Show simple item record

dc.contributorKiktenko, Ludmillaen_US
dc.contributorZhumagazina, Balzhanen_US
dc.contributorZhakenova, Saltanaten_US
dc.contributorNangia, Vinayen_US
dc.creatorDessalegn, Bezaieten_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-11-08T15:01:55Z
dc.date.available2017-11-08T15:01:55Z
dc.identifierhttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13717-018-0133-9en_US
dc.identifierhttps://mel.cgiar.org/reporting/download/hash/sWiQ2Z5ven_US
dc.identifier.citationBezaiet Dessalegn, Ludmilla Kiktenko, Balzhan Zhumagazina, Saltanat Zhakenova, Vinay Nangia. (11/6/2018). Explaining farmers’ reluctance to adopt recommendations for sustainable ecosystem management. Ecological Processes, 7: 24.en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/7492
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: The lower Syr Darya River Basin is an integral part of the Aral Sea Basin that is shared by four riparian countries. In Kazakhstan, the water is mainly used for agricultural purposes. However, the poor quality and insufficient quantity of water and the overall degradation of natural resources due to unsustainable management practices threaten the profitability of the sector. The situation is even worse for downstream users. Three alternative scenarios for sustainable water and land management were developed using the RIOS and SWAT models as decision support tools. The scenario that offered the highest water and land productivity was presented to farmers to assess their willingness to forgo their current practices and adopt proposed management practices. We introduce willingness to forego (WTF)—a qualitative approach and a variant of the concept of opportunity costs to look beyond hypothetical markets to trading current benefits for future returns. We also tap into literature on agricultural risk management to provide additional insight into farmers’ rationale behind their choices. Result: Generally, despite their stated preference to conserve ecosystem services, farmers’ actions were found to be inconsistent with the proposed sustainable management. WTF analysis revealed that farmers’ desire to maximize current benefits and more importantly to minimize future risks override all sustainability considerations. Their WTF current benefits mainly depended on their location along the canal and hence their access to water and land, overall cost of production, market conditions that informed their crop choices, and the cost of adopting recommended packages. While the results remain specific to this case, they are consistent with the literature that links farmers’ behaviors to ecological performances. Conclusions: The study highlights the limitations of decision support tools and other valuation approaches including willingness to pay (WTP) and willingness to accept (payment) (WTA), to capture the delicate trade-offs that need to be considered to ensure household food and income security and encourage adoption of sustainable ecosystem management practices. Adequate information on potential effects of proposed conservation measures on yield, markets and hence farm profits, and availability of other alternatives are critical in shaping farmers’ decisions.en_US
dc.formatPDFen_US
dc.languageenen_US
dc.publisherSpringerOpen (part of Springer Nature)en_US
dc.rightsCC-BY-4.0en_US
dc.sourceEcological Processes;7:24,(2018)en_US
dc.subjectwillingness to foregoen_US
dc.subjectrisk and uncertaintyen_US
dc.subjectsustainable managementen_US
dc.titleExplaining farmers’ reluctance to adopt recommendations for sustainable ecosystem managementen_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dcterms.available2018-06-11en_US
cg.creator.idDessalegn, Bezaiet: 0000-0001-9406-1389en_US
cg.creator.idNangia, Vinay: 0000-0001-5148-8614en_US
cg.subject.agrovocecosystem servicesen_US
cg.subject.agrovocvaluationen_US
cg.contributor.centerInternational Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas - ICARDAen_US
cg.contributor.centerThe Regional Environmental Centre for Central Asia - CARECen_US
cg.contributor.crpCRP on Water, Land and Ecosystems - WLEen_US
cg.contributor.funderInternational Water Management Institute - IWMIen_US
cg.contributor.projectCGIAR Research Program on WLE (CRP 5) - WI/W2 Fundingen_US
cg.contributor.project-lead-instituteInternational Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas - ICARDAen_US
cg.coverage.regionCentral Asiaen_US
cg.coverage.countryKZen_US
cg.contactB.Dessalegn@cgiar.orgen_US
cg.identifier.doihttps://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13717-018-0133-9en_US
dc.identifier.statusOpen accessen_US
mel.project.openhttps://mel.cgiar.org/projects/240en_US
cg.issn2192-1709en_US
cg.journalEcological Processesen_US
cg.volume7:24en_US


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


DSpace software copyright © 2002-2016  DuraSpace
Disclaimer:
MELSpace content providers and partners accept no liability to any consequence resulting from use of the content or data made available in this repository. Users of this content assume full responsibility for compliance with all relevant national or international regulations and legislation.
Theme by 
Atmire NV