Vol. 8(18), pp.

1949-1957, 16 May, 2013

DOI: 10.5897/AJAR10.395
African Journal of Agricultural
ISSN 1991-637X ©2013 Academic Journals Research
http://www.academicjournals.org/AJAR

Full Length Research Paper

An assessment of the factors influencing household

willingness to pay for non-marketed benefit of cattle in
the agro-pastoral systems of Mozambique
S. K. Ng’ang’a1,2*, C. Ritho2, J. Nzuma2, S. Moyo1 and M. Herrero1
1
International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), P. O. Box 30709, Nairobi, Kenya.
2
Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Nairobi (UoN), P. O. Box 30197, Nairobi, Kenya.
Accepted 9 November, 2010

This study used Probit model to analyze factors influencing probability of household willingness to pay
for non-marketed benefits (NBS) of cattle in Mozambique. The primary data from 184 agro-pastoralist
households were collected using a structured questionnaire. Data collected comprised information
relating to household demographic, household livelihoods and non-marketed benefits of cattle. The
result showed that the probability of household willingness to pay (WTP) was influenced by both animal
and household related characteristics. Animal related characteristics that had a significant influence on
the probability of households WTP for NMB’s of cattle included: Animal age (ANAGE), herd size
(HERDSIZE) and cattle breeds (INDBRED). Household related characteristics that had significant
(p<0.05) influence on probability of household WTP for NMB’s of cattle, comprised: Dependant ratio
(DEPRAT), household size (HHS), off-farm income (OFFINC) and distance to the market (DISTMK). As
expected, however, the OFFINC had a negative influence on probability of household WTP for NMB’s of
cattle. The study concluded that non-marketed benefits of cattle were highly valued among agro-
pastoralist in Mabalane district and thus were willing to pay for them.

Key words: Non-marketed benefits, cattle, probit, probability, households, willingness to pay.

INTRODUCTION

In Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), approximately 70% of the In SSA, livestock account for approximately 30% of the
households own and depend on livestock for food and total value of agriculture in gross domestic product (GDP)
income to a varying degree (Thornton et al., 2002). (Shackelton et al., 2001). Livestock also employs
Livestock are kept for the multiple benefits that they approximately 90% of the economically active population,
provide. They are a source of income and one of the few hence a key source of livelihoods, particularly in ASALS
assets available to the poor especially women. They are where rainfall is less limiting (IFAD et al., 2004).
also source of manure, a non-marketed benefit (NBS) Furthemore in ASALs human survivals rely more heavily
that is vital in preserving soil fertility and promoting on livestock unlike in areas of higher agricultural
sustainable intensification in farming systems. In addition, potential, since the reliance on livestock increases with
livestock act as livelihood diversification strategy, decreases in rainfall (Ouma et al., 2004).
particularly in arid and semi arid land (ASALs) which are In Mozambique, livestock production accounts for 15%
characterized by a single cropping season per year. of the total GDP derived from agriculture (Food and

*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]. Tel: +254 711 033 000, Extension
4311, +254720 876 806.
1950 Afr. J. Agric. Res.

Agriculture Organization (FAO, 2007). However, the probability for household WTP for non-marketed benefits
contribution by livestock to the GDP excludes non- of cattle is not influenced by cattle and household related
marketed benefits derived from for example cattle, which characteristics.
in Southern Africa countries are equally valued as milk or
meat (Dovie et al., 2002; Delali, 2004). The non-marketed
benefits derived from cattle include: As a form of savings, LITERATURE REVIEW
payment of dowry, financing and insurance against risk
(Hooton, 2000). Therefore, cattle have considerable In order to determine the value of non-marketed good
social and cultural significance and could be the main and services, economists have developed several
reason that motivates agro-pastoralists to keep them techniques broadly categorized into: Revealed
(Moll et al., 2001). preference techniques, stated preference techniques and
Wealth defined as the accumulation of assets is a non- ex-ante assessment (Dofonsou and Deboer. 2008).
marketed benefit derived from cattle and confers financial Revealed preference techniques rely on values inferred
security, prestige and social status. Wealth is distinct from people’s behavior in markets which in some way are
from income, which provides the means of attaining connected to the non-marketed value. Revealed
wealth and support household current consumption and preference methods measure only use value and
investment. Cattle directly perform both functions of example includes hedonic pricing (HPM) and travel cost
income and wealth among households. As a source of methods (TCM). Ex-ante assessment relies on the effects
wealth and income, cattle provide satisfaction in terms of of changes to an existing management regime, that is,
numbers as well as cash value (Doran et al., 1979). marginal value of the relevant resource and example
Moreover as a form of savings, cattle performs financing includes cost benefit analysis (CBA) (Campbell et al.,
roles particularly where banking is absent or not fully 2003).
integrated in the rural areas. The financing function of The HPM is used to estimate economic values for
cattle involves converting part of the herd income through ecosystem or environmental services that directly affect
sales to enable households meet their expenditures market prices and is often applied to estimate variations
(Barrett et al., 2001). in housing prices to reflect the value of local
Financial markets in the rural areas of Mozambique environmental attributes (Taylor, 2002). TCM is used in
perform poorly and opportunities for risk management estimate the value of recreational benefits derived from
through formal insurance are generally absent (Bosman, an ecosystems (Parsons, 2003). The basis of the travel
1995). Consequently, to cope with the risks, people in cost method is that time and travel expenses incurred by
rural areas have to search for alternatives strategies. One visitors is the “price” of accessing the site. The
risk-reducing strategies practiced by households to willingness to pay (WTP) for a site visit is then estimated
smooth consumption is liquidation of assets such as from the number of trips made at different travel costs.
cattle. Cattle perform insurance roles as capital invested in Stated preference methods are based on intended
herd forms a guarantee for meeting future unexpected behavior and involve questioning people in a survey
requirements. Insurance involves maintenance of a capital setting (Dofonsou and Deboer, 2008). Stated preference
stock embodied in cattle as a guarantee for offsetting method does not rely on revealed preferences expressed
shortfalls in earnings and unforeseen expenses in the via the market, hence flexible. It relies on each
future (Slingerland, 2000: Ouma et al., 2004). Therefore, respondent’s statement of value in a surrogate market
cattle have considerable social and cultural significance environment and example includes Contingent Valuation
and may be the main reason why household rears them Method (CVM) and contingent choice method (CM)
(Moll et al., 2001). (Bennett and Blamey, 2001). The CVM is used to
In Gaza province of Mozambique, households adopt estimate use and non-use economic values for a wide
multiple livelihood strategies such as rearing cattle for range of non-market goods and services, including
both marketed and non-marketed benefits (Shackleton et ecosystem and environmental (Boyle, 2003b).
al., 2002). However, research aimed at improving CVM is based on a respondent’s WTP1 (or willingness
household livelihoods through cattle often targets to accept (WTA)) for good or service, contingent on a
marketed benefits while neglecting non-marketed hypothetical scenario (Freeman, 1993). Survey questions
benefits (Shackleton et al., 2001). Consequently, the can be either open or close ended. In open ended
economic contributions of non-marketed benefits of cattle approach, respondents are presented with a hypothetical
to households’ livelihood are not well understood. It but plausible situation and then asked the maximum
therefore becomes important to undertake empirical amount of money they would be willing to pay for
studies that can evaluate cattle contribution to the amelioration from the status quo or the minimum amount
household livelihoods. of compensation they would be willing to accept (WTA)
Thus this study seeks to evaluate the contribution of
cattle to the household livelihood by assessing household
willingness to pay (WTP) for non-marketed benefits of 1
WTP is the value a farmer is willing to pay for a service and because it can
cattle. These studies seek to test the hypothesis that, the indicate the limit of utility to the user, it is used as a measure of utility
 Ng’ang’a et al. 1951

for deterioration from the status quo. Close ended on non-marketed benefits of cattle, the study draw on the broader
method involves asking a respondent whether they would livelihood strategy literature as a framework of analysis. The
livelihood approach aims to highlight the different elements that’s
be WTP a specified amount for a specific good or
shapes households livelihood in a community, the factors that
service. influence them and the linkages between various factors. The
In this study CVM was utilized to assess the factors approach is centered on households and their livelihoods. In this
that influence households WTP for non-marketed benefits regards, the engagement of households in agro-pastoral system of
of cattle in Mozambique. CVM has sound basis in the cattle keeping is driven by the objective of deriving non-marketed
theory of welfare economics. Welfare economics seeks to benefits. This is an economic choice in its pursuit of making a living
given resources endowment, household characteristics and
reveal whether the potential change in utility resulting exogenous factors.
from a change in an economic variable such as a
commodity’s price is positive (Just et al., 1982). CVM
offers the potential to trace factor influencing the WTP Conceptual framework
distribution among a population of economic agents to
proposed change for non-marketed benefits of cattle Figure 1 present the basic framework of the economic value of a
(Carson et al., 2000). cattle enterprise. Non-marketed benefits of cattle, at the heart of the
figure, are the focus of this study. Based on the framework,
economic value of cattle enterprise comprises both marketed and
Review of empirical studies non-marketed benefits. To access the marketed benefits
contribution to household livelihood, marketed price are often used.
In an attempt to get a better quantitative grasps of However, to value non-marketed benefits of cattle, studies have
benefits derived from goats in Southwestern Nigeria. shown that only methods used in valuating non-marketed benefits
Bosman et al. (1997), used CBA to evaluate the non- are more appropriate (Freeman et al., 2008).
The households (Consumer) derive their utility by consuming
marketed benefits (financing, saving and insurance) of
cattle products and services. In this study cattle is conceptualized
goats based on foregone cost perceived as benefits that as an asset kept by households and whose benefits (both marketed
could be added to the production value of goat. The and non-marketed), they depend on for livelihood. The degree of
objective was to measure and interpret benefits of goat dependency on non-marketed benefits will be assessed through
keeping in a tropical farming system. The values of WTP as depicted by Arrow A in Figure 1. The value derived from
marketed benefits were captured by assessing both input non-marketed benefits differs among household as influenced by
the households, market and animal related characteristics.
and output resources used in system of goat farming. To
avoid double counting non-marketed benefits were
assessed based on the outflow as it represents part of
Empirical model
the flock used in meeting the household’s expenditure.
The Bosman et al. (1997) study concluded that
A Probit model was fitted to assess factors that jointly influence the
although policies and measures aimed at improving probability of a “yes” response to a WTP amount for non-marketed
livestock focuses on production and productivity, it must benefits of cattle. The model assumes a normal distribution and has
be realized that farmer has multiple goals. Although a binary dependent variable given that, the dependent value is 1 for
Bosman et al. (1997) was similar to the present study by those WTP for non-marketed benefits and 0 otherwise. According
recognizing the important contribution of non-marketed to Woodridge (2004), the standard Probit model can be defined as:
Let Y* be an unobserved, or latent variable, determined by:
benefits of livestock to farming systems. The study did
not assess the factor that influences household reliance
on the non-marketed benefits of goats. Yi = Y *i = λX i + µ i * Y *
≤ 0 ] (1)
if Y i > 0 Otherwise, i = 0 if [ Y i
In an attempt to incorporate perception of farmer while
considering socio-economic benefits of cattle Ouma et al. The model assumes that random error term µi, is normal and
(2004) used CVM to estimate and compare the independently distributed with mean of zero (0), which means that
competitiveness among three livestock production [1-F (-z) = (F(z)] and constant variance σ2. If the non-observed
systems. This study finding concluded that socio- latent variable Yi* is greater than 0, the observed qualitative
variable Yi which is indicative of the WTP for non-marketed benefit
economic benefits of cattle indeed comprised of cattle, takes the value of 1. Alternatively, if Yi* is less than or
approximately 20% of animal total economic value in equal to 0, Yi becomes zero implying lack of WTP for non-marketed
intensive, semi intensive and extensive systems. benefits of cattle. From Equation (1) and the assumption given, we
However Ouma et al. (2004) study did not assess the derive the response probability for Y.
factors influencing households’ WTP for non-marketed
benefits of cattle. Thus, the present study seek to assess P(Y=1|X) = (P(Y*>0|X) = P (µ>-(β0+Xβ|X) = 1-F[-β0+Xβ]=F(β0+Xβ). (2)
factors influencing the probability for households WTP for
non-marketed benefits of cattle. Compared to OLS, interpreting of Probit coefficients can be
complicated because ordinary output provides only a single
coefficient for each independent variable despite two types of cases
METHODOLOGY predicted for each independent variable in the analysis. This implies
that the Probit model yields the effects of independent variable on
To better assess factor influencing households’ dependence the values of the dependent variable, when the value of Y is 1.
1952 Afr. J. Agric. Res.

Figure 1. Conceptual framework for assessing the probability of willingness to pay for non-marketed benefits of cattle and
the contribution of non-marketed benefits to the household livelihoods (Source Author, 2009).

However, for 0 values of Y, the model yields probability of so f (z) > 0 for all Z, since F is the continuous density function (cdf)
observing non-zero value of the dependent variable. Consequently, of a continuous random variable and f is a probability density
the model coefficient cannot be used directly to describe both function. Therefore, the partial effect of xj on P(x) depend on X
effects, a major cause of coefficient misinterpretation by through the positive quantity f (β +xβ) which means that the partial
researchers (Woodridge, 2003). effect always has the same sign as βj.
However, one could use significance of the coefficients and the It was hypothesized that, the probability of household WTP for
marginal effect on predicted probabilities by each explanatory to the non-marketed benefits of cattle was due to the combined effect
obtain more information (Maltsoglou and Rapsomanikis, 2005) of household and cattle related characteristics. The Probit
Thus, the magnitudes of each β’s are not, by themselves, useful (in estimation model was thus specified as:
contrast to the linear probability model). In the present study
coefficients obtained from the Probit model and the marginal effect Yi = β0 + β1 OFFINC + β2 DEPRAT + β3 CATTLETYPE + β4
of each explanatory variable on the probability has been utilized to HERDSIZE +β5CREDIT +β6 FSIZE + β7 GENDER + β8 HSIZE + β9
show effects of changing them on the probability of WTP for non- DISTMKT + β10 EDUCYRS + β11 ANAGE + β12 ANAGE2 + µi
marketed benefits of cattle. Otherwise Yi=0 (9)
The basic relationship to be utilized in estimating probability of
WTP for non-marketed benefits of cattle is (P(Y=1)) and to estimate Where: β0 is the constant term; β1 to β12 are the coefficients of
the effect of Xj on the probability of WTP is P(Y=1|X). However, due characteristics that influence probability of household WTP, and
to the complicated non-linear nature of F (binary outcome), calculus µi are the error terms D.
was utilized to obtain partial effect of the independent The explanatory variables considered comprised: Off-farm income
variables on the predicted probability. Therefore, partial (OFFINC), household dependant ratio (DEPRAT), Cattle types
effect on P(X) = P(Y=1|X) were obtained from the partial (CATTLETYPE), herd size (HERDSIZE), access to credit
derivative result as obtained by Woodridge (2003), given as: (CREDIT), Farm size (FSIZE), gender of the household head
(GENDER), household size (HSIZE), distance to the market
∂p(x)/dxj = f (β0 + x β)βj where f (z) ≡(dF/dz) (3) (DISTMKT), years spent on education by household head
(EDUCYRS), age of the animal (ANAGE) and age of the animal
The Probit model F (Binary outcome) is a strictly increasing cdf, and squared (ANAGE2).
 Ng’ang’a et al. 1953

The dependent variable Yi, is based on cattle related household’s livelihood, livestock ownership and other standard
characteristics while the independent variables are a mixture of cattle related activities, were collected through a structured
cattle and household level variables thus yielding independent questionnaire.
observations across households. To circumvent dummy variable
trap, cattle type was in included in the Probit model as a dummy
variable with heifer as the baseline group,. To avoid the problem of Data reliability and validity
biased variance of estimated parameters and to get reliable z-
values for the independent variable coefficients, heteroscedasticity
was tested for following four steps procedure as suggested by In order to control for data reliability, validity, measurement and
Goldfeld-Quandt test on each of the independent variables sampling errors, a dozen questionnaires were field-tested among
(Gujarati, 2004). The F-value for one denominator and one the agro-pastoralist households of Kokwe village in Mabalane
numerator degrees of freedom at the 5% level is 161. Since the districts by a team comprising the researcher and eight extension
estimated F (=λ) value does not exceed the critical value, the staffs. The extension staffs had adequate knowledge of the study
assumption of heteroscedasticity was rejected. area including field experience in data collection (as enumerators,
The presence of multicollinearity was assessed using Mc Fadden translators, interviewers, facilitators, and field workers) in the
R2 (R2MF). Mc Fadden and Lemma (1981) and Yazici et al. (2007) Mabalane Gaza province. During the field-pretest, each completed
has interpreted R2MF as an approximate explained variation questionnaire was checked by the enumerators and researcher
accounted for by the explanatory variable. The estimated, R2MF was within one day of the interview. To increase the accuracy and
found to be 0.3 and thus within the accepted range of between 0.2 quality of the survey data, supervision of field staff during the actual
and 0.4 for dichotomous models (Gujarati, 2004). In addition, z-test survey was done on daily basis. The data from the questionnaire
was also examined that the coefficients of at least some were entered into access database and checked for data entry and
explanatory variables were statistically different from zero. coding errors. Data cleaning was done in Microsoft EXCEL.
Since high bi-variate correlation among independent variable in Supervision and on the spot assistance during data cleaning was
excess of 0.8 suggest the presence of multicollinearity, pair wise ensured throughout the process. Descriptive statistical analyses
correlation between all explanatory variables were examined and were carried out using STATA (release 10.0/SE) software.
found not to exceed 0.65. Nonetheless, high zero-order correlations
is just a sufficient but not a necessary condition for the existence of
multicollinearity, because it can exist even though the zero-order or RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
simple correlations are comparatively low, for example less than 0.5
(Gujarati, 2004). Consequently, Klein’s rule of thumb was utilized by Table 1 present the Probit estimates for factors
regressing auxiliary variables and R2MF obtained assessed against influencing probability of household WTP for NMB’s of
the overall regression R2MF of WTP for all variables. Since, the
Auxiliary R2MF was found not to exceed the overall R2MF, it was
cattle. The result shows that bulls, cows, age of the
concluded that multicollinearity was not a serious problem. animal (ANAGE), herd size (HERDSIZE) and indigenous
The null hypothesis was that the probability for household WTP breed of cattle (INDBRED) were animal related
for NMB’s of cattle is not influenced by cattle and household related characteristics that had a significant influence on the
characteristics. However, since the computed Wald chi-square probability of households WTP for NMB’s of cattle.
statistics of 30.58 exceed the critical Wald chi-square value at The respective coefficient for each explanatory variable
p<0.01, the null hypothesis that all coefficient of explanatory
variable are zero except for the intercept was rejected; in favor of
measures the effect of the variable on the probability of
alternate hypothesis that at least one explanatory variable households’ willingness to pay for NMB’s of cattle. The
coefficient in the model is not equal to zero and thereby influences cattle category cows and bull are significant and
the probability of household WTP for NMB’s. consistently positive at p<0.001, on explaining the
probability of household WTP for NMB’s of cattle,
implying that farmers derive greater NMB’s from cow and
Study area bulls when compared to heifer and calves. The higher
NMB’s derived from cow and bull can be attributed to the
The data were collected in Mabalane District Mabalane, which is in higher contribution they make to the household compared
Gaza province of Mozambique. Mabalane district is situated to heifer and calves. This could be due to fact that cows
approximately 314 km north of Maputo; the capital city of
Mozambique. It occupies an area of 9 580 km2 of which 75% is
and bulls are more mature and stronger than heifer and
ASALs. The district has a population of 32,040 inhabitants calves hence providing higher returns.
(Government of Mozambique, 2007). The predominant activity is Higher return could be for example through the
agriculture (both crop and livestock farming). The population provision of draught power, in which case cow and bull
density in the district is 3 people per km2, far below the national are more likely to work longer and more efficiently before
average of 25 people km2 (Government of Mozambique, 2007).
exhaustion as compared to calves and heifer which have
not developed fully to start being utilised for draught
Data power. The importance of cattle maturity in providing
NMB’s to the households has been observed elsewhere
Based on sample size calculation (WHO, 2005) at the 95% in communal farming system of Zimbabwe (Barrett et al.,
confidence interval, ±10% precision, 184 households were sampled 2001). It is therefore not surprising that results indicate
and surveyed. The National census, 2007 data that specified the that increasing the numbers of cows and bulls (by a
name of district and villages was utilized in random selection of the
study district and its 12 villages. In each village, 12 households
TLUs) that a household owns, enhances the probability of
were selected randomly yielding a sample of 184 households. A household WTP for NMB’s by 0.8 and 0.9%, respectively.
comprehensive dataset that comprised household demographic, However, despite the significant influence by bull and
1954 Afr. J. Agric. Res.

Table 1. Probit estimates of the factors influencing the probability of households’ willingness to pay (WTP) for non-
marketed benefits (NMB’s) of cattle.

Independent Level of †Change in

Coefficient Standard error
variable Significance (P>Z) probability
Animal related characteristics
BULL 0.472*** 0.120 0.000 0.009
COWS 0.421*** 0.098 0.000 0.008
CALVES 0.125 0.092 0.176 0.003
ANAGE 0.521** 0.251 0.039 0.009
ANAGE2 -0.24* 0.137 0.076 0.004
HERDSIZE 0.281*** 0.070 0.001 0.005
INDBRED 0.018* 0.010 0.076 0.000

Household related characteristics

FSIZE 0.018 0.043 0.673 0.000
DEPRAT 3.134** 1.501 0.037 0.066
HHS 0.200** 0.077 0.010 0.004
GENDER 0.211 0.450 0.638 0.004
EDUCYRS 0.069 0.060 0.248 0.001
CREDIT 0.186 0.421 0.658 0.004
OFFINC -0.016** 0.008 0.050 0.000
DISTMK 0.09** 0.100 0.033 0.002
Log Likelihood = -27.28; This is the log likelihood of the fitted model. It is used in the Wald Chi-Square test of whether all
predictors' regression coefficients in the model are simultaneously zero. Number of observation (n) =184; Predicted probability
2
for WTP =0.99; H0=âj=0, Wald ÷ (16) = 30.58; The number in the parentheses indicates the degrees of freedom of the Wild
Chi-Square distribution used to test the Wald Chi-Square statistic; ***, ** and *indicates significance level at 1, 5 and 10%,
respectively; change in probability is the change per unit change in each of the independent variables. That is, the effect of a
†
unit change in the dependent variable on the probability that household WTP for NMB’s of cattle equal to 1; Change in
probability given by β j f (Zi), where f (Zi ) is the density function of the standard normal variable and Zi =β1 +β2 X2i + ··· + βk Xki ,
that is, the probit regression model used in the analysis

cows on probability of household WTP for NMB’s WTP for NMB’s of cattle, implying that the benefits
compared to heifer and calves in Mozambique. In their derived from different cattle categories increases with
study Ouma et al. (2004), on assessing socio-economic age. Consequently, NMB’s that can be derived from a 1
benefits of cattle among smallholders’ farmers in Kenya, year male calf is less compared to a 2 years old heifer.
found that bull and calves were in less demand than To provide draught power, for example, the 2 year old
cows and heifer. Lack of demand for bull and heifer oxen would be preferred to the 1 year old male calf. As a
implied that they could be easily disposed off whenever a result, higher value is attached to cattle from which much
need arose. This indicates that the objectives of cattle NMB’s is derived.
keeping objectives among farmers plays a major role in Thus, increase in animal age by one year causes the
determining the value attached to cattle. probability of household WTP for NMB’s to rise by 0.9%.
Nevertheless, resources endowment also determines However, the positive influence by ANAGE on the
the systems of cattle production which in turn influences probability of household WTP cannot continue rising
cattle keeping objectives. In Ouma et al. (2004) study in infinitely, but only up to a certain age when it starts
Kenya, majority of the cattle keeping households studied declining and thereby impacting negatively on the
was smallholders dairy oriented farmers. Consequently, probability of household WTP for NMB’s as depicted by
their cattle keeping objectives were mainly driven by the ANAGE2. In general therefore the contribution to the
derived marketed benefits derived such as milk. As a household by all NMB identified as most important
result, bull and calves could easily be disposed off objective (draught power, financing, insurance and use of
compared to cow and heifers since marketed benefits cattle as a store of wealth) increases with animal age.
derived are low. Conversely, household studied in Gilles (1991) also argues that lack of saving and other
Mozambique mainly rears cattle in agro-pastoral system investment opportunities, leads the use of cattle as a
of production with main objective of deriving NMB’s. capital investment to avoid risk.
The results shows that ANAGE had a positive and The results also shows that herd size, had a positive
significant (p<0.05) influence on probability of household and significant influence (p<0.001) on the probability of
 Ng’ang’a et al. 1955

household WTP for NMB’s of cattle, implying that The DEPRAT and HHS significantly and consistently
household with large herds of cattle derived more non- influenced the probability of household WTP for NMB’s of
marketed benefits of cattle relative to households with cattle, implying that households derive greater benefits
small cattle herd size. Cattle is considered as an assets, from NMB’s of cattle in terms of meeting their expected
consequently with larger herds, household are more and unexpected expenditures. Consequently, increasing
secure in terms of finance and insurance, compared to the HHS by one person in adult equivalent raises the
household whose herd size is small. Upton and Otte probability of household WTP for NMB’s by 0.4%.
(2004) also argued that livestock ownership increases the Accordingly, DEPRAT had a positive and significant
wealth of rural household and raises the income earning influence on the probability of household WTP for NMB’s.
potential. Therefore, household with larger herds of cattle The positive influence by DEPRAT and HHS could be
generate more income hence lowering their vulnerability attributed to fact that household with high dependency
potential. Consequently, increasing the herd size by a requires a good coping strategy for dealing with high risk
TLU would raise the probability of household WTP for and financial obligation, thus attaching a much
NMB’s by 0.5%. importance on cattle NMB’s and consequently WTP. The
Positive influence on probability for WTP by herd size high importance attached to NMB’s of cattle explains
could explain why household with small cattle herd would why, increasing DEPAT by one dependant would causes
attach a lot of importance to build up of herd size. The the probability of households WTP for NMB’s to increase
results also indicate that INDBRED had a positive and by 0.7%. Household dependency ratio is therefore
significant (P<0.1) influence on probability WTP for important in determining household reliance on non-
NMB’s, implying that households perceived indigenous market benefits of cattle as well as their WTP.
breed of cattle as a better asset relative to other breeds
types. In Arid and semi-arid land (ASALs) indigenous
breed of cattle are more suited and tolerant to diseases Summary
and insect such as Tsetse flies which are predominant in
Mozambique than other cattle breeds. Indigenous breed The importance attached to the NMBs of cattle and the
of cattle are also well adapted for trekking long distances factors influencing household willingness to pay for them
in search of water and pasture. were unknown. Moreover, it was not clear whether NMBs
Four household related characteristics namely: of cattle made significant contribution to household
Dependant ratio (DEPRAT), household size (HHS), off- livelihoods. Consequently, this study hypothesized that,
farm income (OFFINC) and distance to the market despite the importance attached to the cattle, the
(DISTMK) had significant (p<0.05) influence on probability for household WTP for NMBs was not in any
probability of household WTP for NMB’s of cattle. way influenced by neither cattle nor household related
However, as expected OFFINC had negative influence characteristics. The study also hypothesised that NMBs
on probability of household WTP for NMB’s of cattle. That of cattle did not have any significant contribution to the
is, households with high off-farm income tend to have low household livelihoods. Thus attempt aimed at
reliance on NMB’s of cattle implying that households with understanding the importance attached to NMBs of cattle,
a better access to off-farm income attached little factors influencing households’ WTP for them and
importance on NMB’s derived from cattle, at ceteris whether they make any contribution to the household
paribus. Moreover, off-farm income provides households livelihood could be desirable.
with an alternative for offsetting expected and Therefore this study, sought to identify the NMBs of
unexpected expenditure, while household with low cattle in the agro-pastoralist system and to assess the
access to off-farm income tend to have their cattle factors influencing the probability of households WTP for
assume such roles as insurance and financing. the NMBs of cattle in Mabalane district. The study also
The DISTMK, had a positive and significant influence aimed at assessing the contribution of NMBs of cattle to
on the probability of household WTP for NMB’s of cattle the household livelihoods in agro-pastoral system of
indicating that households located far from the market production.
had a higher probability of WTP for NMB’s of cattle. The A random sample of 192 household practicing agro-
positive and significant influence by DISTMK on pastoral system production, were selected in Mabalane
probability of household WTP for NMB’s could be district in Gaza province of Mozambique, on March 2009.
attributed to inability to dispose cattle whenever a need The National Census, 2007 lists were used to select the
arose, particularly by household far from the market due households sample. A semi structured questionnaire was
to low level market interaction. Consequently, increasing then used to collect a comprehensive dataset that
the distance of the household to the market by 1 km comprised relevant household demographic, livestock
enhanced the probability of household WTP for NMB’s by ownership and other standard cattle related activities. In
0.2%, implying that policy recommendation with a focus addition, data on cattle and household related
on market access is likely to have an enormous impact characteristic was hypothesized to influence the WTP for
on the reliance on NMB’s of cattle. the NMBs of cattle.
1956 Afr. J. Agric. Res.

To characterize the sampled households’ descriptive REFERENCES

statistics were utilized. The NMBs derived from cattle Barrett CB, Reardon T, Webb P (2001). Nonfarm income diversification
were then identified and their relative weights deter- and household livelihood strategies in rural Africa: Concepts,
mined. This enabled NMBs of the different cattle dynamics, and policy implications. Food Policy 26:315-331.
categories to be ranked according to the attached weight. Bennett J, Blamey R (2001). The Choice Modeling Approach to
A Probit regression analysis was then estimated to Environmental Valuation. Edward Elgar. Cheltenham. pp.37-69.
Bosman HG (1995). “Productivity Assessments in Small Ruminant
determine the factors influencing households WTP for the Improvement Programmes. A Case Study of the West African Dwarf
NMBs of cattle. Goat”. PhD. Thesis, Wageningen Agricultural University.
Bosman HG, Moll HAJ, Udo HMJ (1997). “Measuring and Interpreting
the Benefits of Goat Keeping in Tropical Farm Systems”. Agric. Syst.
(53):349-372.
Conclusion Campbell JC, Daniel W, Jane KM, Carolyn B, Doris C, Mary AC, Faye
G, Nancy G, Judith M, Carolyn S, Phyllis S, Yvonne U, Susan A, Wilt
The WTP for NMBs of cattle were found to be influenced DrPH, Jennifer M, PhD, Xiao X, Janet S, Victoria F, Kathryn L
(2003).Risk Factors for Femicide in Abusive Relationships: Results
by both animal (cattle age, cattle type, breed and herd From a Multisite Case Control Study. 93(7):1089–1097.
size) and household characteristics (distance to the Carson RT, Flores NE, Meade NF (2000). Contingent Valuation:
market, household size, dependant ratio and off-farm Controversies and Evidence. Environ. Resour. Econ. 19:173-210.
income). Herd sizes and cattle type were some of the Dofonsou SG, Deboer LJ (2008). Ex ante non-market valuation for
animal related factors that were most important in novel product: literature review.
Delali B (2004). Child Care among Ewe Migrants in Accra: Cases of
influencing household WTP. The influence emanating Crisis. Research Review Supplement 16. Children at Risk in Ghana:
from cattle type could be attributed to the amount of Family Care under Review. Institute of African Studies, University of
NMBs like draught power, financing, savings and bride Ghana, Legon.
Doran MH, Low ARC, Kemp RL (1979). “Cattle as a Store of Wealth in
price, much of which are derived from indigenous
Swaziland: Implications for Livestock Development and Overgrazing
compared to crosses and exotic cattle. Moreover, large in Eastern and Southern Africa”. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 61(1):41-46.
herd sizes endows household with a high social status Dovie BDK, Shackleton CM, Witkowski ETF (2002). Direct-use values
and provide them with a form of savings, insurance and of woodland resources consumed and traded in a South African
financial security, thus making households less village. Int. J. Sust. Dev. World Ecol. 9(3):269-283.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2007)
vulnerable. Livestock Policy Initiative (PPLPI).
Household size, dependant ratio and distance to the Freeman AM (1993). The Measurement of Environmental and Resource
market were important household related characteristic Values: Theory and Methods. Washington, DC: Resources for the
that had positive influence on household WTP. The Future. Bus. Econ. 491 pp.
Freeman HA, Kaitibie S, Moyo S, Perry BD (2008). Livestock,
influence was largely attributed to high financial obligation livelihoods and vulnerability in Lesotho, Malawi and Zambia:
associated with large household size and high Designing Livestock Intervention for emergency situation. ILRI
dependence ratio, necessitating a need for financial Research Report 8. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute),
Nairobi, Kenya. P. 62.
security. Cattle through NMBs provide financial and
Gilles JL (1991). Animal Agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa:
insurance benefits because they are considered as an Socioeconomic issues. Columbia, University of Missouri.
asset which could be sold to; offset financial obligation, Gujarati DN (2004). Basic econometrics. Fourth edition. The
provide investment capital as well as increase household McGraw−Hill Companies.
income and hence reducing household vulnerability Hooton N (2000). “Demand - Led Animal Health services for Small -
Holder Farmers in Africa: The Potential Role of Contingent Valuation.
potential. Nevertheless, contribution of NMBs to Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine”, MSc. Thesis. University of
household income varied across households. Edinburgh.
Just RE, Hueth DL, Schmitz A (1982), Applied Welfare Economics and
Public Policy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Moll HAJ, Staal SJ, Ibrahim MNM (2001). “From Meat to Milk:
Policy recommendation Smallholders 'Livelihoods and Markets”, Paper Presented at 12th
Symposium Tropical Animal Health and Production, “Dairy
Development in the Tropics”, University of Utrecht. pp. 1-15.
The key finding in this study with implication for policy is Maltsoglou I, Rapsomanikis G (2005).The Contribution of Livestock to
that cattle have multiple uses and their non-marketed Household Income in Vietnam: A household typology based analysis.
benefits plays a significant role in household livelihood. Ouma E, Obare GA, Staal JS (2004). Cattle as asset: Assessment of
Non-Marketed benefits from Cattle in smallholder Kenya crop
Based on these findings, it is suggested that non-
livestock systems. Proceedings of the 25th international Conference
marketed benefits of cattle should not be neglected. of Agricultural Economics (IAAE) 16-22 August 2003. Durban, South
Therefore a policy recommendation of increased Africa.
marketing and sales for example a drive towards single Shackleton CM, Netshiluvhi TR, Shackleton SE, Geach BS, Balance A,
purpose commercialized production, could well Fairbanks DFK (2002). Direct use values of woodland resources from
three rural villages, Econ. Botany 56(2):130-146.
undermine non-marketed benefits derived from cattle. Shackleton CM, Shackleton SE, Cousins B (2001). The role of land-
Specifically, the study proposes that public policies based strategies in rural livelihoods the contribution of arable
favorable to the recognition of non-marketed benefits production, animal husbandry and natural resource harvesting in
communal areas in South Africa. Dev. Southern Afr. 18:581-604.
derived from cattle are of importance in improving
Slingerland M (2000). “Mixed Farming: Scope and Constraints in West
livelihoods among cattle keepers. African Savannah” Ph.D Thesis, Wageningen Agricultural University.
 Ng’ang’a et al. 1957

Taylor JE (2002). Agriculture household models: Genesis, evolution and World health Organization (WHO) (2005). ‘Summary Country Profile
extension. Rev. Econ. Household 2003; 1(1):33-58. from HIV/AIDS treatment scale-Up.’ December.
Thornton PK, Reid RS, Kruska RL, Deichmann U, Leak SGA (2000).
Will human population growth and land-use change control tsetse
during our lifetimes? Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment
77:227–236.