Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T03:43:48.690Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

COMBINING RANKS AND SCORES TO DETERMINE FARMERS' PREFERENCES FOR BEAN VARIETIES IN SOUTHERN MALAWI

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2002

S. Abeyasekera ,
J. M. Ritchie  and
J. Lawson-McDowall
S. Abeyasekera
Affiliation:
Bvumbwe Research Station, P.O. Box 5748, Limbe, Malawi Statistical Services Centre, The University of Reading, Harry Pitt Building, P.O. Box 240, Whiteknights Road, Reading, RG6 6FN, UK
J. M. Ritchie
Affiliation:
Bvumbwe Research Station, P.O. Box 5748, Limbe, Malawi Natural resources Institute, The University of Greenwich, Central Avenue, Chatham Maritime, Kent, ME4 4TB, UK
J. Lawson-McDowall
Affiliation:
Bvumbwe Research Station, P.O. Box 5748, Limbe, Malawi Natural resources Institute, The University of Greenwich, Central Avenue, Chatham Maritime, Kent, ME4 4TB, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ranking and scoring exercises are common in participatory research work, for example in determining farmer preferences for crop varieties, tree species or other commodities. However, they rarely involve eliciting opinions of many individual farmers so as to establish the repeatability of study findings. This paper demonstrates ways in which ranking of evaluation criteria can be combined with evaluation scores to produce generalizable results concerning farmers' overall preference for a set of bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) varieties. The use of weighted indices is explored. Results were found to be robust across all indices. However, farmer evaluations for yields did not correlate well with actual yields measured on their own plots. Farmers often gave high evaluation scores for yield performance of new bean varieties, even when they yielded quite poorly in plots in their own fields. Reasons for this are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 38 , Issue 1 , January 2002 , pp. 97 - 109
Copyright
© 2002 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)