Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper was to analyse the demographic, crop choice, institutional and environmental factors that will influence the vegetable growers in Bono and Ahafo regions of Ghana to produce organic vegetables. The study also assessed the knowledge level of vegetable growers on organic certification processes. Design/methodology/approach Primary data were collected with the help of a structured questionnaire from 120 vegetable growers via a multistage sampling technique. The Heckman selection model was used to analyse the factors that influence farmers' willingness to adopt organic production as well as the intensity of adoption. Findings In this study, pepper (Capsicum spp) production, residential status, knowledge of organic certification processes, perceived negative environmental effect of conventional farming on the soil, and climate change positively influenced willingness to produce organic vegetables. Likewise, pepper production perceived negative environmental effect of conventional farming on the soil positively influenced the intensity of adoption. Household headship status, garden egg (Solanum integrifolium) production, perceived knowledge on grading and standards of vegetables, as well as the perception that only pesticides can be used to control vegetable pests negatively influenced the willingness to produce organic vegetables however perceived expertise of the farmer on grades and standards influenced intensity of adoption negatively. Originality/value In Ghana, even though most vegetable farmers do not have the requisite knowledge in the safe handling of pesticides, usage is widespread. Subsequent to this, is a health risk to farmers, consumers and the environment. As a result, there is a growing awareness that organic agriculture has a role to play in addressing problems associated with agrochemical use and over usage. However, most studies are consumer oriented with limited empirical research on the willingness to produce organics by farmers. Peer review The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/ IJSE-12-2019-0723


Authors

Dapaah Opoku, Precious;  Bannor, Richard Kwasi;  Oppong-Kyeremeh, Helena

Publons users who've claimed - I am an author
Contributors on Publons
  • 2 authors
  • 1 reviewer
  • pre-publication peer review (FINAL ROUND)
    Decision Letter
    2020/03/06

    06-Mar-2020

    Dear Bannor, Richard; Dapaah Opoku, Precious ; Oppong-Kyeremeh, Helena

    It is a pleasure to accept your manuscript IJSE-12-2019-0723.R1, entitled "EXAMINING THE WILLINGNESS TO PRODUCE ORGANIC VEGETABLES IN THE BONO AND AHAFO REGIONS OF GHANA" in its current form for publication in International Journal of Social Economics. Please note, no further changes can be made to your manuscript.

    Please go to your Author Centre at https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijsec (Manuscripts with Decisions for the submitting author or Manuscripts I have co-authored for all listed co-authors) to complete the Copyright Transfer Agreement form (CTA). We cannot publish your paper without this.

    All authors are requested to complete the form and to input their full contact details. If any of the contact information is incorrect you can update it by clicking on your name at the top right of the screen. Please note that this must be done prior to you submitting your CTA.

    If you have an ORCID please check your account details to ensure that your ORCID is validated.

    By publishing in this journal your work will benefit from Emerald EarlyCite. As soon as your CTA is completed your manuscript will pass to Emerald’s Content Management department and be processed for EarlyCite publication. EarlyCite is the author proofed, typeset version of record, fully citable by DOI. The EarlyCite article sits outside of a journal issue and is paginated in isolation. The EarlyCite article will be collated into a journal issue according to the journals’ publication schedule.

    FOR OPEN ACCESS AUTHORS: Please note if you have indicated that you would like to publish your article as Open Access via Emerald’s Gold Open Access route, you are required to complete a Creative Commons Attribution Licence - CCBY 4.0 (in place of the standard copyright assignment form referenced above). You will receive a follow up email within the next 30 days with a link to the CCBY licence and information regarding payment of the Article Processing Charge. If you have indicated that you might be eligible for a prepaid APC voucher, you will also be informed at this point if a voucher is available to you (for more information on APC vouchers please see http://www.emeraldpublishing.com/oapartnerships

    Thank you for your contribution. On behalf of the Editors of International Journal of Social Economics, we look forward to your continued contributions to the Journal.

    Sincerely,
    Dr. Stefan Mann
    Editor, International Journal of Social Economics
    stefan.mann@agroscope.admin.ch

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Author Response
    2020/03/01

    Responses to Reviewer 1 comments

    Reviewer 1 Comment 1
    Abstract
    Results of the second stage of the Heckman’s selection model on the intensity of the adoption of organic vegetable should be included in the abstract.

    Our response
    Thank you very much. The variables influencing the intensity of adoption of organic vegetable production have been added to the abstract

    Reviewer 1 Comment 2
    Materials and methods
    Study area
    Information on the study area is very scanty. Author(s) should provide more information related to health, environment, and demand for organic food products in the study area. More information on the vegetation, climatic condition and topography of the area may also aid reader’s contextual understanding of the study. The responses are highlighted in red.

    Our response
    Thank you very much. The required information has been added as suggested and highlighted in red.

    Reviewer 1 Comment 3

    Sampling procedure
    The study sampling procedure in not clearly explained. Author(s) claimed that multistage sampling procedure was used without outlining these stages. All the stages of the multistage sampling procedure should be clearly stated, explained and justify their appropriateness for the study.
    Author(s) mentioned that “A combination of simple random sampling and purposive sampling was employed to select 120 farmers” Why did the author(s) used both probability (simple random) and non-probability (purposive) sampling in this study? Using simple random sampling requires that author should have sampling frame, do you have sampling frame to select your respondents for this study? If yes, why use purposive sampling again and tell us the source of the sampling frame.

    Our response
    Thank you very much. The authors indicated that, multistage sampling procedure was used and not multistage random sampling procedure. Hence, multistage sampling approach is correct.

    Detailed explanation of how the sampling was done has been added for clarity and highlighted in red.

    Reviewer 1 Comment 4

    Data collection
    Nothing is said about how the data were collected. Data elicitation method used for measuring willingness to adopt, pay or accept payment have serious implications for the integrity of data generated. Without this information, we cannot meaningfully interpret the results and interpretations of findings from this study. We need to know whether the interview was conducted face-to-face, type of question format used (i.e. single or double-bounded contingent valuation or choice experiment).

    Our response

    Thank you very much. Detail explanations have been given and highlighted in red.

    Reviewer 1 Comment 5

    Data analysis
    Since mass point at zero is observed for 49% of the respondents (see variable WTPOV in Table 1) who are non-adopter of the organic vegetable, using two-part model by Belotti, Deb, Manning & Norton (2015) might be more appropriate since it deals with mixed discrete-continuous random variables and accounted for the mass point at zero.

    Our response
    Thank you very much. There are other dataset that Heckman has proved to be robust even though more than 45% of the data had zeros ( Gujarati, 2015, Woodridge, 2013). Besides the criticisms of the Heckman selection model are not mainly based on the number of zeros in the model (Puhani, 2000). From literature, the two-part model does not make any assumption about the correlation between the errors of the binary and continuous equations. Second, from a conceptual standpoint, the zeros in the Heckman selection model denote censored values of the positive outcome, while zeros in the two-part model are true zeros (Belott et al., 2015).
    Furthermore, the Heckman model was to test and correct sample selection bias for the general problem of incidental truncation where observations are missing due on y due to the outcome of willingness to produce organic vegetables (van Hasselt,2005; Wooldridge, 2013). Heckman (1979) treated sample selection as a specification error and proposed the two-step estimator that corrects for omitted variable bias. As a result to address problems of selectivity bias, the standard specification test to choose between these Heckit and any two-stage model is the coefficient of the inverse mills ratio which from our analysis supports the use of Heckman (Wooldridge, 2002; Dow and Norton,2003).

    We therefore maintain the Heckman Selection Model for this research. We might consider the Two-part model in other future studies with different objectives.

    References to citations

    Wooldridge, J.M. (2013), “ Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach, fifth edition”, Cengage Learning India Private Limited: New Delhi, India.

    Puhani, P. (2000). The Heckman correction for sample selection and its critique. Journal of economic surveys, 14(1), 53-68.

    Wooldridge, J.M., Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA,
    2002.

    Belotti, F., Deb, P., Manning, W. G., & Norton, E. C. (2015). twopm: Two-part models. The Stata Journal, 15(1), 3-20.

    Dow, W. H., & Norton, E. C. (2003). Choosing between and interpreting the Heckit and two-part models for corner solutions. Health Services and outcomes research methodology, 4(1), 5-18.

    Van Hasselt, M. (2005, January). Bayesian sampling algorithms for the sample selection and two-part models. In Computing in Economics and Finance (Vol. 241).

    Heckman, J. J. (1979): “Sample Selection as a Specification Error,” Econometrica, 47(1), 153— 162.

    Gujarati, D. (2015), Basic Econometrics: International Edition. McGraw Hill Book Co., New York, NY.

    Reviewer 1 Comment 5

    Results and discussion
    Under section 3.3, According to the author(s), “The marital status of a farmer and household headship status were expected to negatively influence willingness to produce organic vegetables and amount of land to be allocated for organics production” On what basis are the authors anticipating this result? I expect authors to quote literature to support this expectation.

    Our response

    Thank you very much. For brevity, we provided citations to all the hypothesis in Table 1. Kindly check Table one for details.

    Reviewer 1 Comment 5

    Under section 4.1, line 16, the initials for Owusu, 2009 and others should be deleted. Do this for all in-text citations throughout the paper

    Our response
    Thank you very much. The initials were provided to distinguish the differences in the authors. According to the Harvard style of referencing, works by different authors with the same family name and the same year of publication are distinguished by the provision of the initials in text. However, base on the comments, the initials have been removed

    Reviewer 1 Comment 5

    The statement “This indicates that even though the Government of Ghana Flagship Programs such as Modernizing Agriculture in Ghana (MAG) otherwise known as Planting for Food and Jobs (PFJ)is said to be enticing the youth into agriculture (Ministry of Food and Agriculture, 2018) is at variance with the results from this study” should be rewritten meaningfully.
    You cannot make the statement below based on the descriptive statistics from your study
    “Plausible reasons could be that the youth does not still see agriculture as lucrative compared to other economic activities such as illegal mining (“galamsey’’).The youth prefer investments with quick returns, agriculture remains one of the least regarded employment sectors in Ghana, and there exists no infrastructure, hence, it would require colossal principal start-ups (Akpan, 2010)”. This is beyond the scope of your descriptive statistics results

    Our response

    Thank you very much. The statements have been rewritten as suggested and highlighted in red.

    Reviewer 1 Comment 6

    The statement “Averagely, 93.3% of the respondents had had a level of formal education, even though most of them could not read nor write” is confusing. If 93.3% had formal education, how come ‘most’ of them could not read or write. This looks contradictory to me.

    Our response
    Thank you very much. The statement is the reality in Ghana. In the country, it is highly possible to have someone who has gone through primary education but cannot read or write especially among those who schooled in the rural areas.

    Reviewer 1 Comment 6

    4.3.1. Estimates of willingness to produce organic vegetables
    Under section 4.3.1 line 29, author stated that marginal effects were calculated for the Heckman Selection model but the estimates are not included in Table 4. These estimates should be included in Table 4 to make sense of the results interpretations.

    Our response

    Thank you very much, the marginal effects in the first stage of the Heckman model have been calculated, added and the interpretations in the text adjusted accordingly in red.

    Reviewer 1 Comment 7

    4.4 Knowledge perceived knowledge in organic vegetable production practices and certification. Rewrite this heading as “Perceived knowledge of organic vegetable production practices and certification”
    Descriptive statistics performed for the perceived knowledge of organic vegetable production gives good context for the general description and understanding of the respondents knowledge of organic vegetable production and certification. However, more analysis should be performed using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) or Factor Analysis to generate additional empirical findings that may be of interest to readers.

    Our response

    Thank you very much. Factor analysis was performed on the dataset and the results presented in the appendix. The information provided by the descriptive statistics is still relevant as indicated hence maintained, but a little information on the factor analysis results has been referred to in the text for readers who might be interested.

    Reviewer 1 Comment 7

    Conclusion and recommendations
    The study conclusion should be separated from the recommendations from the study. Authors should also flag the policy implications of the study for both organic vegetable producers and the market. I will like to know the limitations of the study and its implications for the study findings

    Our response
    Thank you very much. The conclusions have been separated from the recommendations. Policy implication for organic vegetable producers was provided in the recommendations, however, since the study did not deal with marketing, we are careful with speculation given that other factors have not been controlled for, thus unable to make a conclusive statement.

    Responses to Reviewer 2 comments

    Reviewer 2 comment 1

    He don't presented the share of organic area to total agricultural area.

    Our response

    Thank you very much, the necessary information has been provided under subsection 2.2 and highlighted in red.

    Reviewer 2 comment 1

    Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: the results of Heckman model presented clealy the factors influencing farmer's willinggness to produce organic vegetables but I would like to know the impact of organic price on the willingness to produce organic product. the conclusion may be needed more to focuse on the futur agricultural policy of GHANA

    Our response

    Thank you very much. Impact assessment is beyond the objective of this research, therefore we are very careful with speculation given that other factors have not been controlled for, thus unable to make a conclusive statement on impact. We might consider that in another manuscript with a different objective

    Reviewer 2 comment 2

    this paper doesn't idetify clearly any implications for research like the influence of public policy. these implications is not consistent with the finding and conclusions of this paper.

    Our response
    Thank you very much. Policy implication of the study has been provided. The authors have also endeavoured to provide implications consistent with findings from this study.

    Reviewer 2 comment 3

    i would like more data about the organic sector in GHANA, like total production, area and price and export

    Our response
    Thank you very much, the necessary information has been provided under subsection 2.2 and highlighted in red.



    Cite this author response
  • pre-publication peer review (ROUND 1)
    Decision Letter
    2020/02/17

    17-Feb-2020

    Dear Dr. Bannor:

    Manuscript ID IJSE-12-2019-0723 entitled "EXAMINING THE WILLINGNESS TO PRODUCE ORGANIC VEGETABLES IN THE BONO AND AHAFO REGIONS OF GHANA" which you submitted to the International Journal of Social Economics, has been reviewed. The comments of the reviewers are included at the bottom of this letter.

    The reviewers have recommended major revisions to the submitted manuscript, before it can be considered for publication. Therefore, I invite you to respond to the reviewers' comments and revise your manuscript.

    To revise your manuscript, log into https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijsec and enter your Author Centre, where you will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions." Under "Actions," click on "Create a Revision." Your manuscript number has been appended to denote a revision.

    You will be unable to make your revisions on the originally submitted version of the manuscript. Instead, revise your manuscript using a word processing program and save it on your computer. Please also highlight the changes to your manuscript within the document by using the track changes mode in MS Word or by using bold or coloured text.

    Once the revised manuscript is prepared, you can upload it and submit it through your Author Centre. The deadline for uploading a revised manuscript is 18-Apr-2020 from receiving this email. If it is not possible for you to resubmit your revision within this timeframe, we may have to consider your paper as a new submission.

    When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to the comments made by the reviewer(s) in the space provided. You can use this space to document any changes you make to the original manuscript. In order to expedite the processing of the revised manuscript, please be as specific as possible in your response to the reviewer(s).

    IMPORTANT: Your original files are available to you when you upload your revised manuscript. Please delete any redundant files before completing the submission.

    Please note that Emerald requires you to clear permission to re-use any material not created by you. If there are permissions outstanding, please send these to Emerald as soon as possible. Emerald is unable to publish your paper with permissions outstanding.

    Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to the International Journal of Social Economics and I look forward to receiving your revision.

    Sincerely,
    Dr. Stefan Mann
    Editor, International Journal of Social Economics
    stefan.mann@agroscope.admin.ch

    Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
    Reviewer: 1

    Recommendation: Major Revision

    Comments:
    Abstract
    Results of the second stage of the Heckman’s selection model on the intensity of the adoption of organic vegetable should be included in the abstract.

    Introduction

    Literature review

    Materials and methods
    Study area
    Information on the study area is very scanty. Author(s) should provide more information related to health, environment, and demand for organic food products in the study area. More information on the vegetation, climatic condition and topography of the area may also aid reader’s contextual understanding of the study.
    Sampling procedure
    The study sampling procedure in not clearly explained. Author(s) claimed that multistage sampling procedure was used without outlining these stages. All the stages of the multistage sampling procedure should be clearly stated, explained and justify their appropriateness for the study.
    Author(s) mentioned that “A combination of simple random sampling and purposive sampling was employed to select 120 farmers” Why did the author(s) used both probability (simple random) and non-probability (purposive) sampling in this study? Using simple random sampling requires that author should have sampling frame, do you have sampling frame to select your respondents for this study? If yes, why use purposive sampling again and tell us the source of the sampling frame
    Data collection
    Nothing is said about how the data were collected. Data elicitation method used for measuring willingness to adopt, pay or accept payment have serious implications for the integrity of data generated. Without this information, we cannot meaningfully interpret the results and interpretations of findings from this study. We need to know whether the interview was conducted face-to-face, type of question format used (i.e. single or double-bounded contingent valuation or choice experiment).

    Data analysis
    Since mass point at zero is observed for 49% of the respondents (see variable WTPOV in Table 1) who are non-adopter of the organic vegetable, using two-part model by Belotti, Deb, Manning & Norton (2015) might be more appropriate since it deals with mixed discrete-continuous random variables and accounted for the mass point at zero.

    Results and discussion
    Under section 3.3, According to the author(s), “The marital status of a farmer and household headship status were expected to negatively influence willingness to produce organic vegetables and amount of land to be allocated for organics production” On what basis are the authors anticipating this result? I expect authors to quote literature to support this expectation.
    Under section 4.1, line 16, the initials for Owusu, 2009 and other should be deleted. Do this for all in-text citations throughout the paper
    The statement “This indicates that even though the Government of Ghana Flagship Programs such as Modernizing Agriculture in Ghana (MAG) otherwise known as Planting for Food and Jobs (PFJ)is said to be enticing the youth into agriculture (Ministry of Food and Agriculture, 2018) is at variance with the results from this study” should be rewritten meaningfully.
    You cannot make the statement below based on the descriptive statistics from your study
    “Plausible reasons could be that the youth does not still see agriculture as lucrative compared to other economic activities such as illegal mining (“galamsey’’).The youth prefer investments with quick returns, agriculture remains one of the least regarded employment sectors in Ghana, and there exists no infrastructure, hence, it would require colossal principal start-ups (Akpan, 2010)”
    This is beyond the scope of your descriptive statistics results
    The statement “Averagely, 93.3% of the respondents had had a level of formal education, even though most of them could not read nor write” is confusing. If 93.3% had formal education, how come ‘most’ of them could not read or write. This looks contradictory to me.

    4.3.1. Estimates of willingness to produce organic vegetables
    Under section 4.3.1 line 29, author stated that marginal effects were calculated for the Heckman Selection model but the estimates are not included in Table 4. These estimates should be included in Table 4 to make sense of the results interpretations.

    4.4 Knowledge perceived knowledge in organic vegetable production practices and certification. Rewrite this heading as “Perceived knowledge of organic vegetable production practices and certification”
    Descriptive statistics performed for the perceived knowledge of organic vegetable production gives good context for the general description and understanding of the respondents knowledge of organic vegetable production and certification. However, more analysis should be performed using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) or Factor Analysis to generate additional empirical findings that may be of interest to readers.

    Conclusion and recommendations
    The study conclusion should be separated from the recommendations from the study. Authors should also flag the policy implications of the study for both organic vegetable producers and the market. I will like to know the limitations of the study and its implications for the study findings

    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication?: The paper contains new and significant findings but not sufficient to justify publication. Additional analysis is suggested

    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored?: The study contains up to date information on organic vegetable production but more information should on willingness to adopt organic vegetable production

    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate?: Many flaws were discovered on the methodology. A substantial revision is suggested

    Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: Many of the results are not correctly interpreted. See my comments on the attached

    Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: The policy implications of the study for organic vegetable producer and organic food market is missing

    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: The manuscript should be edited by professional English editor for grammatical errors

    Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?:

    This journal is participating in Publons Transparent Peer Review. By reviewing for this journal, you agree that your finished report, along with the author’s responses and the Editor’s decision letter, will be linked to from the published article to where they appear on Publons, if the paper is accepted. If you have any concerns about participating in the Transparent Peer Review pilot, please reach out to the journal’s Editorial office. Please indicate below, whether you would like your name to appear with your report on Publons by indicating yes or no.: Yes, I would like my name to appear with my report on Publons

    Reviewer: 2

    Recommendation: Minor Revision

    Comments:
    can you please added the price of organic products in t

    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication?: this paper examining the Willingness to produce organiic VEGETABLES IN THE BONO AND AHAFO REGIONS OF GHANA. the author in this paper He don't presented the share of organic area to total agricultural area.

    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored?: the most literature focused on the relationschip with the health riskand death of farmer and health effects on children as conssequence of use of pesticides

    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate?: the author use the Heckman selection model to estimate the factors influencing farmers ' willingness to produce organic vegetables. yes the method is appropriate. why the organic Garden aggs farmers influenced negatively to produce organic

    Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: the results of Heckman model presented clealy the factors influencing farmer's willinggness to produce organic vegetables but I would like to know the impact of organic price on the willingness to produce organic product. the conclusion may be needed more to focuse on the futur agricultural policy of GHANA

    Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: this paper doesn't idetify clearly any implications for research like the influence of public policy. these implications is not consistent with the finding and conclusions of this paper

    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: yes this paper clearly express its case the technical lunguage of the field.

    Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?: i would like more data about the organic sector in GHANA, like total production, area and price and export

    This journal is participating in Publons Transparent Peer Review. By reviewing for this journal, you agree that your finished report, along with the author’s responses and the Editor’s decision letter, will be linked to from the published article to where they appear on Publons, if the paper is accepted. If you have any concerns about participating in the Transparent Peer Review pilot, please reach out to the journal’s Editorial office. Please indicate below, whether you would like your name to appear with your report on Publons by indicating yes or no.: No, I would not like my name to appear with my report on Publons

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Reviewer report
    2020/02/17

    can you please added the price of organic products in t

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Reviewer report
    2020/02/12

    Abstract
    Results of the second stage of the Heckman’s selection model on the intensity of the adoption of organic vegetable should be included in the abstract.

    Introduction

    Literature review

    Materials and methods
    Study area
    Information on the study area is very scanty. Author(s) should provide more information related to health, environment, and demand for organic food products in the study area. More information on the vegetation, climatic condition and topography of the area may also aid reader’s contextual understanding of the study.
    Sampling procedure
    The study sampling procedure in not clearly explained. Author(s) claimed that multistage sampling procedure was used without outlining these stages. All the stages of the multistage sampling procedure should be clearly stated, explained and justify their appropriateness for the study.
    Author(s) mentioned that “A combination of simple random sampling and purposive sampling was employed to select 120 farmers” Why did the author(s) used both probability (simple random) and non-probability (purposive) sampling in this study? Using simple random sampling requires that author should have sampling frame, do you have sampling frame to select your respondents for this study? If yes, why use purposive sampling again and tell us the source of the sampling frame
    Data collection
    Nothing is said about how the data were collected. Data elicitation method used for measuring willingness to adopt, pay or accept payment have serious implications for the integrity of data generated. Without this information, we cannot meaningfully interpret the results and interpretations of findings from this study. We need to know whether the interview was conducted face-to-face, type of question format used (i.e. single or double-bounded contingent valuation or choice experiment).

    Data analysis
    Since mass point at zero is observed for 49% of the respondents (see variable WTPOV in Table 1) who are non-adopter of the organic vegetable, using two-part model by Belotti, Deb, Manning & Norton (2015) might be more appropriate since it deals with mixed discrete-continuous random variables and accounted for the mass point at zero.

    Results and discussion
    Under section 3.3, According to the author(s), “The marital status of a farmer and household headship status were expected to negatively influence willingness to produce organic vegetables and amount of land to be allocated for organics production” On what basis are the authors anticipating this result? I expect authors to quote literature to support this expectation.
    Under section 4.1, line 16, the initials for Owusu, 2009 and other should be deleted. Do this for all in-text citations throughout the paper
    The statement “This indicates that even though the Government of Ghana Flagship Programs such as Modernizing Agriculture in Ghana (MAG) otherwise known as Planting for Food and Jobs (PFJ)is said to be enticing the youth into agriculture (Ministry of Food and Agriculture, 2018) is at variance with the results from this study” should be rewritten meaningfully.
    You cannot make the statement below based on the descriptive statistics from your study
    “Plausible reasons could be that the youth does not still see agriculture as lucrative compared to other economic activities such as illegal mining (“galamsey’’).The youth prefer investments with quick returns, agriculture remains one of the least regarded employment sectors in Ghana, and there exists no infrastructure, hence, it would require colossal principal start-ups (Akpan, 2010)”
    This is beyond the scope of your descriptive statistics results
    The statement “Averagely, 93.3% of the respondents had had a level of formal education, even though most of them could not read nor write” is confusing. If 93.3% had formal education, how come ‘most’ of them could not read or write. This looks contradictory to me.

    4.3.1. Estimates of willingness to produce organic vegetables
    Under section 4.3.1 line 29, author stated that marginal effects were calculated for the Heckman Selection model but the estimates are not included in Table 4. These estimates should be included in Table 4 to make sense of the results interpretations.

    4.4 Knowledge perceived knowledge in organic vegetable production practices and certification. Rewrite this heading as “Perceived knowledge of organic vegetable production practices and certification”
    Descriptive statistics performed for the perceived knowledge of organic vegetable production gives good context for the general description and understanding of the respondents knowledge of organic vegetable production and certification. However, more analysis should be performed using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) or Factor Analysis to generate additional empirical findings that may be of interest to readers.

    Conclusion and recommendations
    The study conclusion should be separated from the recommendations from the study. Authors should also flag the policy implications of the study for both organic vegetable producers and the market. I will like to know the limitations of the study and its implications for the study findings

    Cite this review
All peer review content displayed here is covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.