemicals did not influence farmers decisions in regard
to IPM technology adoption. This is in spite of farmers high knowledge about this issue. A
plausible explanation would be that these farmers do not consider environmental and
health impacts important considerations when choosing farming practices. A similar result
was also found in the analysis of adoption of non-chemical methods for controlling olive
pests in Albania (Daku, 2002). Educational programs geared to increasing awareness
about the effects of chemicals and the effectiveness of alternative methods of pest control
could transform this attitude and hence influence farmers to adopt IPM practices.


43
Recall: Factors under this broad category of management included ability for farmers to borrow for crop
production, membership in farmers organizations, input purchase decision making, and participation in on-farm
trial demonstrations.



106

The level of education was not an important factor in explaining adoption. The variable
EXTS (contacts of farmers with extension personnel) showed multicollinearity with other
variables and was eliminated in models. This is not to say that this factor does not
influence technology adoption. The variable that it was correlated with: accessibility to
information from Makerere University and Ministry of Agriculture researchers (RSCH) was
important in explaining adoption of fertilizer, improved cowpea variety and celosia. In
studies on adoption of sweep net and treatment thresholds in Texas (Harper et al, 1990),
producers contacts with extension were significant but negative in their effect on
technology adoption. In this study, the effect of information from researchers (RSCH) on
adoption of fertilizer and improved cowpea variety was negative.

The effect of size of farm holdings (FMSZ) was unimportant in adoption decisions. A study
analyzing factors affecting adoption of new bean varieties in Uganda found a similar result
(Mugisa-Mutetikka, 2000). In the current study, in the fertilizer adoption model where this
variable was not eliminated at the preliminary analysis stage, its effect was negative
(although insignificant). That this variable was not significant in explaining adoption might
suggest that IPM technologies are mostly scale neutral. This finding is particularly
important for IPM dissemination in the study area implying that IPM practices could be
introduced to farming systems regardless of the farmers scale of operation.

Females were less educated than males. And perhaps to make up for this, they strive to
acquire information and skills by belonging in farmers organizations. However,
membership in farmers organization was not a significant factor in adoption of many
practices except close spacing of groundnuts (CLSP) and celosia (ECAT). In fact, for the
case of celosia adoption, this variable exerted a negative influence on the probability of
adoption. The most plausible explanation is that information obtained in the organizations
may not have contained IPM-content. Providing IPM-content information at farm
organization meetings might enhance dissemination of these technologies and in
particular this would target women farmers whose membership in farm organizations was
significantly higher than males, subsequently promoting their adoption of IPM practices.

Overall, it appears that these policy changes are mostly applicable to institutional and
management factors. Economic and social factors could be effected through institutional
changes. Also important to note is that it appears that the more exotic an introduced
practice is, the more its adoption will be dependent on informational aspects of the



107

implementing program. This argues for the intensification of training and educational
programs for potential adopters of that practice.

5.7 Future Research Direction
Adoption of IPM technologies is dependent on a number of factors which are dynamic both
in terms of geographic setting and in time. Thus adoption can be said to be site specific.
The site specificity of adoption has an implication on the extensive applicability of the
policy implications stated in this study in that they may have a somewhat limited bearing
over a large area. According to Yaron, Dinar and Voet (1992) the site specificity of adoption
argues for region specific adoption studies.

In addition, as social, economic and other factors change, it is imperative that this study
be revisited in line with the changing socio-economic and other demographic changes.
Subsequent to establishment of the level adoption and factors affecting adoption, rate of
adoption studies may be appropriate to examine the effect time has on adoption of IPM
technologies.

Subsequent to establishing factors influencing adoption, a study on adaptation of farmers
to IPM practices may be a necessary step. Such a study would examine how farmers
adjust their economic, social and other conditions to accommodate the introduced IPM
practices.

To take this study further, a study to examine the effect of distance of farmers from the
focal points on adoption is necessary. It is anticipated that close proximity of farmers to
IPM activities (with focal farmers) may increase the likelihood of adoption of IPM
technologies. In addition, exposure of farmers to IPM activities over a wider geographical
space might facilitate more widespread adoption. However at this point these assertions
cannot be explicitly made. Therefore, examining the level and intensity of adoption of
farmers in various locations relative to the focal points may be important in highlighting
the importance of distance in adoption studies. An initial objective of this study was to
conduct such an analysis. However, limited availability of (GPS) Global Positioning System
units precluded the collection of this data.




108

References


Abadi Ghadim, K. A., and D. J . Pannell. A Conceptual Framework of Adoption of an
Agricultural Technology. Agricultural Economics 21 (1999): 145-154.

Abara, I. O. C. and S. Singh. Ethics and Biases in Technology Adoption: The Small Farm
Argument. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 43 (1993): 289-300.

Adesiina, A.A. and J . Baidu-Forson. Farmers Perceptions and Adoption of New
Agricultural Technology: Evidence From Analysis in Burkina Faso and Guinea,
West Africa. J ournal of Agricultural Economics. 13 (1995):1-9.

Adipala, E., C.A. Omongo., A. Sabiti., J .E. Obuo., R. Edema., B. Bua and M.W.
Ogenga-Latigo. Pests and diseases of cowpea in Uganda: Experiences from a
diagnostic survey. African Crop Science J ournal. 7(4) (December 1999):465.

Agresti, A. An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis. New York: J ohn Wiley
and Sons, Inc., 1996.

Agresti, A. and B. Finlay. Statistical Methods for the Social Sciences. 3rd Edition. New
J ersey, Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall, 1997.

Alebeek, van F.A.N and J .C van Lenteren. Integrated Pest Management for Protected
Vegetable Cultivation in the Near East. FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper
114. The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 1992.

Allison, P. D. Logistic Regression Using the SAS System: Theory and Application. SAS
Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, 1999.

Alston, J .M., G.W. Norton and P.G. Pardey. Science under Scarcity: Principles and Practice
of Agricultural Research Evaluation and Priority Setting. Ithaca: Cornell University
Press, 1995.

Amemiya, T. Qualitative Response Models: A Survey. J ournal of Economic Literature.
The American Economic Association. 19 (1981):1483-1536.

Baidu-Forson, J . Factors Influencing Adoption of Land-enhancing Technology in the
Sahel: Lessons From a Case Study in Niger. J ournal of Agricultural Economics.
20(1999):231-239.

Bashaasha, B., V. Kasenge., D.B. Taylor., J . Olupot and M. Erbaugh. An Economic
Assessment of the Integrated Striga Management Strategy for Small-scale Sorghum
Farmers in Uganda. Annual Report, IPM CRSP, 2000.

Boahene, K., T.A.B. Snijders, H.Folmer. An Integrated Socio-Economic Analysis of
Innovation Adoption: The case of Hybrid Cocoa in Ghana. J ournal of Policy
Modeling. 21(2) (November 1999):167-184.

Bonabana, J ., D. B. Taylor., V. Kasenge., B. Bashaasha and M.J . Erbaugh. Assessing the
Economic Impacts of IPM CRSP Strategies on Groundnut Diseases in Kumi-
Uganda. Annual Report, IPM CRSP, 2001.



109

Cameron, L.A. The Importance of Learning in the adoption of High-Yielding Variety
Seeds. American J ournal of Agricultural economics. 81(February 1999):83-94.

Caswell, M., K. Fuglie., C. Ingram., S. J ans and C. Kascak. Adoption of Agricultural
production practices: Lessons learned from the US. Department of Agriculture area
studies project. Washington DC. US Department of Agriculture. Resource
Economics Division, Economic Research service, Agriculture Economic Report No.
792. J anuary 2001.

CGIAR, Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research. (Online) URL:
http:/ / / www.cgiar.org September 2002.

CIA, The Central Intelligence Agency - The World Factbook, 2000. Country Focus: Uganda

Daku, L. Assessing farm-level and aggregate economic impacts of olive integrated pest
management programs in Albania. PhD. Dissertation. Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University, 2002

Diebel, P.L., D.B Taylor and S.S. Batie. Barriers to low-input agriculture adoption: A Case
study of Richmond county, Virginia. American J ournal of Alternative Agriculture.
8(3) (1993):120-127.

Doss, C.R and M.L Morris. How Does Gender Affect the Adoption of Agricultural
Innovation? The Case of Improved Maize Technologies in Ghana. J ournal of
Agricultural Economics. 25(2001):27-39.

Ehler, L.E and D.G Bottrell. The illusion of Integrated Pest Management. Issues in
Science and Technology. Bell and Howell Information and Learning Company,
2000, pp. 61-64.

EIU, The Economist Intelligence Unit. EIU Country Report: Uganda. (Online)
http:/ / www.eiu.com. April 2001.

El-Osta, H.S and M.J . Morehart. Technology Adoption Decisions in Dairy Production and
the Role of Herd Expansion. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review. 28
(1999): 84-95.

Enos, J .L and W.H Park. The Adoption of Imported Technology: The Case of Korea.
New York: Croom Ltd, 1988.

Erbaugh, J .M., S. Kyamanywa, P. Kibwika, D. Taylor, V. Odeke and E. Mwanja.
Baseline II: A Follow-up survey of farmer pest management practices and IPM
knowledge diffusion. Working paper 01-2. IPM CRSP. October, 2001.

FAO, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. Nineteenth FAO Regional
conference for Africa. World Food Summit: Food Security situation and issues in
the Africa region. Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, 16-20 April 1996. (Print)

FAOSTAT, The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations Production
Databases [Online], URL: http:/ / www.fao.org. J anuary 20, 2002, October 18, 2002,
May 2002.




110

Feder, G. and R. Slade. The acquisition of information and the adoption of new
Technology. American J ournal of Agricultural Economics. American Agricultural
Economics Association. 66 (August 1984):312-320.

Feder, G., E. R. J ust and D. Zilberman. Adoption of Agricultural Innovations in
Developing Countries: A Survey. Economic Development and Cultural Change. 33
(1985):255-298.

Fernandez-Cornejo, J . Environmental and Economic Consequences of Technology
Adoption: IPM in Viticulture. Agricultural Economics, 18 (1998):145-155.

Fernandez-Cornejo, J . The Microeconomic Impact of IPM Adoption: Theory and
Application.Agricultural and Resource Economic Review. 25 (October 1996):149-
160.

Gabre-Madhin, E.Z. and S. Haggblade. Success in African Agriculture: Results of an
Expert Survey. International Food Policy Research Institute. Washington DC. J une
2001.

Garson, D. (1998). North Carolina State University. Logistic Regression Class notes.
(Online), URL: www2.chass.ncsu.edu/ garson/ (November 12, 2001).

Giliomee, J . H. Integrated Pest Management in the African Context. African Crop
Science Proceedings. 1(1994): 346-349.

Green, D.A.G., and D.H. Ngongola. Factors Affecting Fertilizer Adoption in Less
Developed Countries: An Application of Multivariate Logistic Analysis in Malawi.
J ournal of Agricultural Economics. 44 (1) (J anuary 1993):99-109.

Griliches, Z. Hybrid Corn: An Exploration in the Economics of Technological Change.
Econometrica.. 25(1957):501-522.

Harper, J . K., M. E. Rister, J . W. Mjelde, B. M. Drees, and M. O. Way. Factors influencing
the adoption of insect management technology. American J ournal of Agricultural
Economics. 72(4) (November 1990):997-1005.

Hassan, B. Maize Technology Development And Transfer: A GIS Application For Research
Planning in Kenya. CAB International, Walford, UK. CIMMYT and Kenya
Agricultural Research Institute, 1998.

Hosmer, D. W. and S. Lemeshow. Applied Logistic Regression. A Wiley-Interscience
publication. Wiley Series in Probability and Mathematical Statistics. New York:
J ohn Wiley & Sons, 1989.

___ 2
nd
Edition. J ohn Wiley & Sons. 2000.

IFPRI, International Food Policy Research Institute. Pest Management and Food Production:
Looking into the future, Vol. 20, no. 52. September 1998.

___ Applying science to sub-Saharan Africas food needs. Reported by Ellen Wilson. 2020
Vision. News and Views. February 1995 (Online)
http:/ / www.ifpri.org/ pubs/ books/ ufa/ ufa_ch26.pdf accessed May, 2001.



111

IPM CSRP, Integrated Pest Management Collaborative Research Support Program
homepage. http:/ / www.ag.vt.edu/ ipmcrsp March 9th 2001.

IPM CRSP, Integrated Pest Management Collaborative Research Support Program.
Office of International Research and Development (OIRD) Outreach Division.
Virginia Tech. Annual Reports. 1995-2001.

Isubikalu, P., J .M. Erbaugh and A.R Semana. Understanding Farmer Knowledge
Regarding Cowpea Production and Pest Management: A Case Study of Kumi, Pallisa
and Katakwi Districts in Eastern Uganda. MS thesis, Makerere University, 1997.

J ackai, L.E.N, S.R. Singh, A.K. Raheja, F. Wiedijk. Recent Trends in the Control of
Cowpea Pests in Africa. Cowpea Research, Production and Utilization. S.R. Singh
and K.O. Rachie. eds. pp. 233-243. Institute of International Tropical Agriculture
(IITA) World Cowpea Research Conference. J ohn Wiley & Sons, 1985.

Karungi, J ., E. Adipala., P. Nampala., M.W. Ogenga-Latigo and S. Kyamanywa. Population
dynamics of selected cowpea insect pests as influenced by different management
strategies in eastern Uganda. African Crop Science J ournal. 7(No.4) (1999):487-
495

Kasenge, V. 1998. Socio-economic factors influencing the level of Soil Management
Practices on Fragile Land. In Proceedings of the 16
th
Conference of Soil Science
Society of East Africa (Eds.: Shayo-Ngowi, A.J ., G. Ley and F.B.R Rwehumbiza),
13
th
-19
th
, December 1998, Tanga, Tanzania pp.102-112, 1998.

Kato, E. An analysis of factors affecting adoption of K131 bean variety by women groups
in Luuka County, Iganga district. MS thesis, Makerere University, 2000.

Kebede, Y., K. Gunjal and G. Coffin. Adoption of New Technologies in Ethiopian
Agriculture: The case of Tegulet-Bulga District, Shoa Province. J ournal of
Agricultural Economics. 4(1990):27-43.

Khanna, M. Sequential Adoption of Site-Specific Technologies and its Implications for
Nitrogen Productivity: A Double Selectivity Model. American J ournal of Agricultural
Economics. 83(1) (February 2001):35-51

Klotz, C., A. Saha, and L. J . Butler. The Role of Information in Technology Adoption: The
Case of rbST in the California Dairy Industry. Review of Agricultural Economics,
17(1995): 287-298.

Kyamanywa, S. Current Status of IPM in Uganda. Proceedings of the IPM Networking in
Sub-Saharan Africa Workshop, 14-16 October 1996. IPM Networking in Sub-
Saharan Africa. Gebrekidan B, Amirault J .P, Abate T. Eds. pp 28-36. Virginia Tech,
1996.

Leisinger, K.M. Sociopolitical Effects of new Biotechnologies in Developing countries.
IFPRI.2020 Vision Brief 35. J uly 1996.

Liebman, M and E. Dyck. Crop rotation and intercropping strategies for weed
Management. Ecological Applications. 3 No.1 (1993): 92-122.




116

Appendix A: List of Acronyms

ANOVA Analysis Of Variance
BIFAD Board for International Food and Agriculture Development
CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
CIA Central Intelligence Agency
EIU Economic Intelligence Unit
FARMESA Farm-Level Applied Research Methods in Eastern and Southern Africa
FAO Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations
FoB Free on Board
GDP Gross Domestic Product
HIPC Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute
IITA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture
IMF International Monetary Fund
IPM Integrated Pest Management
IPM CRSP Integrated Pest Management Collaborative Research Support Program
MAAIF Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries (Uganda)
MUK Makerere University (Uganda)
NARO National Agricultural Research Organization (Uganda)
NARS National Agricultural Research System
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
OLS Ordinary Least Squares
SAS Statistical Analytical System
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Scientists
UN United Nations
US United States
USAID United States Agency for International Development
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
VIF Variance Inflation Factor




112

Lionberger, H.F. Adoption of New Ideas and Practices. Iowa State: University Press, 1960.

Lowenberg-DeBoer, J . Comments on Site-Specific Crop Management: Adoption
Patterns and Incentives. Review of Agricultural Economics. 22(1) (2000):245-247.

McCalla, A.F. Prospects for Food Security in the 21
st
Century: with special Emphasis
on Africa. J ournal of Agricultural Economics. 20(1) (March 1999):95-103.

McCullagh, P. and .A. Nelder. Generalized Linear Models. 2
nd
edition. Monographs on
Statistics and Applied Probability. New York: Chapman and Hall, 1989.

McGuirk, A. M., W.P. Preston and G.M. J ones. Introducing Foods Produced using
Biotechnology: The Case of Bovine Somatotropin. Southern J ournal of Agricultural
Economics. (J uly 1992):209-223.

McNamara, K. T., M.E. Wetzstein, and G.K. Douce. Factors Affecting Peanut Producer
Adoption of Integrated Pest Management. Review of Agricultural Economics. 13
(1991):129-139.

Montgomery, D.C., E.A. Peck, and G.G. Vining. Introduction to Linear Regression Analysis.
3
rd
Edition. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics. A Wiley-Interscience
Publication. New York, New York: J ohn Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2001

Mugisa-Mutetikka, M., A.F. Opio., M.A. Ugen., P. Tukamuhabwa., B.S. Kayiwa, C.
Niringiye and E. Kikoba. Logistic Regression Analysis of Adoption of New Bean
Varieties in Uganda. Unpublished, 2000.

Mullen, J .D., G.W. Norton and D.W. Reaves. An Economic Analysis of Environmental
Benefits of Integrated Pest Management. J ournal of Agricultural and Applied
Economics. Southern Agricultural Economics Association. 29 (2) (December
1997):243-253

Nkonya, E., T. Schroeder, and D. Norman. Factors Affecting Adoption of Improved Maize
Seed and Fertilizer in Northern Tanzania. J ournal of Agricultural Economics. 48 No.
1 (J anuary 1997):1-12

Nowak, P. Practical Considerations in Assessing Barriers to IPM Adoption. Proceedings
of the Third National IPM Symposium/ Workshop. (Eds.) S. Lynch, C. Green, and C.
Kramer-LeBlanc. Washington, DC, USDA-ERS
Misc. Pub No. 1542, 1996.

Nowak, P. The Adoption of Agricultural Conservation Technologies: Economic and
Diffusion Explanations. Rural Sociology. 52(2) (1987): 208-220.

Odulaja, A. and F.G Kiros. Modeling Agricultural Production on Small-scale Farmers in
Sub-Saharan Africa: A Case Study in Western Kenya. J ournal of Agricultural
economics. 14(1996): 85-91.

Oerke, E. C., H.W Dehne., F. Schoenbeck and A. Weber. Crop Production and Crop
Protection: Estimated Losses in Major Food and Cash Crops. Amsterdam, The
Netherlands: Elsevier, 1994.




113

Ogrodowczyk, J .D. Policies Affecting Production Practices and Adoption of Integrated Pest
Management for J amaican Farmers in Ebony Park, Clarendon. MS thesis, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1999.

Olson, K.D., J . Langley and E.O. Heady. Widespread Adoption of Organic farming
Practices: Estimated Impacts on US agriculture. J ournal of Soil and Water
Conservation. 37(J anuary-February 1982):41-45.

Overfield, D. and E. Fleming. A Note on the Influence of Gender Relations on the
Technical Efficiency of Smallholder Coffee Production in Papua New Guinea.
Manuscript. J ournal of Agricultural Economics. (2001):153-156.

Parker, C. Integrated Control of weeds in Sorghum. Elements of Integrated Control of
Sorghum pests, FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper. 1980, Food and
Agricultural Organization of the United Nations.

Pascale, G. Calculating marginal probabilities in PROC PROBIT. (Online)
http:/ / www.ats.ucla.edu/ stat/ sas (1998). Accessed October, 2002.

Patterson, K-A. The political ecology of nontraditional agricultural exports and an IPM
project in J amaica. MS. Thesis. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
2000.

Pimentel, D. (ed.) Some Aspects of Integrated Pest Management. Department of
Entomology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 1986.

Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations. 3
rd
Edition. New York: The Free Press, 1983.

__4
th
Edition. New York: The Free Press, 1995.

Rwaboogo, M. O. Uganda Districts: Information handbook. 1997/ 98 Edition. Fountain
Publishers, 1998.

Shakya, P. B. and J . C. Flinn, Adoption of Modern Varieties and Fertilizer Use on Rice in
the Eastern Tarai of Nepal. J ournal of Agricultural Economics. 36(3) (September
1985):409-419.

SHAZAM. (Online) URL: http:/ / econometrics.com Accessed October, 2002

Smith, G.S., M.E. Wetzstein and G.K Douce. Evaluation of Various Pest management
Characteristics. Southern J ournal of Agricultural Economics. Southern Agricultural
Economics Association. (December 1987):93-101.

SPSS for Windows. Release 10.0.1 SPSS Inc. October 1999.

Strengthening National Agricultural Research Systems in Eastern and Central Africa:
A framework for Action. The World Bank Technical paper no. 290. The World Bank,
Washington, DC, 1995.

Tjornhom, J .D. Assessment of Policies and Socio-Economic Factors Affecting Pesticide
Use in the Philippines. MS. thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, 1995.



114


Uganda Exports Promotion Board. Uganda Services Exporters Association. (Online)
URL: http:/ / www.ugandaexportsonline.com. October, 2002.

Uganda, Republic of, Background to the Budget 1998/ 99 (Budgeting for Poverty
Eradication). Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development. Kampala.
1998a.

Uganda, Republic of, Establishment of National Agricultural Research Organization
(NARO). International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR), 1988

Uganda, Republic of, Report on Uganda National Household Survey 1995-96 (Third
Monitoring Survey) Vol. 1. Main results of the Crop-Survey Module. Statistics
Department. Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development. Entebbe,
1997

Uganda, Republic of, Statistical Abstract. Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic
Development. Entebbe, 1998b

United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization. The State of Food and Agriculture.
Rome, 1997.

United States Bureau of the Census. International Data Base. (Online) URL:
http:/ / www.census.gov accessed September 25, 2001, September 29, 2002.

von Braun, J ., T. Teklu and P. Webb. Famine in Africa: causes, responses and Prevention.
Book Review. J ohn Hopkins University Press for the International Food Policy
Research institute (IFPRI). Baltimore. pp 238, 1999.

Waller, B.E., C.W. Hoy., J .L Henderson., B. Stinner and C. Welty. Matching Innovations
with Potential Users: A Case Study of Potato IPM practices. Agriculture, Ecosystems
and Environment. 70(1998):203-215.

Wightman, J . A, International Food Policy Research Institute: 2020 Vision News and
Views. November 1998.

Wilson, E. Famine and Poverty in the 21
st
Century. The Unfinished Agenda: Perspectives
on Overcoming Hunger, Poverty, and Environmental Degradation. Per Pinstrup-
Andersen and Rajul Pandya-Lorch. eds. 2001. Pp. 1-6.

World Bank Group Countries: Uganda, 2000.

World Bank Participation Sourcebook. (Online)
www.worldbank.org/ wbi/ sourcebook. Accessed May, 2002

World Bank, Uganda Agriculture: A World Bank Country Study. The World Bank
Washington, D.C. 1993.

Wu, J ., and B.A. Babcock. The Choice of Tillage, Rotation and Soil Testing Practices:
Economic and Environmental Implications. American J ournal of Agricultural
Economics. 80 (August 1998):494-511.




115

Yamagiwa, T.J . Analysis of Policies Affecting Pesticide Use in Ecuador. MS thesis,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1998.

Yaron, D., A. Dinar and H. Voet. Innovations on Family farms: The Nazareth Region in
Israel. American J ournal of Agricultural Economics. American Agricultural
Economics Association. (1992):361-370.



117

KUMI
Uganda districts
Vegatation types
Built-up Areas
Bushland
Butyrospermum Savanna
Dry Acacia Savanna
Dry Combretum Savanna
Dry Thickets
Farmland
Forest/Savanna Mosaics
Grass Savanna
Grass Steppe
Herbacious Swamp
High Alt Forest
High Alt Moor & Heath
Med Alt Moist Ever For
Med Alt Moist Semi-dec For
Moist Acacia Savanna
Moist Combretum Savanna
Moist Thickets
Open Water
Palm Savanna
Seasonal Wetlands
Swamp Forest
Tree & Shrub Steppe
Woodland
Latitude and Longitudes
200 0 200 Miles
N
Uganda: Vegetati on
Appendix B1: Map of Uganda showing vegetation
Source: ArcView GIS, 2002



118


ppendix A2: Map of Kumi District Showing Location of Focal Points and surrounding area: Respondent Locations

Uganda Districts
KUMI District

Kampala
90 0 90 180 Miles
N
E W
S
UGANDA
#
KUMI
Moroto
Kapchorwa
Mbale
#
Tororo
#
Iganga
Soroti
#
Pallisa
Kamuli
Jinja
Appendix B2: Map of Uganda showing Study Area



119

#
#
#
#
Eilor
Akabwai
Olemukan
Ebukalin
BUKEDEYA
NGORA
KUMI
Kumi District Counties
Bukedea
Kumi
Ngora
Distance from Focal Points
5000
5000 - 10000
10000 - 15000
# Focal Farmers
20 0 20 Miles
N
Map of Kumi
Appendix B3: Map of Kumi District Showing Location of Focal Points and surrounding areas



120

Appendix C: Introductory Letter

Dear Farmer,

As you may already know, your district is one of the areas in the country where
the USAID-supported Integrated Pest Management (IPM) project has been
operating for the past several years. With this projects effort the use of IPM
has been advanced as an alternative to conventional pest and disease control.

Scientists on the project working initially with pioneering farmers have
developed practices that are available for use by farmers. However it is not
clear how the developed practices are currently being used and what the
perception of farmers regarding these technologies in the projects area of
influence are.

This questionnaire is designed to obtain this information. You have been
selected as a source of this information. The attached questionnaire will ask
about several aspects of your farming. Confidentiality will prevail if you so wish
since your name will not appear on the questionnaire. Results of this study will
be used by IPM researchers and program administrators to evaluate the
program in the areas of its operation.

Feel free to provide any additional information that you think may be useful in
this analysis. Your responses will be highly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Jackline Bonabana
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics,
Virginia Tech



121


Appendix D: Factors Affecting Adoption of IPM Technologies in Kumi-Uganda
- Survey Form

This questionnaire is designed to solicit for your responses on factors affecting adoption on
IPM. Your responses will be used for academic purposes only and are highly appreciated.

Date of Interview _________________________ Interviewer___________________
District _________________________ County:______________________
Sub-county: __________________________ Parish_______________________
Village: _________________________ Respondent ID_________________

A: Demographic Information
1. Age ________ Years (Code:A1)
2. Marital status (Code:A2)
_1___Single
_2___Married
_3___Divorced
_4___Widowed
_5___ Separated
_6___ Other specify __________________________________
3. Gender ____Female (1)_____Male (2) (Code:A3)
4. Total number of years of schooling ____________________ (Code:A4)
5. Number of people living in your household? ____________________ (Code:A5)
6. For how long have you been a farmer? ____________________Years (Code:A6)

B: General/ Background
7. What is the total size of your farm? ____________________Hectares (Code:B7)
8. What crops do you grow? (Tick all that apply) ______________ What is the acreage on each
Crop Yes (1) No (2) Code (B81) Acreage Code (B82)
1 Cowpea (B811) (B821)
2 Sorghum (B812) (B822)
3 S. Potato (B813) (B823)
4 G. Nuts (B814) (B824)
5 Millet (B815) (B825)
6 Beans (B816) (B826)
7 Maize (B817) (B827)
8 Bananas (B818) (B828)
9 Tomato (B819) (B829)
10 Cotton (B8110) (B8210)
11 Simsim (B8111) (B8211)
12 Rice (B8112) (B8212)
13 Soyabean (B8113) (B8213)
14 Cassava (B8114) (B8214)
15 Eucalyptus (B8115) (B8215)
16 Sunflower (B8116) (B8216)
Others (Specify)
17 (B8117) (B8217)




122

9. How do you access agricultural information?
Sources Yes (1) No (2)
Code
1 Radio B91
2 Newspapers B92
3 Bulletins B93
4 Friends B94
5 Neighbours B95
6 Farmers organisations B96
7 MAAIF Extension staff B97
8 MUK researchers B98
9 NGO B99
10 Others B910
10. How many extension/ NGO contacts do you have in a period of a year
___None (1) ___Few (2) ___Many (3) ___Dont know (4) (Code:B10)
11. Do you belong to a farmer organization? ___Yes (1) ___No (2) (Go to 13) (Code:B11)
12. How many times do you attend meetings in a period of one year? ___________ (Code:B12)
13. Do you ever borrow to finance crop production? ____Yes (1) ____No (2) (Code:B13)
13.1. If no, why?
Reason Yes (1) No (2) Code
1 Not available B1311
2 Interest Rate is high B1312
3 Dont know B1313
4 Other reason B1314
13.2 What rate is normally charged _______(Code:B132)
14. How many household members work on the farm _______(Code:B14)
15. How many household members work off the farm? _______(Code:B15)
16. Do you ever hire laborers to work on your farm? ____Yes (1) ____No (2) (Code:B16)
17. Who decides what inputs to buy?
Male(1) Female(2) Both(3) Do not
buy (4)
Code
1 Fertilizers B171
2 Seed B172
3 Pesticides B173
4 Farm Implements B174

C. Knowledge of IPM
18. Have you ever heard of the term IPM? (Enumerator prompts by defining IPM)
___Yes (1) ___No (2) (Go to 27) ___Dont Know (3) Go to 27 (Code:C18)
19. When and where did you first hear of the term IPM?
When (Code:C191) Yes (1) No (2)
1 1994-1996
2 1997-1999
3 2000-2002

Where (Code:C192) Yes (1) No (2)
1 Makerere University
2 MAAIF
3 Farmer Organisation meetings

20. Have you ever been invited to attend IPM meetings?
___Yes (1) ___No (2) (Go to 24) (Code:C20)
21. How many times? ___ (Code:C21)



123

22. Did you attend? ___Yes(1) ___No(2) (Go to 24) (Code:C22)
23. How many times? ___ (Code:C23)
24. Have you ever participated in IPM on-farm trial demonstrations?
___Yes(1) ___No(2) (Code:C24)
25. Have you ever tried out any of the methods as specified by IPM?
___Yes(1) ___No(2) (Code:C25)
26. What is your view on the requirements of practicing IPM? (Tick all that apply).
Compared to the conventional means, practicing general IPM involves
1. Mgt time
(C261)
2. Cost
(C262)
3. Knowledge
(C263)
4. Labor
(C264)
5. Land
(C265)
6. Other
(Specify) (C266)
More (1)
Equal (2)
Less (3)
Dont Know (4)
27. Have you ever attended other training on pest control? ___Yes (1) ___No (2)
(Go to 29) ___Dont know (3) (Go to 29) (Code: C27)
28. What was the training about? Explain (Code: C28)
1._________________________________________________________________________
2. _________________________________________________________________________
3. _________________________________________________________________________
29. Do you think chemicals can sometimes be harmful? (Code: C29)
___Yes (1) ___No (2) (Go to next section) ___Dont know (3) (Go to next section)
30. Do you think chemicals can harm crops? (Code: C30)
___Yes (1) ___No (2) ___Dont know (3)
31. Do you think chemicals can cause sickness to humans? (Code: C31)
___Yes (1) ___No (2) ___Dont know (3)
32. Do you think chemicals can cause sickness to farm animals? (Code: C32)
___Yes (1) ___No (2) ___Dont know (3)
33. Do you think chemicals can contaminate drinking water? (Code: C33)
___Yes (1) ___No (2) ___Dont know (3)
34. Do you think chemicals can cause sickness to other living organisms, birds, fish and
water creatures, including natural enemies of insects?
___Yes (1) ___No (2) ___Dont know (3) (Code: C34)

D. Crop Specific Sorghum

I. Technologies

a. Crop Rotation technology
1. The last time you grew sorghum, are there crops that you grew on that piece of land before
you planted sorghum? ___Yes (1) ___No (2) ___Dont know (3) (Code:D1)
2. What rotation did you use?
Yes(1) No(2) Code:D2
1 Groundnuts/ Sorghum D21
2 Groundnut/ Sorghum/ Cassava D22
3 Sorghum/ Cotton D23
4 Cotton/ Sorghum/ Cowpea D24
Other



124

2.1. What is your view on the requirements of rotating sorghum/ cowpeas? (Tick all that
apply). If rotating Sorghum with Cowpeas is not your conventional means, compared to the
conventional means, it involves
1. Mgt time
(L211)

2. Cost
(L212)
3. Knowledge
(L213)
4. Labor
(L214)
5. Land
(L215)
6. Other
(Specify)
(L216)
More (1)
Equal (2)
Less (3)
2.2. If given a random choice to rotate sorghum/ cowpea or not to rotate them, which one
would you choose? ___Rotate (1) ___Not rotate (2) (CodeD221)

b. Variety technology
3. What varieties did you grow last season? And on what amount of land?
Variety Yes
(1)
No
(2)
Variety
Code:
D31
Amount of land on
which it was grown
(Acres)
Acreage
Code: D32
1 Seredo D311 D321
2 Sekedo D312 D322
3 Eidima D313 D323
4 Local D314 D324
5 Dont know D315 D325
Other
6 D316 D326
3.1. What is your view on the requirements of growing improved Sorghum varieties?
(Tick all that apply). Compared to the conventional means, it involves
1. Mgt time
(M311)

2. Cost
(M312)
3. Knowledge
(M313)
4. Labor
(M314)
5. Land
(M315)
6. Other
(Specify)
(M316)
More (1)
Equal (2)
Less (3)

c. Cel osi a Argentia technology
4. Have you heard about the plant that controls (chases) the striga weed?
___Yes (1) ___No (2) (Go to 6) (Code: D41)
What is it? ___Celosia(1) ___Local weed (2) (Code: D42)
5. Did you grow that plant in your/ sorghum field the last season you grew sorghum?
___Yes (1) ___No (2) (Code: D5)
6. In what season did you grow sorghum the last time you grew sorghum?
___First (1) ___Second (2) ___Both (3) ___Dont know (4) (Code: D6)

d. Fertilizer technology
7. Do you use fertilizer in sorghum fields? ___Yes (1) ___No (2) (Code: D7)
7.1 What is your view on the requirements of fertilizer use? (Tick all that apply).
If fertilizer use on sorghum is not your conventional means, compared to the
conventional means, fertilizer use involves



125


1. Mgt time
(N711)
2. Cost
(N712)
3. Knowledge
(N713)
4. Labor
(N714)
5. Land
(N715)
6. Other (Specify)
(N716)
More (1)
Equal (2)
Less (3)
Dont know


II. General
8. How much was the total sorghum yield last season
Variety Yield the last time you
grew crop (bags)
Yield Code:
1 Seredo D81
2 Sekedo D82
3 Eidima D83
4 Local2 D84
5 Dont know D85
6 Other (specify) D86
9. In the last crop season that you grew sorghum, was your sorghum crop harmed by
insects/ diseases/ weeds?
Yes (1) No (2) Dont know (3)
Code: D9
1 Insects D91
2 Diseases D92
3 Weeds D93
10. Name the most important weed/ insect/ disease on the Sorghum crop the last season you
grew the crop____
Name Code
1 Insects D101
2 Diseases D102
3 Weeds D103
11. How did you get rid of the problem?


Hand
Removal/ rouging
Code
(D111)
Inter-
cropped
Code
(D112)
Changed Variety
in next season
Code
(D113)
1 Insects D1111 D1121 D1131
2 Diseases D1113 D1122 D1132
3 Weeds D1123 D1133


Insecticide Code D1141 Fungicide Code D1151 Did not control


Yes
(1)
No
(2)
No. of sprays
(D1142)
Yes(1) No(2) No. of sprays
Code (D1152)
Tick Code
(D116)
1 Insects D1161
2 Diseases D1162
3 Weeds

D1163




126

E. Crop Specific: Cowpea

I. Technologies

a. Time of planting
12. In what season did you grow cowpea the last time you grew the crop?
___First (1) ___Second (2) ___ Both (3) ___Dont know (4) (Code: E12)
13. In the last crop season, when did you plant cowpea in the field relative to the start of
rains?
Time of planting First Code (E131) Second Code (E132)
1 First sign of rains E1311 E1321
2 One week after first sign of rains E1312 E1322
3 Two weeks after first sign of rains E1313 E1323
4 Towards the end of the rainy
season
E1314 E1324

13.1. What is your view on the requirements of timely planting? (Tick all that apply).
Compared to the conventional means, timely planting involves
1. Mgt time
(O1311)
2. Cost
(O1312)
3. Knowledge
(O1313)
4. Labor
(O1314)
5. Land
(O1315)
6. Other (Specify)
(O1316)
More (1)
Equal (2)
Less (3)
Dont know

b. Plant Spacing
14. How did you plant cowpea in the ground?
Yes No (Code: E14)
1 Broadcast E141
2 Chop and drop E142
3 In lines E143
4 Other E144

15. Would you please show me how you space your cowpea seeds when planting?
(Enumerator takes measurements)
Measurements
Yes (1) No (2)
Code E15
1 (15x30) cm E151
2 (15x45) cm E152
3 (15x60) cm E153
4 (30x10) cm E154
5 (30x45) cm E155

15.1. What is your view on the requirements of close spacing plants at (30X10)? (Tick all that
apply). Compared to the conventional means, it involves
1. Mgt time
(P1511)
2. Cost
(P1512)
3. Knowledge
(P1513)
4. Labor
(P1514)
5. Land
(P1515)
6. Other (Specify)
(P1516)
More (1)
Equal (2)
Less (3)
Dont know




127

c. Intercropping
16. Did you intercrop cowpea the last time you grew the crop? ___Yes(1) ___No (2)
(Go to 18) (Code E16)
17. What crops did you intercrop cowpea with? (Code: E17)
Crops Yes (1) No (2)
Code
1 Beans E171
2 Maize E172
3 Groundnuts E173
4 Sorghum E174
5 S. Potato E175
6 Soyabean E176
7 Cotton E177
8 Millet E178
17.1. What is your view on the requirements of practicing IPM? (Tick all that apply). If
intercropping is not your conventional means, compared to the conventional means,
intercropping involves
1. Mgt time
(Q1711)
2. Cost
(Q1712)
3. Knowledge
(Q1713)
4. Labor
(Q1714)
5. Land
(Q1715)
6. Other
(Specify)(Q1716)
More (1)
Equal (2)
Less (3)
Dont know

d. Defoliation

18. Do you ever remove cowpea leaves from the plant in the field? ___Yes (1) ___No (2)
(Go to 21) (Code: E18)
19. How many times do you do this in a growing season? ___ (Code E19)
20. What reason did you have for doing this? (Enumerators not to prompt) (Code: E20)
Reason Yes (1) No (2) (Code: E20)
1 Food value E201
2 Pest control E202
3 Disease control E203
4 Medicinal value E204
5 Weed control E205
6 Flowering/ Plant Health E206
7 Other E207

e. Variety
21. What varieties of Cowpea do you usually grow? (Code: D21)
Variety Yes (1) No (2)
Code
1 Ecirikukwai E211
2 Ebelat E212
3 Large White E213
4 Brown Tan E214
5 Other. E215




128

21.1 What is your view on the requirements of growing an improved cowpea variety?
(Tick all that apply). If growing improved cowpea varieties is not the conventional
means, compared to the conventional means, growing an improved variety involves
1. Mgt time
(S2111)
2. Cost
(S21112)
3. Knowledge
(S2113)
4. Labor
(S2114)
5. Land
(S2115)
6. Other
(Specify) (S2116)
More (1)
Equal (2)
Less (3)
Dont Know

II. General
22. How much was the total cowpea yield the last time you grew the crop? (Code:E22)
Variety Yield (bags) Yield code
1 Ecirikukwai E221
2 Ebelat E222
3 Large White E223
4 Brown Tan E224
5 Other E225
23. In the last crop season was your crop harmed by insects/ diseases/ weeds?
Yes (1) No (2) (Go to 26) Dont know
(3) (Go to 26)
Code: E23
1 Insects E231
2 Diseases E232
3 Weeds E233
24 Which was the most important weed/ insect/ disease on the cowpea crop?
Name Code: E24
1 Insects E241
2 Diseases E242
3 Weeds E243
25. How did you get rid of the problem? (Code E25)


Hand
Removal
Code
(E251)
Inter-
cropped
Code
(E252)
Changed Variety
in next season
Code
(E253)
1 Insects E2511 E2521 E2531
2 Diseases E2522 E2532
3 Weeds E2513 E2523 E2533


Insecticide Code (E2541) Fungicide (Code E2551) Did not control


Yes
(1)
No
(2)
No. of sprays
Code (E2542)
Yes
(1)
No
(2)
No. of sprays
Code (E2552)
Tick Code
(E256)
1 Insects E2561
2 Diseases E2562
3 Weeds

E2563

F. Crop Specific: Groundnuts
I. Technologies

a. Time of planting
26. In what season did you grow groundnuts the last time you grew the crop? ___First (1)
___Second (2) ___Both (3) ___Dont know (4) (Code: F26)
27. In the last crop season, when did you plant cowpea in the field relative to the start of



129

rains?
Time of planting First Code (F271) Second Code (F272)
1 First sign of rains F2711 F2721
2 One week after first sign of rains F2712 F2722
3 Two weeks after first sign of rains F2713 F2723
4 Towards the end of the rainy
season
F2714 F2724


b. Plant Spacing
28. How did you plant groundnuts in the ground?
Yes No Code (F28)
1 Broadcast F281
2 Chop and drop F282
3 In lines F283
4 Other F284
29. Would you please show me how you space your groundnut seeds when planting?
(Enumerator takes measurements)
Measurements Yes (1) No (2)
Code F29
1 (15x30) cm F291
2 (15x45) cm F292
3 (15x60) cm F293
4 (30x10) cm F294
5 (30x45) cm F295
29.1 What is your view on the requirements of measuring plant spacing? (Tick all that apply).
Compared to the conventional means, it involves
1. Mgt time
(U2911)
2. Cost
(U2912)
3. Knowledge
(U2913)
4. Labor
(U2914)
5. Land
(U2915)
6. Other Specify
(U2916)
More (1)
Equal (2)
Less (3)
Dont know


c. Intercropping
30. Did you intercrop groundnuts the last time you grew the crop? ___Yes(1) ___No (2)
(Go to 32 ) (Code F30)
31. What crops did you intercrop groundnuts with? (Code: F31)
Crops Yes (1) No (2)
Code
1 Beans F311
2 Maize F312
3 Cowpeas F313
4 Sorghum F314
5 S. Potato F315
6 Soyabean F316
7 Cotton F317
8 Millet F318

31.1 What is your view on the requirements of, intercropping? (Tick all that apply).
If intercropping is not the conventional means, compared to the conventional means, it
involves



130

1. Mgt time
(V3111)
2. Cost
(V3112)
3. Knowledge
(V3113)
4. Labor
(V3114)
5. Land
(V3115
6. Other Specify
(V3116)
More (1)
Equal (2)
Less (3)
Dont Know


d. Variety technology
32. What varieties did you grow last season and on what amount of land? (Code: F32)
Variety Yes
(1)
No
(2)
Variety
Code: F321
Amount of land on which
it was grown (Acres)
Acreage Code:
F322
1 Igola1 F3211 F3221
2 Rudu White F3212 F3222
3 Rudu (Red) F3213 F3223
4 Etesot F3214 F3224
5 Serenut1 F3215 F3225
6 Serenut2 F3216 F3226
7 Tanto F3217 F3227
8 Matudda F3218 F3228
9 Roxo F3219 F3229
10 Dont know F32110 F32210
32.1 What is your view on the requirements of growing improved groundnut varieties?
(Tick all that apply). If growing improved groundnut varieties is not the conventional
means, compared to the conventional means, variety change involves
6. Other (Specify) 1. Mgt time
(W3211)
2. Cost
(W3212)
3. Knowledge
(W3213)
4. Labor
(W3214)
5. Land
(W3215)
W3216)
More (1)
Equal (2)
Less (3)
Dont
know



e. Spray Schedule
33. Do you use any chemical spray on groundnut fields (by variety)? ___Yes
(Tick all that apply) ___No (Go to 38)
Variety Yes (1) No (2) Variety
Code: F331
Number of sprays in the
last season you grew crop
Code: F332
1 Igola1 F3311 F3321
2 Rudu White F3312 F3322
3 Rudu (Red) F3313 F3323
4 Etesot F3314 F3324
5 Serenut1 F3315 F3325
6 Serenut2 F3316 F3326
7 Tanto F3317 F3327
8 Matudda F3318 F3328
9 Roxo F3319 F3329
10 Dont know F33110 F33210

34. How do you decide which chemical to use?
_____________________________________________________________________ (Code: F34)



131

35. How do you decide how much to use?
_____________________________________________________________________(Code: F35)
36. How do you decide when to spray?
_____________________________________________________________________(Code: F36)
37. At what stage of crop development did you use them in the last season?
__________________________________________________________ (Code: F37)
37.1 What is your view on the requirements of spraying using the IPM recommended
practice? (Tick all that apply). Compared to the conventional means, it involves
1. Mgt time
(X3711)
2. Cost
(X3712)
3. Knowledge
(X3713)
4. Labor
(X3714)
5. Land
(X3715)
6.Other (Specify)
(X3716)
More (1)
Equal (2)
Less (3)
Dont Know

II. General
38. How much was the total (In shell) groundnut yield the last time you grew the crop?
Variety Yield the last time you
grew crop (Bags) (In-shell)
Yield Code: F38
1 Igola1 F381
2 Rudu White F382
3 Rudu (Red) F383
4 Etesot F384
5 Serenut1 F385
6 Serenut2 F386
7 Tanto F387
8 Matudda F388
9 Roxo F389

39. In the last crop season was your crop affected by insects/ diseases/ weeds?
Yes
(1)
No (2)
(Go to 42)
Dont know (3)
(Go to 41)
Code: F39
1 Insects F391
2 Diseases F392
3 Weeds F393

40. Which was the most important weed/ insect/ disease on the groundnut crop?
Name
Code: F40
1 Insects F401
2 Diseases F402
3 Weeds F403

41. How did you get rid of the problem? (Code F41)


Hand
Removal
Code
(F411)
Inter-
cropped
Code
(F412)
Changed Variety
in next season
Code
(F413)
1 Insects F4111 F4121 F4131
2 Diseases F4112 F4122 F4132
3 Weeds F4113 F4123 F4133




132


Insecticide Code F4141
Fungicide Code F4151
Did not control
Yes
(1)
No
(2)
No. of sprays
Code (F4142)
Yes
(1)
No
(2)
No. of sprays
F4152
Tick Code
(F416)
1 Insects F4161
2 Diseases F4162
3 Weeds

F4163


G: General for all crops
42. Did you use any chemicals on any other crops in the last growing season?
Yes (1) No (2) Code (G42)
1 Pesticides G421
2 Fertilizers G422


H: Household Income (We do not want to know the amount, but just the sources)
43. Do you have other sources of household income outside the farm? ___Yes (1)___No (2)
If Yes, please name them_______________________________________________ (Code H43)




133

Appendix E: Tables
Appendix Table E1: Distribution and Sources of off-farm income in study area.
Farmers with income source Off-farm income source
n %
Professional/ Skill 5.18
Salary/ Pension 7 3.30
Allowance from LC 2 0.94
Contracts for feeder road construction 2 0.94

Manual jobs 30.66
Casual labor 31 14.62
Selling out labor 11 5.19
Building 1 0.47
Charcoal burning 4 1.89
Brick making 8 3.77
Bicycle riding (Bodaboda) 10 4.72

Remittances 8.02
From children, sisters 12 5.66
From friends 5 2.36

Business 45.28
Petty trading 15 7.08
Local brew 68 32.08
Food vending 7 3.30
Selling sisal 2 0.94
Arts and Crafts 1 0.47
Baking 1 0.47
Selling firewood 1 0.47
Grinding mill 1 0.47

Appendix Table E2: Sorghum varieties grown in Kumi District
Variety Farmers with variety
n %
Abili 4 1.90
Eera 17 8.10
Ekoli 10 4.76
Emumwailo arengan 3 1.43
Epurpur 1 0.48
Erepet 24 11.43
Serena 20 9.52
Etanzaniat 1 0.48
Ilungole 2 0.95
Ilodir 18 8.57
Eterai 1 0.48
Red head 3 1.43
Ekonokamu 1 0.48
Ikanyawa 1 0.48
Black variety 2 0.95
White head 4 1.90



134
Appendix Table E3: Weed species in sorghum in the study area
Frequency of Occurrence Weed name (local)
n %
Striga 83 39.52
Spear grass 16 7.62
Couch grass 13 6.19
Ekolet 4 1.90
Goat weed 2 0.95
Esioto 1 0.48
Simama 3 1.43
Emuriat 1 0.48
Ekosile 1 0.48
Ipunuka 1 0.48
Ekoropot 1 0.48
Emoppim 2 0.95
Esirike 2 0.95
Esisio 1 0.48

Appendix Table E4: Collinearity Diagnostics Results
Retai ned Dropped*
FMEXP RFMEXP (r=0.82), AGE (r=0.87)
FMLBR HHSZ (r=0.72)
IMPLPURCH SEEDPURCH (r=0.69)
RSCH EXTS (r=0.56)
ONFTR OWNIPM (r=0.49), HDIPM (r=0.40)
YDSKDO ACRESKDO (r=0.86)
SGDZZ SGINSECT (r=0.49)
ROTNMGT ROTNLBR (r=0.55), ROTNCOST (r=0.62)
EBACRE EBYD (r=0.51)
TPCPLBR TPCPMGT (r=0.58), TPCPCOST (r=0.64)
EBMGT EBLBR (r=0.52)
CPWEED CPDZZ (r=0.60)
ICCPMGT ICCPCOST (r=0.66), ICCPKNOW (r=0.45),
ICCPLBR (r=0.59)
IGOLAYD IGOLACRE (r=0.67), TOTGNYD (r=0.6)
GNDZZ GNINSECT (r=0.57), GNWEED (r=0.53)
CLSPLBR CLSPCOST (r=0.62), CLSPKNOW (r=0.46),
CLSPMGT (r=0.46)
* The dropped vari ables are correlated wi th the retai ned vari ables
(as measured by the value of thecorrelati on coeffi ci ent)
Groundnut
Correlations between Variables
General
Sorghum
Cowpea



135
Vita


J ackline Bonabana-Wabbi was born in Kampala, Uganda to Mr. and Mrs. J .
Baitwababo in 1972 and went through the education system in Uganda. She was
awarded a two-year high-school scholarship that saw her through to University
education. She completed her Bachelor of Science in Agriculture from Makerere
University in 1997. After graduating, she worked in the Office of the Vice President
under contract with the Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA). Her
duties involved providing technical agricultural support to the Office of the Vice
President through research on agricultural issues and linking the Office to the
Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries. At the end of the
contractual arrangement, she was hired as an Assistant Lecturer by Makerere
University. She received her Master of Science in Agricultural and Applied
Economics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in December
2002. After graduation, she resumed her duties at Makerere University.