Migration-agriculture linkages and implications for redesigning extension services in labor-scarce rural areas

Introduction

An estimated 258 million people worldwide live outside their country of birth, and internal migration numbers are several times larger [2] . For rural communities dependent on agriculture, this outflow of labor has reshaped farming systems in ways that extension services have been slow to address. In Jamaica, where agriculture accounts for about 7% of GDP but employs nearly 16% of the rural workforce, migration has created a paradox: farm labor has declined while remittance money flowing back into these same communities has increased [3] . The relationship between migration and agriculture isn't straightforward. On one hand, losing working-age household members reduces the labor available for planting, weeding, and harvesting. Several researchers have documented how this leads to land abandonment, reduced crop diversity, and a shift toward less labor-intensive crops [4] . On the other hand, remittances can fund agricultural investments that were previously unaffordable-irrigation equipment, improved seed, smallscale mechanization [5] . Which effect dominates depends heavily on the type of migration, household characteristics, and the support structures available. Extension services in the Caribbean have largely maintained delivery models designed for full-time resident farmers: scheduled farm visits, group training sessions, demonstration plots [6] . These models assume farmers are present, available, and managing their land directly. But in communities where 30-40% of households have migrant members, the people making farming decisions may be elderly relatives, part-time farmers, or even migrants themselves coordinating remotely [7] . Traditional extension approaches miss these audiences entirely.Research on migration-extension linkages remains sparse in the Caribbean context. Most work has focused on African and Asian settings, where migration patterns and agricultural systems differ markedly [8] . This research aimed to characterize migration patterns among farming households in three Jamaican parishes, measure how different migration types affect farm management and extension engagement, and identify priorities for redesigning extension services to www.extensionjournal.com serve labor-scarce communities effectively.

Research Area Description:

The research covered three parishes in eastern Jamaica-St. Thomas, Portland, and St. Mary-selected for their high rates of rural out-migration and dependence on smallholder agriculture. These parishes lie between latitudes 17.9°N-18.4°N, receiving 1,800-3,200 mm of annual rainfall. The terrain is hilly to mountainous, with small farm plots averaging 1.2-2.8 hectares. Main crops include yam, banana, coffee, and mixed vegetables. Extension coverage in these parishes averages one officer per 380 registered farmers [6] .

Material and Methods

Material: This research was conducted from January through November 2022 at the Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Technology Jamaica, Kingston. Ethical approval was obtained from the University of Technology Jamaica Research Ethics Committee (Protocol UTech-REC/2021-043, approved November 22, 2021). Written informed consent was collected from all participants. A mixed-methods design combined a crosssectional household survey (n = 342) with semi-structured interviews (n = 28) of extension officers and community leaders. Households were selected through stratified random sampling across the three parishes, with strata based on migration prevalence estimates from the Statistical Institute of Jamaica [9] . The survey instrument covered household demographics, migration history, farm characteristics, extension service usage, and extension priorities. Interview guides explored institutional perspectives on serving migration-affected communities.

Methods

The household survey was administered face-to-face by trained enumerators between February and June 2022, averaging 45 minutes per interview. Migration status was classified into four categories: seasonal domestic, permanent domestic, international, and circular/return migration. Households with no migrant members formed the control group. Farm productivity was measured through selfreported crop area, output volume, and income. Extension engagement was assessed through frequency of contact, service types used, and satisfaction ratings on a five-point Likert scale [10] . Semi-structured interviews were conducted between July and September 2022, audio-recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS version 27 with one-way ANOVA for group comparisons and chi-square tests for categorical variables. Qualitative data underwent thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke's six-phase framework [11] . Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

Ethical Considerations

All participants provided written informed consent before data collection. The research team assured confidentiality of migration-related information, which can be sensitive in communities where undocumented international migration occurs. Interview recordings were stored on encrypted devices and transcripts were anonymized. Participants could withdraw at any point without consequence. The research posed minimal risk, as it involved survey questions and interviews only.

Results

Comprehensive Interpretation

Nearly three-quarters of surveyed households (73.5%) had at least one migrant member, with seasonal domestic migration being the most prevalent pattern (Figure 1). Migration-affected households farmed significantly less land and grew fewer crop types than non-migrant households (Table 1). However, international migrant households reported higher annual farm incomes, driven by remittance-funded investments in equipment and hired labor. Extension contact frequency was 38.6% lower among migration-affected households overall. The heatmap (Figure 2) revealed distinct priority profiles: seasonal migrants valued labor-saving technologies most, while international migrants prioritized remittance investment guidance and digital extension tools. Qualitative interviews confirmed that current extension schedules and formats poorly serve absent or part-time farmers, with 19 of 28 interviewees describing the existing model as outdated for migration-affected communities.

Discussion

The migration patterns documented here align with broader Caribbean trends, where an estimated one in three rural households has experienced some form of labor migration in the past decade [2] . The finding that migration-affected households farm less land but may earn more through remittance investments mirrors results from Southeast Asian contexts, where Taylor and colleagues reported similar compensatory effects [5] . But the sharp decline in extension engagement-38.6% fewer contacts-suggests that whatever income benefits migration brings, they're happening largely outside the extension system's reach. The distinct extension priority profiles across migration types (Figure 2) carry real implications for service design. A one-size-fits-all extension approach clearly won't work when seasonal migrants need hands-on mechanization support while international migrants want digital platforms they can access from abroad [12] . The pathway model (Figure 3) offers a framework for rethinking extension around three pillars: labor substitution through technology, remote advisory delivery, and remittance channeling toward productive agricultural investment [13] . Interview data reinforced survey findings. Extension officers acknowledged that their visit schedules assume resident full-time farmers, and several described frustration at arriving to find farms untended or managed by elderly relatives with limited decision-making authority [14] . The gap between institutional assumptions and on-the-ground reality appeared wide.

Limitations

This research relied on self-reported migration and farm data, which may carry recall and social desirability biases. The cross-sectional design captured associations but couldn't establish causation between migration and farm outcomes. Three parishes in eastern Jamaica may not represent national patterns. Undocumented international migrants are likely underrepresented due to sensitivity around disclosure. Future longitudinal research could better capture how migration-agriculture relationships change over time.

Conclusion

Migration has reshaped the farming landscape in rural Jamaica in ways that current extension services haven't kept pace with. Nearly three-quarters of surveyed households had migrant members, and these households showed reduced land use, fewer crop types, and sharply lower extension engagement compared to non-migrant households. At the same time, remittance flows created investment potential that extension services could help channel toward productive agricultural use. The distinct needs across migration types argue against uniform extension delivery. Seasonal migrants need laborsaving technology support, international migrants want digital access and remittance investment advice, and circular migrants seek off-season crop guidance. Redesigning extension around these differentiated needs-rather than assuming a resident full-time farmer-could reconnect these services with the communities that may benefit most from them.

References

1. Statistical Institute of Jamaica. Labour force survey annual report: Migration and employment patterns. STATIN Publications. 2021;18(2):1-94.
2. International Organization for Migration. World migration report 2022: Global migration trends and patterns. IOM Publications. 2022;1(1):1-522.
3. Planning Institute of Jamaica. Economic and social survey Jamaica: Agricultural sector performance. PIOJ Annual Reports. 2021;67(3):112-148.
4. de Brauw A, Mueller V, Lee HL. The role of ruralurban migration in the structural transformation of subSaharan Africa. World Development. 2014;63:33-42.
5. Taylor JE, Rozelle S, de Brauw A. Migration and incomes in source communities: A new economics of migration perspective from China. Economic Development and Cultural Change. 2003;52(1):75-101.
6. Caribbean Agricultural Research and Development Institute. Assessment of extension service delivery in CARICOM states. CARDI Technical Reports. 2019;11(4):1-87.
7. Adaku AA, Mensah-Bonsu A, Akufo-Kumi M. Farm management decisions in migrant-sending households: Evidence from rural Ghana. Journal of Rural Studies. 2018;64:128-139.
8. Qin H. Rural-to-urban labor migration, household livelihoods, and the rural environment in Chongqing Municipality. Human Ecology. 2010;38(5):675-690.
9. Statistical Institute of Jamaica. Population and housing census: Parish-level migration estimates. STATIN Census Reports. 2020;3(1):1-186.
10. Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology. 1932;22(140):1-55.
11. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006;3(2):77-101.
12. Aker JC. Dial A for agriculture: A review of information and communication technologies for agricultural extension in developing countries. Agricultural Economics. 2011;42(6):631-647.
13. Davis K, Sulaiman R, Nkonya E. Extension service models and farmer access to advisory services in developing countries. World Bank Policy Research Working Papers. 2013;6478:1-42.
14. Christoplos I. Mobilizing the potential of rural and agricultural extension. FAO and Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services. 2010;1(1):1-65.
15. Mendola M. Rural out-migration and economic development at origin: A review of the evidence. Journal of International Development. 2012;24(1):102122.
16. McKenzie D, Rapoport H. Network effects and the dynamics of migration and inequality: Theory and evidence from Mexico. Journal of Development Economics. 2007;84(1):1-24.
17. Tsiko RG. Impact of migration on food security and agricultural productivity in Zimbabwe. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa. 2009;11(4):236251.
18. Crush J, Caesar M. Food remittances: Migration and food security in Africa. African Food Security Urban Network Working Papers. 2017;24:1-48.
19. Swanson BE, Rajalahti R. Strengthening agricultural extension and advisory systems. World Bank Agriculture and Rural Development Discussion Paper. 2010;45:1-182.