IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i22p9699-d448449.html

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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Ganesh Thapa & Anjani Kumar & P.K. Joshi (ed.), 2019. "Agricultural Transformation in Nepal," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-981-32-9648-0, January.
    7. repec:iwt:worppr:h043605 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. 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.
    9. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    10. Peterman, Amber & Behrman, Julia & Quisumbing, Agnes, "undated". "A review of empirical evidence on gender differences in non-land agricultural inputs, technology, and services in developing countries," ESA Working Papers 289010, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Agricultural Development Economics Division (ESA).
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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, January.
    15. 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.
    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. 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).
    2. 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).
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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).
    6. 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.
    7. Emma Karki & Akriti Sharma & Brendan Brown, 2022. "Farm mechanisation in Nepal's Terai Region: Policy context, drivers and options," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(2), pages 287-305, March.
    8. Ervin L. Black & F. Greg Burton & Joshua K. Cieslewicz, 2022. "Improving Ethics: Extending the Theory of Planned Behavior to Include Moral Disengagement," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 181(4), pages 945-978, December.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Pradhan, Rajendra & Meinzen-Dick, Ruth S. & Theis, Sophie, 2018. "Property rights, intersectionality, and women’s empowerment in Nepal," IFPRI discussion papers 1702, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    13. Takashi Yamano & Srinivasulu Rajendran & Maria Malabayabas, 2015. "Farmers’ self-perception toward agricultural technology adoption: evidence on adoption of submergence-tolerant rice in Eastern India," Journal of Social and Economic Development, Springer;Institute for Social and Economic Change, vol. 17(2), pages 260-274, October.
    14. Heesup Han & Amr Al-Ansi & Bee-Lia Chua & Beenish Tariq & Aleksandar Radic & Su-hyun Park, 2020. "The Post-Coronavirus World in the International Tourism Industry: Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior to Safer Destination Choices in the Case of US Outbound Tourism," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-15, September.
    15. Saroj Koirala & Soniya Bashyal, 2025. "The land left behind: a systematic review of transnational migration-induced change and its implication for rural sustainability in Nepal," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-12, December.
    16. 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.
    17. Catherine Ragasa & Isabel Lambrecht, 2020. "COVID-19 and the food system: setback or opportunity for gender equality?," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 12(4), pages 877-880, August.
    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. Diana E Lopez & Romain Frelat & Lone B Badstue, 2022. "Towards gender-inclusive innovation: Assessing local conditions for agricultural targeting," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(3), pages 1-25, March.
    20. Chrysanthi Charatsari & Evagelos D. Lioutas & Alex Koutsouris, 2020. "Farmer field schools and the co-creation of knowledge and innovation: the mediating role of social capital," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 37(4), pages 1139-1154, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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 The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask MDPI Indexing Manager to update the entry or send us the correct address (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.