Please wait a minute...
Shopping Cart Email List Chinese
Advanced Search Fig/Tab
Frontiers of Agricultural Science and Engineering

ISSN 2095-7505

ISSN 2095-977X(Online)

CN 10-1204/S

Postal Subscription Code 80-906

Featured Articles  |  Most Downloaded  |  Most Reading
Online Submission Subscribe to Our RSS Content Feed
Front. Agr. Sci. Eng.    2022, Vol. 9 Issue (4) : 642-654    https://doi.org/10.15302/J-FASE-2021423
RESEARCH ARTICLE
CHALLENGES AND CAPACITY GAPS IN SMALLHOLDER ACCESS TO DIGITAL EXTENSION AND ADVISORY SERVICES IN KENYA AND UGANDA
Monica K. KANSIIME1(), Idah MUGAMBI1, Harrison RWARE1, Christine ALOKIT2, Caroline ALIAMO2, Feng ZHANG3, Jakob LATZKO4, Puyun YANG4, Daniel KARANJA1, Dannie ROMNEY1
1. CAB International Africa, P.O. Box 633-00621, Nairobi, Kenya
2. CAB International, Lugard Avenue, Entebbe, Uganda
3. CABI East Asia, Beijing 100081, China
4. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Research and Extension Unit (OINR), Office of Innovation, 00153 Rome, Italy
 Download: PDF(3148 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

● Seventy-eight percent of farmers accessed extension and advisory services from electronic sources dominated by radio.

● Low digital literacy and high cost of internet and digital devices were key barriers to digital extension and advisory services use.

● Farmers need information to make decisions, e.g., fertilizers, seeds or pesticides to use.

● Integrating digital and face-to-face methods can enhance inclusive scaling of extension activities.

An assessment of the challenges and capacity gaps in smallholder access to digital extension and advisory services (EAS) was made by surveying 197 female and 239 male farmers in Kenya and Uganda. Non-digital extension approaches remain dominant but at least 78% of farmers accessed EAS from electronic sources dominated by radio. This is attributed to the fact that ownership of radios was more widespread than of other digital devices. Challenges that particularly limit the use of digital services included low digital literacy and prohibitive cost of internet and mobile devices. Female and elderly farmers were more likely to report these challenges than their counterparts. Logistic regression model results show that ownership of digital devices, participation in post-production activities, and access to extension were enablers of digital EAS use. Farmers mentioned gaps in obtaining information on crop pest/disease diagnosis and management, fertilizer application, pesticide safety and quality seed. Given the diversity in smallholder technological capabilities and information needs, the recommendations made include integration of digital communication within multimode advisory services that use different but linked communication channels, continued farmer digital innovation capacity enhancement, and participatory design approaches that deliver relevant and actionable information for inclusive scaling of extension activities.
Keywords advisory service      agricultural extension      digital extension      digital literacy     
Corresponding Author(s): Monica K. KANSIIME   
Just Accepted Date: 09 September 2021   Online First Date: 09 October 2021    Issue Date: 07 November 2022
 Cite this article:   
Monica K. KANSIIME,Idah MUGAMBI,Harrison RWARE, et al. CHALLENGES AND CAPACITY GAPS IN SMALLHOLDER ACCESS TO DIGITAL EXTENSION AND ADVISORY SERVICES IN KENYA AND UGANDA[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2022, 9(4): 642-654.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fase/EN/10.15302/J-FASE-2021423
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fase/EN/Y2022/V9/I4/642
Local government area and enumeration sub-counties Biophysical characteristics Production activities Sampled households
Kenya
　Baringo County 　　- Eldama Ravin (rural) 　　- Koibatek (peri-urban) Semiarid, receiving an average of 745 mm of rainfall per year Livestock farming is dominant and crop farming under irrigation schemes 56
　Kirinyaga county 　　- Kirinyaga East, West (rural) 　　- Mwea (peri-urban) The annual rainfall is 996 mm Rice production at Mwea irrigation scheme. Coffee and tea grown in the cooler areas 55
　Nakuru county 　　- Mangu (rural) 　　- Rongai (peri-urban) The rainfall is around 762 mm per year Main crops include: maize, beans, potato and wheat. Horticultural crops are fruits, vegetables and flowers 64
　Tharaka Nithi county 　　- Igamba ngombe (rural) 　　- Tharaka (peri-urban) Rainfall is around 853 mm per year, and poorly distributed on lower areas Cultivation of tea, coffee, maize, cowpeas, pigeon peas, tobacco and other food crops 53
Uganda
　Kiryandongo district 　　- Kigumba (rural) 　　- Kiryandongo town council (peri-urban) Average rainfall of 1259 mm with high variability Smallholder agriculture mainly cereal crops and sunflower. About 6.2% of the total farmland is under large scale commercial farming 53
　Luwero district 　　- Butuntumula (rural) 　　- Luwero (peri-urban) Average rainfall of 1,270 mm Small to large scale farming but majority are smallholders. Banana-coffee farming system 49
　Lyantonde district 　　- Mpumude (rural) 　　- Lyantonde town council (peri-urban) Average rainfall range of 915 mm Mainly smallholders with agro-pastoral practices 54
　Tororo district 　　- Merikit (rural), 　　- Tororo Municipality (peri-urban) Average rainfall range of 1215− 1328 mm Small-scale subsistence mainly annual crops 52
Total 436
Tab.1  Main biophysical characteristics and production activities of study locations and sample sizes
Descriptive Kenya Uganda Overall
Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev.
Respondent sex (male = 1) 0.56 0.50 0.54 0.50 0.55 0.50
Respondent age (years) 44.89 15.52 45.04 15.36 44.96 15.43
Household size 5.16 2.14 7.21*** 3.28 6.14 2.93
Location (peri-urban = 1) 0.48 0.50 0.56** 0.50 0.52 0.50
Farm size (ha) 1.19 1.36 2.36*** 5.35 1.75 3.86
Tropical livestock units 2.52 0.48 2.28*** 0.26 2.39 0.27
Education level
　　Primary 0.36 0.48 0.47** 0.50 0.41 0.49
　　Secondary/vocational 0.41 0.49 0.38 0.49 0.39 0.49
　　Tertiary 0.22 0.41 0.09*** 0.29 0.16 0.37
　　None 0.02 0.13 0.06** 0.24 0.04 0.19
Ownership of digital devices (yes = 1)
　　Radio 0.92 0.28 0.62*** 0.49 0.77 0.42
　　TV 0.70 0.46 0.30*** 0.46 0.51 0.50
　　Feature phone 0.69 0.46 0.86*** 0.35 0.77 0.42
　　Smart phone 0.64 0.48 0.19*** 0.39 0.43 0.50
Farm orientation (commercial = 1) 0.17 0.37 0.05*** 0.21 0.11 0.31
Primary activity
　　Farming 0.91 0.29 0.90 0.30 0.90 0.30
　　Business 0.02 0.13 0.02 0.15 0.02 0.14
　　Salaried employment 0.05 0.21 0.06 0.24 0.06 0.23
　　Other 0.03 0.16 0.01 0.12 0.02 0.12
Agribusiness activities (yes = 1)
　　Produce aggregation/transportation 0.43 0.47 0.10*** 0.23 0.29 0.40
　　Produce selling 0.78 0.42 0.25*** 0.43 0.52 0.50
　　Value addition and processing 0.03 0.16 0.04 0.20 0.03 0.18
　　Service delivery 0.06 0.23 0.07 0.25 0.06 0.24
　　Input sales 0.03 0.17 0.00** 0.00 0.02 0.13
Tab.2  Socio-economic and demographic characteristics of respondents in Kenya and Uganda
Variable Kenya Uganda Total
Farmer accessed extension services 96 79*** 88
Farmer did not access any extension advice 4 21*** 12
Source of extension advice
　　Digital extension 92 63*** 78
　　Conventional extension 75 60*** 67
　　Both digital and conventional 96 79*** 88
Conventional extension
　　Friends/family 52 48 50
　　Local community 41 36 39
　　Extension 26 54*** 38
　　Agricultural input dealer 43 23*** 35
　　Farmer cooperative 16 20 18
　　Worship places 10 2** 6
　　Print materials 4 4 4
Digital extension and devices
　　Radio 84 76*** 80
　　Television 58 36*** 47
　　Smartphone 23 5*** 14
　　Feature phone 9 5 7
　　Computer 5 1** 3
　　Community radio 1 3 2
Tab.3  Sources of agricultural advice as mentioned by farmers in Kenya and Uganda (%)
Variable Kenya Uganda Remote areas Townships/peri-urban
Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male
Access to digital EAS 90 93 46 77*** 69 85*** 76 91***
Digital devices used to access EAS
　　TV 46 60** 20 25 31 40 42 55*
　　Radio 76 78 32 61*** 56 72** 58 71**
　　Mobile phone 22 35** 2 9** 14 22 13 30***
Tab.4  Access to digital EAS by female and male farmers by country and location (%)
Information type TV Radio Feature phone Smart phone
Managing crop pests and diseases 59 54 17 47
Managing livestock vectors and diseases 57 57 39 45
Weather information 53 48 28 30
Livestock production 36 31 0 9
Where to buy seed, fertilizers, pesticides etc. 29 37 11 30
What type of seed to use 27 34 17 28
Market pricing information 22 21 22 17
Crop agronomy (GAPs) 19 17 6 6
Credit services 9 15 0 6
Alerts on agricultural activities e.g., time of planting 8 12 17 11
Purchase and sale of produce 8 6 6 17
Processing and value addition 2 2 0 6
Tab.5  Information accessed from digital devices by farmers in Kenya (%)
Information type TV Radio Feature phone Smart phone
Managing crop pests and diseases 72 63 40 50
Managing livestock pests and diseases 46 27 20 67
What type of seed to use 46 42 40 0
Alerts on agricultural activities e.g., time of planting 41 38 20 0
Crop agronomy (GAPs) 35 22 60 0
Livestock production 33 18 20 33
Where to buy seed, fertilizers, pesticides etc. 24 42 0 50
Weather information 22 43 0 17
Market pricing information 20 20 0 33
Processing and value addition 13 8 20 0
Purchase and sale of produce 11 9 0 0
Credit services 2 2 0 0
Tab.6  Information accessed from digital devices by farmers in Uganda (%)
Reason Kenya Uganda Total
I am not aware of these services 21 59 52
The services are too expensive 37 42 41
I do not know how to use these types of services 16 44 38
I do not own a phone/radio to access these services 16 42 37
These types of services are not available in my area 16 24 23
I do not have the time to use them 16 23 22
I have trouble reading the content 26 18 20
The services are not available on my phone network 11 18 16
There is no network coverage in my area 0 17 13
The content is not in a language I understand 11 10 10
The content is not relevant to me 16 1 4
Tab.7  Reasons for not using digital extension devices (%)
Explanatory variable Kenya Uganda
Odds ratio Std. Err. Odds ratio Std. Err.
Location (remote = 0) 2.06 1.60 0.99 0.40
Respondent gender (female = 0) 0.60 0.53 3.19** 1.42
Respondent age (chronological are in years) 1.00 0.03 0.98 0.01
Education level: primary 132** 321 0.64 0.48
Education level: secondary/vocational 11.53 27.11 1.21 1.00
Education level: tertiary 3.73 8.94 1.50 1.88
Household size (# of household members) 0.95 0.24 1.08 0.08
Radio ownership (yes = 1) 5.34 62.9 8.55 3.68
TV ownership (yes = 1) 23.1*** 23.4 5.55*** 3.10
Feature phone ownership (yes = 1) 58.4** 4.79 0.72 0.44
Smart phone ownership (yes = 1) 7.26** 7.44 1.48 1.00
Farm size (hectares) 0.98 0.13 1.01 0.04
Tropical livestock units 1.25 0.34 0.94 0.05
Farm orientation (commercial = 1) 0.92 0.90 1.00 –
Farmer engages in non-farm production (yes = 1) 0.06** 0.08 1.16 0.57
Extension service access (other sources) 7.05** 5.76 2.48** 1.04
Constant 0.01** 0.02 0.22** 0.31
Observations 228 208
Chi-square 67.03 91.55
Probability 0.000 0.000
Pseudo R 2 0.512 0.344
Tab.8  Logistic regression results of access to digital EAS by farmers
Fig.1  Information that is difficult for smallholders to access in Kenya and Uganda.
1 Christoplos I. Mobilizing the Potential of Rural and Agricultural Extension. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services (GFRAS), 2010
2 Swanson B E, Rajalahti R. Strengthening agricultural extension and advisory systems: procedures for assessing, transforming, and evaluating extension systems. Washington: World Bank, 2010
3 World Bank. Gender and governance in rural services: insights from India, Ghana, and Ethiopia. World Bank, 2010
4 Davidson A P, Ahmad M. Privatization and the crisis of agricultural extension: the case of Pakistan. London: Routledge, 2003
5 E Elahi, M Abid, L Zhang, S ul Haq, J G M Sahito. Agricultural advisory and financial services; farm level access, outreach and impact in a mixed cropping district of Punjab, Pakistan. Land Use Policy, 2018, 71 : 249–260
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.12.006
6 P F Jensen, M Prowse, M N Larsen. Smallholders’ demand for and access to private sector extension services: a case study of contracted cotton producers in northern Tanzania. Journal of Agrarian Change, 2019, 19( 1): 122–134
https://doi.org/10.1111/joac.12262
7 E O Gido, K W Sibiko, O I Ayuya, J K Mwangi. Demand for agricultural extension services among small-scale maize farmers: micro-level evidence from Kenya. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 2015, 21( 2): 177–192
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2013.872045
8 Mbo’o-Tchouawou M, Colverson K E. Increasing access to agricultural extension and advisory services: how effective are new approaches in reaching women farmers in rural areas? International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), 2014
9 E Kiptot, S Franzel. Farmer-to-farmer extension: opportunities for enhancing performance of volunteer farmer trainers in Kenya. Development in Practice, 2015, 25( 4): 503–517
https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2015.1029438
10 J C Aker. Dial "A" for agriculture: a review of information and communication technologies for agricultural extension in developing countries. Agricultural Economics, 2011, 42( 6): 631–647
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2011.00545.x
11 J A Tambo, C Aliamo, T Davis, I Mugambi, D Romney, D O Onyango, M Kansiime, C Alokit, S T Byantwale. The impact of ICT-enabled extension campaign on farmers’ knowledge and management of fall armyworm in Uganda. PLoS One, 2019, 14( 8): e0220844
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220844
12 Silvestri S, Richard M, Edward B, Dharmesh G, Dannie R. Going digital in agriculture: how radio and SMS can scale-up smallholder participation in legume-based sustainable agricultural intensification practices and technologies in Tanzania. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 2020: 1–12 [Ahead of Print] doi:
13 H E Hudson, M Leclair, B Pelletier, B Sullivan. Using radio and interactive ICTs to improve food security among smallholder farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa. Telecommunications Policy, 2017, 41( 7−8): 670–684
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2017.05.010
14 GSMA. The Mobile Economy Sub-Saharan Africa 2020. GSMA, 2020
15 Glen D, Goad N, McCurdy P, Nakrani R, Ryland T, Saunders K. African media development initiative research summary report. London: BBC World Service Trust, 2006
16 R De’, N Pandey, A Pal. Impact of digital surge during COVID-19 pandemic: a viewpoint on research and practice. International Journal of Information Management, 2020, 55 : 102171
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102171
17 World Bank. Digital Solutions in a Time of Crisis: Uganda Economic Update [Fifteenth Edition (English)]. Washington D. C: World Bank Group, 2020
18 Valverde A. Information and Communication Technologies for Improving Investment Readiness of Small and Medium Agribusinesses. UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO), 2020
19 R Birner, K Davis, J L Pender, E Nkonya, P Anandajayasekeram, J M Ekboir, A N Mbabu, D J Spielman, D Horna, S Benin, M Cohen. From best practice to best fit: a framework for designing and analyzing pluralistic agricultural advisory services worldwide. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 2009, 15( 4): 341–355
https://doi.org/10.1080/13892240903309595
20 K Rijswijk, L Klerkx, M Bacco, F Bartolini, E Bulten, L Debruyne, J Dessein, I Scotti, G Brunori. Digital transformation of agriculture and rural areas: a socio-cyber-physical system framework to support responsibilisation. Journal of Rural Studies, 2021, 85 : 79–90
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.05.003
21 E Elahi, H Zhang, X Lirong, Z Khalid, H Xu. Understanding cognitive and socio-psychological factors determining farmers’ intentions to use improved grassland: Implications of land use policy for sustainable pasture production. Land Use Policy, 2021, 102 : 105250
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105250
22 G Faure, Y Desjeux, P Gasselin. New challenges in agricultural advisory services from a research perspective: a literature review, synthesis and research agenda. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 2012, 18( 5): 461–492
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2012.707063
23 Van Campenhout B, Dercon S. Nonlinear Dynamics of Livestock Assets: Evidence from Ethiopia. Discussion Paper 1215. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), 2012
24 N T Krell, S A Giroux, Z Guido, C Hannah, S E Lopus, K K Caylor, T P Evans. Smallholder farmers’ use of mobile phone services in central Kenya. Climate and Development, 2021, 13( 3): 215–227
https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2020.1748847
25 M Kassie, M Jaleta, B Shiferaw, F Mmbando, M Mekuria. Adoption of interrelated sustainable agricultural practices in smallholder systems: evidence from rural Tanzania. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2013, 80( 3): 525–540
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.08.007
26 S Mittal, M Mehar. How Mobile phones contribute to growth of small farmers? evidence from India. Zeitschrift für Auslä ndische Landwirtschaft, 2012, 51( 3): 227–244
27 J C Aker, I Ghosh, J Burrell. The promise (and pitfalls) of ICT for agriculture initiatives. Agricultural Economics, 2016, 47( S1): 35–48
https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12301
28 Kansiime M K, Macharia M, Baars E, Rutatora D F, Silvestri S, Njunge R. Evaluating gender differentials in farmers’ access to agricultural advice in Tanzania: an intra-household survey. CABI Working Paper 16. CABI, 2020
29 S O L Mwombe, F I Mugivane, I S Adolwa, J H Nderitu. Evaluation of information and communication technology utilization by small holder banana farmers in Gatanga District, Kenya. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 2014, 20( 2): 247–261
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2013.788454
30 R Bernard, F Dulle, H Ngalapa. Assessment of information needs of rice farmers in Tanzania; A case study of Kilombero District, Morogoro. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal), 2014, 1071
31 Glendenning C, Babu S, Asenso-Okyere K. Review of agricultural extension in India: are farmer’ information needs being met? IFPRI Discussion Papers 01048. IFPRI, 2010
32 Steinke J, van Etten J, Müller A, Ortiz-Crespo B, van de Gevel J, Silvestri S, Priebe J. Tapping the full potential of the digital revolution for agricultural extension: an emerging innovation agenda. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 2020: 1–17 [Ahead of Print] doi:
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed