ArticleHeliyon2024
Gender preferences for multiple attributes of soil and water conservation in Northern Rwanda.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite the dominance of female labor in agricultural production, female-controlled farm plots have lower efficiency compared to plot managed by male-headed households, which indicates a huge gender disparity in agricultural productivity. Overlooking gender preferences when designing interventions that promote the conservation of soil and water resources might face challenges in adoption and could result in ineffective policies to close the gender gap. This study seeks to analyze gender-specific preferences regarding attributes of soil and water conservation (SWC) in northern Rwanda. A best-worst survey was conducted among 653 respondents, comprising 253 males and 400 females, representing 422 households surveyed between September and December 2019. The analysis of BWS data involved assessing attribute-level relative importance, Pearson correlation, and maximum difference scaling using multinomial logit (MNL). Findings from attribute-level importance analysis revealed significant gender-based disparities in preferences across three important SWC attribute scenarios: the high scenario (between 65 % and 100 %), the moderate scenario (between 50 % and 65 %), and the basic scenario (with <50 % relative importance). The study identified heterogeneity in preferences regarding the relative importance of SWC attribute levels. Pearson correlation analysis revealed substantial synergies among attribute levels linked to land consolidation, improved land tenure, and joint SWC decision-making between genders. Additionally, the study identified trade-offs among multiple levels of SWC attributes, including households' SWC decision-making and physical and structural measures. The results from MNL regression show that both males and females exhibit positive preferences for multiple levels of SWC attributes, but show negative preferences when it comes to household decisions involving multiple SWC strategies. The study highlights the importance of equal opportunities for males and females' participation in agricultural transformation through the adoption of SWC technologies as a fundamental step towards sustainable agricultural intensification. It advocates for gender transformational approaches to incentivize the scaling up of SWC practices and promote packages with lower uptake rates. Additionally, the study suggests enhancing knowledge and extension education in SWC to better understand diverse needs and preferences of female farmers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.