Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 182 Document Number: C36923
Notes:
6 pages., Report of a community-based communications project sponsored by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations in the Philippines.
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Document Number: C12028
Notes:
214 p.; Reports on a 1995 workshop co-organized by the International Institute for Rural Reconstruction, the Overseas Development Institute, and World Neighbors.
Asenso-Okyere, Kwadwo (author), Babu, Suresh Chandra (author), Glendenning, Claire J. (author), Govindarajan, Senthil Kumar (author), and International Food Policy Research Institute.
Format:
Report
Publication Date:
2011-12
Published:
India
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 186 Document Number: D00940
Notes:
ACDC holds contents page and discussion section. URL provides full-text access., Via AgEcon Search. 53 pages.
Santucci, F. M (author), Alrefaee, A. H. (author), Nassour, G. (author), Saker, S E (author), Othman, S. (author), and Hamzah, W. (author)
Format:
Proceedings
Publication Date:
2001-08-27
Published:
Syria: Wageningen University and Research Centre
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 136 Document Number: C20829
Notes:
Burton Swanson Collection, from "Integrating multiple landuse for a sustainable future" 15th European Seminar on Extension and Education, Wageningen International Conference Centre, The Netherlands, August 27-31, 2001
20 pages, via online journal, Purpose: This paper examines the factors affecting farmers’ participation in extension programs and adoption of improved seed varieties in the hills of rural Nepal.
Methodology/approach: Cross-sectional farm-level data were collected during July and August 2014. A sample of 198 farm households was selected for interviewing by using a multistage, random sampling technique. We employed a logistic regression model, frequency counts, and percentages to analyze the data.
Findings: Adoption decisions were mainly affected by extension-related variables – training, membership in a farmers’ group, and off-farm employment. Extension participation was found to be influenced by socioeconomic variables – age, education, household size, and distance to the extension office. Our findings reveal that distance to the extension office and off-farm employment limited participation in extension activities and adoption, respectively, and education, household size, and group membership stimulated participation in extension programs.
Practical implications: Recognition of the determinants of farmers’ participation in extension services and innovation adoption ensures that targeted extension approaches are used to address these factors in various stages of planning, delivering, and evaluating extension programs.
Theoretical implications: Innovation adoption follows a systematic decision-making process. Although personal characteristics are important, widespread use of new technology requires a conducive social and institutional context. Because contexts vary by country or region, extension services providers should create institutions favorable for innovation adoption within a social system.
Originality/value: This research is original and highly valuable to identify the factors associated with extension participation and innovation adoption in the rural hilly region of Nepal. This also provides a new direction to operationalize farmer-oriented policies of agricultural extension and so can be helpful for agricultural policy-makers in devising programs of extension services.
9 pages., via online journal., This study assessed the effectiveness of extension communication methods used in disseminating information to farmers in Ogbomoso Agricultural zone of Oyo State. Multi-stage sampling procedure was used to select 120 respondents. Data were analysed using frequency, percentage, standard deviation, mean, median and mode statistics. The findings show that the extension communication methods used for farmers were farm visit (89.2%) and home visit (78.5%), contact farmers (73.3%) and method demonstration (51.7%). Contact farmers, farm visits and home visit were the most frequently used communication strategies by extension agencies while farm visit (x=1.57) was the most preferred extension method to receive information and technologies and respondents perceived the extension communication methods used to be moderately effective. The study recommends that extension officers should consider the use of communication methods preferred by the farmers to communicate information to them.
