Farmer responses to technical advice offered at plant clinics in Malawi, Costa Rica and Nepal
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2018 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , , , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
Texto Completo: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2018.1440473 http://hdl.handle.net/11449/170736 |
Resumo: | This study explores how communication and its technical content shape farmers’ response to advice delivered at plant clinics. Thirty-six farmers who visited a plant clinic in one of three countries (Malawi, Costa Rica and Nepal) were given at least one diagnosis of a plant health problem and up to six options for managing the problem. Almost all of the farmers were able to use at least some of these management recommendations. Communication was verbal, but reinforced in writing; all of the farmers received a one-page prescription form that summarized the recommendation. Communication per se was rarely the reason farmers failed to adopt technologies. Farmers who opted not to use recommendations often had logical, material reasons for doing so, and they showed a preference for chemical control. Of the 31 farmers who were advised to apply pesticides (including organic ones), 23 people (74%) accepted this advice to spray, but only 14 of 22 farmers (54%) tried advice for cultural or biological control. Farmers’ response to an innovation is too complex to always describe as accepted vs rejected, and this decision depends on the fit of the technology itself, and on the quality of how the innovation is communicated. |
id |
UNSP_efdb1d626cf695de17f2d96af9b9fc69 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/170736 |
network_acronym_str |
UNSP |
network_name_str |
Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
repository_id_str |
2946 |
spelling |
Farmer responses to technical advice offered at plant clinics in Malawi, Costa Rica and Nepaladoption of technologyagricultural extensioncommunicationPlant clinicsThis study explores how communication and its technical content shape farmers’ response to advice delivered at plant clinics. Thirty-six farmers who visited a plant clinic in one of three countries (Malawi, Costa Rica and Nepal) were given at least one diagnosis of a plant health problem and up to six options for managing the problem. Almost all of the farmers were able to use at least some of these management recommendations. Communication was verbal, but reinforced in writing; all of the farmers received a one-page prescription form that summarized the recommendation. Communication per se was rarely the reason farmers failed to adopt technologies. Farmers who opted not to use recommendations often had logical, material reasons for doing so, and they showed a preference for chemical control. Of the 31 farmers who were advised to apply pesticides (including organic ones), 23 people (74%) accepted this advice to spray, but only 14 of 22 farmers (54%) tried advice for cultural or biological control. Farmers’ response to an innovation is too complex to always describe as accepted vs rejected, and this decision depends on the fit of the technology itself, and on the quality of how the innovation is communicated.CABICABI NetherlandsCABI Southern Africa CentreMinistry of Agriculture Irrigation and Water Development (MoAIWD)MoAIWDCABI Brazil UNESP FEPAFCABI CATIEKathmandu Medical CollegeCABI South Asia India OfficeHariharbhawanCABI Brazil UNESP FEPAFCABICABI NetherlandsCABI Southern Africa CentreMinistry of Agriculture Irrigation and Water Development (MoAIWD)MoAIWDUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)CATIEKathmandu Medical CollegeIndia OfficeHariharbhawanBentley, Jeffery W.Danielsen, SolveigPhiri, NoahTegha, Yakosa C.Nyalugwe, NixonNeves, Eduardo [UNESP]Hidalgo, EduardoSharma, AbhishekPandit, VinodSharma, Dilli Ram2018-12-11T16:52:13Z2018-12-11T16:52:13Z2018-03-04info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/article187-200application/pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2018.1440473International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, v. 16, n. 2, p. 187-200, 2018.1747-762X1473-5903http://hdl.handle.net/11449/17073610.1080/14735903.2018.14404732-s2.0-850429100562-s2.0-85042910056.pdfScopusreponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESPinstname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)instacron:UNESPengInternational Journal of Agricultural Sustainability0,667info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2023-11-30T06:15:53Zoai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/170736Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttp://repositorio.unesp.br/oai/requestopendoar:29462023-11-30T06:15:53Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Farmer responses to technical advice offered at plant clinics in Malawi, Costa Rica and Nepal |
title |
Farmer responses to technical advice offered at plant clinics in Malawi, Costa Rica and Nepal |
spellingShingle |
Farmer responses to technical advice offered at plant clinics in Malawi, Costa Rica and Nepal Bentley, Jeffery W. adoption of technology agricultural extension communication Plant clinics |
title_short |
Farmer responses to technical advice offered at plant clinics in Malawi, Costa Rica and Nepal |
title_full |
Farmer responses to technical advice offered at plant clinics in Malawi, Costa Rica and Nepal |
title_fullStr |
Farmer responses to technical advice offered at plant clinics in Malawi, Costa Rica and Nepal |
title_full_unstemmed |
Farmer responses to technical advice offered at plant clinics in Malawi, Costa Rica and Nepal |
title_sort |
Farmer responses to technical advice offered at plant clinics in Malawi, Costa Rica and Nepal |
author |
Bentley, Jeffery W. |
author_facet |
Bentley, Jeffery W. Danielsen, Solveig Phiri, Noah Tegha, Yakosa C. Nyalugwe, Nixon Neves, Eduardo [UNESP] Hidalgo, Eduardo Sharma, Abhishek Pandit, Vinod Sharma, Dilli Ram |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Danielsen, Solveig Phiri, Noah Tegha, Yakosa C. Nyalugwe, Nixon Neves, Eduardo [UNESP] Hidalgo, Eduardo Sharma, Abhishek Pandit, Vinod Sharma, Dilli Ram |
author2_role |
author author author author author author author author author |
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv |
CABI CABI Netherlands CABI Southern Africa Centre Ministry of Agriculture Irrigation and Water Development (MoAIWD) MoAIWD Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp) CATIE Kathmandu Medical College India Office Hariharbhawan |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Bentley, Jeffery W. Danielsen, Solveig Phiri, Noah Tegha, Yakosa C. Nyalugwe, Nixon Neves, Eduardo [UNESP] Hidalgo, Eduardo Sharma, Abhishek Pandit, Vinod Sharma, Dilli Ram |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
adoption of technology agricultural extension communication Plant clinics |
topic |
adoption of technology agricultural extension communication Plant clinics |
description |
This study explores how communication and its technical content shape farmers’ response to advice delivered at plant clinics. Thirty-six farmers who visited a plant clinic in one of three countries (Malawi, Costa Rica and Nepal) were given at least one diagnosis of a plant health problem and up to six options for managing the problem. Almost all of the farmers were able to use at least some of these management recommendations. Communication was verbal, but reinforced in writing; all of the farmers received a one-page prescription form that summarized the recommendation. Communication per se was rarely the reason farmers failed to adopt technologies. Farmers who opted not to use recommendations often had logical, material reasons for doing so, and they showed a preference for chemical control. Of the 31 farmers who were advised to apply pesticides (including organic ones), 23 people (74%) accepted this advice to spray, but only 14 of 22 farmers (54%) tried advice for cultural or biological control. Farmers’ response to an innovation is too complex to always describe as accepted vs rejected, and this decision depends on the fit of the technology itself, and on the quality of how the innovation is communicated. |
publishDate |
2018 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2018-12-11T16:52:13Z 2018-12-11T16:52:13Z 2018-03-04 |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2018.1440473 International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, v. 16, n. 2, p. 187-200, 2018. 1747-762X 1473-5903 http://hdl.handle.net/11449/170736 10.1080/14735903.2018.1440473 2-s2.0-85042910056 2-s2.0-85042910056.pdf |
url |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2018.1440473 http://hdl.handle.net/11449/170736 |
identifier_str_mv |
International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, v. 16, n. 2, p. 187-200, 2018. 1747-762X 1473-5903 10.1080/14735903.2018.1440473 2-s2.0-85042910056 2-s2.0-85042910056.pdf |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 0,667 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
187-200 application/pdf |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Scopus reponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESP instname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) instacron:UNESP |
instname_str |
Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) |
instacron_str |
UNESP |
institution |
UNESP |
reponame_str |
Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
collection |
Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1803046730310090752 |