Article Not peer-reviewed version

Heterogeneities in Farmers’ Preference

for Advisory Services: A Choice
Experiment of Vegetable Growers in
North-Western Ethiopia

Ermias Tesfaye Teferi * , Tigist Damtew Worku , Solomon Bizuayehu Wassie , Bernd Muller ,
Abdul-Rahim Abdulai , Céline Termote

Posted Date: 31 October 2024

doi: 10.20944/preprints202410.2466.v1

Keywords: mobile-based extension service; practice-oriented extension service; random parameter logit;
willingness-to-pay; private agricultural advisory; preference heterogeneity

Preprints.org is a free multidisciplinary platform providing preprint service

that is dedicated to making early versions of research outputs permanently
available and citable. Preprints posted at Preprints.org appear in Web of
Science, Crossref, Google Scholar, Scilit, Europe PMC.

Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0
license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author
and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 31 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.2466.v1

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions, and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and
contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting
from any ideas, methods, instructions, or products referred to in the content.

Article

Preferences for Agricultural Advisory Services

Among Vegetable Farmers in Northwestern Ethiopia:
Insights from a Choice Experiment
Ermias Tesfaye Teferi 1,*, Tigist Damtew Worku 2, Solomon Bizuayehu Wassie 2, Bernd Muller 3,
Abdul-Rahim Abdulai 4 and Céline Termot 4

1 International Center for Tropical Agriculture, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

2 Department of Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, Bahir Dar University, Bahir
Dar, Ethiopia; tigistdamtew16@gmail.com;
sbizuayehu@gmail.com
3 Weihenstephan-Triesdorf University of Applied Sciences; bernd.mueller@hswt.de
4 The Alliance of Bioversity International and the International Center for Tropical Agriculture, Cali, Colombia;
a.abdulai@cgiar.org; c.termote@cgiar.org
* Correspondence: e.tesfaye@cgiar.org

Abstract: This study investigated vegetable farmers’ willingness-to-pay (WTP) for private agricultural advisory
services in northwestern Ethiopia. Understanding farmers' preferences is a crucial step for modernizing
agricultural advisory services and transforming smallholder agri-food systems. Discrete choice experiment data
from 393 farm households was analysed using a random parameter logit model. The results revealed that
vegetable farmers are willing to pay for practice-oriented private advisory services. The result also showed the
existence of heterogeneity in farmers’ preference for features of vegetable advisory services. Household heads’
educational status and age influenced preferences for advisory service features. Farmers in general preferred
extension services with frequent expert visits and practical engagement on-farm as opposed to digitized options
that rely on short message service (SMS) and voice-based guidance. Additionally, farmers are more willing to
pay for extension services that emphasizes on leafy vegetables as opposed to fruit-bearing or roots and tuber
vegetables. The findings imply initiatives that push for commercializing agricultural advisory services should
strive to achieve a balance between practical application and digitization of extension services accounting for
heterogeneous preferences of smallholder farmers.

Keywords: mobile-based extension service; practice-oriented extension service; random parameter logit;
willingness-to-pay; private agricultural advisory; preference heterogeneity

1. Introduction
Agricultural advisory services (AAS) play a vital role in food system transformation by
promoting productivity, increasing food security, improving rural livelihoods, and promoting
agriculture as an engine of pro-poor economic growth (1–4). Improved AAS is especially critical in
lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where agriculture is an engine of growth (5). The (6)
defines agricultural extension as “systems that should facilitate the access of farmers, their
organizations, and other market actors to knowledge, information, and technologies; facilitate their
interaction with partners in research, education, agribusiness, and other relevant institutions; and
assist them in developing their own technical, organizational and management skills and practices.”
Poor public agricultural extension service in African nations poses a significant obstacle to
achieving productivity gains. Recent research showed that the introduction of private extension
services in legume-based and cereal farming systems in countries like Ghana, Mali, Tanzania, and
Niger resulted in an increase in the adoption of enhanced agricultural inputs, such as pesticides (7–
11). Similarly, a study conducted in Burkina Faso found that the agricultural extension service offered

© 2024 by the author(s). Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY license.

Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 31 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.2466.v1

by private groups was superior to the service provided by the government (12). Studies in Kenya and
Cape Verde demonstrated the effectiveness of private AAS, when combined with public extension
systems, in improving efficiency (13,14).
In Ethiopia, the establishment of AAS dates to the imperial regime in 1953 (15) Over the years,
the publicly operated system has undergone significant changes, particularly in terms of geographic
coverage. Despite its long history and increasing access in several parts of the country, research has
shown that the system has struggled to keep up with evolving needs primarily due to factors such as
overworked extension agents, limited collaboration with research, lack of institutional innovation,
and inadequate facilities at farmer training centers (15–17).
The horticultural crops sector suffers most from inefficient AAS (3,18–20). Despite massive diet
shifts in LMICs, experts encourage fruit and vegetable crops for their health and economic benefits
(21–23). Many sub-Saharan African countries, including Ethiopia (24) and others with inefficient
AAS, struggle to produce these essential foods. The low responsiveness of the public AAS to the
diverse and dynamic needs of smallholders sustains previously ineffective management of diseases
and pest outbreaks, outdated inputs and agronomic information, lack of improved storage and
transportation systems, and dysfunctional markets.
Therefore, some have called for building private, responsive, and demand-driven services to
address the inefficiencies created by the current public AAS (16,25). While calls for private extension
gain momentum in Ethiopia, their feasibility remains questionable, especially among farmers used
to free public extension. Specifically, are farmers willing to pay for private extension services to
receive tailored and efficient information? How might farmers respond to such services? Previous
studies in Ethiopia have alluded to farmers' willingness-to-pay (WTP) for AAS. For example, (26)
found that only 10% of farmers are willing to pay for current AAS in eastern Ethiopia. Most
respondents to their survey (64.2%) were favorably disposed to pay if the service was satisfying them
and increased their profits (see also (27)). These findings imply low willingness in some areas but fail
to address which features of AAS are demanded by farmers, especially those engaged in vegetable
production. This study responds to this need by focusing on the vegetable sub-sector. The research
employed a discrete choice experiment approach to examine this critical niche associated with high-
end vegetable produce. The study investigated whether vegetable farmers in northwest Ethiopia are
prepared to pay for a paid extension service that provides timely, adequate, and appropriate
information.

2. Methods
2.1. Study area, sampling, and data
For this study, we collected data from two districts in the Amhara region of northwestern
Ethiopia, Fogera and North Mecha (Figure 1). These districts, near the Lake Tana, Rib, and Koga
irrigation schemes provide access to irrigation water facilities, allowing for the cultivation of a variety
of vegetables, including onions, tomatoes, cabbage, and potatoes (28). We used a choice experiment
approach to gather data from smallholder vegetable producers. Using a Modified Fedorov algorithm,
the Ngene software generated 18-choice tasks with an efficient d-error-minimizing design (29).
Investigators interviewed the sampled household heads for the in-person survey. Two-stage
random sampling was utilized to choose sample households. Initially, two vegetable-growing
districts were targeted. In the second stage, our team randomly picked three kebeles from each
district. The study selected 393 households from selected kebeles using systematic random sampling,
ensuring sample households were proportional to kebele populations. Households from North
Mecha made up 46% of the sample, while those from Fogera accounted for 54%.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 31 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.2466.v1

Figure 1. Location of the study area. The left panel shows the study districts of Mecha and Fogera
within the Amhara region in northwestern Ethiopia. The right panel shows the two districts, the main
roads and their location near Lake Tana.

2.2. Discrete Choice Experiment Design

The choice experiments assume that a service or policy links to attributes and attribute levels
(30). Investigators asked sample respondents to choose among various competing alternatives, such
as different vegetable advisory services. Identifying relevant attributes and levels is vital for
designing a stated preference study. Our approach determined the critical features of vegetable
advisory services based on preference elicitation research on extension services and on advice from
horticulture specialists (31–34). Accordingly, the main attributes of the vegetable advisory service
were identified as the frequency of advisory service, the advisory knowledge/information exchange
approach, the types of vegetables covered, and the service fee in Ethiopian currency (ETB; Birr)
expressed in purchasing power parity for non-OECD countries (PPP 1 of 14.17). We developed three
alternatives for the choice experiment, two vegetable extension services, and the option to refuse
service. Respondents were asked to indicate their preferred alternatives in the choice experiment.
Of the five vegetable advisory attributes included in the experimental design, three had three
levels, one had four, and the remaining had two. We designed the choice sets using NGENE software,
resulting in 18 choice sets. The sets were grouped into three blocks, each with six choice sets, which
were randomly provided to respondents. The number of choice sets was limited to six to avoid
response fatigue. A single respondent was presented with six choices out of the 18 in the survey.
Hence, 393 respondents generated 7074 observations (see Table 1 and 2).

Table 1. the DCE attributes and their levels/categories.

Values used
Attributes to represent Description of each Levels
each level
Focus of vegetable advisory 1, 2 Input focused and Management
service (MVAS) focused
-1,0,1
Frequency of advisory service (FAS) per week, per two weeks, per month
Approach of knowledge exchange 0,1,2
On shops, on-field, by mobile
(AKE)
0,1,2
Types of Vegetables (TVAS) On FV, on LV and on R&T vegetables
80,100,120,140
40% less, 20% less, proposed amount,
Service fee for advisory in ETB (P)
14.5% more
The discrete choice experiment (DCE) attributes and their levels include fruity vegetables (FV),
leafy vegetables (LV), and roots and tubers (R&T); ETB stands for Ethiopian birr, and P is the price.

1
Ethiopia ET: Purchasing Power Parity for non-OECD countries. 14.17 ETB equals 1 US dollar.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 31 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.2466.v1

Table 2. example of single choice set.

Attributes Advisory service alternative 1 Advisory service alternative 2 Alternative

3: Opt-out
Main focus of Focus on vegetable Inputs Focus on vegetable
vegetable management.
advisory
service

Frequency of Advice service per two weeks Advice service per one month
advisory duration
service

Approach of farmers go to one stop shops Advice delivered On-field

knowledge
exchange

Types of Main focus Root and tuber Main focus on Fruity

Vegetables in the vegetables
advisory
service

Service fee for 100 ETB per month 140 ETB per month
advisory per
month

Choice
question:

2.3. Empirical Strategy

Random utility theory (35) and Lancaster's theory of characteristics(36) are the theoretical
foundations for DCE. Our approach assumes the farmer will choose the vegetable advisory service
alternative that provides the highest level of utility. This choice depends on the properties or
attributes of the options provided and the characteristics of the individual making the choices.
Decision makers (farmers in this case) demonstrate their preferences for specific attributes and
their willingness to accept trade-offs for these attributes embedded in the alternatives by choosing
one alternative over another (37). Following previous research (38,39), we define a latent variable
Vnjs*, as an indirect utility function associated with selecting alternative j by farmer n from a given
set of choices. Consequently, farmer n is provided with K possible alternatives within a choice set s.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 31 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.2466.v1

Producers are presumed to optimize their utility in every conceivable scenario, commonly referred
to as a choice set. Thus:
∗ ∗ ∗ ∗
1 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑉𝑉𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 (𝑉𝑉𝑛𝑛1𝑠𝑠 , 𝑉𝑉𝑛𝑛2𝑠𝑠 , … . . , 𝑉𝑉𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 )
𝑉𝑉𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 = � (1)
0 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
∗
farmer n will choose alternative j if 𝑉𝑉𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 > 𝑉𝑉𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛
∗
∀ K ≠ j. In Eq. 1, actual utility is observed through
∗
the utility maximizing choice 𝑉𝑉𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 , but indirect utility 𝑉𝑉𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 is not directly observable. Indirect utility
is assumed to be linear, whereas marginal utility is monotonic (i.e., not increasing nor decreasing),
yielding corner solutions in which one choice is selected (40,41). Based on this assumption, the utility
function of farmer n can be written as
∗ ′
𝑉𝑉𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 = 𝑋𝑋𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 β + 𝜀𝜀𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 (2)
′
Where 𝑋𝑋𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 represents the vector of attributes of each choice for the jth alternative observed by
farmer n, β is the vector of parameters that explain the influence each attribute has on the choice (e.g.,
frequency of advisory service), and 𝜀𝜀𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 is the unobserved (stochastic) component of utility,
independent of the observed components (i.e., X) and equally distributed across individuals and
choices. The unobserved component reflects the hypothesis that unobserved variations and errors
occur in a farmer’s preference for an alternative in any given choice set.
The random parameter logit model allows us to examine farmers’ preferences and willingness
to improve vegetable extension services by varying randomly assigned attributes. (Hensher et al.,
2003) used this model to evaluate the heterogeneity of choices among individuals. The model shows
which attribute preferences are associated with specific types of farmers (e.g., male and female). The
probability that farmer n chooses alternative j in choice set s is assumed to be(42):
𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝( �𝑉𝑉𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 = 1�(𝑋𝑋 ′ 𝑖𝑖1𝑠𝑠 , � 𝑋𝑋 ′ 𝑖𝑖2𝑠𝑠 , … . , (𝑋𝑋 ′ 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 , ∧))�� (3)

′
exp (𝑋𝑋𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 β)
= ∫ ∑𝑘𝑘 ′ 𝑓𝑓(β| ∧)dβ)
𝑘𝑘=1 exp (𝑋𝑋𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 β)

′
where 𝑋𝑋𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 β is the marginal utility parameter at various attribute levels. Λ refers to the
parameters that characterize the distribution of random parameters, such as the mean and covariance
of β (43). In this study, we specify the parameters (i.e., the attributes of vegetable advisory services)
and their respective attribute levels. In Eq. 3, the probability was numerically approximated using a
maximum-likelihood simulation. The coefficients corresponding to each attribute were assumed to
follow a normal distribution. By doing so, their sign can be either positive or negative, indicating
preferences for each attribute. The random parameter logit model was estimated using Stata 15.
Because of the non-cardinal nature of utility, the coefficients generated by a random parameter
logit (RPL) have a limited economic interpretation(41). To gain insights into the behavior of sampled
individuals, economic trade-offs are calculated by dividing non-monetary attributes (e.g., types of
vegetables in the vegetable advisory service) by monetary ones, such as service fee (44).
𝛽𝛽𝛽𝛽(𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎)
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 = (4)
𝛽𝛽6(𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝)
The values indicate a positive, negative, or null WTP ratio. Instead of giving everyone an
identical value for all their traits, the RPLs show whether the coefficients for each person follow a
testable distribution (42). In this study, it is defined as the additional amount of money a farmer is
willing to pay for a marginal change in the vegetable advisory service(45). When an attribute
parameter has a positive ratio, it means that people are ready to pay more for an attribute that
increases their utility — more payment for practical farm advice, for example (46). The monetary cost
that people are willing to bear to accept a modification to a feature that reduces its value may be
represented as a negative ratio (47).

3. Results
3.1. Characteristics of Sample Households
Table 3 provides an overview of the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the
sample households. Almost all household heads (97%) were male, while females accounted for only
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 31 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.2466.v1

3%. The mean family size was 7.4 members, while on average, 3.8 members of the household were in
the working age group of above 17 years old. The observed value was comparatively higher than the
mean size of Ethiopian families (4.6) at the national level (48). The average age of the sample
household heads was 44 years, while on average household heads had 23 years of agricultural
experience. The age of the household heads ranged from 19 to 81 years.
Livestock ownership ranged from households with none to those with over 16 tropical livestock
units (TLU). The average livestock holding was 5.2 based on the total number of households. Along
the same lines, the average size of cultivated landholdings held by households in the sample is 1.2
ha, over twice as much as the national landholding, which is 0.55 ha(49). Sample households allotted
an average of 0.4 ha of land for irrigated farming out of the total cultivated land, with a minimum of
0.01 ha and a maximum of 2 ha allocated to the same purpose.

Table 3. Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of sample households. N= 393.

Variable Mean Std. Dev. Min Max

Age of HH 43.7 12 19 81
Farm experience 23 12.1 1 58
Family Size 7.4 2.1 1 11
Working family members 3.8 1.6 1 10
Tropical Livestock Units (TLU) 5.2 2.3 0 16.7
Total cultivated land 1.2 0.6 0.08 5.8
Land for vegetable 0.39 0.02 0.01 2
Half of all heads of household sampled were unable to read and write. Of the half of household
heads who could read and write, 25% had completed formal education.
household heads who could read and write, 25% had completed formal education.

Table 4. Education status of sampled household heads.

Education Status HH Frequency Percent Cumulative

Cannot read and write 198 50.4 50.4
Can read and write, but with no formal 95 24.2 74.6
education
Have formal education 100 25.5 100.0

3.2. Households Access to basic services

The survey assessed farmers' access to general and vegetable-specific advisory services, access
to credit, membership in at least one local association (such as village savings, religious or non-
religious associations, etc.), and participation in at least one activity that generates income outside
farming. Forty-two percent of the households included in the sample did not make use of any of the
extension services offered in their area, while the remaining 58% of the households took advantage
of at least one extension service. Similarly, 34% of the households included in the sample did not
receive any extension services specifically related to the production and marketing of vegetables. In
comparison, 66% of the households received these services. The survey showed that 84.5 % of
households had access to credit, while 58.3% of those households showed an interest in
obtaining credit for vegetable production. However, less than 5% of households received credit for
the agricultural production of vegetables.

Table 5. Institutional characteristics of HH (N =393).

Variables Yes No
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Access to Extension/ training 229 58.27 164 41.73
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 31 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.2466.v1

Access to credit 332 84.48 61 15.52

Membership in local association 356 90.59 37 9.41
Advisory service related to 258 65.65 135 34.35
vegetable production and
marketing
Credit for vegetable farming 18 4.58 375 95.42
Off farm participation 78 19.85 315 80.15

3.3. Vegetable advisory service choices and preferences

The findings from the DCE data are presented in Table 6. A positive coefficient suggests a
positive impact of an attribute increase on the selection of a vegetable advice service, whereas a
negative coefficient indicates a negative influence. On occasions where the attribute has three discrete
levels — such as the approach used for knowledge exchange (AKE) and the vegetable focus in the
advisory service (TVAS) — one level is used as a comparison reference to the other levels.
For estimation purposes, the continuous variables price fee for advisory services (P) and
frequency of the advisory services (FAS) were coded by their levels. However, the levels of the
categorical attributes were coded as a dummy variable, where one was given for their presence and
zero otherwise. Management-oriented services delivered in the field and leafy vegetable services
were used as base levels for the focus of vegetable advisory services, approach of knowledge
exchange, and types of vegetables in the advisory service attributes. The price attribute is fixed in the
estimation. All other variables have a normal distribution. RPL was specified as a fixed or random
coefficient for the attributes of vegetable extension services.
Before estimating the parameters, the choice data were checked. The inspection results showed
that the opt-out alternative was chosen in approximately 0.83% of the cases, or 59 observations. The
other attributes — including the focus of vegetable advisory service (MVAS), frequency of advisory
service (FAS), approach of knowledge exchange (AKE), and types of vegetables in the advisory
service (TVAS) —are set to random.
The results showed that the frequency of advisory service, face-to-face practice-oriented mode
(on-field) of advisory, leafy vegetables focused services (the base level), and monthly advisory fee
significantly influenced the type of service preferred by vegetable-producing farmers (Table 6).
Advisory service features that were input delivery focused did not influence preferences. The
coefficient of the fixed variable of price attribute is negative and significant at the 5% level (− 0.008),
which indicates that the respondents’ preferences decrease as the price increases. This result is
consistent with the theory of demand; demand increases as price decreases and vice versa.
In the study area, vegetable producers preferred frequent visits from advisory providers, at the
1% significance level. As hypothesized, vegetable producers responded to increases in advisory fees
by shifting to self-management and traditional options. The negative coefficients of the advice
delivered through mobile calls and SMS and the advice offered to farmers going to one-stop-shops
implies that practical advisory types, accompanied by expert field-level visits, were preferred more
by vegetable producers than mobile-assisted and one-stop-shop services, with 1% and 5% levels of
significance, respectively. However, this result contradicts the current efforts in Ethiopia to replace
field-level advisory visits with digitally assisted services.
Research conducted in northern Ethiopia has shown that farmers are willing to pay for mobile-
based advisory services Abebe (2023). However, compared to face-to-face advisory services, the
research results indicate that farmers prefer practice-oriented face-to-face advice.

Table 6. RPL model results with attribute only.

Attributes only model

Mean of fixed parameter Coefficient standard Error Z P > (Z) WTP

Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 31 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.2466.v1

Advisory Fee -0.0080 0.009 -2.04 0.041

Mean of random parameter
Input delivery focused 0.2024 0.3368 0.60 0.548 25.47
Frequency of advisory service 0.0150 0.0044 3.41 0.001 1.89
Advice by mobile phone -0.9488 0.1714 -5.54 0.000 -119.39
One-stop shops -0.3984 0.2009 -1.98 0.047 -50.14
Fruity vegetables 0.9607 0.0948 10.14 0.000 120.89
Roots and tuber vegetables 1.6208 0.1276 12.71 0.000 203.94

Standard Deviation random

parameter
Coefficient standard Error Z P > (Z)

Input delivery focused 0.85835 0.28376 3.02 0.002***

Frequency of advisory service 0.00319 0.00037 8.71 0.000***
Advice by mobile phone 0.99874 0.15475 6.45 0.000***
One-stop shops 0.03019 0.23527 0.13 0.898
Fruity vegetables 0.76422 0.14829 5.15 0.000***
Roots and tuber vegetables 1.27165 0.14543 8.74 0.000***

Log likelihood = -1546.0302

LRchi2(6) = 255.40
Prob >chi2 = 0.0000

Notes: Dependent variable is choice; Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1; or
are statistically significant at 1%, 5% and 10-% level of significance, respectively.

Moreover, the significant standard deviations associated with random parameters indicate
unobserved sources of preference heterogeneity in the sample. The RPL model results also indicated
that each variable exhibited a preference for heterogeneity depending on whether the variable had
statistically significant standard deviations. Here, advice delivered by farmers going to a one-stop-
shop is not statistically significant. Other attributes are significant at the 1% level, such as advice
delivered through mobile calls, SMS frequency of the advisory services, the focus of the advisory
(which is input delivered focus), the type of vegetable (root type), and fruit type vegetable attributes.
This result indicates that the attributes exhibit preference heterogeneity. However, the insignificant
standard deviation for the variable on farmers going to the one-stop-shops implies that all farm
households, regardless of their socioeconomic background, agree that the one-stop-shop extension
service has no more important vegetable extension service attributes than the other attributes.

3.4. Heterogenous effects on choices of vegetable advisory services: Interaction of mixed logit results
The RPL model was estimated by using the included interaction terms. Table 7 shows the
heterogeneous effects on advisory service choice with respect to socioeconomic status based on the
mixed logit/random parameter logit model. These interaction terms allowed us to consider that
people with different demographic, socioeconomic, and attitudinal variables may have different
utilities concerning vegetable-producing advisory services. The interaction between the frequency of
the advisory service attribute and gender is positive and statistically significant at the 5% level (Table
7). This finding indicates that male-headed household farmers have a higher preference for frequent
vegetable extension advisories.
The interaction between the frequency of advisory services and age of the household head was
negative and statistically significant at the 10% level of significance. As farmers grow older, their
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 31 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.2466.v1

preferences for more frequent vegetable advisory services become lower than those of the youngest.
However, the interaction between education status and frequency of advisory services is positive and
statistically significant at the 5% level. This result shows that farmers who have received education
prefer frequent vegetable advisory services.
The interaction between education and advisory services delivered through mobile devices is
negative and statistically significant at the 1% level, implying that farmers who have received
education are less concerned about advisory services delivered through mobile devices. This result
indicates that farmers with more education prefer the field-visit mode of deliveries by field experts
than receiving information over mobile phones.
The interaction between extension training and root-type vegetable advisory attributes had a
negative significance at 1%, indicating that farmers who received extension training had less
preference for root and tuber-type vegetable extension services than those who did not receive
extension training. However, the statistically significant standard deviation estimates of the
interaction between those attributes and variables suggest that the level of heterogeneity of the
attribute varies beyond what can be explained by the variables.

Table 7. RPL attribute vs sociodemographic interaction result.

VARIABLES Variable definition Mean SD

FeeA Monthly Fee for vegetable -0.0139*(0.0025)

advisory service
SeXFrAS Sex interacted with 0.0029**(0.001)
frequency of adv. service
AgeVI Age interacted with Input 0.0207(0.0149)
focused adv. service
AgeFrAS Age of household head -5.77e-
interacted with frequency of 05*(0.0003)
adv. service
EducOnM Education interacted with -0.373***(0.125)
Advice by mobile
EducFrAS Education interacted with 0.0016**(0.0007)
frequency of adv. service
ExtTrainingXFrAS Extension training 0.001(0.0007)
interacted with frequency of
adv. service
ExtTrainingXRTV Extension training -0.599***(0.219)
interacted with Root tuber
vegetable focused advisory
TLUXVI Livestock size interacted 0.0938(0.0738)
with frequency of adv.
service
ExtencontactforvegeXFrAS Extension on Vegetables -
interacted with frequency of 0.000450(0.0004)
adv. service
totallandforvegetablesXRTV Land allocated for -0.121(0.375)
vegetavles interacted with
Root tuber vegetable
focused advisory

Input delivery focused -1.763**(0.718) 1.154***(0.304)

Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 31 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.2466.v1

10

Frequency of Adv. Service 0.0219***(0.0035) -

0.0065***(0.0011)
Advice through by mobile -0.0677(0.239) 1.036***(0.157)

One-stop shops 1.025***(0.103) 0.911***(0.142)

Fruity vegs 2.061***(0.242) 1.412***(0.156)

Log likelihood = -1544.6939

LR chi2(5) = 225.15
Observations = 7,074
Note: Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. Table 6 shows heterogeneous
effects on advisory service choice with respect to socioeconomic status based on the mixed
logit/random parameter logit.

3.5. Estimation of marginal willingness-to-pay for advisory services

Table 8 displays the marginal willingness to pay (MWTP) values expressed in Ethiopian birr,
which indicate the intensity of respondents' preferences for each attribute. Respondents anticipated
that they would obtain less value from an advisory visit for vegetable expansion with a lower MWTP.
By contrast, a higher MWTP for the same characteristic suggests that respondents anticipate greater
utility. One indicator of limited WTP was the frequency of the advisory service attribute (1.89 visits).
The results showed that farmers are not willing to pay higher margin for frequent advisory visits
after they started obtaining the required vegetable advisory services. Compared to the leafy type of
vegetable, farmers would rather pay a higher margin for acquiring the advisory service for fruity
vegetables is 203.94 ETB, and for root-type vegetables, it is 120.89 ETB.
The study result suggests that the inclusion of preferred features of advisory services can
improve the acceptance and potential of future vegetable productivity. Compared to input-focused
advising services, vegetable producers in the Mecha and Fogera regions are prepared to spend five
and eight times as much for fruit-based and root-based services, respectively, as for management-
focused ones. For mobile advisory services, the average WTP was -119.39, whereas for one-stop shop
services, it was -50. Based on the field expert visit results, farmers did not want certain traits as much
as they did at the basic level. In addition, the findings showed that farmers were not very interested
in the frequency of the practice, as shown by their relatively low WTP, even after they began obtaining
the required advising information and practices. Advising services that concentrate on the root and
fruit types of vegetables and those that are practice-based tend to have a greater WTP from vegetable
growers.

Table 8. Estimation of marginal willingness to pay.

Input- Frequency Advisory. Advisory. Fruit Root veg focused

based advisory Through. Through. vegetable advisory service
advisory visits Mobile 1-stop focused
services shops advisory
service

WTP 25.47 1.89 -119.39 -50.14 120.89 203.94

Lower
limit -78.28 1.13 -264.53 -142.42 4.88 3.08
Upper
Limit 129.22 2.65 25.75 42.15 236.90 404.80

4. Discussion
Agriculture remains the backbone of many sub-Saharan African countries, as it contributes to
maintaining food security, generating employment opportunities, producing foreign exchange, and
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 31 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.2466.v1

11

providing raw materials for industries (51–53). Therefore, food systems are transformative for most
countries in the region. However, the accessibility of agricultural information to smallholder farmers,
who form the sector's core, remains a critical barrier (54,55) to ensuring equity and inclusivity in food
systems transformation. Many regional governments prioritize identifying the optimal conditions to
ensure that the right information reaches farmers at the right time to aid production decisions. The
Ethiopian government has struggled to facilitate access to information through extension, prompting
calls for private extension to expand its reach to as many farmers as possible. Therefore, this study
examined the conditions under which smallholders in Ethiopia are willing to pay for privately
provided extension services.
The choice experiment showed the heterogeneity in farmers’ WTP for extension. As anticipated
through prior literature on Ethiopian farmers’ WTP for extension services (27,50,56), vegetable
farmers showed some WTP for private extensions delivered through various media. However, a
notable finding of the study was the conditionality associated with willingness. Specifically, the
results indicate that farmers’ willingness is moderated by the elements of the service, such as the
mode of delivery, cost of the service, and type of information provided. There was no blanket
acceptance or WTP for extension services. The findings of this study align with previous research
(16), which emphasizes the need to enhance agricultural extension services in Ethiopia by offering
specialized training tailored to the unique situation. Hence, efforts to establish private extension will
likely fail without paying attention to the differences in farmers' preferences (57). This argument is
further supported by the propensity of farmers to opt out of services when they are not designed to
meet the right conditions.
Furthering the understanding of the specificities of farmers’ WTP is the effect of socioeconomic
(age and education) interaction with extension service attributes. Specifically, there was a significant
association between advisory service frequency and age. As farmers grow older, their preferences for
more frequent vegetable advisory services become lower than those of younger farmers. The age
element, consistent with prior results (27,56,58), could be attributed to experiences gained from
farming as people aged. Farmers gain more experience with age, reducing their need for external
knowledge and information. However, as climate change and many other shocks continue to emerge,
these relationships can be tested over time and must be considered an important topic for research.
Novel research must be conducted to understand how emergent shocks, with the risk of undermining
the existing knowledge older farmers, can influence responses to external knowledge. The results
show a significant association between educational status and the frequency of advisory services that
farmers require and are willing to pay. Specifically, educated farmers prefer vegetable advisory
services more frequently. Educated farmers may know more about the vulnerability of vegetables
to different diseases during production and the importance of extension services for reducing this
vulnerability(58). However, the relationship between education, frequency, and WTP was not generic
for all types of extension services. The negative result of the interaction between education and
advisory services delivered through mobile phones indicated that farmers with more education
prefer the field visit mode of delivery. This critical finding, when applied to a general sample, is worth
discussing further.
Farmers were generally more willing to pay for advisory services delivered by expert field-level
visits than for mobile-assisted and one-stop-shop services, with 1% and 5% levels of significance,
respectively. The potential source of this might be inadequate digital accessibility resulting from the
substandard digital infrastructure experienced by smallholder farmers in Ethiopia (59). This result is
essential for the broader efforts to enhance access to advisory services in Africa and Ethiopia.
Governments and international development entities in the last decade have favored and promoted
widespread digitalization of agriculture, with extension and advisories at the center of such programs
(60–62) Digital extensions and advisories aim to reach hard-to-reach farmers left out of the
overstretched public extension schemes. Ironically, some have questioned whether such digital
efforts are truly built in the interests of farmers. For example, (63) found that farmers tend to prefer
traditional face-to-face meetings. There are several reasons for this preference. Farmers will not
benefit from the delivery of digital extensions in languages (mostly English) inaccessible to
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 31 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.2466.v1

12

smallholders or when that information is poorly delivered (one-way communication). Digital

extension services suffer when farmers lack the knowledge to take advantage of them, among many
other shortcomings of digital extension(62–64). While this finding casts doubt on the feasibility and
acceptability of digital extension for vegetable farmers in Ethiopia, it is essential to note that it does
not entirely discount the value that such services may offer farmers.
Finally, farmers’ WTP for private extension depends on product/crop lines. Specifically,
vegetable producers in the Mecha and Fogera areas were prepared to spend five and eight times
more, respectively, for extension advice on leafy vegetables (such as lettuce and cabbage) than on
root and fruit vegetables (such as potatoes). The result implies that improved vegetable extension
services with a focus on leafy vegetables (i.e., the comparison base) are considered desirable advisory
services. Although the reason for these preferences was not apparent from the experiment, it could
be based on the variations in the susceptibility of these different crops to disease risk and the
agronomic care required. According to one case study (65) , leafy vegetables are increasingly exposed
to new pathogens, such as Alternaria leaf spot and Fusarium wilt that attack basil and lettuce
vegetables, require constant adaptation and new knowledge (65–67). Whatever the reason for this
finding, extension services should be designed for the specific needs of farmers rather than blanket
services that do not consider differences in preferences.

5. Conclusions
This study found heterogeneity in farmers’ WTP for private, improved extension services, with
the type of crop information (root vs. leafy vegetables) and mode of extension delivery (face-to-face
vs. digital) among some critical differences that impact farmers’ preferences. Farmers emphasized
the importance of in-person extension service delivery. Younger and educated farmers showed more
WTP for frequent private extensions, underscoring socioeconomic variation, including age and level
of education.
The results provide critical insights into the future potential design and implementation of
private extension services in Ethiopia and beyond. Farmers’ WTP for private extension must not be
viewed blindly, regardless of heterogeneities within the smallholder sector and population. Instead,
any attempt to improve such a service must be discussed in the context of questions such as what
type of extension farmers demand. How can an extension service be delivered? What type of products
will such a service be based on? Specialists must design extension services for the specific needs of
farmers, rather than blanket programs that ignore differences in preferences.

References
1. Yitayew A, Abdulai A, Yigezu YA. The effects of advisory services and technology channeling on farm
yields and technical efficiency of wheat farmers in Ethiopia. Food Policy. 2023 Apr 1;116.
2. Lartey VC, Antwi S, Boadi EK. The Relationship between Liquidity and Profitability of Listed Banks in
Ghana. International Journal of Business and Social Science. 2013;4(3):48–56.
3. Buehren N, Goldstein M, Molina E, Vaillant J. The impact of strengthening agricultural extension services
on women farmers: Evidence from Ethiopia. Agricultural Economics (United Kingdom). 2019 Jul
1;50(4):407–19.
4. Elias A, Nohmi M, Yasunobu K, Ishida A. Effect of Agricultural Extension Program on Smallholders’ Farm
Productivity: Evidence from Three Peasant Associations in the Highlands of Ethiopia. Journal of
Agricultural Science. 2013;5(8).
5. Danso-Abbeam G, Ehiakpor DS, Aidoo R. Agricultural extension and its effects on farm productivity and
income: Insight from Northern Ghana. Agric Food Secur. 2018;7(1).
6. FAO Food and Agriculture Organization. Ethiopia Country Brief. Addis Ababa ; 2010.
7. Tabe-Ojong MP, Nyam YS, Lokossou JC, Gebrekidan BH. Farmer advisory systems and pesticide use in
legume-based systems in West Africa. Science of the Total Environment. 2023;867.
8. Abed R, Sseguya H, Flock J, Mruma S, Mwango H. An evolving agricultural extension model for lasting
impact: How willing are tanzanian farmers to pay for extension services? Sustainability (Switzerland).
2020;12(20).
9. Jensen PF, Prowse M, Larsen MN. Smallholders’ demand for and access to private-sector extension
services: A case study of contracted cotton producers in northern Tanzania. Journal of Agrarian Change.
2019;19(1).
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 31 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.2466.v1

13

10. Yegbemey RN, Yabi JA, Heubach K, Bauer S, Nuppenau EA. Willingness to be informed and to pay for
agricultural extension services in times of climate change: the case of maize farming in northern Benin,
West Africa. Clim Dev. 2014;6(2).
11. Bakang JEA, Wongnaa CA, Tham-Agyekum EK, Fatimatu S, Obeng JA, Nsafoah EB, et al. Determinants of
maize farmers willingness to pay for private extension services in Ejisu municipality, Ghana. Heliy
[Internet]. 2024 Sep 15 [cited 2024 Sep 30];10(17):e37464. Available from:
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Heliy..1037464B/abstract
12. Sylla AY, Mahama Al-Hassan R, Egyir IS, Anim-Somuah H. Perceptions about quality of public and private
agricultural extension in Africa: Evidence from farmers in Burkina Faso. Cogent Food Agric. 2019;5(1).
13. Muyanga M, Jayne TS. Private Agricultural Extension System in Kenya: Practice and Policy Lessons. The
Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension. 2008;14(2):111–24.
14. Conradie B, Galloway C, Renner A. Private extension delivers productivity growth in pasture-based dairy
farming in the Eastern Cape, 2012–2018. Agrekon. 2022;61(2).
15. Berhane G, Ragasa C, Abate GT, Assefa TW. The state of agricultural extension services in Ethiopia and
their contribution to agricultural productivity. ESSP Working Paper. 2018.
16. Davis KE, Babu SC, Ragasa C. Agricultural extension: Global status and performance in selected countries
[Internet]. 2020 [cited 2024 Mar 25]. Available from:
https://books.google.com/books/about/Agricultural_extension_Global_status_and.html?id=YZj6DwAAQ
BAJ
17. Leta G, Kelboro G, Stellmacher T, Hornidge AK. The agricultural extension system in Ethiopia: Operational
setup, challenges and opportunities. ZEF Development Studies. 2017;(158).
18. Aliyi I, Faris A, Ayele A, Oljirra A, Bayessa M. Profitability and market performance of smallholder
vegetable production: evidence from Ethiopia. Heliyon. 2021 Sep 1;7(9):e08008.
19. Gebru KM, Leung M, Rammelt C, Zoomers A, van Westen G. Vegetable business and smallholders’ food
security: Empirical findings from Northern Ethiopia. Sustainability (Switzerland). 2019 Jan 31;11(3).
20. Gebremariam YA, Dessein J, Wondimagegnhu BA, Breusers M, Lenaerts L, Adgo E, et al. Undoing the
development army: a paradigm shift from transfer of technology to agricultural innovation system in
Ethiopian extension. Environ Dev Sustain. 2023;
21. Keller KL, Lehmann DR. Brands and branding: Research findings and future priorities. Marketing Science.
2006;25(6):740–59.
22. Deribe H, Mintesnot A. Review on Contribution of Fruits and Vegetables on Food Security in Ethiopia.
Journall of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare. 2016;6(11).
23. Wolfenden L, Barnes C, Lane C, McCrabb S, Brown HM, Gerritsen S, et al. Consolidating evidence on the
effectiveness of interventions promoting fruit and vegetable consumption: an umbrella review. Vol. 18,
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 2021.
24. Bekele M. Challenges and Opportunities of Marketing Fruit and Vegetables at Logia , Northeastern
Ethiopia . The Case of Onion , Tomato and Banana. Journal of Marketing and Consumer Research.
2016;22:51–8.
25. Uddin E, Gao Q, Mamun-Ur-Rashid MD. Crop Farmers’ Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Extension
Services in Bangladesh: Cases of Selected Villages in Two Important Agro-ecological Zones. Journal of
Agricultural Education and Extension. 2016;22(1):43–60.
26. Tolera T, Temesgen D, Rajan DS. Factors affecting farmers ’ willingness to pay for agricultural extension
services : The case of Haramaya District , Ethiopia. Agric Sci Res. 2014;3(December):268–77.
27. Temesgen D, Tola T. Determinates of small holder farmers willingness to pay for agricultural extension
services : A case study from Eastern Ethiopia. 2015;10(20):2152–8.
28. Kassahun B, Tegegne GEgziabher. Socio-Economic Base-Line Survey of Rural and Urban Households in
Tana Sub-Basin, Amhara National Regional State [Internet]. Addis Ababa: Forum for Social Studies (FSS);
2014. Available from: www.fssethiopia.org.et
29. Choice Metrics. Ngene 1.2 USER MANUAL & REFERENCE GUIDE [Internet]. 2018. Available from:
www.choice-metrics.com
30. Louviere JJ, Pihlens D, Carson R. Design of Discrete Choice Experiments: A Discussion of Issues That
Matter in Future Applied Research. Journal of Choice Modelling [Internet]. 2009;4(1):1–8. Available from:
www.jocm.org.uk
31. Mugunieri GL, Omiti JM. Decentralization, community-based organizations and access to agricultural
extension services in eastern Kenya. Decentralization and the Social Economics of Development: Lessons
from Kenya. 2007 Jul 24;64–83.
32. Tesfaye A, Hansen J, Kagabo D, Birachi E, Radeny M. Rwanda Climate Services for Agriculture: Farmers
willingness to pay for improved climate services [Internet]. 2020. Available from:
https://ccafs.cgiar.org/donors.
33. James PA, Smart JC, Smith J, Bulling M, Beed FD, Luwandagga D. The effect of participation in the Ugandan
National Agricultural Advisory Services on willingness to pay for extension services. AfJARE. 2011;6(1).
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 31 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.2466.v1

14

34. Altobelli F, Marta AD, Heinen M, Jacobs C, Giampietri E, Mancini M, et al. Irrigation Advisory Services:
Farmers preferences and willingness to pay for innovation. https://doi.org/101177/00307270211002848
[Internet]. 2021 Mar 29 [cited 2024 Mar 23];50(3):277–85. Available from:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/00307270211002848?journalCode=oa
35. List JA. Using Choice Experiments to Value Non-Market Goods and Services University of Maryland value
with random utility theory ( McFadden , 1974 ). 2002;(June).
36. Lancaster KJ. A New Approach to Consumer Theory. Journal of Political Economy [Internet].
1966;74(2):132–57. Available from: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/259131
37. Altobelli F, Lall U, Dalla Marta A, Caracciolo F, Cicia G, D’urso G, et al. Willingness of farmers to pay for
satellite-based irrigation advisory services: a southern Italy experience. 2018 [cited 2024 Mar 23]; Available
from: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859618000588
38. Schaafsma M, Ferrini S, Turner RK. Assessing smallholder preferences for incentivised climate-smart
agriculture using a discrete choice experiment. Land use policy [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2024 Mar 27];88.
Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104153
39. Teferi ET, Kassie GT, Pe ME, Fadda C. Are farmers willing to pay for climate related traits of wheat?
Evidence from rural parts of Ethiopia. Agric Syst [Internet]. 2020;185(August):102947. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102947
40. Useche P, Barham BL, Foltz JD. Trait-based adoption models using ex-ante and ex-post approaches. In:
American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 2013.
41. Silberg TR, Richardson RB, Lopez MC. Maize farmer preferences for intercropping systems to reduce Striga
in Malawi. Food Secur. 2020 Apr 1;12(2):269–83.
42. Train K. Discrete choice methods with simulation, second edition. Vol. 9780521766, Discrete Choice
Methods with Simulation, Second Edition. Cambridge University Press; 2009. 1–388 p.
43. Waldman KB, Ortega DL, Richardson RB, Snapp SS. Estimating demand for perennial pigeon pea in
Malawi using choice experiments. Ecological Economics. 2017;131.
44. Knowler D, Philcox N, Nathan S, Delamare W, Haider W, Gupta K. Assessing prospects for shrimp culture
in the Indian Sundarbans: A combined simulation modelling and choice experiment approach. Mar Policy.
2009;33(4).
45. Gibson JM, Rigby D, Polya DA, Russell N. Discrete Choice Experiments in Developing Countries:
Willingness to Pay Versus Willingness to Work. Environ Resour Econ (Dordr) [Internet]. 2016 Dec 1 [cited
2021 Dec 13];65(4):697–721. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10640-015-9919-8
46. Nahuelhual L, Loureiro ML, Loomis J. Using random parameters to account for heterogeneous preferences
in contingent valuation of public open space. Vol. 29, Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
2004.
47. Rigby D, Burton M. Preference heterogeneity and GM food in the UK. European Review of Agricultural
Economics. 2005;32(2).
48. CSA. Population Projection of Ethiopia for All Regions at Woreda Level from 2014-2017. Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia; 2017.
49. CSA. Agricultural sample survey. Volume I, Report on area and production for major crops (private
peasant holdings, main season). 2017.
50. Abebe A. Farmers’ willingness to pay for mobile phone-based agricultural extension service in northern
Ethiopia. Cogent Food Agric [Internet]. 2023 Dec 31 [cited 2024 Mar 22];9(1). Available from:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/23311932.2023.2260605
51. Modi R. The Role of Agriculture for Food Security and Poverty Reduction in Sub-Saharan Africa. In: The
Palgrave Handbook of Contemporary International Political Economy. 2019.
52. Diao X, Hazell P, Resnick D, Thurlow J. The role of agriculture in development: Implications for Sub-
Saharan Africa. Research Report of the International Food Policy Research Institute. 2007;(153).
53. Christiaensen L, Demery L, Kuhl J. The (evolving) role of agriculture in poverty reduction-An empirical
perspective. J Dev Econ. 2011;96(2).
54. Ndimbwa T, Mwantimwa K, Ndumbaro F. Channels used to deliver agricultural information and
knowledge to smallholder farmers. IFLA Journal. 2021;47(2).
55. Megerssa GR, Gemede BG, Jarsa AW. Challenges of smallholder farmers in accessing agricultural
information in Southern Ethiopia. Agricultural Science and Technology. 2020;12(1).
56. Gebreegziabher KT, Mezgebo GK. Smallholder Farmers Willingness to Pay for Privatized Agricultural
Extension Services in Tigray National Regional State, Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Extension.
2020;24(4).
57. Steinke J, Achieng JO, Hammond J, Kebede SS, Mengistu DK, Mgimiloko MG, et al. Household-specific
targeting of agricultural advice via mobile phones: Feasibility of a minimum data approach for smallholder
context. Comput Electron Agric. 2019 Jul 1;162:991–1000.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 31 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.2466.v1

15

58. Gosbert LS, Athman KA, Jumanne MA. Factors determining crop farmers willingness to pay for
agricultural extension services in Tanzania: A case of Mpwapwa and Mvomero Districts. Journal of
Agricultural Extension and Rural Development. 2019;11(12).
59. Tamene LD, Ashenafi A. Digital Agriculture Profile: Ethiopia. 2022.
60. Abdulai AR, KC KB, Fraser E. What factors influence the likelihood of rural farmer participation in digital
agricultural services? experience from smallholder digitalization in Northern Ghana. Outlook Agric.
2023;52(1).
61. Abdulai AR. Toward digitalization futures in smallholder farming systems in Sub-Sahara Africa: A social
practice proposal. Front Sustain Food Syst. 2022;6.
62. Tsan M, Benjamin K, Totapally S, Hailu M, Addom. The Digitalisation of African Agriculture Report 2018–
2019. Wageningen, The Netherlands: CTA/Dalberg Advisers. Vol. 53, African Affairs. 2019.
63. McCampbell M, Schumann C, Klerkx L. Good intentions in complex realities: Challenges for designing
responsibly in digital agriculture in low-income countries. Sociol Ruralis. 2022;62(2).
64. Kansiime MK, Mugambi I, Rware H, Alokit C, Aliamo C, Zhang F, et al. CHALLENGES AND CAPACITY
GAPS IN SMALLHOLDER ACCESS TO DIGITAL EXTENSION AND ADVISORY SERVICES IN KENYA
AND UGANDA. Front Agric Sci Eng. 2022;9(4).
65. Gilardi G, Garibaldi A, Gullino ML. Emerging pathogens as a consequence of globalization and climate
change: Leafy vegetables as a case study. Vol. 57, Phytopathologia Mediterranea. 2018.
66. Ebert AW. Vegetable production, diseases, and climate change. Frontiers of Economics and Globalization.
2017;17.
67. Golding J, Tesoriero L, Daniel R. Leafy Vegetables. In: Pathology of Fresh Horticultural Produce. 2019. p.
339–72.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those
of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s)
disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or
products referred to in the content.