Evaluating Extension Approaches for Advancing Sustainable Crop Varietal Adoption among Resource-Limited Farmers

Introduction

Since the Green Revolution, extension systems across Asia have relied on top-down models to promote agricultural change [1] . These approaches proved less effective for complex management changes like crop varietal adoption [2] . The gap between what extension recommends and what farmers adopt has widened as farming systems grow more diverse [3] . Crop varietal adoption growing multiple species to spread risk and improve nutrition is endorsed as a climate adaptation strategy [4] , yet adoption across Asia's rice regions remains below 40% [5] . Extension methodology may be a key bottleneck, as farmers receive diversification advice through methods designed for single-technology transfer [6] . This research compared four extension approaches for promoting crop varietal adoption among smallholders in southwestern China [7,8] .

Theoretical Framework

This research drew on Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations theory [9] and the Agricultural Knowledge and Information System (AKIS) framework [10] . Rogers posits that adoption depends on perceived innovation attributes and communication channels. The AKIS framework recognizes that knowledge flows through networks of actors rather than linear channels. Together, these frameworks provided the basis for comparing how different methodologies activate different adoption pathways for complex innovations like crop varietal adoption.

Material and Methods

Research Area

The research was conducted in Sichuan and Guizhou provinces of southwestern China, with mountainous terrain at 800-2,400 meters elevation. Research sites receive 1,100-1,600 mm annual rainfall with subtropical to temperate conditions. The research period (February 2021 to July 2022) covered two complete cropping seasons.

Material

A quasi-experimental design assigned 480 resource-limited farmers to four groups of 120, each receiving diversification support through a different methodology. Selection criteria: farm size under 2 hectares, rice as primary crop, no prior diversification program participation. Baseline, midline, and endline surveys measured adoption indicators including crop variety count, diversified area, and a composite diversification index. Ethics approval: Southwestern China College of Farming and Rural Innovation, China (Ref: SCCFRI/CN/2020-118, December 2020).

Instrument Development and Validation

The 38-item methodology assessment instrument was developed through literature review and expert consultation with 10 specialists. Content validity was assessed by six judges, retaining items with CVI above 0.78. Pilot testing with 45 farmers yielded Cronbach's alpha of 0.83-0.91 across five dimensions. Factor analysis confirmed the fivefactor structure, explaining 67.4% of total variance.

Methods

Data were analyzed using SPSS 26.0. Repeated measures ANOVA tracked adoption trajectories across six quarterly www.extensionjournal.com assessments. One-way ANOVA with Tukey's post-hoc compared final outcomes across groups. Multiple regression identified predictors of adoption. Qualitative data from 24 focus group discussions (6 per methodology) were thematically analyzed [11] .

Results

Discussion

FFS's superior performance aligns with Van den Berg and Jiggins [12] that group-based learning accelerates complex practice adoption. ICT-based extension's near-equivalent performance suggests digital platforms can replicate some face-to-face benefits through farmer video sharing and peer messaging [13,14] . T&V's weakest performance confirms critiques by Anderson et al. [15] about top-down approaches. Peer interaction as the strongest predictor supports social learning theory in agricultural contexts [16,17] . ICT-based extension scored higher on information accessibility but lower on peer interaction than FFS, yet achieved similar adoption suggesting these pathways may be partially substitutable [18] .

Limitations

The 18-month timeframe may not capture long-term diversification persistence. Group assignment was quasiexperimental rather than randomized, introducing potential selection bias. Geographic limitation to two provinces restricts generalizability to other farming systems [19,20] .

Conclusion

Participatory methodologies (FFS) and digitally-enabled approaches (ICT-based extension) significantly outperformed conventional methods for promoting crop varietal adoption among smallholders. Peer interaction and information accessibility were the strongest adoption drivers. Extension planners should prioritize group-based and digital methodologies for complex innovations like diversification, while recognizing that T&V approaches remain insufficient for system-level change. Combining FFS group dynamics with ICT information delivery may offer the strongest pathway for scaling diversification programs [21] .

References

1. Feder G, Just RE, Zilberman D. Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries: a survey. Economic Development and Cultural Change. 1985;33(2):255-298.
2. Lin BB. Resilience in agriculture through crop varietal adoption. BioScience. 2011;61(3):183-193.
3. Pingali PL. Green Revolution: impacts, limits, and the path ahead. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2012;109(31):12302-12308.
4. Birthal PS, Roy D, Negi DS. Assessing the impact of crop diversification on farm poverty in India. Agricultural Economics Research Review. 2015;28(1):37-49.
5. Michler JD, Josephson AL. To specialize or diversify: agricultural diversity and poverty dynamics in Ethiopia. World Development. 2017;89:214-226.
6. Kassie M, Jaleta M, Shiferaw B, Mmbando F, Mekuria M. Adoption of interrelated sustainable agricultural practices in smallholder systems: evidence from rural Tanzania. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2013;80(3):525-540.
7. Hu Y, Li B, Zhang Z, Wang J. Farm size and agricultural technology progress in China. Journal of Integrative Agriculture. 2019;18(6):1379-1393.
8. Huang J, Wang X, Zhi H, Huang Z, Rozelle S. Subsidies and distortions in China's agriculture: evidence from producer-level data. Food Policy. 2011;36(3):545-553.
9. Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press; 2003. p. 1-551.
10. Röling N. The agricultural research-technology transfer interface: a knowledge systems perspective. Technology Transfer Series No. 1. Wageningen: Wageningen Agricultural University; 1992. p. 1-21. www.extensionjournal.com
11. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006;3(2):77-101.
12. Van den Berg H, Jiggins J. Investing in farmers-the impacts of farmer field schools in relation to integrated pest management. World Development. 2007;35(4):663-686.
13. 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.
14. Nakasone E, Torero M, Minten B. The power of information: the ICT revolution in agricultural development. Annual Review of Resource Economics. 2014;6(1):533-550.
15. Anderson JR, Feder G, Ganguly S. The rise and fall of training and visit extension: an Asian mini-drama. Policy Research Working Paper No. 3928. Washington (DC): World Bank; 2006. p. 1-28.
16. Bandura A. Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice Hall; 1977. p. 1-247.
17. Wossen T, Abdoulaye T, Alene A, Haile MG, Feleke S, Olanrewaju A, et al. Impacts of extension access and cooperative membership on technology adoption and household welfare. Journal of Rural Studies. 2017;54:223-233.
18. Aker JC, Mbiti IM. Mobile phones and economic development in Africa. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 2010;24(3):207-232.
19. Pan D, Kong F, Zhang N, Ying R. Knowledge training and the change of fertilizer use intensity: evidence from wheat farmers in China. Journal of Environmental Management. 2017;197:130-139.
20. Takahashi K, Muraoka R, Otsuka K. Technology adoption, impact, and extension in developing countries' agriculture: a review of the recent literature. World Development. 2020;133:105005.
21. Ragasa C. Effectiveness of agricultural extension systems in developing countries. Annual Review of Resource Economics. 2020;12:447-470.