Roles of extension and ethno-religious networks in acceptance of resource-conserving agriculture among Ethiopian farmers

67Citations
Citations of this article
146Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

This article analyses roles of social and extension networks in adoption of resource-conserving practices among Ethiopian farmers. We gathered data from 297 randomly sampled households on their agricultural practices, social networks, access to the extension, and geographical location. After examining general determinants of practising resource-conserving agriculture, we employ a two-stage regression with full-maximum likelihood correction for selection bias to establish the roles of general social networks and external professionals in acceptance of conservation techniques. In accordance with previous research, probit regression in the first stage shows that the access to extension increases with farmers' wealth and the size of their personal networks, and decreases with the distance of their households from village centres. However, after accounting for this unequal access to extension, the second-stage linear regression shows that regardless of education, wealth or geographical location, those whose religion and ethnicity match with their agent, report learning more about conservation from extension sources. Furthermore, farmers who are socially well connected within the community tend to be less receptive to agents' recommendations regarding resource conservation. Dissemination policy of conservation agriculture should consider the ethnic and religious affinity between farmers and their extension agents. It also needs to pay more attention to socially and geographically isolated individuals. © 2013 © 2013 Taylor & Francis.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Matouš, P., Todo, Y., & Mojo, D. (2013). Roles of extension and ethno-religious networks in acceptance of resource-conserving agriculture among Ethiopian farmers. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 11(4), 301–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2012.751701

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free