Gendered access patterns to agricultural extension information across different cropping systems

Introduction

Does the type of crop a household grows affect who gets extension advice? Evidence from across sub-Saharan Africa shows persistent gender gaps in extension access, with women receiving roughly 5-7% of total extension contacts in some countries [1] . But these aggregate figures may mask important variation across farming systems. Cash crops, export horticulture, and food staples each involve different labor divisions, market structures, and cultural norms that could widen or narrow gender gaps [2] . In Tanzania, extension services reach an estimated 14% of farming households, with significant male bias in contact frequency [3] . Yet anecdotal reports suggest that women in vegetable and flower production access extension more readily than those in maize or sorghum farming. If true, this pattern has implications for how extension services target their gender equity efforts [4] . This research systematically compared gendered extension access across cereal-based and horticultural cropping systems in Arusha region. The objectives were to quantify gender gaps in six extension access dimensions, compare gap magnitudes between cropping systems, and identify factors explaining the system-level differences [5] .

Theoretical Framework

This research applies Kabeer's [6] social relations framework, which argues that gender inequalities are produced through institutional rules, norms, and practices within specific contexts. The framework predicts that cropping systems with different market orientations, labor norms, and value chain structures will generate different patterns of gender-based exclusion from extension services. Commercial horticulture, where women have historically greater market presence, may provide institutional pathways that reduce access barriers compared to traditional cereal systems.

Material and Methods

Material

A cross-sectional comparative design was used with 248 farming households in Arusha region: 128 in cerealdominant areas (Monduli and Karatu districts) and 120 in horticulture-dominant areas (Arumeru and Meru districts). Within each household, both the primary male and primary female decision-maker were interviewed separately. The research was conducted between October 2023 and July 2024 at the School of Agricultural Sciences, Nelson Mandela African Institution, Arusha, Tanzania. A structured questionnaire measured six extension access indicators. Ethics clearance was obtained from the Nelson Mandela African Institution Research Ethics Committee (Protocol NMAI-REC/2023/041, September 2023) [7] .

Methods

Extension access was measured across six dimensions: information access, training participation, input access, market linkages, technology adoption, and credit access. Each was scored as a percentage of maximum possible engagement. Gender gaps were calculated as male score minus female score in percentage points. Two-way ANOVA www.extensionjournal.com assessed gender, cropping system, and interaction effects. Multiple regression controlled for confounding variables [8] .

Ethical Considerations

Informed consent was obtained separately from male and female respondents in Swahili. Interview responses were kept confidential between household members. All data were anonymized during analysis. Participants were free to skip questions or withdraw without consequence. Gender gaps were consistently smaller in horticultural systems (16.1-22.7 pp) than in cereal systems (33.5-37.1 pp). The interaction between gender and cropping system was significant across all six indicators, confirming that the type of farming mediates the extent of gender-based exclusion.

Results

Fig 1: Extension access scores by gender across cereal and horticultural cropping systems

The radar chart shows men's scores forming a consistently larger polygon than women's in both systems, but the gap narrows visibly in horticulture. Women in horticulture approach men's cereal scores on several indicators.

Discussion

The finding that horticultural systems produce smaller gender gaps challenges the assumption that extension gender inequity is uniform across farming contexts. Women's traditionally stronger market presence in vegetable and flower production appears to create institutional pathways, market contacts, buyer relationships, cooperative memberships, that partially offset exclusionary norms [9] . This aligns with Doss's [10] argument that women's crop involvement shapes their engagement with agricultural support services. The credit access gap was widest in both systems, pointing to structural barriers in financial institutions that cropping system effects alone cannot overcome [11] . Extension services may need to partner with microfinance providers to address this particular dimension. Market linkages showed the smallest relative improvement in horticulture, possibly because male-dominated wholesale networks persist even when women are active producers [12] . These patterns suggest that extension gender strategies should be system-specific. In cereal areas, fundamental access barriers need addressing first. In horticultural zones, narrower interventions targeting credit and market linkage gaps may be more efficient.

Limitations

The two-district-per-system design limits generalizability. Cropping system classification was based on dominant crops, though most farms grew mixed crops. Self-reported extension access may differ from actual contact records. The cross-sectional design cannot establish whether cropping system choice causes access differences or correlates with other factors.

Conclusions

Gender gaps in extension access varied significantly across cropping systems in Arusha, Tanzania. Horticultural systems showed narrower gaps than cereal systems across all six measured indicators. Women's established market roles in horticulture appear to create access pathways absent in traditional cereal farming. Extension agencies should tailor gender strategies to specific cropping contexts rather than applying uniform approaches. Addressing credit access barriers requires action beyond extension systems alone. Future research should track whether narrowing access gaps translates into reduced productivity differences between men and women farmers.

References

1. World Bank, FAO, IFAD. Gender in agriculture sourcebook. World Bank Publications; 2009.
2. Peterman A, Quisumbing AR, Behrman J, Nkonya E. Understanding the complexities surrounding gender differences in agricultural productivity in Nigeria and Uganda. Journal of Development Studies. 2011;47(10):1482-1509.
3. United Republic of Tanzania. Agricultural sector development programme II. Ministry of Agriculture. 2016;1-68.
4. Katungi E, Edmeades S, Smale M. Gender, social capital and information exchange in rural Uganda. Journal of International Development. 2008;20(1):3552.
5. Quisumbing AR, Meinzen-Dick R, Raney TL, Croppenstedt A, Behrman JA, Peterman A. Gender in agriculture: Closing the knowledge gap. Springer; 2014.
6. Kabeer N. Reversed realities: Gender hierarchies in development thought. Verso; 1994.
7. Kothari CR. Research methodology: Methods and techniques. 3rd ed. New Age International; 2014.
8. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. 7th ed. Pearson; 2019.
9. Maertens M, Swinnen JFM. Gender supply chain participation in developing countries: Evidence from Senegal. World Development. 2012;40(3):428-443.
10. Doss CR. Men's crops? Women's crops? The gender patterns of cropping in Ghana. World Development. 2002;30(11):1987-2000.
11. Fletschner D. Women's access to credit: Does it matter for household efficiency? American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 2009;91(3):669-683.
12. Fischer E, Qaim M. Gender, agricultural commercialization, and collective action in Kenya. Food Security. 2012;4(3):441-453.
13. Meinzen-Dick R, Quisumbing A, Behrman J, Biermayr-Jenzano P. Engendering agricultural research. IFPRI Research Monograph. 2011;1-76.
14. Ragasa C. Improving gender responsiveness of agricultural extension. IFPRI Discussion Paper. 2014;1334:1-32.
15. Kaaria S, Osorio M, Wagner S, Gallina A. Rural women's participation in producer organizations. Food and Agriculture Organization Report. 2016;1-48.
16. Farnworth CR, Colverson KE. Building a genderresponsive extension system in sub-Saharan Africa. IFPRI 2020 Focus Brief. 2015;22:1-6.
17. Udry C. Gender, agricultural production, and the theory of the household. Journal of Political Economy. 1996;104(5):1010-1046.
18. Benin S, Nkonya E, Okecho G, Randriamamonjy J, Kato E, Lubade G, Kyotalimye M. Returns to spending on agricultural extension: The case of the National Agricultural Advisory Services in Uganda. Agricultural Economics. 2011;42(2):249-267.