Determinants of Risk Behaviour in Livestock Development Programs: Evidence from South Africa's Kaonafatso Yadikgomo (Kyd) Scheme

  • Saul Ngarava Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, University of Fort Hare
  • Abbyssinia Mushunje Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, University of Fort Hare
  • Amon Taruvinga Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, University of Fort Hare
  • Peter Mukarumbwa Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, University of Fort Hare
  • Simbarashe Tatsvarei Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, University of Fort Hare
  • Ebenezer T Megbowon Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, University of Fort Hare
DOI: https://doi.org/10.22610/jebs.v10i5(J).2493
Keywords: Attitudinal scale, beef, farm biophysical, Likert scale, risk attitude, socio-economic

Abstract

Risk plays a significant role in input use decisions and production of output in agricultural production. Understanding farmer risk attitudes and their responses to risk is significant in designing effective intervention programmes. Few studies have tried to identify how the introduction of a livestock programme has tended to influence farmer risk profile. The objective of the study was to highlight the determinants of risk behaviour in participants of a livestock development programme. The study was carried out in KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) Province of South Africa, utilising a purposive sample of 164 respondents who are part of the Kaonafatso Yadikgomo (KYD) Scheme. The cross-sectional survey collected data pertaining to the risk attitudes of the livestock farmers from an attitudinal scale as well as socio-economic and farm biophysical characteristics. Descriptive statistics and multiple linear regression were used to analyse the data. The results show that the livestock farmers were risk loving, with the risk attitude being influenced by the age of household head, monthly household income and experience in rearing cattle at the ð‘ < 0.1 level. Furthermore, the source of income, herd size, reason for slaughtering cattle distance to the nearest water source and access to a dip tank had significant influence of attitude towards risk at the ð‘ < 0.05 level. The study concludes that being part of a livestock development programme tends inflto uence the risk attitudes of the participants as the determinants were against a priori expectations. 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Aditto, S., Gan, C. & Nartea, G. V. (2012). Sources of Risk and Risk Management Strategies: The Case of Smallholder Farmers in a Developing Economy. In N. Banaitiene (Ed.), Risk Management-Current Issues and Challenges, 449–475. ARC. (2011). Annual Report 2010-2011. Pretoria, South Africa. ARC. (2012). National Beef Recording and Improvement Scheme. Irene, South Africa. Retrieved from http://www.arc.agric.za/arc-api/Newsletter Library/National Beef Recording and Improvement Scheme Newsletter 2012.pdf ARC. (2015). ARC Annual Report 2014/2015. ARC Annual Report. Pretoria, South Africa. ARC. (2016a). Annual Beef Bulletin. Irene, South Africa. Retrieved from http://www.arc.agric.za/ARC Newsletters/ARC Annual Beef Bulletin - 2016.pdf ARC. (2016b). Annual Report 2015/16. Pretoria, South Africa. Aye, G. C. & Oji, K. O. (2007). Effect of Poverty on Risk Attitudes of Farmers in Benue State, Nigeria. In 12th Annual Conference on Econometric Modelling for Africa. Cape Town, South Africa 4-6 July. Bardhan, D., Daba, Y. P. S., Tewari, S. K. & Kumar, A. (2006). An assessment of the risk attitude of dairy farmers in Uttaranchal (India). In International Association of Agricultural Economists Conference. Gold Coast, Australia, August 12-18. Bishu, K. G., O’Reilly, S., Lahiff, E. & Steiner, B. (2016). Cattle farmers’ perceptions of risk and risk management strategies: evidence from Northern Ethiopia. Journal of Risk Research, 9877, 1–20. Flaten, O., Lien, G., Koesling, M., Valle, P. S. & Ebbesvik, M. (2005). Comparing risk perceptions and risk management in organic and conventional dairy farming: empirical results from Norway. Livestock Production Science, 95, 11–25. Government of South Africa. (2007). Agricultural Improvement Act, 1997 § (2007). South Africa. Groebner, D. F., Shannon, P. W., Fry, P. C. & Smiths, K. D. (2011). Business Statistics: A Decision-Making Approach (8th Edition). New Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall. Hair Jnr, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, J. B. & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis. Pearson Prentice Hall. Hayran, S. & Aykut, G. (2015). Risk Perception and Management Strategies in Dairy Farming: A Case of Adana Province of Turkey. Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology, 3(12), 952–961. Hurley, T. M. (2010). A Review of Agricultural Production Risk in the Developing World. Kassie, M., Yesuf, M. & Köhlin, G. (2008). The Role of Production Risk in Sustainable Land- Management Technology Adoption in the Ethiopian Highlands. Environment for Development. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Khan, A., Guttormsen, A. & Roll, K. H. (2017). Production risk of pang as (Pangasiushy pophthalmus) fish farming. Aquaculture Economics & Management, 0(0), 1–17. Lagerkvist, C. J. (2005). Assessing farmers’ risk attitudes based on economic, social, personal, and environmental sources of risk: evidence from Sweden. In American Agricultural Economics Association. Providence, 24-27.
Lien, G. (2002). Non-parametric estimation of decision makers’ risk aversion. Agricultural Economics, 27, 75– 83. Makki, S. S., Somwaru, A. & Vandeveer, M. (2002). Decoupled Payments and Farmers’ Production Decisions Under Risk. Decoupled Payments in a Changing Policy Setting. Economic Research Service, USDA. Mbuku, S. M., Kosgey, I. S. & Kahi, A. K. (2006). Identification systems and selection criteria of pastoral goat keepers in northern Kenya – Implications for a breeding program. Tropentag, 11-13. Mccarthy, N. (2000). An Economic Analysis of the Effects of Production Risk on the Use and Management of Common-Pool Rangelands. In N. McCarthy, B. Swallow, M. Kirk, & P. Hazell (Eds.), Property Rights, Risk, and Livestock Development in Africa, 155–190. Meuwissen, M. P. M., Huirne, R. B. M. & Hardaker, J. B. (2001). Risk and risk management: an empirical analysis of Dutch livestock farmers. Livestock Production Science, 69, 43–53. Mischra, A. K. & Goodwin, B. K. (2006). Revenue insurance purchase decisions of farmers. Journal of Applied Economics, 38, 149–159. Orea, L. & Wall, A. (2002). Decomposing Productivity Growth (12 No. 2002). Asturia, Spain. Serra, T., Goodwin, B. K. & Featherstone, A. M. (2011). Risk behaviour in the presence of government programs. Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2009.10.005 Tae-hun, K. I. M. (2008). The Measurement of Farmers Risk Attitudes Using a Non-Structural Approach. Journal of Rural Development, 31(2), 63–80. Van Winsen, F., De Mey, Y., Lauwers, L., Van Passel, S., Vancauteren, M. & Wauters, E. (2016). Determinants of risk behaviour: Effects of perceived risks and risk attitude on farmers’ adoption of risk management strategies. Journal of Risk Research, 19(1), 56–78. Wanda, O. (2009). Production Risk and Input Use in Banana Production in Uganda. Makerere University. Xiao, J. J., Alhabeeb, M. J., Hong, G. S. & Haynes, G. (2001). Attitude toward risk and risk-taking behavior of business-owning families. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35, 307–325.
Published
2018-11-03
How to Cite
Ngarava, S., Mushunje, A., Taruvinga, A., Mukarumbwa, P., Tatsvarei, S., & Megbowon, E. T. (2018). Determinants of Risk Behaviour in Livestock Development Programs: Evidence from South Africa’s Kaonafatso Yadikgomo (Kyd) Scheme. Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, 10(5(J), 7-15. https://doi.org/10.22610/jebs.v10i5(J).2493
Issue
Vol 10 No 5(J) (2018)
Section
Research Paper

Copyright (c) 2018 Saul Ngarava, Abbyssinia Mushunje, Amon Taruvinga, Peter Mukarumbwa, Simbarashe Tatsvarei, Ebenezer T Megbowon

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Author (s) should affirm that the material has not been published previously. It has not been submitted and it is not under consideration by any other journal. At the same time author (s) need to execute a publication permission agreement to assume the responsibility of the submitted content and any omissions and errors therein. After submission of a revised paper in the light of suggestions of the reviewers, editorial team edits and formats manuscripts to bring uniformity and standardization in published material.

This work will be licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) and under condition of the license, users are free to read, copy, remix, transform, redistribute, download, print, search or link to the full texts of articles and even build upon their work as long as they credit the author for the original work. Moreover, as per journal policy author (s) hold and retain copyrights without any restrictions.