Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ecological Economics
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / e c o l e c o n
Analysis
Farmers' preferences for crop variety traits: Lessons for on-farm conservation and
technology adoption
Sinakeh Asrat a,1, Mahmud Yesuf b,, Fredrik Carlsson c,2, Edilegnaw Wale d,3
a
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), P.O.Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Kansas State University, 337B Waters Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506-6925, United States
Department of Economics, School of Business, Economics and Law, University of Gothenburg, P.O. Box 640, 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden
d
Department of Agricultural Economics, School of Agricultural Sciences and Agribusiness, PBag X01 Scottsville 3209, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa
b
c
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 19 January 2009
Received in revised form 12 June 2010
Accepted 6 July 2010
Available online 30 July 2010
Jel classication:
Q18
Q51
Q57
Keywords:
Crop biodiversity
Choice experiment
Crop variety
Random parameter logit
a b s t r a c t
Although in-situ conservation is increasingly considered an efcient way of conserving plant genetic
resources, little is known about the incentives and constraints that govern conservation decisions among
small farm holders in developing countries. Using a choice experiment approach, we investigated Ethiopian
farmers' crop variety preferences, estimated the mean willingness to pay for each crop variety attribute, and
identied household-specic and institutional factors that governed the preferences. We found that
environmental adaptability and yield stability are important attributes for farmers' choice of crop varieties.
Farmers are willing to forego some extra income or yield to obtain a more stable and environmentally
adaptable crop variety. Among other things, household resource endowments (particularly land holdings
and livestock ownership), years of farming experience, and contact with extension services are the major
factors causing household heterogeneity of crop variety preferences. Based on our experimental results, we
derived important policy implications for on-farm conservation, breeding priority setting, and improved
variety adoption in Ethiopia.
2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Farmers, plant breeders, gene-bank managers, and crop scientists
draw on diverse crop genetic resources to innovate, support, and benet
society at large (Smale, 2006). Biodiversity is an important component
of ecological systems (e.g., Heal, 2000; Tilman and Downing, 1994;
Tilman et al., 1996), and its loss can have adverse effects on the
functioning of these systems, including impairment of their capability to
produce (e.g., Loreau and Hector, 2001; Naeem et al., 1994). This is
typically the case in agriculture. Crop genetic resources are natural
assets that are renewable, but also vulnerable to losses from natural or
human interventions (including disruptions caused by droughts, oods,
or wars) and to the gradual process of social and economic changes. Loss
of diversity in local seeds, a major source of planting material, threatens
future breeding activities to the extent that those varieties are inputs to
develop varieties that are adaptable to biotic and a-biotic stress factors
2395
drinks. The straw is mainly used for animal feed. Sorghum, the major
crop second to teff and grown all over the country, contributes about
1520% of Ethiopia's total cereal production (CSA, 2008). The crop is
used for many purposes, such as food, animal feed, fuel, house
construction, and fences. Ethiopia holds ex-situ 4% of the world's
sorghum genetic stock (FAO, 1998 and Hawkes et al., 2000). The crop
exists in tremendous variety throughout the areas of sorghum
production in Ethiopia (Gebrekidan, 1979; de Wet and Harlan,
1971). However, this diversity is potentially threatened by the
dissemination of genetically uniform varieties of improved varieties
channeled to farming communities after being developed by formal
public breeding programs. This has already been the case, for instance,
for wheat in the central highlands of the country where widespread
adoption of improved wheat varieties has resulted in crop diversity
loss (Yifru and Hammer, 2006).
The National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) of
Ethiopia claims that agricultural intensication is potentially the major
cause of loss of agricultural biodiversity in the world, and particularly in
Ethiopia (FDRE, 2005). The report argues that replacing traditional crop
varieties with high-yielding varieties that are dependent on high levels
of agricultural inputs can result in genetic erosion of resilient native
varieties. In Ethiopia, the loss is sometimes due to displacement of the
food crops and their traditional varieties by other more rewarding cash
crops such as khat (Catha Edulis) (Wale, 2004). The trade-offs (positive
productivity outcomes and loss in traditional varieties) have to do with
the step-by-step, cumulative and invisible loss of traditional varieties of
crops due to their displacement by uniform improved seeds and/or
other cash crops (Wale et al., 2009). It is, thus, both a challenge and an
opportunity for Ethiopia to design conservation policies that enable its
agriculture-based economy to make the best use of its crop diversity. As
said earlier, a loss of crop diversity implies a big threat to the livelihoods
of millions of smallholders who depend on local seeds as their major
source of planting material. This loss is also a threat to future prospects
of crop variety development as the portfolio of traditional varieties of
crops are the fundamental inputs for crop breeding that are adaptable to
local and harsh climate and soil conditions (Wale, 2004). Thus,
sustainable agriculture will need concerted public effort to ensure the
continuous survival of traditional varieties of crops along with farmers'
indigenous knowledge that evolves with them. This calls for public
conservation initiatives (such as on-farm conservation) that require
designing incentive mechanisms based, among other things, on
opportunity costs farmers face when maintaining traditional varieties
(Wale, 2008). To this effect, understanding farmers' preferences and
driving forces behind crop variety choices will remain to be crucial. The
remaining parts of this paper will deal with the research methodology
applied, the results of the exercise and their implications.
3. Survey Design and Study Sites
In this study, we employed a choice experiment approach to
evaluate farmers' preferences for the various attributes of crop
varieties. In a choice experiment, individuals are given a hypothetical
setting, and then asked to choose their preferred alternative (usually
repeatedly) from several alternatives in a choice set. Each alternative
is described by a number of attributes that take on different levels.5 In
our case, the farm households were given choice sets with three
different alternative crop varieties. The most important crop variety
attributes and their levels were identied in consultation with experts
(crop breeders and researchers with hands-on experience and
practical knowledge of the relevant variety attributes), by reviewing
5
For detailed reviews on the choice experiment method, see Alpizar et al. (2003)
and Louviere et al. (2000), for example. Although, applications of choice experiments
to crop diversity are limited, there are some applications of this technique to livestock
genetic resources (see for example Scarpa et al., 2003a,b).
2396
Table 1
Attributes and attribute levels used in the choice experiment.
Attributes
Sorghum
Producer's price
Productivity
Environmental adaptability
Yield stability
Teff
Producer's price
Productivity
Environmental adaptability
Yield stability
Denition
Attribute levelsa
The amount of money the farmer earns by selling 100 kg of harvested teff
of a particular teff variety
Average production (in 100 kg)harvested per hectare from planting a
particular teff variety
Whether the variety is resistant or tolerant to environmental stress factors
such as poor soil, poor rainfall, and frost
Whether the variety gives stable yield year-after-year, despite occurrences
of crop disease and pest problems in a scenario of no drought and frost
Note: ETB = Ethiopian birr; ETB 8.93 = US$ 1 at the time of the experiment (June/July 2007).
a
The levels for these attributes are set based on the Zone's minimum, average, and maximum values of producers' price and productivity of the crops during the last decade.
Sorghum
variety 1
Sorghum
variety 2
Sorghum
variety 3
where Ait is the attribute vector, (not including the price attribute),
is the corresponding parameter vector including an alternative
specic constant, priceit is the price attribute for alternative i, is
the marginal utility of money, and ith is an error term. The probability
that individual h will choose alternative i can be expressed as:
n
o
Pith = P Ait + priceit + ith N ajt + pricejt + jith ;ji :
See Train (2003) for details on simulated maximum likelihood and Halton draws.
2397
2398
Table 3
Descriptive statistics of sampled farm households.
Variable
Description
Household characteristics
Male
Household size
Experience
Off-farm work
No. of dependents
Agricultural output surplus
Drought frequency
Mean
= 1 if the household head considers land shortage to be the primary problem and
zero other wise
Total land size operated by the household
Total land size per household member
Total value of livestock (including poultry and bee hives) currently owned by the
household
0.90
5.38
25.38
0.32
1.15
0.27
2.45
Std. dev.
2.04
11.64
1.45
1.709
0.64
0.75
0.15
5016.5
48.24
0.70
4.14
0.52
0.088
4745.5
27.07
5.226
Services include electricity, piped water, telephone, primary school, secondary school, all weather roads, and irrigation. Respondents were asked to specify the walking distance
(in minutes) to each type of service, and an average walking distance to services was then calculated for each respondent.
Mean parameters
Alternative 1 (Set 13)
Sorghum
Teff
Coefcient
Coefcient
0.795
(0.409)
0.062
(0.230)
2.012
0.565
(0.11)
0.485
(0.041)
1.67
(0.736)
1.276
(0.635)
0.906
Environmental adaptability
(0.651)
1.892
(0.291)
0.321
(0.039)
5.537
(0.534)
1.115
(0.221)
0.322
(0.042)
6.297
Yield stability
(0.818)
4.839
(1.053)
4.231
(0.903)
(0.934)
0.149
(0.033)
3.269
0.172
(0.028)
4.469
(0.613)
2.892
(0.630)
66
594
0.578
(0.910)
2.858
(0.589)
65
585
0.557
***, **, and * denote signicance at 1%, 5%, and 10%, respectively.
Productivity
Environmental
adaptability
Yield stability
Teff
Unconditional
Individual
level
Unconditional
Individual
level
16.97
(2.76)
292.59
(51.06)
255.75
17.49
(0.64)
293.52
(16.41)
249.86
28.88
(5.79)
564.84
(124.07)
379.51
27.85
(1.49)
554.92
(39.85)
360.04
(56.32)
(13.66)
(104.26)
(23.42)
***, **, and * denote signicance at 1%, 5%, and 10%, respectively.
Env. adaptability
Yield stability
Female
Male
No off-farm
Off-farm
Net buyer of
agricultural output
Net-seller of
agricultural output
Female
Male
No off-farm
Off-farm
Net buyer of
agricultural output
Net-seller of
agricultural output
Female
Male
No off-farm
Off-farm
Net buyer of
agricultural output
Net-seller of
agricultural output
Teff
11.78 (5.00)
20.17 (3.59)
17.21 (3.31)
25.13 (5.30)
19.44 (3.62)
35.85
29.04
29.89
28.47
27.65
18.87 (4.31)
33.04 (7.85)
(15.19)
(5.79)
(6.25)
(7.12)
(5.88)
196.86 (97.99)
320.02 (61.85)
317.43 (65.11)
277.99 (73.39)
316.72 (63.39)
274.89
702.17
695.87
652.55
641.90
280.00 (76.84)
761.61 (239.77)
252.91 (114.78)
260.07 (66.76)
258.11 (69.65)
262.59 (84.50)
257.14 (68.86)
722.96
493.25
465.41
576.45
503.81
265.30 (87.09)
(308.07)
(198.93)
(192.00)
(248.43)
(190.07)
(353.03)
(178.12)
(173.60)
(235.37)
(186.62)
507.30 (213.13)
***, **, and * denote signicance at 1%, 5%, and 10%, respectively.
trait for the two crops, where net-buyers indicated less preference
towards a non adaptable sorghum variety than net-sellers, and the
opposite holds for the same trait in teff. Farmers with no off-farm job
opportunities value environmentally adaptable sorghum and teff
varieties more than what farmers with off-farm job opportunities do.
This is mainly because farm households with no members working offfarm rely highly on their agricultural produce for food and ber and are
more likely to be highly risk-averse towards choosing crop varieties that
are less resistant to environmental stress factors such as poor soil and
poor rainfall. There is also a signicant difference between male- and
female-headed households in terms of their WTP for the different traits of
teff and sorghum, where male-headed households show more preference
to environmentally adoptable traits for both teff and sorghum than
female-headed households.
Next we present the WTP estimates for the continuous household
variables. In order to compare across characteristics, we estimate the
changes in WTP due to a standard deviation change in the household
variables (Table 7).
These results reveal that differences among farm households in
terms of household characteristics, endowments, and degree of access
Table 7
Change in WTP for a standard deviation change in household variables.
Sorghum
Teff
Productivity
Experience
3.09 (1.92)
1.44 (2.93)
Total land per capita
2.19 (1.85)
12.96 (4.76)
Livestock value
0.12 (2.16)
1.68 (2.32)
Drought frequency
1.02 (1.86)
8.49 (3.31)
Expr. agric. extension
3.11 (1.81)
2.79 (2.52)
Household size
0.59 (2.05)
2.75 (3.87)
Env. adaptability Experience
67.40 (39.56)
97.62 (62.42)
Total land per capita 84.39 (38.03)
72.09 (95.58)
Livestock value
6.22 (42.98) 181.30 (76.34)
Drought frequency
5.42 (35.32)
57.87 (63.57)
Expr. agric. extension
9.51 (28.53)
264.62 (152.20)
Household size
20.40 (41.75)
256.57 (152.27)
Yield stability
Experience
19.33 (40.16)
11.68 (56.57)
Total land per capita
25.49 (37.89)
96.69 (96.66)
Livestock value
61.17 (46.89) 127.41 (66.01)
Drought frequency
13.24 (37.55)
97.60 (66.29)
Expr. agric. extension 70.38 (32.77)
265.57 (157.34)
Household size
26.97 (44.34)
90.84 (138.58)
***, **, and * denote signicance at 1%, 5%, and 10%, respectively.
2399
2400
First, the farm households, which now attach the highest values to
attributes already embedded in traditional crop varieties would
maintain those varieties de facto. To enhance compliance, these farmers
have to be targeted in future on-farm conservation activities. This,
however, does not imply that where de facto conservation is occurring,
there is no need to design external (conservation) incentives for these
varieties. Weitzman (1993), for instance, has shown that it might still be
desirable to assign conservation priorities to species/varieties not yet at
risk. Ensuring that a particularly unique species/variety never becomes
threatened may, therefore, require external incentives.
Second, understanding farmers' varietytrait preferences also informs
decision makers about the variety attributes that have to be considered
for on-farm conservation. For instance, more experienced farmers and
small farm holders with smaller livestock assets are affected the most
when they have to forego teff and/or sorghum varieties with better yield
stability and environmental adaptability. They are, therefore, less likely to
cooperate with on-farm conservation activities that deny them varieties
with these attributes unless they get equivalent compensation. The
results also suggest that as farmers' economic well-being improves,
reected by the level of their incomes and assets, farmers' preferences for
crop variety traits shift from environmental adaptability and yield
stability, and thus favoring the conservation of productive and marketable varieties. This can run counter to crop varieties that are more
environmentally adaptable and stable. At a national level, this result
suggests that as the country's agriculture develops, there will have to be a
conservation policy shift in favor of those varieties that have been out of
farmers' choice in the course of agricultural development.9
The third important policy implication relates to the area of
varietal technology adoption. For agricultural technologies to be
successful, their attributes should address farmers' concerns. Clearly,
understanding farmers' varietytrait preferences informs public
decision making in varietal technology adoption. For instance, according
to the results, in order to target the variety demands of poor, vulnerable,
and segmented farmers, the variety attributes of environmental
adaptability and yield stability should be prioritized over productivity
traits.
The fourth policy implication is in the area of breeding priority
setting. Given that farmers' varietyattribute preferences determine
both their propensity to use improved varieties and the chance of using
them successfully, breeding should satisfy the demands of different farm
household types classied according to resource endowments, preferences, and constraints. To this end, analyzing farmers' varietyattribute
preferences will help target farmer demands in the making of a
technology. For instance, this study has found that farmers attach the
highest private value to the environmental adaptability trait, followed
by the yield stability attribute of both sorghum and teff. The national
institution primarily dealing with crop breeding programs in Ethiopia,
namely the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR) and other
donor and collaborative institutions should therefore prioritize these
attributes in their direct or supportive breeding programs if they are to
address the demands of Ethiopian smallholders.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the nancial support to
administer the survey from the Genetic Resources Policy Initiative
(GRPI)-Ethiopia project of the Biodiversity International and the
Environment for Development initiative at the University of Gothenburg and the Sida (Swedish International Development and Cooperation Agency). The authors also acknowledge Ekin Birol at IFPRI for
her comments on the earlier version of the paper and the anonymous
referees for their constructive comments.
Appendix A
Table A1
What is the most important factor (criteria) you take into account in your seed selection?
Teff
Frequency
Early maturing
Good price and acceptance in
the market
Resistance to disease
Good for injera, local drink
tella, and bread making
Accepted by the land (soil) conditions
and suitable for local environment
Good productivity
Multipliable
Long seed size, and aggressive
in growth
Resistant to drought
Good straws for livestock
Other factors
Total
Sorghum
Percent
Frequency
Percent
11
10
8.4
7.6
10
2
7.7
1.6
21
1
16.0
0.8
28
2
21.4
1.5
3.9
6.1
22
5
22
16.8
3.8
16.8
13
5
28
9.9
3.8
21.4
7
18
9
131
5.3
13.7
6.9
100
2
21
12
110
1.5
16
9.2
100
Table A2
Results of random parameter logit model with socio-economic characteristics for choice
of crop variety.
Sorghum
Teff
Coefcient
S.e.
Coefcient
0.780
0.015
2.191
1.356
1.691
0.424
0.000
0.009
0.013
0.005
0.010
2.082
0.119
0.667
16.304
0.434
0.549
0.386
0.241
0.520
0.247
0.754
1.939
0.696
0.692
0.955
0.582
0.299
1.211
0.247
0.125 10.970
6.644
2.983
8.032
5.657
3.213
7.787
6.124
0.084
0.082
0.174
0.003
0.001
0.003
0.072
0.017
0.078
0.353
1.547
0.562
0.008
0.004
0.006
0.016
0.078
0.030
0.007
0.007
0.006
0.017
0.017
0.024
0.064
0.065
0.080
1.639
5.176
3.558
0.068
0.098
0.059
1.225
0.525
2.178
7.051
8.606
11.848
0.023
0.047
0.040
0.157
0.305
0.120
0.435
0.535
0.636
0.179
0.582
0.358
1.579
1.450
0.955
1.798
Mean parameters
Alternative 1 (Set 13)
Alternative 1 (Set 49)
Alternative 2 (Set 13)
Alternative 2 (Set 49)
Producer's price
Productivity
Environmental adaptability
Yield stability
Productivity male
Productivity experience
Productivity off-farm work
Productivity total land per capita
Productivity livestock value
Productivity drought frequency
Productivity expr. agric. extension
Productivity household size
Productivity agric. output surplus
Env. adaptability male
Env. adaptability experience
Env. adaptability off-farm work
Env. adaptability total land
per capita
Env. adaptability livestock value
Env. adaptability drought frequency
Env. adaptability exper.
agric. Extension
Env. adaptability household size
Env. adaptability agric.
output surplus
Yield stability male
Yield stability experience
Yield stability off-farm work
Yield stability total land per capita
Yield stability livestock value
Yield stability drought frequency
Yield stability exper. agric. extension
Yield stability household size
Yield stability agric. output surplus
0.168
0.621
0.344
1.208
0.121
0.034
0.076
4.926
0.224
0.115
0.298
0.222
0.138
1.781
2.783
0.071
0.012
1.288
1.345
7.309 11.543
0.170
0.306
0.324
0.902
0.134
0.638
0.363
0.559
1.309
0.042
0.110 0.036
1.866 0.603
2.393 0.640
57
513
0.610
0.033
4.442
4.999
0.142
0.005
0.134
0.182
3.124
3.006
51
531
0.603
S.e.
3.503
0.057
2.097
11.102
0.151
0.608
0.377
0.862
1.972
0.040
1.103
1.902
References
Alpizar, F., Carlsson, F., Martinsson, P., 2003. Using choice experiments for non-market
valuation. Economic Issues 8 (1), 83109.
Benin, S.M., Smale, B., Gebremedhin, B., Pender, J., Ehuil, S., 2003. Determinants of cereal
crop diversity on farms in the Ethiopian highlands. Environment and Production
Technology Division Discussion Paper, 105. International Food Policy Research
Institute, Washington, DC.
Bezabih, E., 2003. Determinants of multiple technology adoption: dening adopters and
empirical analysis. Ethiopian Journal of Agricultural Economics 5 (12), 122.
Brush, B., Meng, E., 1998. Farmers' valuation and conservation of crop genetic resources.
Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 45, 139150.
Bunch, D., Louviere, J.J., Andersson, D., 1996. A comparison of experimental design
strategies for choice-based conjoint analysis with generic-attribute multinomial
logit models. Working Paper. University of California-Davis, Graduate School of
Management, Davis, CA, USA.
Carlsson, F., Frykblom, P., Lagerkvist, C.J., 2007. Consumer benets of labels and bans on
GM foods choice experiments with Swedish consumers. American Journal of
Agricultural Economics 89, 152161.
Central Statistical Agency (CSA), 2008. Agricultural Sample Survey 2007/08 (2000 E.C.):
Area and Production of Crops (private peasant holdings). Meher Season, Addis Ababa.
Chilot, Y., Shapiro, B.I., Mulat, D., 1996. Factors inuencing adoption of new wheat
technologies in Wolmera and Addis Alem areas of Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of
Agricultural Economics 1, 6384.
de Wet, J.M.J., Harlan, J.R., 1971. The origin and domestication of Sorghum Bicolor.
Economic Botany 25, 128135.
Degnet, A., Belay, K., Aregay, W., 2003. Adoption of high-yielding maize varieties in
Jimma zone: evidence from farm-level data. Ethiopian Journal of Agricultural
Economics 5 (12), 4162.
Di Falco, S., Chavas, J.-P., 2006. Crop genetic diversity, farm productivity, and the
management of environmental risk in rain-fed agriculture. European Review of
Agricultural Economics 33, 289314.
FAO, 1998. The State of the World's Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. FAO,
Rome, Italy.
FDRE, 2005. National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. Institute of Biodiversity
Conservation, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Gebrekidan, B., 1979. Sorghum genetic resources in Africa. Ethiopian Journal of
Agricultural Sciences 1 (2), 108125.
Hanneman, M., 1984. The discrete/continuous model of consumer demand. Econometrica 52, 541561.
Hawkes, J.G., Maxted, N., Ford-Lloyd, B.V., 2000. The Ex-Situ Conservation of Plant
Genetic Resources. Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York.
Heal, G., 2000. Nature and the Marketplace: Capturing the Value of Ecosystem Services.
Island Press, New York.
Jabbar, M.A., 1998. Buyer preferences for sheep and goats in southern Nigeria: a hedonic
price analysis. Agricultural Economics 18, 2130.
Kidane, A., Abler, D.G., 1994. Production technologies in Ethiopian agriculture.
Agricultural Economics 10, 179191.
Legesse, D., 2003. Empirical analysis of duration of herbicide adoption in teff-based
farming system of West Shewa Zone. Ethiopian Journal of Agricultural Economics 5
(12), 122.
2401
Loreau, M., Hector, A., 2001. Partitioning selection and complementarity in biodiversity
experiments. Nature 412, 7276.
Louviere, J.J., Hensher, D.A., Swait, J.D., Adamowicz, W.L., 2000. Stated Choice Methods:
Analysis and Applications. Cambridge University Press.
McFadden, D.L., 1974. The measurement of urban travel demand. Journal of Public
Economics 3, 303328.
Naeem, S., Thompson, L.J., Lawler, S.P., Lawton, J.H., Woodn, R.M., 1994. Declining
biodiversity can affect the functioning of ecosystems. Nature 368, 734737.
Scarpa, R., Drucker, A., Anderson, S., Ferraes-Ehuan, N., Gomez, V., Risopatron, C., RubioLeonel, O., 2003a. Valuing animal genetic resources in peasant economies: the case
of the Box Keken creole pig in Yucatan. Ecological Economics 45 (3), 427443.
Scarpa, R., Kristjanson, P., Ruto, E., Radeny, M., Drucker, A., Rege, J.E.O., 2003b. Valuing
indigenous farm animal genetic resources in Africa: a comparison of stated and
revealed preference estimates. Ecological Economics 45 (3), 409426.
Smale, M., 2006. Valuing Crop Biodiversity, On-farm Genetic Resources, and Economic
Change. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.
Smale, M., Hartell, J., Heisey, P.W., Senauer, B., 1998. The contribution of genetic
resources and diversity to wheat production in the Punjab of Pakistan. American
Journal of Agricultural Economics 80, 482493.
Smale, M., Meng, E., Brennan, J.P., Hu, R., 2003. Determinants of spatial diversity in
modern wheat: examples from Australia and China. Agricultural Economics 28,
1326.
Tilman, D., Downing, J.A., 1994. Biodiversity and stability in grasslands. Nature 367,
363365.
Tilman, D., Wedin, D., Knops, J., 1996. Productivity and sustainability inuenced by
biodiversity in grassland ecosystems. Nature 379, 718720.
Train, K., 1998. Recreation demand models with taste differences over people. Land
Economics 74, 230239.
Train, K., 2003. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation, 2nd ed. Cambridge University
Press.
Wale, E., 2004. The economics of on-farm conservation of crop diversity in Ethiopia:
incentives attribute preferences and opportunity costs of maintaining local
varieties of crops. PhD Thesis, University of Bonn, Germany.
Wale, E., 2008. Computing opportunity costs of growing local varieties for on-farm
conservation: the case of sorghum in Ethiopia. Ecological Economics 64 (3),
603610.
Wale, E., Yallew, A., 2007. Farmers' variety attribute preferences: implications for
breeding priority setting and agricultural extension policy in Ethiopia. African
Development Review 19, 379396.
Wale, E., Chishakwe, N., Lewis-Lettington, R., 2009. Cultivating participatory policy
processes for genetic resources policy: lessons from the Genetic Resources Policy
Initiative (GRPI) project. Biodiversity and Conservation 18 (1), 118.
Weitzman, M.L., 1993. What to preserve? An application of diversity theory to crane
conservation. Quarterly Journal of Economics CVII, 363405.
World Bank, 2005. Ethiopia: well-being and poverty in Ethiopia the role of
agriculture and agency. Report no. 29468-ET. World Bank, Washington, DC.
Yifru, T., Hammer, K., 2006. Farmers' perception and genetic erosion of tetraploid
wheats landraces in Ethiopia. Generic Resources Crop Evolution 53, 10991113.
Yohannes, K., Gunjal, K., Cofn, G., 1990. Adoption of new technologies in Ethiopian
agriculture: the case of Tegulet-Bulga District, Shewa province. Agricultural
Economics 4, 2743.