Innovation platform for improving rice marketing decisions among smallholder farmers in Homa-Bay County, Kenya

Figures & data

Figure 1. Farmers’ decision making in marketing of rice.

Table 1. Variable definition and specification

Variable	Description	Responses
Marketing channel	Indicates the channel taken by the farmer when selling his/her rice	1-LBDA 2-Private millers 3-Private traders
Rice sold	Indicates whether the farmer sold his/her rice in the past 12 months.	1 = Yes, 0 = No
Sex	Indicates the gender of the household head	1 = Male, 0 = Female
Age	Age of household head in years	Continuous
Farmer household size	Size of the household	Continuous
Years of farming experience	Number of years in the farming business	Continuous
Size of land owned	Arable land size holding (Ha)	Continuous
Access to extension services	Extension services access	1 = Yes, 0 = No
Frequency of access to extension services	Extension services reception frequency per year	Count
SRI adoption	Identifies whether farmer is practicing System of Rice Intensification	1 = Yes, 0 = No
Membership to a famer group	Identifies whether farmer through the innovation platform has membership to any farmer group or association	1 = Yes, 0 = No
Training received from the IP	Variable identifies whether farmer received any form of training from the Innovation Platform	1 = Yes, 0 = No
Access to rice market information	Indicator variable for access to any form of rice market information	1 = Yes, 0 = No
Access to transport facilities	Indicator variable for access to transport for fetching produce to the market	1 = Yes, 0 = No
Distance to nearest market	Distance to the nearest main market (km)	Continuous
Collective selling of rice	Indicator variable showing how rice was sold	1 = collectively; 0 = otherwise
Price of rice sold	The price per kg at which the farmer sold their rice (US$)	Continuous
Quantity of rice sold	The amount of rice sold (kg)	Continuous
Bicycle ownership	Whether farmer owns a bicycle	1 = Yes, 0 = No
Mobile phone ownership	Whether farmer owns a cell phone	1 = Yes, 0 = No
Ownership of radio	Whether farmer owns a radio	1 = Yes, 0 = No

Table 2. Summary statistics for study variables

Variable		Frequency	Mean (or proportions*)	Std. Dev.
Continuous	Age	102	49.6	14.83
	Household size	102	5.1	2.03
	Distance to nearest market	102	4.4	1.90
	Years of farming experience	102	19.81	12.19
	Size of land owned	102	1.69	1.52
	Frequency of access to extension services	102	2.9	2.78
	Price of rice sold	72	131.88	42.20
	Quantity of rice sold	72	173.15	547.55
Binary	Sex (male)	102	71 (70%)	0.46
	Access to extension services	102	78 (76%)	0.43
	SRI adoption	102	92 (90%)	0.31
	Membership to a famer group	102	88 (86%)	0.35
	Training received from the IP	102	77 (75%)	0.44
	Access to rice market information	102	99 (97%)	0.16
	Access to transport facilities	102	43 (42%)	0.50
	Collective selling of rice	72	48 (47%)	0.50
	Bicycle ownership	102	73 (72%)	0.45
	Mobile phone ownership	102	77 (75%)	0.44
	Ownership of radio	102	75 (74%)	0.44

Table 3. Regression results on determinants of market participation among smallholder rice farmers

Predictor variables	Odds Ratio	Std. Err.	p value
Sex	1.57	0.8422	0.398
Farmer household size	0.92	0.1089	0.462
Experience in farming (years)	0.86	0.2571	0.611
Frequency of access to extension services	1.18	0.1113	0.075*
Access to market information	0.25	0.3677	0.346
Access to transport facilities	2.67	1.2871	0.041**
Distance to nearest market (kms)	0.78	0.0980	0.046**
Membership to farmer group	2.50	0.1905	0.070*
Training received from the IP	3.10	0.1882	0.054*
Adoption of SRI	5.95	5.2594	0.044**
Bicycle ownership	2.57	1.5541	0.120
Mobile phone ownership	0.52	0.3320	0.303

Prob > chi2 = 0.003***; Pseudo R2 = 14.93%

*p value significant at 10%; **p value significant at 5%;***p value significant at 1%

Table 4. Choice of marketing channel model results

Predictor variables	LBDA			Private millers
	Estimate	Std. Err.	p value	Estimate	Std. Err.	p value
Sex	−0.6439	1.1736	0.583	1.0407	0.9801	0.288
Age	−5.8674	2.2828	0.010**	−2.8134	1.8637	0.131
Experience in farming (years)	0.0298	0.0573	0.603	0.0024	0.0471	0.960
Size of land owned	0.9821	0.5793	0.090*	1.0532	0.4705	0.025**
Adoption of SRI	22.0765	1883.5	0.991	3.4040	1.8956	0.073*
Access to transport facilities	2.3072	1.2308	0.061*	1.6017	0.8897	0.072*
Access to market information	−0.6446	1.1408	0.572	−0.4919	0.9237	0.594
Membership to farmer group	0.3879	1.4700	0.792	0.1928	1.2148	0.874
Access to extension services	−2.3884	1.9670	0.225	0.2953	1.3266	0.824
Training received from the IP	0.3978	1.5000	0.789	1.8104	1.0572	0.087*
Rice sold collectively	2.2115	1.0661	0.038**	1.6431	0.8411	0.051*
Price of rice (/kg)	0.0161	0.0141	0.255	0.0142	0.0111	0.201
Distance to nearest market (kms)	0.0872	0.0626	0.163	0.0467	0.0546	0.392
Quantity of rice sold	−0.0075	0.0049	0.127	−0.0045	0.0027	0.100
Mobile phone ownership	−3.5674	1.6101	0.027**	−0.9182	1.1939	0.442
Ownership of radio	1.1347	1.6394	0.489	−0.3667	1.2396	0.767

Prob > chi2 = 0.0018***; Pseudo R2 = 39.41%

*p value significant at 10%; **p value significant at 5%; ***p value significant at 1%

Figure 2. Market participation and marketing channels used by farmers.