Experimental analysis of adoption of domestic mopane worm farming technology in Zimbabwe

Figures & data

Figure 1: Location of study sites

Table 1 : Choice attributes and levels

Attribute	Level
Investment cost (US$)	1	2	3	4
Labour effort (days)	4	8	12	16
Domestic harvest yield (bucket)	0.5	1	1.5	2
Harvest price (US$)	2	4	6	8
Harvest scenario	Good domestic, good wild	Good domestic, poor wild	Poor domestic, good wild	Poor domestic, poor wild

Figure 2: Dummy card for choice experiment

Figure 3: Mopane woodland zones

Table 2 : Socio-demographic profiles of the four study villages

Characteristic	Sample village				Full sample (n=120)
	Ndiweni (n=30)	Mahetshe (n=30)	Sasane (n=30)	Kapeni (n=30)
Household members^a	6.67 (2.74)	6.87 (3.18)	6.47 (2.52)	6.50 (2.14)	6.63 (1.31)
Household members aged 5–16 years^a	2.30 (1.59)	2.27 (1.53)	2.90 (1.42)	2.97 (1.53)	2.61 (0.77)
Head illiterate (%)	17	20	22	2	16
Female-headed household (%)	28	42	47	62	44
Main language (%)
Ndebele	83	80	17	40	55
Kalanga	13	10	80	60	41
Other/missing	3	10	3	0	4
Dwelling condition (%)
Good	43	33	50	63	48
Average	40	43	27	23	33
Poor	17	23	23	13	19
Sanitation access (%)
Blair toilet	83	60	63	57	66
Open field	10	40	37	37	31
Other	7	0	0	7	3
Drinking water access^b (%)
River	37 (33)	27 (33)	0 (3)	43 (57)	27 (32)
Spring	43 (43)	7 (3)	0 (0)	0 (0)	13 (12)
Community borehole	10 (13)	40 (37)	100 (93)	50 (37)	50 (45)
Private borehole	10 (10)	17 (7)	0 (0)	3 (0)	8 (4)
>500 metres	67 (67)	77 (70)	73 (70)	73 (70)	73 (68)
Electricity (%)	0	0	0	0	0
Radio (%)	47	23	23	63	39
Bicycle (%)	40	47	63	80	57
Cart (%)	33	33	47	57	43
Cattle^a	2.57 (4.87)	2.83 (4.70)	1.07 (1.94)	2.67 (3.98)	2.29 (2.03)
Goats^a	5.97 (4.65)	6.93 (9.15)	7.48 (5.34)	7.33 (6.12)	6.92 (3.29)
^aData presented as the mean (standard deviation).
^bData presented as percentage for dry season (percentage for wet season).

Table 3 : Harvesting activities and use of harvested mopane worms

	Ndiweni	Mahetshe	Sasane	Kapeni	Full sample
Mopane woodland zone (%)
Low/medium	100	73	30	33	60
Medium/high	0	26	70	67	40
Household members older than 5 years who usually harvest mopane worms (%)	65	67	68	73	68
Usually harvest at homestead (%)	37	47	70	63	54
Homestead is best harvest site (%)	3	17	37	37	23
Distance to main mopane worm collection area (km)^a	6.00 (5.40)	5.11 (4.90)	3.32 (4.01)	3.51 (5.48)	4.48 (5.05)
Collection time on an average harvesting day (minutes)	493 (136)	377 (135)	333 (145)	382 (156)	396 (154)
Harvest of dried mopane worms (20-litre bucket)
Good year^b	8.98 (6.51)	7.51 (4.86)	7.78 (5.06)	7.98 (4.03)	8.07 (5.03)
Bad year^c	2.03 (1.80)	2.34 (1.80)	2.20 (1.47)	2.04 (1.10)	2.15 (1.55)
Mopane worm use (%)
Good year^d
Sell immediately	45	31	30	52	40
Food source	17	23	25	14	19
Store for off-season sale	29	32	36	25	31
Other	9	14	9	9	10
Bad year^e
Sell immediately	44	24	28	39	33
Food source	33	55	53	46	47
Store for off-season sale	23	21	18	14	19
Other	0	0	0	0	0
Note: Data presented as the percentage or the mean (standard deviation).
^aOutliers >30 km are excluded (n=117).
^bOutliers >25 buckets are excluded (n=119).
^cOutliers >6 buckets are excluded (n=116).
^dOutliers >25 buckets are excluded (n=119).
^eOutliers >6 buckets are excluded (n=116).

Table 4 : Choice models

	Model I^a	Model II		Model III		Model IV^b
		Younger than 40 years	Older than 40 years	Low density	High density	Class I	Class II
Investment in mopane worm farming (US$)	−0.59*	−0.61*	−0.58*	−0.57*	−0.96*	−1.78**	−0.61*
Labour effort in mopane worm farming (days)	−0.09*	−0.11*	−0.08**	−0.09*	−0.11*	0.24	−0.00
Domestic mopane worm harvest (20-litre buckets of dried mopane worms)	0.13**	0.08	0.17**	0.13**	0.15	−1.94	0.44*
MW price (US$ per 20-litre bucket)	0.38**	0.55***	0.26	0.33***	0.88	−2.34	0.53**
Mopane worm harvest scenarios
Good domestic, good wild	4.67*	4.46*	4.98*	4.46*	34.41	51.81	1.24**
Good domestic, poor wild	3.93*	3.72*	4.21*	3.75*	33.71	53.39	0.16
Poor domestic, good wild	2.23*	1.61**	2.76**	2.17*	30.55	34.36	0.06
Poor domestic, poor wild	1.76*	1.18***	2.29*	1.61*	30.70	38.67	−0.03
Constant I	0.17	0.17	0.15	0.19	0.16	9.41***	−0.67
Constant II	0.19	0.38	0.04	0.27	−0.70	8.36***	−1.09*
Constant III	0.69*	0.77**	0.61***	0.67**	0.82	6.33***	0.09
Model specification
Observations	1200	530	670	1000	200	1200
Log-likelihood at constant	−239.83	−102.45	−134.08	−209.76	−25.71	−115.92
Likelihood ratio test	373.86*	200.62*	179.25*	299.00*	83.41*	642.53*
Pseudo R ^2	0.45	0.48	0.44	0.43	0.62	0.73
^aModel I fails the Independence from Irrelevant Alternatives test (χ^2 = 96.59; degrees of freedom = 8; p < 0.05; option 1 excluded), suggesting use of less restricted models. ^bProbability of class membership is 69 per cent (Class I) and 31 per cent (Class II), significant at the 1 per cent level. *Significant at the 1 per cent level, **significant at the 5 per cent level, ***significant at the 10 per cent level.

Table 5 : Implicit values in US$ (days)

	Model I	Model II		Model III		Model IV
		Younger than 40 years	Older than 40 years	Low density	High density	Class I	Class II
Good domestic harvest with poor wild harvest (days)	US$3.68 (24.11)	US$4.16 (23.09)	US$3.31 (24.00)	US$3.75 (23.78)	n/a	n/a	n/a
Harvested bucket (days)	US$0.22 (1.44)	n/a	US$0.29 (2.13)	US$0.23 (1.44)	n/a	n/a	US$0.72 (n/a)
Sold bucket (days)	US$0.64 (4.22)	US$0.90 (5.00)	n/a	US$0.58 (3.67)	n/a	n/a	US$0.87 (n/a)
n/a = not available.