Beus, Curtis E. (author), Carlson, John E. (author), Dillman, Don A. (author), Schnabel, B. (author), and Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, University of Idaho, Moscow.; Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, University of Idaho, Moscow.; Texas A&M; Social and Economic Survey Research Center, Washington State University, Pullman
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
1994
Published:
USA
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 101 Document Number: C08616
8 pages., via online journal., Land degradation and soil nutrient depletion have become serious threats to agricultural productivity in sub- Saharan Africa. To improve agriculture production, research has led to recommendation of a range of integrated Soil fertility Management (ISFM) options, of proven effectiveness, for soil fertility improvement. Although many factors contribute to the low adoption of ISFM by farmers, communication gaps between extension agents and farmers lie at the heart of the problem. Hence, the study sought to investigate factors considered by agricultural extension agents in selection of communication channels to disseminate soil fertility information in the central highlands of Kenya. Structured questionnaires were used to elicit information from 105 extension agents. Both descriptive and inferential statistics were used for data analysis. In choosing the communication method to be used in dissemination of soil fertility management (SFM) practices, target group was scored as the most relevant factor followed by type of SFM, time available then number of staff sequentially. Education was perceived to highly influence the selection of workshop (M= 3.4) while age was perceived to highly influence the selection of video showing (M= 2.8) as extension methods in dissemination of SFM. The implication of the study is that diverse communication channels should be utilized to get to farmers of different socio economic characteristics.
Chamala, Shankariah (author), Keith, K.J. (author), and Keith: Department of Primary Industries, Indooroopilly; Chamala: Department of Agriculture, University of Queensland, Australia
Format:
Conference paper
Publication Date:
1989
Published:
Australia
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 72 Document Number: C03305
Notes:
James F. Evans Collection; See C03269 for original, In: Communication in agriculture : an international conference; 1989 January 30 - February 3; University of New England, Armidale, N.S.W., Australia. Armidale, Australia : University of New England, 1989. volume 2, p. 59
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 176 Document Number: C30305
Notes:
Speaker's edited draft., Presented at "Man and his changing environment," Regional Conclave of Alpha Zeta, Madison, Wisconsin, February 14, 1970. 6 pages.
22 pages, via online journal, Past explanations of why rural people respond as they do to external development interventions have emphasized the role of key limiting factors or critical characteristics (wealth, education, land tenure, etc.) which are thought to influence peoples' behavior in predictable ways. Efforts to promote tree planting and soil conservation in eight neighboring villages in the Philippines revealed that variation in participation did not reflect clear patterns based on existing household or village characteristics. Instead, specific responses to interventions reflected a complex, but interpretable interaction between existing socio-economic factors and historic trends or events. Characteristics like the degree of local knowledge, security of land tenure and community cohesion affected peoples' participation, in general, but their specific influence was neither predictable nor consistent between, and even within, individual villages. An appreciation of the specific historic context was often sufficient to explain these variations. The following historic trends and events were found to have important consequences for peoples' participation: migration and settlement history; family and group lineages; history of socio-political organization and conflict; history of physical isolation; labor history; economic–ecological history; environmental history; and past exposure to development agents. The paper concludes with a preliminary checklist of questions intended to assist researchers and development agents to discover relevant and interesting historical information about rural villages.
