Knowledge Center Catalog

A socioeconomic analysis of farmer field schools implemented by the national program in integrated pest management in Thailand

By: Contributor(s): Material type: TextTextPublication details: Mexico, DF (Mexico) CIMMYT : 2003Description: p. 85ISBN:
  • 970-648-104-4
Subject(s): DDC classification:
  • 338.91 WAT
Summary: This paper analyses the impact of the popular Farmer Field School approach implemented by Thailand's national program on integrated pest management applied selectively in rice, in five provinces.|Data were collected through a standardized questionnaire following the classic "double delta approach," whereby three groups of farmers were interviewed before and after training. The groups were (1) farmers participating in the training, (2) farmers not participating in the training but living in the same village (to measure spread effects), and (3) farmers in a control village. Farmers were interviewed during the irrigated rice-cropping season 1999-2000 for the first time and again in February 2001. All training participants were interviewed. In addition, ten non- participating farmers in the "training village" and fifteen non-participating farmers in the control village were also interviewed.|The analysis was performed in two steps. First, the factors affecting dropout from training were analyzed, because not all farmers completed the season-long training sessions. The analysis was performed by applying a multinomial logit model. It was found that farmers' level of pesticide use, the quality of training, farmers' a priori knowledge on pest and crop management, and the opportunity cost of labor are the main factors determining dropout.|In a second step, the income effects of farmer training and of farmer-to-farmer knowledge transfer are measured by applying an econometric adoption model. Although the analysis is not yet complete, results indicate that impact varies according to almost the same factors as those explaining dropout.|The paper concludes that to make the concept of Farmer Field Schools an effective and efficient extension tool, these schools have to be well targeted rather than randomly spread over a large number of rural villages. Results also indicate that there are other reasons besides economic ones that determine farmers' participation. This suggests that further studies should investigate the existence of non-market benefits of participatory extension approaches.
Tags from this library: No tags from this library for this title. Log in to add tags.
Star ratings
    Average rating: 0.0 (0 votes)

This paper analyses the impact of the popular Farmer Field School approach implemented by Thailand's national program on integrated pest management applied selectively in rice, in five provinces.|Data were collected through a standardized questionnaire following the classic "double delta approach," whereby three groups of farmers were interviewed before and after training. The groups were (1) farmers participating in the training, (2) farmers not participating in the training but living in the same village (to measure spread effects), and (3) farmers in a control village. Farmers were interviewed during the irrigated rice-cropping season 1999-2000 for the first time and again in February 2001. All training participants were interviewed. In addition, ten non- participating farmers in the "training village" and fifteen non-participating farmers in the control village were also interviewed.|The analysis was performed in two steps. First, the factors affecting dropout from training were analyzed, because not all farmers completed the season-long training sessions. The analysis was performed by applying a multinomial logit model. It was found that farmers' level of pesticide use, the quality of training, farmers' a priori knowledge on pest and crop management, and the opportunity cost of labor are the main factors determining dropout.|In a second step, the income effects of farmer training and of farmer-to-farmer knowledge transfer are measured by applying an econometric adoption model. Although the analysis is not yet complete, results indicate that impact varies according to almost the same factors as those explaining dropout.|The paper concludes that to make the concept of Farmer Field Schools an effective and efficient extension tool, these schools have to be well targeted rather than randomly spread over a large number of rural villages. Results also indicate that there are other reasons besides economic ones that determine farmers' participation. This suggests that further studies should investigate the existence of non-market benefits of participatory extension approaches.

English

0310|AGRIS 0301|AL-Economics Program|R01PROCE

Juan Carlos Mendieta

CIMMYT Publications Collection


International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) © Copyright 2021.
Carretera México-Veracruz. Km. 45, El Batán, Texcoco, México, C.P. 56237.
If you have any question, please contact us at
CIMMYT-Knowledge-Center@cgiar.org