Influence of socio-economic and cultural factors in rice varietal diversity management on-farm in Nepal

Influence of socio-economic and cultural factors in rice varietal diversity

management on-farm in Nepal

Ram Bahadur Rana,1,2 Chris Garforth,2 Bhuwon Sthapit3 and Devra Jarvis41Local Initiatives for Biodiversity, Research, and Development (LI-BIRD), Pokhara, Nepal; 2International and Rural Development

Department, University of Reading, Reading, United Kingdom; 3International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI), Pokhara,

Nepal; 4International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI), Rome, Italy

Accepted in revised form December 9, 2006

Abstract. A questionnaire survey of 408 households explored the role of socio-economic and cultural factors in rice (Oryzasativa L.) varietal diversity management on-farm in two contrasting eco-sites in Nepal. Multiple regression outputssuggest that number of parcels of land, livestock number, number of rice ecosystems, agro-ecology (altitude), and useof chemical fertilizer have a significant positive influence on landrace diversity on-farm, whilemembership in farmers�groups linked to extension services has significant but negative influenceon landrace diversity. Factorswith significantpositive influence on diversity of modern varieties on-farm were number of parcels of land and of rice ecosystems,access to irrigation, membership in farmers� groups, and use of insecticide. Within communities, resource-endowedhouseholds maintain significantly higher varietal diversity on-farm than resource-poor households and play a sig-nificant role in conserving landraces that are vulnerable to genetic erosion and those with socio-cultural and market-preferred traits. Resource-poor households also contribute to local diversity conservation but at lower richness andarea coverage levels than resource-endowed households. Households where a female had assumed the role of head ofhousehold due to death or migrant work of her husband had less diversity due to lower labor availability. Landraceswith socio-cultural and market-preferred traits are few in number but have potential to be conserved on-farm.

Key words: Agricultural biodiversity, Landraces, Modern variety, Nepal, On-farm conservation, Rice, Varietaldiversity

Abbreviations: ANOV – Analysis of variance; CBD – Convention on biological diversity; ha – Hectare; HH –Household; MV – Modern variety

Ram Bahadur Rana is Post-doctoral Research Fellow at the University of Reading, UK. His research interestsinclude action research on participatory approaches, biodiversity conservation and utilization, and exploring agri-culture-based livelihood options for resource-poor farmers.

Chris Garforth is Professor of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development at the University of Reading wherehe is Director of the MSc Programme in Communication for Development. His main research interests are in informaland formal processes of communication in rural areas in developed and developing countries, and the theory andpractice of reform of public sector agricultural advisory services.

Bhuwon Sthapit is Project Coordinator of the Diversity for Livelihoods Programme at the Bioversity International(formerly International Plant Genetic Resources Institute). In Bioversity International he is responsible for in situconservation, home gardens, tropical fruits, and participatory approaches to crop improvement. He obtained his PhDin Plant Biology from the University of Wales, UK.

Devra Jarvis is Senior Scientist for Agricultural Biodiversity and Ecosystems at Bioversity International, theinternational agency charged with conserving plant genetic resources at a global level. She is the lead author of ATraining Guide to in situ Conservation On-farm (2000, Rome, Italy: IPGRI) and co-editor of Managing Biodiversityin Agricultural Ecosystems (2006, New York, New York: Columbia University Press). She coordinates programsworldwide focused on conserving genetic diversity on-farm.

Agriculture and Human Values � Springer 2007DOI 10.1007/s10460-007-9082-0

Introduction

Genetic resources for food and agriculture are the bio-logical basis of world food and nutrition security anddirectly support the livelihoods of over 2.5 billion people(FAO, 1998). Within the agricultural sciences, a commonjustification for preserving genetic diversity is the need tobe prepared for a potential outbreak of disease and pests,and to have a source of raw materials for breedingmodern varieties (MVs). Genetic diversity gives a spe-cies or a population the ability to adapt to changingenvironments. Local cultivars are the primary source forfarmers to cope with changing environments. The geneticdiversity of local crop cultivars in the world is increas-ingly threatened. Loss of agricultural biodiversity isfrequently presented as an environmental problem (WRI/IUCN/UNEP, 1992), but the underlying causes areessentially social, economic, and political factors. Fromhis work in Mexico, Peru and Turkey, Brush (1995)identified socio-economic factors such as land fragmen-tation, marginal growing environments, imperfect marketconditions, cultural identity and preference for diversityto contribute positively towards on-farm diversity. Odero(1998) highlighted the significance of farm size,employing casual labor, fertilizer use, and extensionagent visits in maintenance of crop diversity on-farm inZimbabwe. In another study in Zimbabwe, Cromwell andvan Oosterhout (2000) found that larger farm size, valueof the crop to the farm family, relative age of household(HH) head, and position of authority within the societycontributed positively to crops and varietal diversity.Understanding the influence of socio-economic, cultural,and environmental factors on farmers� decision-makingprocesses in management of agricultural biodiversityon-farm is a prerequisite for devising a strategy for insitu conservation on-farm1 (Jarvis and Hodgkin, 1998).

Multiple varieties are maintained on-farm to addressdifferent needs (Bellon, 1996). Farmers� decisions onchoice of varieties to cultivate are primarily governed bytheir intended uses to support HH livelihood and foodsecurity (Campilan, 2002). Landraces2 may persistbecause of their good agronomic performance in specificfields, or because they are highly valued by farmers fortheir post-harvest end use qualities (Hugo et al., 2003).Carpenter (2005), in a study of in situ conservation ofrice plant genetic diversity in the Philippines, for exam-ple, found that traditional varieties of glutinous rice wereprimarily conserved for the production of local sweetdelicacies.

Other studies have emphasized the need to understandthe inter-connectedness of cultural diversity and agri-cultural biodiversity (Negash and Niehof, 2004; Soleriand Cleveland, 1993). Some landraces have cultural andreligious ‘‘use value’’; thus conservation of agriculturalbiodiversity is closely intertwined with the conservation

of indigenous culture (Gonzales, 2000). Brush (1989)and Gurung and Vaidya (1998) indicated that economicstatus and food culture or culinary preferences promotediversity on-farm. Bellon (2004) highlighted that culturalvalues, including specialized tastes and preferences forfoods prepared from any specific variety of a given crop,are expressed in farmers� selection criteria and thediversity of the crop population they manage on-farm.Swaminathan and Castillo (2000: xii) suggest that ‘‘locallandraces are still being maintained largely by the ruraland tribal poor,’’ mainly by default because of theirlimited access to MVs.

Our knowledge in Nepal is limited on social, cultural,and environmental factors that influence the conservationof landraces on-farm. The present study seeks to con-tribute to the scientific knowledge of on-farm conserva-tion by answering the following questions: (1) Whatsocio-economic and cultural factors influence the man-agement of agricultural biodiversity on-farm in Nepal?(2) How do resource-endowment and gender of head ofhouseholds affect varietal diversity on-farm? (3) Is therescope for promoting conservation based on the culturalsignificance of landraces?

Rice (Oryza sativa L.) is an economically, socially,and culturally important crop grown in diverse agro-ecological conditions ranging from plains (<100 m asl)to high hills (2600 m asl) in Nepal. Of all the cropsgrown, rice stands out in terms of area coverage(1.5 million hectares) and production (4.2 million tons)with immense contribution to HH food security. A vastrange of agro-climatic and socio-cultural settings in thecountry give rise to enormous diversity of both cultivatedand wild relatives of rice, estimated at about 2000different landraces of cultivated rice, four wild Oryzaspecies (O. nivara, O. ruffipogon, O. officinalis, andO. granulata), and two wild relatives (Leesia hexandraand Hygrorrhiza aristata) found in different parts of thecountry (Gupta et al., 1996).

Crop genetic diversity can be measured at the level ofcrop varieties, agro-morphological traits, and geneticmarkers (Brown and Hodgkin, 2007). The amount ofon-farm crop diversity is often measured in terms ofcounting farmer-named varieties (Tripp, 1996). Recentwork has shown that variety names do not alwaysaccurately reflect genetic distinctiveness as farmer taxo-nomies and nomenclature are typically localized andculturally determined. The level of consistency in namingand distinguishing local varieties is essential in suchsocio-economic studies. If the farmer-named varieties arenot genetically distinct, then the usefulness of names as ameans to identify and quantify the diversity in agricul-tural ecosystems will be limited (Sadiki et al., 2007). Inthe present study sites, however, Bajracharya (2003) re-ported high consistency between farmers� naming of ricevarieties and results obtained from agro-morphological

Ram Bahadur Rana et al.

and bio-chemical characterizations, which indicates thatfarmers� named varieties could be used as an independentunits for analysis.

The purpose of the study was to provide an analysis ofsocio-economic and cultural factors associated withon-farm conservation of rice varieties. Empirical datawere collected in two sites representing the two mainregions in which rice is grown in Nepal – the low lyingTerai (plain) and the mid-hills. We first identified thenumber of distinct landraces and MVs on a sample offarms at each site, which gave us a measure of landrace,MV, and overall varietal diversity at both farm and sitelevel. We then explored the association between thesemeasures and a range of socio-economic variables inorder to answer the questions posed earlier. Based onthe findings and the review, we draw implications forconservation of agricultural biodiversity on-farm.

Methods

A socio-economic and agro-ecological study was con-ducted in two contrasting eco-sites in Nepal: Begnasrepresented mid-hill and Kachorwa represented plainconditions (Table 1). Household was taken as the sam-pling unit for the study. The study employed propor-tionate stratified random sampling design, and wealthcategory3 was used for stratifying HHs (LARC, 1995;Turton et al., 1997). All the HHs in the study sites wereclassified into one of three wealth categories; this clas-sification was based on farmers in the villages decidingto what category a HH belonged: resource-rich, resource-medium, and resource-poor. In Begnas and Kachorwa thenumber of HHs were 350 and 96 in resource-rich, 349and 324 in resource-medium, and 242 and 494 inresource-poor categories, respectively. Proportionatesamples of 206 and 202 HHs out of 941 and 914 HHs inBegnas and Kachorwa study sites were selected,respectively (see Table 4 for number of HH per resourcegroup for each study site). The person interviewed was

the one identified (by HH members) as the main deci-sion-maker with respect to farming. The decision-makermay or may not be the head of HH. Information wascollected on respondent profile, HH features, farm char-acteristics, application of external inputs in farming,access to market, and other services. Detailed data werecollected on varieties: growing environment, area cov-erage, productivity, preferred and un-preferred traits,religious and cultural values, if any. Variety richness i.e.,number of landraces and MVs at HH and communitylevels, and dominance (relative area under landraces andMVs) at study sites (Table 2) were used as the basicdiversity measurements.

The field exercise was accomplished in January andFebruary 1999. A pre-test of 20 questionnaires was per-formed in an adjacent village at each study site. Based onfeedback from the pre-test, the final questionnaire wasprepared. Data were collected in face-to-face interviewsand were analyzed using Statistical Package for SocialSciences (SPSS) andMinitab software. Simple descriptivestatistics (mean, standard error of mean, maximum andminimum values) were generated for comparison betweendifferent socio-economic categories. One-way analysis ofvariance (ANOVA) was performed for interval variablessuch as number of varieties and area coverage to comparebetween wealth categories, gender, and study sites.

Multiple regression analysis was performed to under-stand the relative contribution of 25 different socio-economic variables in maintaining HH on-farm ricevarietal diversity. Two sets of multiple regression anal-yses were performed taking number of landraces andnumber of MVs maintained per HH as dependent vari-ables against a set of independent variables pertaining torespondent, HH, and farm characteristics. Only thoseindependent variables which have a significant correla-tion with dependent variables in the regression equationsare included in the tables for presentation and discussion.The datasets for Begnas and Kachorwa eco-sites werecombined to run the analysis. The following codes wereassigned for the responses for categorical variables:

Table 1. Characteristic features of study sites in Nepal.

Variables Unit Begnas Kachorwa

Elevation (range) Meters asl 668–1206 <100Annual rainfall mm/year 3979 1515Mean annual temperature �C 20.9 24.6

Market access Poor/good Poor GoodResearch & extension intervention Low/moderate/high Moderate HighTotal number of households Number 941 914

Sampled households Number 206 202Mean family size Person/HH 6.5±0.2 6.5±0.2Agriculture as main occupation Percentage of HHs 70 97

Mean agricultural land area Hectare/HH 0.7±0.1 0.8±0.1

Rice varietal diversity management on-farm in Nepal

• caste: 1 ‘‘higher,’’ 2 ‘‘medium,’’ 3 ‘‘lower,’’ and 4‘‘others’’

• occupation: 1 ‘‘agriculture’’ and 2 ‘‘non-agriculture’’• gender of head of HH: 1 ‘‘male’’ and 2 ‘‘female’’• respondent�s education: 1 ‘‘illiterate,’’ 2 ‘‘primary,’’3 ‘‘secondary,’’ and 4 ‘‘above secondary’’

• wealth category: 1 ‘‘resource-rich,’’ 2 ‘‘resource-medium,’’ and 3 ‘‘resource-poor’’

• own land: 1 ‘‘yes’’ and 2 ‘‘no’’• site: 1 ‘‘Begnas’’ and 2 ‘‘Kachorwa’’• access to irrigation: 1 ‘‘yes’’ and 2 ‘‘no’’• farmer group membership (more contact by extensionworkers): 1 ‘‘yes’’ and 2 ‘‘no’’

• participated in training: 1 ‘‘yes’’ and 2 ‘‘no’’• participated in formal extension program: 1 ‘‘yes’’ and2 ‘‘no’’

• chemical fertilizer use: 1 ‘‘yes’’ and 2 ‘‘no’’• use of insecticide: 1 ‘‘yes’’ and 2 ‘‘no.’’

For interval variables the values were converted tostandard metric units (e.g., land area in hectare) and useddirectly in the regression equations.

Findings

Extent and distribution of varietal diversity on-farm

Begnas and Kachorwa have 56 and 48 rice varieties undercultivation respectively. Out of 56 varieties in Begnas,91% are landraces and the rest are MVs, whereas in Ka-chorwa the figure is 60%. In Begnas, almost all HHs growlandraces and only 43% of the sample also growsMVs. Bycontrast, in Kachorwa every HH grows MVs and about42% of all HHs also grow landraces. On average farmersin Begnas maintained four varieties whereas in Kachorwait was three. Farmers in Begnas and Kachorwa maintainedon average three and one landraces, respectively, and thedifference in number of landraces maintained at HH levelbetween the two villages was statistically highly signifi-cant (P < 0.001). Likewise, the difference in number ofMVs farmers cultivated in Begnas and Kachorwa washighly significant (P < 0.001). There was little overlap invarieties between sites: only four landraces (Mansara,Aanga, Basmati, and Anadi) and two MVs (CH 45 andMansuli) were found in both Begnas and Kachorwa.

Analysis of dominance of landraces and MVs betweenstudy sites revealed that landraces in Begnas covered 73%of the area under rice, whereas in Kachorwa the figure wasonly 16%. Although landraces accounted for 60% of thetotal varieties in Kachorwa, the area coverage was quitelimited, signifying that they are grown in very small plots.Comparison of the mean area under rice at HH levelbetween sites indicates that farmers in Begnas cultivated0.37 ± 0.02 ha, which was only 47% of the area(0.78 ± 0.06 ha) allocated by farmers at Kachorwa. Thedifference in area allocated to rice between sites was highlysignificant (P< 0.001). Farmers inKachorwa, representingplain condition, cultivate larger areas than those in Begnas(mid-hills). The difference in mean areas for both land-races andMVsbetween the two siteswas highly significant(P < 0.001): farmers in Begnas allocate twice the areaunder landrace as compared to farmers in Kachorwa. Onthe other hand, for MVs farmers in Kachorwa allocatealmost seven times the area allocated by farmers inBegnas.The productivityfigures for ricewere 2.24 t/ha and2.25 t/hafor Begnas and Kachorwa respectively, and the differencewas statistically non-significant. However, in both sitesMVs outperform landraces in grain yield in favorableenvironments (high fertility, assured irrigation, and below800 m asl), which is one of the main reasons for wideradoption of MVs in such favorable environments.

Socio-economic factors and varietal diversity

The outputs from the multiple regression analyses(t value and significance of t value) along with descrip-tive statistics are presented in Table 3. Out of 25 differentvariables used in the analysis, 11 have statisticallysignificant association with the number of landraces and/orMVs maintained at HH level. The multiple regressioncorrelation coefficient, R2, the measure of amount ofvariability accounted for by the independent variables,for landrace diversity, and MV diversity were 0.502 and0.629 respectively i.e., more of the variation in MVdiversity was explained than in the case of landracediversity. Landrace diversity in the study sites wasassociated with variation in nine variables, namely areaunder rice, parcels of land, HH food sufficiency, numberof ecosystems, number of livestock, agro-ecology of thestudy site, membership of group, gender of HH head, anduse of chemical fertilizer.

Table 2. Number of rice varieties and area coverage in the two study sites.

Types of rice Begnas (n = 206) Kachorwa (n = 202)

No. Area (ha) Productivity (t/ha) No. Area (ha) Productivity (t/ha)

Landraces 51 58.1 2.06±0.1* 29 25.1 2.19±0.1

Modern varieties (MVs) 5 21.3 2.91±0.1 19 131.5 2.36±0.1Overall (landrace + MVs) 56 79.4 2.24±0.1 48 156.6 2.25±0.1

*Mean area and standard error of mean.


Individuals with no affiliation to membership infarmers� groups (associated with increased contact withextension services) maintained higher landrace diversitythan otherwise.4 Male HH heads maintained a highernumber of landraces as compared to their female coun-terparts (widows or women whose husbands workedoutside of the village). Finally, the mid-hill eco-site(Begnas) with less intervention from formal research anddevelopment agencies and limited market integrationharbored significantly higher landrace diversity than theplain eco-site (Kachorwa), which is characterized by highintervention from formal research and extension, andgood market integration.

The second multiple regression model tested therelationship between number of MVs at HH level againstsocio-economic parameters. Eight different socio-eco-nomic variables had significant contribution in explain-ing the number of MVs maintained at HH level. Being amember of a farmers� group is associated with HHskeeping a higher number of MVs on-farm, probablybecause membership means greater access to MVs asgovernment research and extension systems invariablypromote MVs only. Farmers tend to cultivate MVs underassured irrigation; hence access to irrigation and numberof MVs were positively associated. Similarly, farmers inKachorwa applied chemicals to control disease and insectpests predominantly in MVs as compared to landraces.Application of chemicals to control disease and insect

pests in Begnas is not common at all. For both landracesand MVs, farmers practiced integrated nutrient manage-ment where they applied farm yard manure as well aschemical fertilizers to supplement the soil nutrients.

Varietal diversity by wealth and gender categories

In Begnas, the mean number of varieties cultivated byresource-rich, medium and poor HHs were 4.9 ± 0.4,3.2 ± 0.3 and 2.0 ± 0.3 respectively, and the differencewas highly significant (P < 0.001). For landraces, thedifference in number cultivated between wealth catego-ries was highly significant (P < 0.001) with resource-richmaintaining a higher number than resource-medium andresource-poor HHs. Similarly, the difference in numberof MVs maintained between wealth strata was statisti-cally significant (P < 0.001). In Kachorwa, the differencein the number of MVs and landraces maintained byresource-rich and resource-medium HHs, on one hand,and by resource-poor HHs on the other, proved to behighly significant (P < 0.001) (Table 4).

Difference in mean area under rice for different wealthcategories indicated that the resource-rich HHs cultivatedsignificantly (P< 0.05) higher area as compared to theother two categories in Begnas (Table 5). Resource-richHHs cultivate more than twice the area under rice ascompared to resource-poor HHs. The difference wasmore striking with respect to the area under MVs and less

Table 3. Socio-economic factors influencing varietal diversity at household level.

Independent variables Values Landraces MVs

T val sig t t val sig t

Rice area (mean area/hh) in ha 0.63±0.04 4.27 0.000 9.03 0.000

Parcel of land (number/hh) 5.17±0.23 6.52 0.000 4.55 0.000Household food sufficiency (number of months/year) 7.82±0.20 2.71 0.007 3.83 0.000Number of ecosystems (number/hh) 2.33±0.05 2.59 0.009 3.33 0.001

Livestock number (number/hh) 4.05±0.16 6.16 0.000 0.57 0.571Agro-ecology of study site –2.70 0.007 )0.48 0.629Begnas 1

Kachorwa 2Membership of group (%) 2.89 0.004 )5.44 0.000Yes = 1 53No = 2 47

Household head (%) )2.59 0.010 )0.72 0.469Male = 1 90Female = 2 10

Irrigation facility (%) 1.37 0.173 )2.56 0.011Have access = 1 40Have no access = 2 60

Use of chemical fertilizer (%) )3.31 0.001 )2.65 0.008Yes = 1 78No = 2 22Use of insecticide (%) 0.42 0.672 )2.65 0.008

Yes = 1 45No = 2 55


so for landraces. Comparison between wealth categoriesindicates that the resource-medium and resource-poorwere more similar in their allocation of area for differenttypes (i.e., landraces and MVs) of rice, and resource-richHHs were most dissimilar. The finding in Kachorwa wassimilar, but the difference in area allocated by HHs indifferent wealth categories demonstrated a higher degreeof disparity between resource-medium and resource-poorHHs than between resource-rich and resource-mediumcategories. The area allocated to different rice types andthe wealth category showed a statistically highly signif-icant (P< 0.001) association. Comparative analysis of thearea under MVs and landraces at HH level indicates thatfarmers allocated a higher proportion of their rice field toMVs in Kachorwa (favorable environment), whereas inBegnas farmers allocated a higher proportion of theirland to landraces. This is true irrespective of wealthcategory for both sites.

There was a marked difference in the percentage ofHHs with female decision-makers between study sites. InBegnas, women accounted for 58% of the samplewhereas in Kachorwa the figure was only 15%. Thehigher percentage in Begnas could be attributed to themore liberal socio-cultural context prevalent in the hillcommunity along with a higher rate of out-migration ofmale family members for employment off-farm. A gen-eral tendency for male decision-maker HHs vis-a-visfemale decision-maker HHs to maintain higher varietaldiversity on-farm was observed in both study sites.5

However, the difference was statistically non-significant,which suggests that the gender of the decision-maker inthe HH was not significant in richness and dominance oflandraces at the HH level.

Diversity of ‘‘specific varieties’’6 by wealth categoryand gender

Varieties grown by a limited number of HHs in a com-munity have a higher risk of being lost or ‘‘eroded’’ fromthe farming system than ones grown by many HHs,which might be important for maintenance of on-farmdiversity because of presence of unique alleles in theserare varieties. Out of 56 varieties in Begnas, 35 (63%)were each grown by five or fewer HHs. It is important tonote that 19 (34%) varieties were grown by a single HHeach. Of those 19 varieties, 84% were cultivated by HHsfrom the resource-rich category, 11% by resource-med-ium and 5% by resource-poor. In total, 67 HHs main-tained specific landraces, of which 70% were resource-rich, 26% resource-medium, and only 4% resource-poor.The output suggests that resource-rich HHs predominatein maintenance of specific landraces.

Results from Kachorwa suggest that out of 48 varie-ties, 69% were cultivated by five or fewer HHs and 19(40%) were maintained by a single HH each. Of those 19varieties, 53% were maintained by resource-mediumHHs, whereas resource-rich and resource-poor HHscultivated 21% and 26% varieties, respectively. Incontrast to Begnas, in Kachorwa, resource-medium HHscontributed most in conservation of specific varieties. InKachorwa, 58 HHs maintained 33 specific varieties (26landraces and 7 MVs). Of these 58 HHs, 57% were fromresource-medium, 26% resource-poor, and 17% re-source-rich categories. A closer look at the MVs in thiscategory suggests that four were recently released MVsfor the region which were being popularized by thepublic extension services. Some of these MVs could

Table 5. Mean area of rice types by wealth category at study sites.

Type of variety Begnas (area in ha) (n = 206) Kachorwa (area in ha) (n = 202)

Rich(n = 77)

Medium(n = 73)

Poor(n = 56)

Rich(n = 21)

Medium(n = 73)

Poor(n = 108)

Landraces 0.37±0.04 0.24±0.03 0.19±0.03 0.30±0.09 0.19±0.03 0.05±0.01MVs 0.15±0.03 0.09±0.02 0.04±0.01 1.94±0.22 0.77±0.06 0.31±0.03All rice varieties 0.51±0.04 0.33±0.03 0.22±0.03 2.24±0.24 0.96±0.07 0.37±0.03

Table 4. Mean number of varieties by wealth category for study sites.

Type of variety Begnas (n = 206) Kachorwa (n = 202)

Rich(n = 77)

Medium(n = 73)

Poor(n = 56)

Rich(n = 21)

Medium(n = 73)

Poor(n = 108)

Landraces 4.08±0.4 2.66±0.2 1.68±0.3 1.24±0.3 1.08±0.2 0.35±0.1MVs 0.84±0.1 0.58±0.1 0.29±0.1 2.71±0.2 2.40±0.2 1.47±0.1All rice varieties 4.92±0.4 3.23±0.3 1.96±0.3 3.95±0.4 3.48±0.2 1.82±0.1


eventually be adopted by many HHs in larger areas andthereby displace some other varieties.

The gender of the head of HH can give an indicationof family labor levels, but this variable is not interpretedas the sole HH decision maker. Analysis of gender ofhead of HH in Begnas showed that of the 67 HHs whomaintained specific varieties, 61% were HH headed bymen. Likewise in Kachorwa, of the 58 HHs maintainingspecific varieties, male-headed HHs accounted for 91%and female-headed HHs contributed 9%. In Begnas, of19 varieties maintained each by a single HH, 26% aremaintained by female head of HHs. In Kachorwa, 19varieties were cultivated each by a single HH; these HHswere all headed by men. These results again could be anartifact of the significantly smaller number of HHssampled that were headed by women.

Socio-cultural use value of landraces

Farmers reported that a few landraces have identifiablesocio-cultural and religious use values i.e., landraces usedin making special dishes for offering to deities or makingtraditional dishes specific to certain ethnic groups. This isnot the case for MVs because farmers reported that MVsare considered ‘‘impure’’ for socio-cultural and religiousceremonies. Landraces falling in this ‘‘socio-cultural use’’category are grown by many HHs but in small areas. InBegnas, a total of six (11%) different landraces fall in thiscategory. Anadi is the most widely grown landrace butgrown in very small areas (0.02 ha/HH). Anadi is the onlyglutinous rice found in Nepal and is used for makingLatte,7 Khatte,8 and Siraula.9 Farmers believe it possessessome medicinal values as well. Aanga is specificallyadapted to most marginal environments and is consideredto have medicinal value. In Kachorwa there are fourlandraces (Basmati, Sathi, Lajhi, and Khera) in the socio-cultural use category. Sathi is cultivated for its socio-culturalvalues and more HHs cultivate it compared to other land-races except Basmati. Sathi rice a necessary ingredient inthe Chath festival, which is celebrated in southern belts ofthe country. Sathi rice is used for making offerings toChathi Maiya, a Hindu goddess, and preparing sweetdishes during the festival.

Some landraces such as Jetho Budho, Pahele, Basmati,Bayarni, and Ramani are aromatic fine type rice varieties,which command a premium price in local and nationalmarkets. Many HHs grow these, especially the first three,in relatively large areas, to sell in the market. Theselandraces are highly valued for their fine quality (soft andaromatic when cooked) and their consumption is asso-ciated with social prestige in the community. Better-offHHs consume one of these landraces on a regular basiswhereas poor HHs consume them only on special occa-sions and offer them to guests in the house. Consumptionof these landraces is associated with social prestige so

resource-endowed HHs grow them for home consump-tion as well as for sale in the market.

Discussion

Socio-economic factors and varietal diversityat household level

Farmers� management of varietal diversity on-farm isvery much influenced by a complex combination ofenvironmental, socio-cultural, and economic factors. Theregression models successfully identified a number offactors, which were common in explaining the differen-tial number of landraces and MVs maintained at HHlevel. On the other hand, some socio-economic factorswere specifically associated in explaining the variation ofeither landraces or MVs between HHs. Among the socio-economic variables, total land area devoted to rice andtotal parcels of land had the most influence on landracediversity on-farm, which agreed with earlier findings byBrush in Peru, Mexico, and Turkey (Brush, 1995). Theunderlying reason for land fragmentation is concernedwith the existing socio-economic nature of the landinheritance system in Nepal under which parental prop-erty is distributed among the male descendants. Thisresults in fragmented land holdings scattered in differentecosystems with diversity in production potential, whichmeans that different varieties are required for differentecosystems, thereby increasing the number of varietieson-farm. The number of ecosystems also has a positiveinfluence on varietal diversity on-farm for the samereason. Livestock number has a positive relationship withcultivation of landraces but not with MVs on-farmbecause of the increased amount of straw available fromthe former at different times due to tall plant height andvarying maturity period of landraces, for livestock feed.

The number of landraces and MVs at HH level is posi-tively associated with area planted with rice, though theassociation is much stronger for MVs. Access to irrigationinfluences the number ofMVs but does not have an impacton the number of landraces on-farm because farmersdeploy MVs in irrigated plots where they perform betterthan landraces. Likewise, the application of chemicalmeans of controlling insect pests has a positive associationwith the number of MVs but not with landraces. This is sobecause farmers use control measures primarily for MVs.

Whether one is a member of farmers� groups has anegative influence on landraces conservation but has apositive influence on the number of MVs maintainedon-farm. This is understandable because the governmentextension system provides its services through a groupapproach and the government promotes only MVs. Thus,membership in groups provides wider access to geneticmaterials though only MVs for the local community


(Odero, 1998; Wood and Lenne, 1997). Membership ingroups or farmers� access to extension services promoteintroduction of new diversity within the system. Respon-dents� education and age had no association inmaintenanceof varietal diversity on-farm, which agreed with previousfindings by Cromwell and van Oosterhout (2000).

Role of wealth category and gender on varietal diversityat household level

Using ‘‘wealth ranking,’’ which more or less capturessocio-economic variability, enabled the stratification ofHHs within communities so that it was possible to makecomparison within and between communities (Franzelet al., 2003; Turton et al., 1997). Adams et al. (1997)analyzed the construct validity, empirical validity, andexternal validity of wealth ranking and concluded that thetechnique satisfied the requirements of all three criteria.Reddy (1997) compared wealth ranking with incomeanalysis from standard survey methods and confirmed thevalidity of the technique, adding further that in dominantlyagricultural communities, as in our study, the inferencesdid not differ much between these two approaches.

From the results it is apparent that we can use wealthwhen it is based on having larger rice cultivation areasand number of livestock to identify those HHs who arelikely to be growing larger numbers of both landracesand MVs. The number of varieties maintained at HHlevel varied significantly between the rich and middlewealth categories and the resource poor category, withresource-rich and resource-medium maintaining highernumbers of landraces. Negash and Niehof�s (2004) studyin Ethiopia also suggests that resource-richer HHs canafford to maintain higher varietal diversity and do so,which is a reflection of their stronger livelihood statusand social status.

The empirical evidence from the field shows thatresources, in particular land and livestock, play a sig-nificant role in maintenance of local crop diversity. Thevery resource-poor HHs do not have the resources togrow more than a few varieties, either landraces ormodern, when compared to more endowed members ofthe community. This does not mean that they are notmaking a significant contribution to maintaining diversityon farm, as by growing landraces they are increasing thearea under cultivation to landraces, and though theircontribution may be less than that of their richer neigh-bors, they are helping to maintain a large total areacoverage of landraces in the villages studied.

The data did not support a perception held byresearchers that the farms of resource-poor HH mightharbor unique diversity at the level of variety names.Resource-poor farmers did not grow any unique typesnot found in resource-medium and rich categories. Yet,landrace populations themselves are highly heteroge-

neous and within population diversity can be greater thanamong populations (Brown and Hodgkin, 2007).Although no unique name varieties were found in theresource-poor HHs, these poorer HHs are associated withpoorer land. Sthapit et al. (2001) found that resource-poor HHs were maintaining specific pro-poor traits in theMansara rice varieties. Future genetic analysis of popu-lation differences of landraces taken from differentwealth categories has the potential to reveal differences atthe biochemical and molecular level not studied here.

Our study was not able to suggest contrary findings tothat of Prain and Piniero (1994) and Sperling andLoevinsohn (1993) who suggested women played a moreimportant role than men in agricultural biodiversitymanagement on-farm. Gender of the decision-maker wasnot a significant factor in varietal diversity managementon-farm. Although gender of head of HH is an importantfactor in on-farm conservation, this seems related more totheir access to resources rather than gender per se.Women come to assume the position of head of HH inNepalese patriarchal society only when senior malemembers in the family are absent due to either death orout-migration for off-farm employment. In such cir-cumstances, a female head of HH lacks the manpower toperform ‘‘male-oriented’’ agricultural activities such asplowing and field preparation for rice transplanting ontime thereby restricting her capacity to manage a largenumber of varieties. Furthermore such female-headedHHs tend to share-out their land, again limiting thenumber of varieties maintained on-farm.

Socio-cultural use values and diversity of landraceson-farm

Rice varieties have socio-cultural and economic (foodsecurity, market, religious and cultural uses) and adaptive(abiotic and biotic) traits, which jointly represent ‘‘usevalue’’ of a variety and determine the continued existenceof these varieties on-farm. The main characteristic featureof culturally important landraces is they are few in numberbut many HHs cultivate them in small areas. Because oftheir important role in religious and cultural ceremoniesmany HHs tend to grow them rather than ask for grainsfrom neighbors. These landraces have a fair chance ofsurvival on-farm so long as local culture thrives in thecommunity (Rana, 2004). Increasing the market demandthrough urban consumers for these culturally importantlandraces would be an incentive for farmers to cultivatethese landraces in larger areas and thus contribute to HHincome. Anadi, for example, the only glutinous rice inNepal, is grown in the two study sitesmainly tomake sweetdelicacies – echoing Carpenter�s (2005) finding in thePhilippines. Its survival on farms is clearly linked to con-tinued demand for these delicacies.


Studies from elsewhere (Pingali et al., 1997; Unnevehret al., 1992) have indicated that despite the pressure ofeconomic change and commercialization, some qualityrice landraces not only survived but also thrived due toincreased market demand. In the present context, we canexpect that farmers would be interested in continuing togrow aromatic fine type rice landraces (Jetho Budho,Pahele, Basmati) in the study sites because of favorablemarket price. On-farm conservation of these landraceswould largely depend on market dynamics: demand,supply, and price in local and national markets. From thefield evidence it is clear that there are only a few land-races that have socio-cultural and religious values.

Implications for conservation of agriculturalbiodiversity on-farm

Findings from the study have significant implications forconservation and utilization of agricultural biodiversityon-farm. Having larger land areas allows resource-richand resource-medium HHs to maintain a significantlyhigher level of varietal diversity compared to resource-poor HHs. Resource-endowed HHs along with resource-poor HHs play a crucial role in the on-farm conservationof ‘‘specific’’ landraces that are vulnerable to geneticerosion. Conservation programs must, therefore, notexclude the participation of resource-endowed HHsowing to their specific role in diversity managementon-farm. Subedi et al. (2003) reported that the majority ofnodal farmers in both eco-sites belong to the resource-richwealth category and play important roles in informal seednetworks by exchanging germplasm and associatedknowledge. On the other hand, conservation programscan be made compatible with a pro-poor agenda byidentifying those varieties that are not secured through theautonomous actions of resource-rich HHs and thendesigning initiatives which give resource-poor farmersincentives to grow them. As size of land holdings is asignificant factor in the amount of landraces resource-poor farmers can grow, interventions should be targeted atincreasing the value of landraces currently maintained bythese farmers. This could be done by buying the seedfrom resource-poor farmers for distribution and sale bothlocally and further a field, and by creating benefit-sharingmechanisms for poor farmers who continue to maintainlocal varieties of low market, but high conservation value.

With respect to the gender of heads of HH, the studylooked only at situations where an absent male throughdeath or migrant work had resulted in a female-headedHH. The main implication is that the lack of labor forthese HHs has influenced the maintenance of diversityon-farm. Here targeted development actions to increasethe available labor in female-headed HHs could result inincreased diversity conservation by these HHs.

Public sector extension services encourage the farmingcommunity to organize themselves into groups for agri-cultural development interventions. At the moment, thegroups to which farmers belong in the two study sites donot have any specific focus on varietal diversity; indeed,it is more likely that they have been used as vehicles forpromoting specific new varieties. If agricultural biodi-versity conservation on-farm were to become a priorityobjective for extension services, a group approach wouldhave considerable merit, particularly for resource-poorHHs. Managed diversity at the group level, with mem-bers agreeing who would grow which varieties on partsof their land, could lead to greater overall diversity thanleaving it to individuals to decide what to plant. TheConvention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has recog-nized the continued maintenance of landraces in situ asan essential component of sustainable agriculturaldevelopment (FAO, 1998), and increasingly governmentsare obliged to identify economically high value landracesand officially release and promote them through adecentralized district-based seed self-sufficiency pro-gram. Involving public sector research and extensionservices in evaluation of promising landraces followed byseed multiplication and repatriation in appropriate agro-ecologies would greatly enhance the survival chances oflandraces on-farm and contribute to HH food security.

There are few socio-culturally important landraces inboth the study sites. A relatively large number ofHHs grewthem, but only in small areas mainly to meet their ownparticular needs. High quality aromatic rice landracescontribute significantly to the HH economy and theirconsumption is associated with social prestige. Marketincentives play an important role in continued cultivationof these landraces whereas socio-culturally importantlandraces could be conserved on-farm provided demandfor these landraces increased through consumer awarenessand market promotion activities. This could be done byraising awareness of the value of traditional food speciesfor health and nutrition and influencing national andinternational food policies and research agendas to takenote of the facts. Efforts to conserve and enrich agriculturalbiodiversity have to consider the cultural diversity andsocial dimensions of prevailing communities.

With respect to landraces that are grown by only afew HHs, if genetic analysis shows that they do indeedhave unique alleles, special attention needs to be givento their conservation. These landraces could be used asone of the parents in breeding new farmer-preferredvarieties. Increased awareness about the uniqueness ofthese landraces and the need for conservation mightconvince some farmers to grown them on-farm. Whileresource-rich HHs currently play a key role in thecontinued planting of these landraces, several of themare grown by only a single HH and are therefore underconsiderable threat of being lost. Resource-poor HHs


could be given financial incentives to grow them, in orderto secure their continued availability for future breedingprograms. Finally, putting them safely in gene bank for exsitu conservation is a necessity, in case on-farm conser-vation fails.

Many on-farm conservation projects in the world areinterested in developing various options of incentivemechanisms for supporting on-farm management of localcrop diversity (Gauchan et al., 2005; Smale, 2006).Market-based incentives are one means of encouragingfarmers to grow landraces that are of social value,thereby contributing to the conservation of crop diversityon-farm; in principle, this method is also the cheapestform of conservation. Negri (2003) reported that 427landraces belonging to different crop species were stillfound in Central Italy in a 1981 survey because oforganoleptic peculiarities valued by local markets, familyassociation, and adaptability to harsh climatic conditions.In the Nepalese context, while there are various types ofincentives (economic, cultural, and adaptation) forfarmers to maintain several landraces in the Begnas eco-site, this is less so in Kachorwa. With the formal systemdeveloping new MVs suitable for mid-hill conditionsthere is no guarantee that farmers will remain interestedin maintaining landrace diversity on-farm. With farmers�aspiration for economic change these landraces have tobe made more competitive through participatory cropimprovement programs and/or market promotion meansso that they contribute to HH income. Equally, it isimportant to document the impact of such conservationinterventions on local crop diversity and livelihoods ofthe poor because such studies are limited.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank farmers of Begnas andKachorwa villages for their participation in fieldresearch. This work is an output of the PhD Study fromIPGRI�s Global Project, ‘‘Strengthening Scientific Basisof in-situ Conservation of Agricultural BiodiversityOn-farm: Nepal Country Component,’’ funded by theNetherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs DevelopmentCooperation DGIS (Activity number: ww104801), theInternational Development Research Centre (IDRC),Canada and the Swiss Agency for Development andCooperation (SDC), Switzerland.

Notes

1. On-farm conservation, which is a dynamic form of plantgenetic resources management, allows the processes ofnatural and human selection to continue (Altieri and Mer-rick, 1987).

2. ‘‘Landraces’’ are also known as ‘‘farmer varieties’’ or‘‘traditional varieties.’’ They are morphologically similar butgenetically heterogeneous varieties (Harlan, 1975) thatdemonstrate variable adaptations to environmental extremi-ties. Landraces are crop varieties bred and cultivated byfarmers and adapted to local environmental conditions(Jarvis et al., 2000). ‘‘Landrace diversity’’ refers to thenumber of different landraces grown in an area, while‘‘varietal diversity’’ refers to the number of both landracesand modern varieties (MVs) grown within an area.

3. Wealth category of HHs was derived through wealth rankingexercise conducted using mutually agreed criteria by the keyinformants (knowledgeable men and women numberingabout ten) selected from the village. Card sorting method wasused for wealth ranking exercise in both the study sites tocategorize all the households into one of the three distinctcategories, namely ‘‘resource-rich,’’ ‘‘resource-medium,’’and ‘‘resource-poor.’’ Food self-sufficiency (number ofmonths) ofHHs from owned landwas themajor criterion usedin the exercise along with other criteria such as off-farm in-come, land in town area, livestock asset, debt status, etc.

4. The groups in question in the two study sites are generalpurpose groups formed for carrying out developmentalactivities at village level. Most of them are active in savingand credit programs for their group members.

5. Chi-square and ANOVA analysis confirmed that the generalobservation of male decision makers maintaining more varie-ties was not due to more female decision makers being in theresource-poor category. InBegnas, women are not significantlymore likely than men to be in the resource-poor category. InKachorwa, women are over-represented in the resource-poorcategory (P<0.01), but here thedifference betweenwomen andmen in varietal diversity is small and non-significant.

6. ‘‘Specific varieties’’ in this study refer to varieties (landracesand MVs) grown by only a few HHs in a community. The cut-off number is taken as fiveHHs, so any variety grown by five orfewer HHs is considered a ‘‘specific variety’’ for this purpose.

7. Latte is prepared by soaking rice (de-husked) for about 12–24 hours then cooking it in ghee or oil, adding sugar whilecontinuously stirring. Unlike normal cooking of rice, nowater is added while cooking Latte. It is mainly consumedduring Saune Sakranti – a festival celebrated in the month ofJuly and Pandra Poush – a festival celebrated in the monthof December (Rana et al., 2000).

8. Khatte is prepared by light soaking of rice (de-husked) inwater then roasting it. It is consumed as snacks.

9. Siraula is prepared by soaking husked rice then roasting tillthe grains pop. It is left to cool followed by de-husking eitherby huller or paddle pounder. Siraula is consumed as snacksmixed with milk to add taste.

References

Adams, A. M., T. G. Evans, R. Mohammed, and J. Farnsworth(1997). ‘‘Socioeconomic stratification by wealth ranking: Is itvalid?’’Working Paper SeriesNo. 97.02. Retrieved fromhttp://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hcpds/wpweb/97_02.pdf on February1, 2005.


Altieri, M. A. and L. C. Merrick (1987). ‘‘In situ conservationof crop genetic resources through maintenance of traditionalfarming systems.’’ Economic Botany 41: 86–96.

Bajracharya, J. (2003). Genetic Diversity Study in Landraces ofRice (Oryza sativa L.) by Agro-morphological Charactersand Mircosatellite DNA Markers. PhD dissertation. UnitedKingdom: School of Agriculture and Forest Sciences, Uni-versity of Wales.

Bellon, M. R. (1996). ‘‘The dynamics of crop infraspecificdiversity: A conceptual framework at the farmer level.’’Economic Botany 50: 26–39.

Bellon, M. R. (2004). ‘‘Conceptualizing interventions tosupport on-farm genetic resource conservation.’’ WorldDevelopment 32(1): 159–172.

Brown, A. H. D. and T. Hodgkin (2007). ‘‘Measuring, man-aging and maintaining crop genetic diversity on farm.’’ In D.Jarvis, C. Padoch, and D. Cooper (eds.), Managing Biodi-versity in Agricultural Ecosystems, (pp. 13–33). New York:Colombia University Press.

Brush, S. B. (1989). ‘‘Rethinking crop genetic resource con-servation.’’ Conservation Biology 3: 19–29.

Brush, S. B. (1995). ‘‘In situ conservation of landraces incenters of crop diversity.’’ Crop Science 35: 346–354.

Campilan, D. (2002). Farmer Management of Sweet PotatoDiversity in a Changing Livelihood System: A Case fromCentral Luzon, Philippines. Sourcebook Produced by CIP-UPWARD, in partnership with GTZ GmbH, IDRC, IPGRI,and SEARICE.

Carpenter, D. (2005). ‘‘The in situ conservation of rice plantgenetic diversity: A case study from a Philippine barangay.’’Agriculture and Human Values 22(4): 421–434.

Cromwell, E. and S. Oosterhout (2000). ‘‘On-farm conservationof crop diversity: Policy and institutional lessons from Zim-babwe.’’ In S. B. Brush (ed.), Genes in the Field: On-farmConservation of Crop Diversity, (pp. 217–238). Boca Raton,Florida: IPGRI, IDRC, and Lewis Publishers.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the UnitedNations) (1998). The State of the World�s Plant GeneticResources for Food and Agriculture. Rome, Italy: FAO.

Franzel, S., D. Phiri, P. Mafongoya, I. Jere, R. Katanga, and S.Phiri (2003). The Blending of Participatory and QuantitativeMethods: Wealth status, Gender and the Adoption ofImproved Fallows in Zambia. Paper presented at the 25thInternational Conference of Agricultural Economists (IAAE),August 16–22, Durban, South Africa.

Gauchan, D., M. Smale, and P. Chaudhary (2005). ‘‘Market-based incentives for conserving diversity on-farms: The caseof rice landraces in Central Terai, Nepal.’’ Genetic Resourcesand Crop Evolution 52: 293–303.

Gonzales, T. A. (2000). ‘‘The cultures of the seed in thePeruvian Andes.’’ In S. B. Brush (ed.), Genes in the Field:On-farm Conservation of Crop Diversity, (pp. 193–216).Boca Raton, Florida: IPGRI, IDRC and Lewis Publishers.

Gupta, S. R., M. P. Upadhyay, and T. Katsumoto (1996). Statusof Plant Genetic Resources in Nepal. Paper presented on the19th Summer Crops Workshop, Regional AgriculturalResearch Station (RARS), February 27–29, Parwanipur,Nepal.

Gurung, J. B., and A. K. Vaidya (1998). ‘‘Cultural context ofagricultural biodiversity and sustainable agriculture in the

Nepalese hills and mountains.’’ In T. Pratap and B. R.Sthapit (eds.), Managing Agrobiodiversity: Farmers�Changing Perspectives and Institutional Responses in theHKH Region, (pp. 55–60). Kathmandu, Nepal: ICIMOD andIPGRI.

Harlan, J. R. (1975). ‘‘Our vanishing genetic resources.’’Science 188: 618–621.

Hugo, P.R, S. B. Brush, and C. O. Qualset (2003). ‘‘Landracesof maize in Central Mexico: An altitudinal transect.’’Economic Botany 57(1): 7–20.

Jarvis, D. and T. Hodgkin (eds.) (1998). Strengthening theScientific Basis of in situ Conservation of Agricultural Bio-diversity On-farm: Options for Data Collecting and Analysis.Proceedings of Workshop to Develop Tools and Proceduresfor in situ Conservation On-farm, August 25–29, 1997.Rome, Italy: IPGRI.

Jarvis, D., L. Myer, H. Klemick, L. Guarino, M. Smale, A. H.D.Brown, M. Sadiki, B. Sthapit, and T. Hodgkin (2000). ATraining Guide for In Situ Conservation On-farm. Rome,Italy: IPGRI.

LARC (Lumle Agricultural Research Centre) (1995). TheAdoption and Diffusion and Incremental Benefits of FifteenTechnologies for Crops, Horticulture, Livestock and Forestryin the Western Hills of Nepal. LARC Occasional Paper 95/1.Pokhara, Nepal: LARC.

Negash, A. and A. Niehof (2004). ‘‘The significance of ensetculture and biodiversity for rural household food and liveli-hood security in southwestern Ethiopia.’’ Agriculture andHuman Values 21(1): 61–71.

Negri, V. (2003). ‘‘Landraces in Central Italy: Where and whythey are conserved and perspectives for their on-farmconservation.’’ Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 50:871–885.

Odero, K. K. (1998). Socio-economic Factors Determining On-farm Agricultural Biodiversity in Zimbabwe. A StudySponsored by IUCN – The World Conservation Union,Regional Office for Southern Africa. Harare, Zimbabwe:IUCN.

Pingali, P., M. Hussain, and R. V. Gerpacio (1997). Asian RiceBowls: The Returning Crisis?. Wallinford, United Kingdom:CABI International.

Prain, G. and M. Piniero (1994). ‘‘Community curatorship ofplant genetic resources in southern Philippines: Preliminaryfindings.’’ In G. Prain and C. Bagalanon (eds.), LocalKnowledge, Global Sciences and Plant Genetic Resources:Towards a Partnership. Proceedings of an InternationalWorkshop on User Participation in Plant Genetic ResourcesResearch and Development, May 4–8, 1992 (pp. 191–220).Los Banos, Philippines: UPWARD.

Rana, R. B. (2004). Influence of Socio-economic and CulturalFactors on Agrobiodiversity Conservation On-farm in Nepal.PhD dissertation. Reading, United Kingdom: University ofReading.

Rana, R. B., D. Gauchan, D. K. Rijal, S. P. Khatiwada, C. L.Paudel, P. Chaudhary, and P. R. Tiwari (2000). ‘‘Socio-economic Data Collection and Analysis: Nepal Compo-nent.’’ In D. Jarvis, B. Sthapit, and L. Sears (eds.),Conserving Agricultural Biodiversity In Situ: A ScientificBasis for Sustainable Agriculture, (pp. 54–59). Rome,Italy: IPGRI.


Reddy, R. V. (1997). Wealth Ranking in Socio-economicResearch: Substitute or Complement? Discussion Paper 65.Heidelberg, Germany: FIA.

Sadiki, M., D. Jarvis, D. Rijal, J. Bajracharya, N. HueT. Camacho-Villa, L. Burgos-May, M. Sawadogo, D. Balma,D. Lope, L. Arias, I. Mar, D. Karamura, D. WilliamsJ. Chavez-Servia, B. Sthapit, and V. Rao (2007). ‘‘Varietynames: An entry point to crop genetic diversity and distri-bution in agroecosystems?.’’ In D. Jarvis, C. Padoch, and D.Cooper (eds.), Managing Biodiversity in Agricultural Eco-systems, (pp. 34–76). New York: Colombia University Press.

Smale, M. (ed.) (2006). Valuing Crop Biodiversity: On-farmGenetic Resources and Economic Change. Wallingford,Oxon, United Kingdom: CABI Publishing.

Soleri, D., and D. A. Cleveland (1993). ‘‘Hopi crop diversityand change.’’ Journal of Ethnobiology 13(2): 203–231.

Sperling, L. and M. Loevinsohn (1993). ‘‘The dynamics ofadoption: Distribution and mortality of bean varieties amongsmall farmers in Rwanda.’’ Agricultural Systems 41(4): 441–454.

Sthapit, B, K. Joshi, R. Rana,M.Upadhyay, P. Eyzaguirre, andD.Jarvis (2001). Enhancing biodiversity and production throughparticipatory plant breeding: Setting breeding goals. In: AnExchange of Experiences from South and Southeast Asia.Proceedings of the International Symposium on ParticipatoryPlant Breeding and Participatory Plant Genetic ResourceEnhancement, May 1–5, 2000 (pp. 29–54). Pokhara, Nepal:Participatory Research and Gender Analysis (PRGA).

Subedi, A., P. Chaudhary, B. K. Baniya, R. B. Rana, R. K.Tiwari, D. K. Rijal, B. R. Sthapit, and D. I. Jarvis (2003).‘‘Who maintains crop diversity and how: Implications for on-farm conservation and utilization.’’ Culture and Agriculture25(2): 41–50.

Swaminathan, M. S. and G. Castillo (2000). ‘‘Foreword.’’ InC. W. De Almekinders Boef (ed.), Encouraging Diversity:The Conservation and Development of Plant GeneticResources, (pp. xi–xii). London, United Kingdom: ITPublications.

Tripp, R. (1996). ‘‘Biodiversity and modern crop varieties:Sharpening the debate.’’ Agriculture and Human Values13(4): 48–63.

Turton, K., A. Vaidya, J. Tuladhar, and K. Joshi (1997). ‘‘Theuse of complementary methods to understand the dimensionsof soil fertility in the hills of Nepal.’’ PLA Notes 28: 37–41.

Unnevehr, L., B. Duff, and B. O. Juliano (1992). ConsumerDemand for Rice Grain Quality. Terminal Report of IDRCProjects. National Grain Quality (Asia) and InternationalGrain Quality Economics (Asia). Ottawa, Canada: IDRC andLos Banos, Philippines: IRRI.

Wood, D. and J. M. Lenne (1997). ‘‘The conservation ofagrobiodiversity on-farm: Questioning the emerging para-digm.’’ Biodiversity and Conservation 6: 109–129.

WRI (World Resources Institute)/IUCN (The World Conser-vation Union)/UNEP (United Nations Environment Pro-gramme) (1992). ‘‘Losses of biodiversity and their causes.’’In: Global Biodiversity Strategy (pp. 7–18). World ResourcesInstitute, The World Conservation Union and United NationsEnvironment Programme. Retrieved from http://pdf.wri.org/globalbiodiversitystrategy_2.pdf on December 1, 2006.

Address for correspondence: Ram Bahadur Rana, Interna-

tional and Rural Development Department, University of

Reading, Reading, United Kingdom

Phone: +44-118-378-8886; Fax: +44-118-926-1244;

E-mail: [email protected]


Documents

Influence of socio-economic and cultural factors in rice varietal diversity management on-farm in Nepal