Most household classifications use hard classification procedures that limit a household to only one cluster. In this paper, fuzzy classification, in which individuals can belong totally, partially or not at all to a particular cluster, with membership showing how well they fit in each cluster, was tested as an alternative clustering procedure. The results show that membership values, which are an extra output of the fuzzy classification, are a useful indicator of how well a particular household fits in a given cluster. Such information is useful when choosing households to use for agricultural technology testing.
AntleJ. M.StoorvogelJ. J. (2006), ‘Predicting the supply of ecosystem services from agriculture’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol 88, No 5 pp 1174–1180.
2.
BatzF.-J.JanssenW.PetersK. J. (2003), ‘Predicting technology adoption to improve research priority-setting’, Agricultural Economics, Vol 28, pp 151–164.
3.
BebeB. O. (2003), ‘Herd dynamics of smallholder dairy in the Kenya highlands’, PhD thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen.
4.
BezdekJ. C. (1981), Pattern Recognition With Fuzzy Objective Function Algorithms, Plenum Press, New York.
5.
BezlepkinaI. (2004), ‘Microeconomic analysis of Russian agricultural enterprises with special reference to subsidies and debts’, PhD thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen.
6.
BurroughP. A.MacMillanR. A.Van DeursenW. (1992), ‘Fuzzy classification methods for determining land suitability from soil profile observations and topography’, Journal of Soil Science, Vol 43, pp 193–210.
7.
Central Bureau of Statistics (2001), The 1999 Population and Housing Census, Volume 1, Population Distribution by Administrative Areas and Urban Centres, Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS)Ministry of Finance and Planning, Nairobi.
8.
DayR. H. (1963), ‘On aggregating linear programming models of production’, Journal of Farm Economics, Vol 45, pp 797–813.
9.
De GruijterJ. J.McBratneyA. B. (1988), ‘A modified fuzzy k-means for predictive classification’ in BockH. H. ed, Classification and Related Methods of Data Analysis, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp 97–104.
10.
DeybeD. (1998), ‘Can agricultural sector models be a tool for policy analysis? An application for the case of Burkina Faso’, Agricultural Systems, Vol 58, pp 367–380.
11.
European Commission (1988), ‘Council Regulation No 571/88 of 29 February 1988 on the organisation of Community surveys on the structure of agricultural holdings between 1988 and 1997’, Official Journal of the European Communities, L56 of 2 March.
12.
EverittB. S. (1993), Cluster Analysis, Edward Arnold, London.
13.
EverittB. S.LandauS.LeeseM. (2001), Cluster Analysis, 4 ed, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
14.
HairJ. E. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice Hall International, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
15.
HartiganJ. A. (1975), Clustering Algorithms, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
16.
HeerinkN.van KeulenH.KuiperM., eds (2001), Economic Policy and Sustainable Land Use, Recent Advances in Quantitative Analysis for Developing Countries, Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg.
17.
HoppeR. A.PerryJ. E.BankerD. (2000), ERS Farm Typology for a Diverse Agricultural Sector, ERS No 759, Economic Research Service, USDA, Washington, DC.
18.
HöppnerF. (1999), Fuzzy Cluster Analysis, John Wiley, Chichester.
19.
JaetzoldR.SchmidtH. (1983), Farm Management Handbook of Kenya, Natural Conditions and Farm Management Information, Ministry of Agriculture, Nairobi.
20.
JainA. K.DubesR. C. (1988), Algorithms for Clustering Data, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
21.
KrusemanG.BadeJ. (1998), ‘Agrarian policies for sustainable land use: Bio-economic modelling to assess the effectiveness of policy instruments’, Agricultural Systems, Vol 58, pp 465–481.
22.
LorrM. (1983), Cluster Analysis for Social Scientists, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
23.
McBratneyA. B.OdehI. O. H. (1997), ‘Application of fuzzy sets in soil science: Fuzzy logic, fuzzy measurements and fuzzy decisions’, Geoderma, Vol 77, pp 85–113.
24.
MinasnyB.McBratneyA. B. (2002), FuzME Version 3.0, Australian Centre for Precision AgricultureUniversity of Sydney, Australia.
25.
SchipperR. A. (2001), ‘Integrated bioeconomic land-use models: An analysis of policy issues in the Atlantic zone of Costa Rica’, in LeeD. R.BarrettC. B., eds, Tradeoffs or Synergies?CAB International, Wallingford, pp 267–284.
26.
SolanoC. (2001), ‘Characterising objective profiles of Costa Rican dairy farmers’, Agricultural Systems, Vol 67, pp 153–179.
27.
StaalS. J. (2002), ‘Location and uptake: Integrated household and GIS analysis of technology adoption and land use, with application to smallholder dairy farms in Kenya’, Agricultural Economics, Vol 27, pp 295–315.
28.
StaalS. J. (1998), Characterisation of the Dairy Systems Supplying the Nairobi Milk Market. A Pilot Survey in Kiambu District for the Identification of Target Groups of Producers, KARI/MoA/ILRI Collaborative Research Project Report, Nairobi.
29.
StoorvogelJ. J.SchipperR. A.JansenD. M. (1995), ‘USTED: A methodology for a quantitative analysis of land use scenarios’, Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science, Vol 43, pp 5–18.
30.
Van AlphenB. J.StoorvogelJ. J. (2000), ‘A functional approach to soil characterisation in support of precision agriculture’, Soil Science Society of America Journal, Vol 64, pp 1706–1713.
