Using Sustainable Livelihoods Framework for assessing the impact of Extension programmes: An empirical study in the context of Joint Forest Management
AbstractAs a profession, Extension has been prompted to embrace a broadened mandate that goes beyond transferring technologies and triggering agricultural development. International organisations have started to shift from ‘agricultural’ to ‘rural’ focus in their programmes and it is inevitable that extension’s success in future will not be judged in terms of technology transfer or (even) agricultural development alone. As a consequence, the scope of evaluating extension programmes will have to broaden itself for justifying the government expenditure and to enliven its prospect as a profession. Sustainable Livelihoods (SL) Framework provides excellent scope to capture the multifaceted impact of development programmes on clients’ livelihoods in terms of increase in their asset base and decrease in vulnerabilities. The present article describes development of a tool to assess the impact of Joint Forest Management (JFM) intervention in selected villages of the Ayodhya Hills of Purulia district, West Bengal and also shows the results of its field testing. The development of the tool followed a simple indicator-based multi-stakeholder approach taking SL framework as a reference. Conceptualisation of ‘impact pathway’ with continuous incorporation of stakeholder views helped to develop this tool. This was followed by the development of a ‘perception analysis tool’, using recall data, to assess the impact of JFM intervention on the respondents. The field testing of the tool successfully captured the impact of JFM on peoples’ assets and vulnerabilities. It could also discriminate successful Forest Protection Committee from the less successful one. This type of indicator-based multi-stakeholder approach may be applied for the future ‘extension plus’ programmes, which will contribute towards the sustainable livelihoods of its clients rather than disseminating technologies and/or technical information only.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by University Library of Munich, Germany in its series MPRA Paper with number 37793.
Date of creation: 01 Dec 2011
Date of revision:
Broad-based Extension; Impact Assessment; Impact Pathway; Sustainable Livelihoods Framework; Perception Analysis Tool; Joint Forest Management;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- Q16 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - R&D; Agricultural Technology; Biofuels; Agricultural Extension Services
- Q23 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Forestry
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-AGR-2012-04-10 (Agricultural Economics)
- NEP-ALL-2012-04-10 (All new papers)
- NEP-ENV-2012-04-10 (Environmental Economics)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Chambers, Robert, 1994. "Participatory rural appraisal (PRA): Analysis of experience," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 22(9), pages 1253-1268, September.
- Glendenning, Claire J. & Babu, Suresh & Asenso-Okyere, Kwadwo, 2010. "Review of agricultural extension in India: Are farmers' information needs being met?," IFPRI discussion papers 1048, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Ekkehart Schlicht).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.