Community-based management as a driver of adoption of village poultry improvement technologies: empirical evidence from Benin

Figures & data

Table 1. Distribution of the sample according to the participation in community-based management.

Region	Non-participant of non-experimental village	Non-participant of experimental village	Participant	Total
South	51	84	93	228
North	39	55	83	177
Total	90	139	176	405

Table 2. Hypothesized determinants of breeders’ decision to adopt poultry improvement technologies.

Variables	Label (and measure)	Ho sign	Rationale
EXPVIL	Experimental village (1 = yes, 0 = no)	+	Breeders in experimental villages have more information about the new technologies
REGION	Region (1 = North, 0 = South)	±	Cultural, agro-climatic and economic differences
GENDER	Gender of the breeder (1 = male, 0 = female)	+	Females often have less access to productive resources and the introduction of new technologies often requires additional resources
AGE	Age of the breeder (Years)	+	Producers become increasingly open to new technologies until a certain age but their openness decreases again with a further increasing age
AGE2	Square of age ([years]^2)	−
EDUC	Formal education of the breeder (1 = educated, 0 = none)	+	Education increases the ability to understand and benefit from new technologies
HHSIZE	Household size	+	Labor increases the willingness to adopt the technologies Labor availability increases the potential benefits from new technologies, because new technologies often require additional labor
CREDIT	Obtained credit (1 = yes, 0 = no)	+	Breeders who have access to credit are more likely to have sufficient financial means to introduce new technologies

Table 3. Some characteristics of poultry-keepers according to the participation in Community-Based Management.

Characteristics	Non-participant of non-experimental village (n = 90)	Non-participant of experimental village (n = 139)	Participant (n = 176)	Total (n = 405)
Gender of the breeder (%)
Female	31.1	42.4	47.7	42.2
Male	68.9	57.6	52.3	57.8
Age of the livestock-keeper (year)	43.0 (15.4)	43.0 (13.7)	45.3 (13.5)	44.0 (14.0)
Education (% of formal educated)	35.6	24.5	37.5	32.6
Obtained credit (% of yes)	5.6	5.0	77.8	36.8
Household size (number)	7.8 (4.2)	8.2 (4.1)	8.0 (4.6)	8.0 (4.3)
Type of poultry reared
Chicken	65.7	58.3	57.9	59.7
Chicken and duck	11.0	9.4	11.4	10.6
Chicken and guinea fowl	13.3	19.4	22.2	19.3
Chicken, duck and guinea fowl	10.0	12.9	8.5	10.4

( ): Figures in parentheses are standard deviations.

Table 4. ‘Proportions of the breeders who adopted the new technologies.

		Non-participant of non-experimental village (n = 90)	Non-participant of experimental village (n = 139)	Participant (n = 176)	Total (n = 405)
Poultry vaccination (% of yes)		31.1	36.7	63.6	47.2
Appreciation of the vaccination (by breeders who vaccinate their birds)	Satisfied	56.8	85.3	84.2	80.5
	Little satisfied	43.2	14.7	15.8	19.5
Possess chick-house (% of yes)		16.7	13.7	46.6	28.6
Possess henhouse (% of yes)		47.8	59.0	89.8	69.9
Improved feed (% of yes)		6.7	21.6	50.0	30.6
Possess improved cockerels (% of yes)		5.6	8.6	13.6	10.1

Table 5. Factors influencing the adoption of village poultry vaccination, chick-houses, henhouses, improved feed and improved cockerel: results of logit regression.

		Vaccination		Henhouse		Chick-house		Improved feed		Improved cockerel
Variable	Label	Coef.	Marg. Eff.	Coef.	Marg. Eff.	Coef.	Marg. Eff.	Coef	Marg. Eff.	Coef	Marg. Eff.
EXPVIL	Experimental village (1 = yes, 0 = no)	0.554** (0.282)	0.137** (0.068)	0.921*** (0.284)	0.190*** (0.064)	0.343 (0.349)	0.061 (0.058)	1.728*** (0.468)	0.235(0.043)	0.625 (0.525)	0.036 (0.026)
REGION	Region (1 = North, 0 = South)	0.650*** (0.248)	0.161*** (0.060)	0.601** (0.284)	0.109** (0.050)	−1.653*** (0.300)	−0.289*** (0.047)	−1.535*** (0.306)	−0.259*** (0.048)	−1.893*** (0.483)	−0.123*** (0.029)
GENDER	Gender of the breeder (1 = male, 0 = female)	0.095 (0.269)	0.024 (0.067)	0.726** (0.300)	0.138** (0.058)	0.722** (0.303)	0.130(0.053)	0.175 (0.306)	0.031 (0.054)	0.165 (0.422)	0.011 (0.027)
AGE	Age of the breeder (Years)	0.020 (0.042)	−0.002 (0.002)	0.041 (0.046)	0.001 (0.001)	0.040 (0.050)	0.001 (0.003)	0.107* (0.060)	−0.002 (0.002)	0.123 (0.090)	0.002 (0.004)
(AGE^2)/100	Square of AGE ([years]^2) divided by 100	−0.033 (0.043)	NN	−0.043 (0.047)	NN	−0.047 (0.051)	NN	−0.137** (0.065)	NN	−0.131 (0.098)	NN
EDUC	Formal education of the breeder (1 = educated, 0 = none)	0.790*** (0.269)	0.193*** (0.063)	0.443 (0.307)	0.079 (0.052)	0.148 (0.301)	0.028 (0.057)	0.680** (0.308)	0.129** (0.061)	0.514 (0.420)	0.037 (0.032)
HHSIZE	Household size	−0.026 (0.027)	−0.007 (0.007)	0.016 (0.032)	0.003 (0.006)	0.121*** (0.030)	0.023*** (0.005)	0.072** (0.030)	0.013** (0.005)	0.098** (0.038)	0.006*** (0.002)
CREDIT	Obtained credit (1 = yes, 0 = no)	1.289*** (0.251)	0.308*** (0.055)	1.784*** (0.338)	0.291*** (0.044)	1.549*** (0.280)	0.309*** (0.056)	1.567*** (0.281)	0.304(0.056)	0.077 (0.380)	0.005 (0.026)
(Constant)	Constant	−1.419 (0.973)	NN	−2.107** (1.047)	NN	−3.431*** (1.147)	NN	−5.126*** (1.352)		−5.931*** (1.989)

Marg. Eff.: marginal effects; Coef.: coefficient.

N = 405; likelihood-ratio (LR) chisquare(8) = 72.17***; log likelihood  =  −244.61; pseudo R² = 0.129; NN : not need.

Likelihood-ratio (LR) test for the joint significant of AGE and AGE2: LR chi-square = 1.75.

Value of AGE that maximizes the linear prediction = 32.33 years.

( ): Figures in parenthesis are standard errors.

*** Significant at 1%, ** Significant at 5%, * Significant at 10%.

Data availability statement

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.