26-Title: Farmers’ valuation of attributes associated with animal healthcare services in Uttar Pradesh (India): Application of conjoint analysis
Authors: D Bardhan, Sanjay Kumar and Rishi Kumar Singh
Source: Ruminant Science (2020)-9(1):125-130.
How to cite this manuscript: Bardhan D, Kumar Sanjay and Singh Rishi Kumar (2020). Farmers’ valuation of attributes associated with animal healthcare services in Uttar Pradesh (India): Application of conjoint analysis. Ruminant Science 9(1):125-130.
Abstract
The present study has analyzed perceptions of livestock farmers towards the provision of animal healthcare services (AHS) in terms of providing empirical estimates of farmers’ valuation of different attributes associated with AHS. The study was conducted among 1304 households from all 9 agro-climatic regions of Uttar Pradesh state of India. Using multivariate data analytical techniques, households were categorized into poor (48%), medium (36.5%) and rich (15%) wealth categories. The analytical procedure of conjoint analysis was used to know quantitative estimates of farmers’ relative valuation of different AHS attributes. Respondents’ ratings of different AHS providers on different attributes revealed no significant differences in the mean ratings given to attributes such as proximity, quality and affordability. Also, there were no significant differences in the mean ratings for each attribute for a particular AHS provider across different wealth categories. The only pattern that emerged was lower score given to ‘proximity’ as compared to ‘affordability and ‘quality’ across different wealth status categories and various AHS providers, thus indicating that the real issue in accessing AHS is proximity, i.e. easy access to AHS at the time of need. Application of conjoint analysis to assess farmers’ relative valuation of different AHS attributes revealed ‘place of service’ as the most important attribute for all categories of respondents, closely followed by ‘supply of medicines by service providers’ and ‘type of service provider’.
References
Adamowicz W, Louviere J and Williams M (1994). Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26 (3):271-292.
Ahuja Vinod, Rajasekhar M and Raju Ramalinga (2008). Animal Health for Poverty Alleviation: A Review of Key Issues for India. (www.vinodahuja.in)
Bardhan D, Kumar Sanjay and Singh Rishi Kumar (2018). Delivery of livestock healthcare services and scope for its improvement: Evidence from Uttar Pradesh state of India. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 88(11):1320-1325.
Bilwar Harikant, Mandal MK, Singh Ruchi and Yadav Jitendra (2015). Capacity building of tribal people on scientific goat farming practices. Ruminant Science 4(2):189-191.
Bilwar Harikant, Mandal MK, Singh Ruchi and Yadav Jitendra Singh (2016). An analysis of goat production system in tribal areas of Mandla district. Ruminant Science 5(1):55-58.
Chowdhry NR, Prasad S, Bhakat M and Singh Amit (2014). Tharparkar cattle management practices followed in rearing at western arid Rajasthan. Ruminant Science 3(1):93-98.
Dhamale Madhuri, Ravikumar RK, Ksheersagar Vivek Hindurao and Kumar Vipin (2017). Social construction of technology: An illustrative model for scaling up experimental wisdom of community in livestock welfare. Ruminant Science 6(1):119-123.
Desvouges W, Smith K and McGivney M (1983). A comparison of alternative approaches for estimating recreation and related benefits of water quality improvements. United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Contract No. 68-01-5838, Washington, DC.
Garrod G and Willis K (1997). The non-use benefits of enhancing forest biodiversity: A contingent ranking study. Ecological Economics 21:45-61.
Gujar Bharti, Rajput DS, Sharma NK, Goyal TC and Mishra Pankaj (2017). Knowledge and adoption level of livestock owners regarding health care practices towards organic animal husbandry management system. Ruminant Science 6(2):355-356.
Gupta DK, Singh SK, Singh Amit and Kumar Vijay (2015). Constraints in livestock services delivered by different agency in Mathura district of Uttar Pradesh. Ruminant Science 4(1):87-89.
Katheria Dharmendra, Gangwar LS, Rashmi and Kumar Amit (2016). Prospects and constraint faced by small holder dairy farmers and animal health service provider in controlling mastitis. Ruminant Science 5(1):51-54.
Lamichhane DK and Shrestha S (2012). Determinants of farmers’ choice for veterinary service providers in Nepal Mountains. Tropical Animal Health and Production 44:1163-1168.
Maurya Nitin, Ravikumar RK, Milli Rajiv, Prasad Madhava, Raturi Vipin and Kumar Vivek (2017). Conceptual design in integrating informal knowledge system: A specific reference to livestock science. Ruminant Science 6(2):357-360.
Rajput Devi Singh and Tripathi Hema (2012). Status and pattern of animal health delivery services provided by veterinary officers in arid zone of Rajasthan. Ruminant Science 1(1):37-43.
Rajput MB, Sheikh AS and Parmar DV (2015). Knowledge of zoonotic diseases among dairy farmers of Banaskantha district. Ruminant Science 4(1):75-80.
Sayadi S, Gonzalez Roa C and Calatrava Requena J (2005). Ranking versus scale rating in conjoint analysis: evaluating landscapes in mountainous regions of southeastern Spain. Ecological Economics 55:539-50.
Turkson PK (2004). Perceptions of livestock owners of private veterinary practice in Ghana. Tropical Animal Health and Production 36:427-434.
Wossink GA, Wenum JH, Jurgens CR and de Snoo GR (1999). Co-ordinating economic, behavioural and spatial aspects of wildlife preservation in agriculture. European Review of Agricultural Economics 26(4):443-460.