Abstract
Abstract
Background
Effective public extension and advisory services have the potential to improve agricultural productivity; net farm income; and food security amongst resource-poor farmers. However, studies conducted to measure the effectiveness of extension and advisory services, offered by the Government of South Africa, have focused on the methods used, instead of the guiding principles, such as demand-driven services; equity; prioritization of farmer’s needs; and social and human capital development. The aim of this research paper was to determine farmers’ perceptions regarding the effectiveness of public extension and advisory services and associated factors. Perceptions of the effectiveness were measured using sixteen variables. A group of 442 farmers, in the Gauteng province, receiving government agricultural extension and advisory services, were randomly selected to participate in the study. Using a semi-structured survey instrument, primary data was collected through physical interviews and then analysed using computer software.
Results
The study found that public extension and advisory services in Gauteng were perceived as ineffective. Three socio-demographic factors (education level, age and farm/plot size) significantly influenced farmer’s perceptions towards public extension and advisory services. Moreover, the Principle Axis Factoring (PAF) results indicated that there were three underlying factors of the perceived effectiveness of public extension services, namely: relevance and good quality services; provision of information on improving agricultural production; and availability of the technologies required by farmers.
Conclusions
Large-scale farmers perceived public extension services to be less effective. The exploratory factor analysis extracted three underlying factors which accounted for 81.81% of the variance of the perceived effectiveness of public extension services. Farmers recommended that public extension and advisory services should be of good quality; relevant; and should improve agricultural production to be considered as effective by the farmers. Moreover, provision of extension and advisory services should be determined by farm/plot size.
Funder
university of south africa
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Agronomy and Crop Science,Ecology,Food Science
Reference57 articles.
1. Kidd AD, Lamers JPA, Ficarelli PP, Hoffman V. Privatising agricultural extension: caveat emptor. J Rural Stud. 2000;16:95–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0743-0167(99)00040-6.
2. Anderson JR, Feder G. Agricultural extension: global intentions and hard realities. World Bank Res Obser. 2004;19(1):41–60.
3. Berhane G, Ragasa C, Abate GT, Assefa TW. The state of agricultural extension services in Ethiopia and their contribution to agricultural productivity. Washington DC: International Food Policy Research Institute; 2018.
4. Maoba S. Farmers’ perception of agricultural extension service delivery in Germiston Region, Gauteng Province. S Afr J Agric Ext. 2016;44(2):167–73. https://doi.org/10.17159/2413-3221/2016/v44n2a415.
5. Talib U, Ashraf I, Agunga R, Chaudhary KM. Public and private agricultural extension services as sources of information for capacity building of smallholder farmers in Pakistan. J Anim Plant Sci. 2018;28(6):1846–53.
Cited by
9 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献