为中美洲豆类种植者提供基于群体和公民科学的农场品种选择方法

IF 4.5 3区 经济学 Q1 AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY Agricultural Economics Pub Date : 2024-02-08 DOI:10.1111/agec.12819
Martina Occelli, Jorge Sellare, Kauê De Sousa, Matteo Dell'Acqua, Leida Mercado, Saul Paredes, Juan Robalino, Juan Carlos Rosas, Jacob van Etten
{"title":"为中美洲豆类种植者提供基于群体和公民科学的农场品种选择方法","authors":"Martina Occelli,&nbsp;Jorge Sellare,&nbsp;Kauê De Sousa,&nbsp;Matteo Dell'Acqua,&nbsp;Leida Mercado,&nbsp;Saul Paredes,&nbsp;Juan Robalino,&nbsp;Juan Carlos Rosas,&nbsp;Jacob van Etten","doi":"10.1111/agec.12819","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Participatory approaches for crop variety testing can help breeding teams to incorporate traditional knowledge and consider site-specific sociocultural complexities. However, traditional participatory approaches have drawbacks and are seldom streamlined or scaled. Decentralized on-farm testing supported by citizen science addresses some of these challenges. In this study, we compare a citizen science on-farm testing approach — <i>triadic comparisons of technology options</i> (tricot-PVS) — with the benchmark state-of-the-art group-based participatory variety testing approach (group-PVS) over a set of socioeconomic outcomes. We focus on on-farm testing of common bean (<i>Phaseolus vulgaris</i> L.) in the Trifinio area of Central America. We measure the impact of these two approaches on bean growers in terms of on-farm diversification and food security. We use data from 1978 smallholder farmers from 140 villages, which were randomly assigned to tricot-PVS, group-PVS or control. Utilizing a difference-in-difference model with inverse probability weighting and an instrumental variable approach, we observe that farmers involved in group-PVS, and tricot-PVS had comparable levels of on-farm varietal diversification with respect to control farmers. Nonetheless, group-PVS appears to be significantly more effective in boosting household food security, which can be attributed to improved agronomic management of the crops. This study contributes to the next generation of innovations in exploring trait preferences to produce more inclusive, demand-driven varietal design that democratize participatory varietal selection programs.</p>","PeriodicalId":50837,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/agec.12819","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Group-based and citizen science on-farm variety selection approaches for bean growers in Central America\",\"authors\":\"Martina Occelli,&nbsp;Jorge Sellare,&nbsp;Kauê De Sousa,&nbsp;Matteo Dell'Acqua,&nbsp;Leida Mercado,&nbsp;Saul Paredes,&nbsp;Juan Robalino,&nbsp;Juan Carlos Rosas,&nbsp;Jacob van Etten\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/agec.12819\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Participatory approaches for crop variety testing can help breeding teams to incorporate traditional knowledge and consider site-specific sociocultural complexities. However, traditional participatory approaches have drawbacks and are seldom streamlined or scaled. Decentralized on-farm testing supported by citizen science addresses some of these challenges. In this study, we compare a citizen science on-farm testing approach — <i>triadic comparisons of technology options</i> (tricot-PVS) — with the benchmark state-of-the-art group-based participatory variety testing approach (group-PVS) over a set of socioeconomic outcomes. We focus on on-farm testing of common bean (<i>Phaseolus vulgaris</i> L.) in the Trifinio area of Central America. We measure the impact of these two approaches on bean growers in terms of on-farm diversification and food security. We use data from 1978 smallholder farmers from 140 villages, which were randomly assigned to tricot-PVS, group-PVS or control. Utilizing a difference-in-difference model with inverse probability weighting and an instrumental variable approach, we observe that farmers involved in group-PVS, and tricot-PVS had comparable levels of on-farm varietal diversification with respect to control farmers. Nonetheless, group-PVS appears to be significantly more effective in boosting household food security, which can be attributed to improved agronomic management of the crops. This study contributes to the next generation of innovations in exploring trait preferences to produce more inclusive, demand-driven varietal design that democratize participatory varietal selection programs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50837,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Agricultural Economics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/agec.12819\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Agricultural Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/agec.12819\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Agricultural Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/agec.12819","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

作物品种测试的参与式方法有助于育种团队吸收传统知识,并考虑特定地点的社会文化复杂性。然而,传统的参与式方法有其缺点,而且很少精简或扩大规模。由公民科学支持的分散式农场测试可以解决其中的一些难题。在本研究中,我们比较了公民科学的农场测试方法--三元技术选择比较法(tricot-PVS)--与基于群体的参与式品种测试方法(group-PVS)在一系列社会经济成果方面的基准。我们的重点是在中美洲特里菲尼奥地区对普通豆类(Phaseolus vulgaris L.)进行农场测试。我们从农场多样化和粮食安全的角度来衡量这两种方法对豆类种植者的影响。我们使用了来自 140 个村庄的 1978 名小农的数据,这些小农被随机分配到三垄-PVS、小组-PVS 或对照组。利用反概率加权的差分模型和工具变量方法,我们观察到,与对照组农民相比,参与群体-品种多样化和三垄-品种多样化的农民的农场品种多样化水平相当。尽管如此,群体-品种多样化服务在提高家庭粮食安全方面似乎更为有效,这可归因于农作物农艺管理的改善。这项研究有助于下一代探索性状偏好的创新,从而产生更具包容性、以需求为导向的品种设计,使参与式品种选育计划民主化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Group-based and citizen science on-farm variety selection approaches for bean growers in Central America

Participatory approaches for crop variety testing can help breeding teams to incorporate traditional knowledge and consider site-specific sociocultural complexities. However, traditional participatory approaches have drawbacks and are seldom streamlined or scaled. Decentralized on-farm testing supported by citizen science addresses some of these challenges. In this study, we compare a citizen science on-farm testing approach — triadic comparisons of technology options (tricot-PVS) — with the benchmark state-of-the-art group-based participatory variety testing approach (group-PVS) over a set of socioeconomic outcomes. We focus on on-farm testing of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in the Trifinio area of Central America. We measure the impact of these two approaches on bean growers in terms of on-farm diversification and food security. We use data from 1978 smallholder farmers from 140 villages, which were randomly assigned to tricot-PVS, group-PVS or control. Utilizing a difference-in-difference model with inverse probability weighting and an instrumental variable approach, we observe that farmers involved in group-PVS, and tricot-PVS had comparable levels of on-farm varietal diversification with respect to control farmers. Nonetheless, group-PVS appears to be significantly more effective in boosting household food security, which can be attributed to improved agronomic management of the crops. This study contributes to the next generation of innovations in exploring trait preferences to produce more inclusive, demand-driven varietal design that democratize participatory varietal selection programs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Agricultural Economics
Agricultural Economics 管理科学-农业经济与政策
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
4.90%
发文量
62
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Agricultural Economics aims to disseminate the most important research results and policy analyses in our discipline, from all regions of the world. Topical coverage ranges from consumption and nutrition to land use and the environment, at every scale of analysis from households to markets and the macro-economy. Applicable methodologies include econometric estimation and statistical hypothesis testing, optimization and simulation models, descriptive reviews and policy analyses. We particularly encourage submission of empirical work that can be replicated and tested by others.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Drought risk management in agriculture: A copula perspective on crop diversification Macroeconomic shock effects on beef carcass premiums Farmers’ preferences for soil conservation measures in Southern Ethiopia: Plot-level discrete choice experiment Do place-based policies impact residents’ nutrient intake? Evidence from China
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1