Sustainability assessment frameworks for evaluating long-term effects of agricultural extension investments

Introduction

When Jordan's first agricultural extension service was established in the 1950s with American technical assistance, the operating assumption was straightforward: teach farmers improved practices, and productivity would rise permanently [1] . Seven decades later, that assumption looks increasingly fragile. Evaluation reports from Jordan's National Agricultural Research Center consistently document high initial adoption rates that erode within three to five years of project completion [2] . Sustainability in extension has been discussed since the Brundtland Commission reframed development thinking in the late 1980s, but practical assessment tools remain scarce [3] . Most evaluation frameworks focus on immediate outputs-farmers trained, hectares covered, yields increased-rather than tracking whether changes persist once project support is withdrawn [4] . The few longitudinal assessments that exist, mostly from sub-Saharan Africa, suggest that only 30-45% of adopted practices survive beyond five years without continued reinforcement [5] . Jordan's semi-arid context adds particular urgency. Water scarcity, land fragmentation, and climate variability mean that unsustainable farming practices carry higher costs than in better-endowed environments [6] . This research aimed to develop a sustainability assessment framework applicable to Jordan's extension context and test it against seven years of investment data to identify which intervention types produce lasting effects.

Theoretical Framework

The research drew on two complementary theoretical foundations. The Institutional Analysis and Development framework developed by Ostrom [7] provided the lens for examining how institutional rules, community attributes, and physical conditions interact to determine whether collectively beneficial practices persist. Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations theory [8] supplied the adoption-continuation distinction, recognizing that initial uptake and long-term maintenance involve different decision processes. These were integrated into a four-pillar sustainability modeleconomic, social, environmental, and institutional-adapted from the FAO's Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture Systems [9] .

Material and Methods Material

A longitudinal panel design was employed. From 34 extension projects implemented between 2016 and 2023 in the Amman and Irbid governorates, 192 farming households were tracked across six measurement points. Projects were categorized into four investment types: training programs (n=9), demonstration plots (n=8), advisory services (n=10), and input subsidies (n=7). The Sustainability Assessment Index (SAI) comprised 32 items across four dimensions, each scored on a 100-point scale. Data collection was anchored at the University of Jordan, Amman. www.extensionjournal.com Methods Household surveys were administered at pre-investment baseline, years 1, 3, 5, and 7, and a post-project follow-up six months after external support ended. Repeated measures ANOVA with Greenhouse-Geisser correction tested withinsubject changes over time. Two-way mixed ANOVA examined interactions between investment type and time. Effect sizes were calculated using partial eta-squared. All analyses used SPSS version 27. The research received ethics approval from the University of Jordan Institutional Review Board (Protocol UJ-IRB-2016-078, January 2016).

Ethical Considerations

Given the seven-year tracking period, informed consent was renewed at each data collection wave. Participants received written summaries of previous findings and could withdraw without affecting their access to extension services. Household identifiers were replaced with coded numbers in all datasets. Special attention was given to households that dropped out of tracked projects, ensuring their departure wasn't linked to negative experiences with the research process itself. The IRB conducted interim reviews at years 3 and 5. All four dimensions improved from baseline through year 5. After that, trajectories diverged. Social and environmental scores showed modest declines post-project but retained most gains. Economic sustainability dropped 12.1 points from peak to post-project. Institutional sustainability suffered the steepest fall-a 15.9-point decline-reflecting the collapse of coordination structures once project funding ended.

Results

Discussion

The most striking finding is the divergence between dimensions after external support ends. Economic and institutional sustainability eroded faster than social and environmental gains, a pattern consistent with Ragasa and Mazunda's findings in Malawi where market-linked outcomes decayed first [10] . Institutional sustainability's steep decline echoes Ostrom's warning that collective arrangements require ongoing reinforcement to survive beyond the initial enthusiasm of project implementation [7] . The contrast between investment types carries clear policy implications. Input subsidies-still the most politically popular extension investment in Jordan [11] -showed the worst sustainability trajectory. Demonstration plots, which embed learning in physical practice, retained gains most effectively. This aligns with experiential learning theory suggesting that practices learned through doing persist longer than those transmitted through instruction alone [12] .

Practical Applications

Extension agencies in Jordan and comparable semi-arid environments should incorporate the SAI framework into routine project evaluation cycles rather than relying solely on end-of-project assessments. Specifically, institutional sustainability deserves targeted attention through graduated handover plans that maintain coordination structures for at least two years beyond project completion. Budget allocations should shift from input subsidies toward demonstration-based approaches that show better long-term retention.

Conclusion

This research demonstrated that agricultural extension investments produce uneven sustainability outcomes across economic, social, environmental, and institutional dimensions. The four-pillar sustainability assessment framework proved capable of detecting these differences across seven years of longitudinal tracking. Institutional sustainability was most vulnerable to post-project decline, while environmental gains showed the greatest resilience. Demonstration plots and training programs outperformed input subsidies in long-term sustainability. Extension agencies should adopt multi-dimensional sustainability assessment as standard practice and design exit strategies that specifically protect institutional arrangements.

References

1. Swanson BE. Global review of good agricultural extension and advisory service practices. Rome (Italy): Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2008. p. 1-82.
2. Al-Rimawi AS, Tabieh M. Agricultural extension evaluation in Jordan: challenges and prospects. Jordan Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2018;14(2):87-101.
3. Pretty JN. Regenerating agriculture: policies and practice for sustainability and self-reliance. London (UK): Earthscan; 1995. p. 1-320.
4. Birner R, Davis K, Pender J, et al. From best practice to best fit: a framework for designing and analyzing pluralistic agricultural advisory services. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension. 2009;15(4):341355.
5. Kiptot E, Franzel S, Hebinck P, Richards P. Sharing seed and knowledge: farmer to farmer dissemination of agroforestry technologies. Development in Practice. 2006;16(3):259-269.
6. Shatanawi M, Duqqah M, Naber S. Agriculture in Jordan: challenges and prospects. Water Resources in Arid Areas. 2015;2:367-378.
7. Ostrom E. Governing the commons: the evolution of www.extensionjournal.com institutions for collective action. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; 1990. p. 1-280.
8. Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. 5th ed. New York (NY, USA): Free Press; 2003. p. 1-576.
9. FAO. SAFA: sustainability assessment of food and agriculture systems guidelines. Version 3.0. Rome (Italy): Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2014.
10. Ragasa C, Mazunda J. The impact of agricultural extension services in the context of a heavily subsidized input system. World Development. 2018;105:25-47.
11. Al-Karablieh EK, Salman AZ. Economic analysis of agricultural subsidies in Jordan. Agricultural Economics Review. 2016;17(1):23-38.
12. Kolb DA. Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs (NJ, USA): Prentice Hall; 1984. p. 1-256.
13. Feder G, Murgai R, Quizon JB. The acquisition and diffusion of knowledge: the case of pest management training in farmer field schools. Journal of Agricultural Economics. 2004;55(2):221-243.
14. Anderson JR, Feder G. Agricultural extension: good intentions and hard realities. World Bank Research Observer. 2004;19(1):41-60.
15. Davis K, Nkonya E, Kato E, et al. Impact of farmer field schools on agricultural productivity. World Development. 2012;40(2):402-413.
16. Christoplos I. Mobilizing the potential of rural and agricultural extension. Rome (Italy): Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2010. p. 1-68.
17. Rivera WM, Qamar MK. Agricultural extension, rural development, and the food security challenge. Rome (Italy): Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2003. p. 1-58.
18. Spielman DJ, Ekboir J, Davis K. The art and science of innovation systems inquiry. Technology in Society. 2009;31(4):399-405.
19. Kassie M, Jaleta M, Shiferaw B, Mmbando F, Mekuria M. Adoption of interrelated sustainable agricultural practices in smallholder systems. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2013;80(3):525-540.
20. Meinzen-Dick R, DiGregorio M, McCarthy N. Methods for studying collective action in rural development. Agricultural Systems. 2004;82(3):197-214.