| 000 | 02902nab a22003977a 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 999 |
_c60381 _d60373 |
||
| 001 | 60381 | ||
| 003 | MX-TxCIM | ||
| 005 | 20211006073059.0 | ||
| 008 | 190430s2012 ne |||p|op||| 00| 0 eng d | ||
| 022 | _a1876-4517 | ||
| 022 | _a1876-4525 (Online) | ||
| 024 | 8 | _ahttps://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-012-0184-1 | |
| 040 | _aMX-TxCIM | ||
| 041 | _aeng | ||
| 100 | 1 |
_99196 _aBokusheva, R. |
|
| 245 | 1 | 0 | _aFactors determining the adoption and impact of a postharvest storage technology |
| 260 |
_aNetherlands : _bSpringer, _c2012. |
||
| 500 | _aPeer review | ||
| 500 | _aOpen Access | ||
| 520 | _aThis paper evaluates the determinants and impact of adopting the metal silo—a postharvest storage technology for staple grains—which was disseminated by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) from 1983 to 2003 in four Central American countries. The aim of the SDC program was to diminish smallholder farmers’ postharvest losses by facilitating the manufacture and dissemination of metal silos and thereby to improve regional food security. Our empirical analysis is based on a unique data set obtained from a survey of 1,600 households from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua. We employed a double-hurdle model to identify factors that contributed to the adoption of metal silos and used Tobit and standard regression models to assess the impact of adopting the silos on food security and well-being of households. Our results show that both the household demand for metal silos and the impact of their adoption varied across the four countries, demonstrating the relevance of regional policies for their adoption, as well as their impact. Furthermore, our results indicate that, in addition to achieving household self-sufficiency in maize, the main determinants of adoption were household socio-economic characteristics such as age, land ownership, completion of a training course and quality of basic infrastructure. Finally, when considering a group of economic and social indicators of household well-being, we found that, compared to the silo non-adopters, the adopter households experienced a significant improvement in their food security and well-being between 2005 and 2009. | ||
| 546 | _aText in English | ||
| 650 | 7 |
_aFood security _gAGROVOC _2 _91118 |
|
| 650 | 7 |
_2AGROVOC _96638 _aStorage |
|
| 650 | 7 |
_2AGROVOC _98668 _aImpact assessment |
|
| 650 | 7 |
_2AGROVOC _96347 _aPostharvest losses |
|
| 651 | 7 |
_95541 _aCentral America |
|
| 700 | 1 |
_99197 _aFinger, R. |
|
| 700 | 1 |
_99198 _aFischler, M. |
|
| 700 | 1 |
_99199 _aBerlin, R. |
|
| 700 | 1 |
_99200 _aMarin, Y. |
|
| 700 | 1 |
_99201 _aPerez, F. |
|
| 700 | 1 |
_99202 _aPaiz, F. |
|
| 773 | 0 |
_dNetherlands : Springer, 2012. _gv. 4, n. 2, p. 279-293 _tFood Security _wu93816 _x1876-4517 |
|
| 856 | 4 |
_yClick here to access online _uhttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12571-012-0184-1 |
|
| 942 |
_2ddc _cJA _n0 |
||