The comparison of attributes with intention and past behaviour

This section looks at whether farmers’ and farms’ attributes would make any difference in farmers’ selection of marketing channels. Multivariate analysis (MANOVA) by SPSS software was used to compare groups of respondents’ attributes across different marketing channels on two dependent variables: past behaviour and intention. The independent variables were three marketing channels; miller (N=354), local collector (N=190) and agri-coop (N=115) combined with 16 attributes: (1) regions, (2) age, (3) gender, (4) education, (5) rice experience, (6) household size, (7) head of household, (8) number of group belonging, (9) number of sources of information, (10) land size for growing rice, (11) off-farm workers, (12) % income off-farm work, (13) partly for own consumption, (14) number of types of rice growing, (15) hired vehicle for carriage of rice for selling and (16) market distance.

Table 5.15 presents the MANOVA results of attributes across three marketing channels on intention and past behaviour (see the descriptive statistics of attributes for MANOVA in greater detail in Appendix D, Table D1).

Table 5.15 MANOVA results of profile of respondents on intention and past behaviour

Independent variables Pillai's Trace F P value Partial Eta

Squared

Channels * Regions (North, NE, Central) 0.048 4.006 0.000** 0.024

Channels * Age (<55, ≥55 years old) 0.005 0.853 0.491 0.003

Channels * Gender (Male, Female) 0.008 1.356 0.247 0.004

Channels * Education (≤ Primary, > Primary) 0.016 2.589 0.035* 0.008 Channels * Experience (< 22, 22-42, >42 years) 0.005 0.375 0.934 0.002 Channels * Household Size (1-4, >4 persons) 0.002 0.376 0.826 0.001

Channels * Head of household (Yes, No) 0.012 1.294 0.271 0.006

Channels * Group belonging (1, >1 groups) 0.007 1.102 0.354 0.004 Channels * Source of information (1, >1) 0.015 2.412 0.047* 0.007

Channels * Land Size (1-12, >12 Rais) 0.008 1.349 0.250 0.004

Channels * Off-farm workers (1-2, >2 persons) 0.007 0.544 0.703 0.004 Channels * % Income off-farm work (1-50,>50%) 0.013 0.950 0.435 0.006 Channels * Partly for own consumption (Yes, No) 0.031 5.143 0.000** 0.016

Channels * Types of rice (1, >1) 0.016 2.650 0.032* 0.008

Channels * Hired vehicle (Yes, No) 0.017 2.850 0.023* 0.009

Channels * Market Distance (1-4, 4-7, >7 Km) 0.065 3.694 0.000** 0.032

Note: *= Significant differences at 0.05, **= Significant differences at 0.01

112

As shown in Table 5.15, there were statistically significant differences in intention and past behaviour in seven out of the sixteen attributes tested. They were: (1) regions, (2) education, (3) source of information, (4) the number of types of rice growing, (5) partly for own consumption, (6) hired vehicle and (7) market distance.

Firstly, there was a statistically significant interaction effect between regions and channel used on the two dependent variables: intention and past behaviour, F = 4.006, p = .000; Pillai's Trace = 0.048; Partial Eta Squared = 0.024 or 2.4% of the variance in the dependent variables explained by regions and channel used (Table 5.15). For respondents in the north region, local collector was and will be the most favoured channel. For farmers in the north-east region, local collector and agri-coop were used more than rice millers. However, the trend seemed to have favoured miller slightly for the next crop. For farmers in the central region, miller was the most frequently used channel and agri-coop the least used channel, however for the next crop, farmers seemed to have preferred to use more agri-coop and less rice miller.

Education is another factor which seemed to have made a difference in channel used. Significant multivariate effect was found for two groups of education level and channel used at 5% level as the p value was 0.035, the Pillai’s Trace was 0.016 with F value of 2.589 and Partial Eta Squared = 0.008 or only 0.8% of the variance in the dependent variables explained by education and channel used (Table 5.15). It was found that respondents who had primary school or less education participation chose and intended to sell to local collector more than other channels whilst those with higher education favoured miller and agri-coop.

The number of sources of information was another factor linked to the variances of channel used in the past and intended use for the next crop (F = 2.412, p = 0.047, and Partial Eta Squared = 0.007) (Table 5.15). The difference was mainly related to their intended use of channels for the next crop (F =4.527, p=0.011, and Partial Eta Squared =0.014). Respondents who relied on a single source of information were more likely to sell to miller and least likely to sell to agri-coop.

It was found that the there was a statistically significant interaction effect between types of rice and channel used (F = 2.605, p = 0.032, and Partial Eta Squared = 0.008) although only 0.8% of the variance in the dependent variables explained by types of rice growing and channel used (Table 5.15). Respondents who grew more than one type of rice used and intended to use local collector more than other two channels. Agri-coop was the least used. Those who grew only one type of rice used miller and local collector more, but more intended to move to agri-coop. However, the effect of variances was very small.

113

In terms of the divide between commercial farmers and subsistence farmers, farmers were asked whether they kept part of their rice for own consumption or not. There was significant multivariate effect for ‘partly for own consumption’ and ‘channel used’ (both past behaviour and intention), (F = 5.143, p = 0.000, and Partial Eta Squared = 0.016). This divide explained 1.6 % of the variance in the dependent variables (Table 5.15). Respondents who kept part of their rice for own consumption chose and intended to sell to local collector. Their second choice was agri-coop, it indicated respondents used this channel to enhance their bargaining power due to small quantity. Commercial farmers (those who answered ‘no’) were and would be more likely to sell to miller, and least likely to agri-coop.

Respondents were also asked whether they hired vehicle for transporting rice to market. This test showed a statistically significant variance in channel used between those who hired and who didn’t hire vehicle (the Pillai’s Trace is 0.017 with F value of 2.850, p=0.023, and Partial Eta Squared = 0.009) (Table 5.15). Respondents who didn’t hire vehicle (‘no’ group) were more likely to rely on local collector or put it in another way, those who used local collectors didn’t have to hire vehicle.

Lastly, market distance category was divided into three groups (1-4, 4-7, >7 Km) on account of the mean score of three channels and total sample size; mean of miller = 10.46 Km, mean of local collector = 3.97 Km., mean of agri-coop= 6.68 Km., and total mean = 7.70 Km. There was significantly different for market distance and channel used with intention and past behaviour, F= 3.694, p = 0.000, and Partial Eta Squared = 0.032 or 3.2 % of the variance in the dependent variables explained by market distance and channel used (Table 5.15). Respondents who located less than 4 Km from market were more likely and intended to sell to local collector than other channels.

MANOVA was used to test the statistical alternative hypothesis H2: There are significant differences between profile of respondents across different marketing channels

on past behaviour and intention. The alternative hypothesis was partially accepted. Of the

16 attributes, 7 attributes were associated with variances of past and future intended use of channels.

Overall, it seemed that local collector was the favoured option for farmers with less capabilities (subsistence farmers, single rice type, less educated, located in the north region and not hiring vehicles) whilst miller was most likely to be used by commercial farmers who could afford to hire vehicle. Agricultural cooperative became a more popular in the next crop amongst those located in the central region, were more educated, and moderately distanced from the market.

114

Drawing upon the first research question, the results indicated that the six marketing channels were used by respondents in the current crop when the survey was conducted. A total of 661 respondents was divided as follows (Table 5.8, Table 5.16), respondents chose more than one channel:

• 371 (56.1%) respondents sold to millers

• 204 (30.9%) respondents sold to local collectors

• 122 (18.5%) respondents sold to agricultural cooperatives

• 49 (7.4%) respondents sold to central paddy markets

• 4 (0.6%) respondents sold to farmer groups

• 3 (0.5%) respondents chose direct selling

This section demonstrated some structural variances in farmers’ marketing channel use. The next step aims to find out key factors affecting farmers’ decision. This is done in two sections. Section 5.5 aims to present descriptive statistics of the factors investigated in this study (independent variables) against the top three channels. Section 5.6 will present the results of the inferential statistics (PLS-SEM).

5.5 Descriptive statistics of factors influencing the channel choice (independent