IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i22p9699-d448449.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Picture-Based Agricultural Extension Lessons Developed Using Participatory Testing and Editing with Smallholder Women Farmers in Nepal

Author

Listed:
  • Rachana Devkota

    (School of Environmental Design and Rural Development, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada
    Local Initiatives for Biodiversity, Research and Development (LI-BIRD), Pokhara P.O. Box 324, Nepal)

  • Helen Hambly Odame

    (School of Environmental Design and Rural Development, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada)

  • John Fitzsimons

    (School of Environmental Design and Rural Development, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada)

  • Roshan Pudasaini

    (Local Initiatives for Biodiversity, Research and Development (LI-BIRD), Pokhara P.O. Box 324, Nepal
    Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada)

  • Manish N. Raizada

    (Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada)

Abstract

Printed pictures are traditional forms of agricultural extension for smallholder farmers. They receive historical academic criticism but remain inexpensive, do not require technical skills (unlike smartphones), and bypass language/literacy barriers. Here, a comprehensive participatory pipeline is described that included 56 Nepalese women farmer editors to develop 100 picture-based lessons. Thereafter, the Theory of Planned Behavior is used as a framework to evaluate 20 diverse lessons using quantitative and qualitative data (Nvivo-11) collected from four groups, focusing on low-literacy women: the women farmer editors ( n = 56); smallholder field testers who had prior exposure to extension agents and the actual innovations (control group, n = 120), and those who did not (test group, n = 60); expert stakeholders (extension agents/scientists, n = 25). The expected comprehension difference between farmer groups was non-substantive, suggesting that the participatory editing/testing approaches were effective. There were surprising findings compared to the academic literature: smallholders comprehended the pictures without the help of extension agents, perhaps because of the participatory approaches used; children assisted their mothers to understand caption-based lessons; the farmers preferred printed pictures compared to advanced information and communication technologies (ICTs); and the resource-poor farmers were willing to pay for the printed materials, sufficient to make them cost-neutral/scalable. These findings have implications for smallholder farmers beyond Nepal.

Suggested Citation

  • Rachana Devkota & Helen Hambly Odame & John Fitzsimons & Roshan Pudasaini & Manish N. Raizada, 2020. "Evaluating the Effectiveness of Picture-Based Agricultural Extension Lessons Developed Using Participatory Testing and Editing with Smallholder Women Farmers in Nepal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-27, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:22:p:9699-:d:448449
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/22/9699/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/22/9699/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ganesh Thapa & Anjani Kumar & P.K. Joshi (ed.), 2019. "Agricultural Transformation in Nepal," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-981-32-9648-0, September.
    2. Hom Gartaula & Kirit Patel & Derek Johnson & Rachana Devkota & Kamal Khadka & Pashupati Chaudhary, 2017. "From food security to food wellbeing: examining food security through the lens of food wellbeing in Nepal’s rapidly changing agrarian landscape," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(3), pages 573-589, September.
    3. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    4. Jinsoo Hwang & Insin Kim & Muhammad Awais Gulzar, 2020. "Understanding the Eco-Friendly Role of Drone Food Delivery Services: Deepening the Theory of Planned Behavior," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-12, February.
    5. Ragasa, Catherine, 2012. "Gender and Institutional Dimensions of Agricultural Technology Adoption: A Review of Literature and Synthesis of 35 Case Studies," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126747, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Rachana Devkota & Laxmi Prasad Pant & Hom Nath Gartaula & Kirit Patel & Devendra Gauchan & Helen Hambly-Odame & Balaram Thapa & Manish N. Raizada, 2020. "Responsible Agricultural Mechanization Innovation for the Sustainable Development of Nepal’s Hillside Farming System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-24, January.
    7. Johnson, Nancy L. & Kovarik, Chiara & Meinzen-Dick, Ruth & Njuki, Jemimah & Quisumbing, Agnes, 2016. "Gender, Assets, and Agricultural Development: Lessons from Eight Projects," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 295-311.
    8. Peterman, A., 2010. "A review of empirical evidence on gender differences in nonland agricultural inputs, technology, and services in developing countries," IWMI Working Papers H043605, International Water Management Institute.
    9. Peterman, Amber & Behrman, Julia & Quisumbing, Agnes, 2010. "A review of empirical evidence on gender differences in nonland agricultural inputs, technology, and services in developing countries," IFPRI discussion papers 975, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    10. Hom Gartaula & Leontine Visser & Anke Niehof, 2012. "Socio-Cultural Dispositions and Wellbeing of the Women Left Behind: A Case of Migrant Households in Nepal," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 108(3), pages 401-420, September.
    11. Agnes R. Quisumbing & Ruth Meinzen-Dick & Terri L. Raney & André Croppenstedt & Julia A. Behrman & A (ed.), 2014. "Gender in Agriculture," Springer Books, Springer, edition 127, number 978-94-017-8616-4, September.
    12. Davis, K. & Nkonya, E. & Kato, E. & Mekonnen, D.A. & Odendo, M. & Miiro, R. & Nkuba, J., 2012. "Impact of Farmer Field Schools on Agricultural Productivity and Poverty in East Africa," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 402-413.
    13. Yigezu, Yigezu Atnafe & Mugera, Amin & El-Shater, Tamer & Aw-Hassan, Aden & Piggin, Colin & Haddad, Atef & Khalil, Yaseen & Loss, Stephen, 2018. "Enhancing adoption of agricultural technologies requiring high initial investment among smallholders," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 199-206.
    14. Bishnu Raj Upreti & Yamuna Ghale & Sharmila Shivakoti & Sushant Acharya, 2018. "Feminization of Agriculture in the Eastern Hills of Nepal: A study of Women in Cardamom and Ginger Farming," SAGE Open, , vol. 8(4), pages 21582440188, December.
    15. Melissa Bateson & Luke Callow & Jessica R Holmes & Maximilian L Redmond Roche & Daniel Nettle, 2013. "Do Images of ‘Watching Eyes’ Induce Behaviour That Is More Pro-Social or More Normative? A Field Experiment on Littering," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-1, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andre Croppenstedt & Markus Goldstein & Nina Rosas, 2013. "Gender and Agriculture: Inefficiencies, Segregation, and Low Productivity Traps," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 28(1), pages 79-109, February.
    2. Fisher, Monica & Kandiwa, Vongai, 2014. "Can agricultural input subsidies reduce the gender gap in modern maize adoption? Evidence from Malawi," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 101-111.
    3. Vasilaky, Kathryn N. & Islam, Asif M., 2018. "Competition or cooperation? Using team and tournament incentives for learning among female farmers in rural Uganda," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 216-225.
    4. Ragasa, Catherine, 2012. "Gender and Institutional Dimensions of Agricultural Technology Adoption: A Review of Literature and Synthesis of 35 Case Studies," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126747, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Sophie Theis & Nicole Lefore & Ruth Meinzen-Dick & Elizabeth Bryan, 2018. "What happens after technology adoption? Gendered aspects of small-scale irrigation technologies in Ethiopia, Ghana, and Tanzania," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 35(3), pages 671-684, September.
    6. Nielsen, Thea & Schunemann, Franziska & McNulty, Emily & Zeller, Manfred & Nkonya, Ephraim M. & Kato, Edward & Meyer, Stefan & Anderson, Weston & Zhu, Tingju & Queface, Antonio & Mapemba, Lawrence, 2015. "The food-energy-water security nexus: Definitions, policies, and methods in an application to Malawi and Mozambique:," IFPRI discussion papers 1480, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    7. Asante, Bright Owusu & Koomson, Isaac & Villano, Renato & Wiredu, Alexander Nimo, 2021. "Gender and Agricultural Technology Adoption: Evidence from Integrated Crop-Livestock Management Practices (ICLMPs) Among Men and Women Smallholder Farmers in Ghana," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315093, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Fatimata Bintou Diarra & Mathieu Ouédraogo & Robert B. Zougmoré & Samuel Tetteh Partey & Prosper Houessionon & Amos Mensah, 2021. "Are perception and adaptation to climate variability and change of cowpea growers in Mali gender differentiated?," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(9), pages 13854-13870, September.
    9. Namonje-Kapembwa, Thelma & Thelma, Antony, 2016. "Improved Agricultural Technology Adoption in Zambia: Are Women Farmers Being Left Behind?," Food Security Collaborative Working Papers 245916, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    10. McGuire, Erin & Rietveld, Anne M. & Crump, Amanda & Leeuwis, Cees, 2022. "Anticipating gender impacts in scaling innovations for agriculture: Insights from the literature," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 25(C).
    11. Azzarri, Carlo & Nico, Gianluigi, 2022. "Sex-disaggregated agricultural extension and weather variability in Africa south of the Sahara," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    12. Makate, Clifton & Mutenje, Munyaradzi, 2021. "Discriminatory effects of gender disparities in improved seed and fertilizer use at the plot-level in Malawi and Tanzania," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 23(C).
    13. Girma Gezimu Gebre & Hiroshi Isoda & Yuichiro Amekawa & Dil Bahadur Rahut & Hisako Nomura & Takaaki Watanabe, 2021. "What Explains Gender Gaps in Household Food Security? Evidence from Maize Farm Households in Southern Ethiopia," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 155(1), pages 281-314, May.
    14. Orkhan Sariyev & Tim K. Loos & Manfred Zeller & Tulsi Gurung, 2020. "Women in household decision-making and implications for dietary quality in Bhutan," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 8(1), pages 1-20, December.
    15. Alwang, Jeffrey & Larochelle, Catherine & Barrera, Victor, 2017. "Farm Decision Making and Gender: Results from a Randomized Experiment in Ecuador," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 117-129.
    16. Quisumbing, Agnes R. & Kumar, Neha, 2014. "Land rights knowledge and conservation in rural Ethiopia: Mind the gender gap:," IFPRI discussion papers 1386, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    17. Oginni, Ayodeji & Ahonsi, Babatunde & Ukwuije, Francis, 2013. "Are female-headed households typically poorer than male-headed households in Nigeria?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 132-137.
    18. Sylvester Ochieng Ogutu & Andrea Fongar & Theda Gödecke & Lisa Jäckering & Henry Mwololo & Michael Njuguna & Meike Wollni & Matin Qaim, 2020. "How to make farming and agricultural extension more nutrition-sensitive: evidence from a randomised controlled trial in Kenya [Agricultural extension: good intentions and hard realities]," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 47(1), pages 95-118.
    19. Meinzen-Dick, Ruth & Quisumbing, Agnes & Doss, Cheryl & Theis, Sophie, 2019. "Women's land rights as a pathway to poverty reduction: Framework and review of available evidence," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 72-82.
    20. Subert, Moses Peter, 2017. "Perceptions Of Enhanced Freshness Formulation Technologies And Adoption Decisions Among Smallholder Banana Farmers In Morogoro, Tanzania," Research Theses 276437, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:22:p:9699-:d:448449. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.