The impact of extension delivery through private local service providers on production outcomes of small-scale aquaculture farmers in Bangladesh

Figures & data

Table 1. Treatment levels, definition, and sample sizes.

Farmers category	Definition	Sample size
T00 – (Non-participant Farmers Outside LSP Reach)	Surveyed farmers living in unions without a participating LSP and did not receive extension training from the selected LSPs. This group served as the control group in the study as they are farther away from the location where the extension project was conducted, and they did not receive any extension service from the LSPs	379
T01 – (Non-participant Farmers Within LSP Reach)	Surveyed farmers living in unions with participating LSPs but did not receive the extension training although they were invited. This group are indirect beneficiaries of the project. They live within the communities that the LSPs operate and do their business, and they were invited by the LSPs to participate in the project, but they did not eventually participate. LSPs charges for their extension service and this charge could be a barrier to participation. However, since farmers learn from each other, these groups are expected to learn from participating farmers, that is, if there is a spillover of the extension training. By comparing the outcome of T00 and T01, we are able to show if there is a spillover effect in the LSP extension model	636
T11 – (Participant Farmers Trained by Expert Trained LSP)	Surveyed farmers living in unions with participating LSPs who are trained by experts and received extension training from the expert-trained LSPs	347
T12 – (Participant Farmers Trained by NGO-Trained LSP)	Surveyed farmers living in unions with participating LSPs who are trained by NGOs and received extension training from the NGO-trained LSPs. By comparing the outcome of T11 and T12, we are able to show if the source of LSP trainings matter to the farmers’ performance	291
Total		1653

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of the sampled farm households.

Description of variables	Non-participant farmers		Participant farmers
	T00:Farmers Outside LSP Reach	T01:Farmers within LSP Reach	T11:Farmers trained by Expert-Trained LSPs	T12:Farmers trained by NGO-Trained LSPs
Panel 1: Dependent variables
Number of species cultured	4.88	4.92	5.92	5.89
	(0.12)	(0.10)	(0.14)	(0.14)
Productivity (Kg/Ha)	2106.15	2041.34	2950.13	2899.45
	(36.63)	(26.02)	(85.31)	(79.62)
Fish sold (%)	64.22	58.38	76.94	72.09
	(1.32)	(1.06)	(1.08)	(1.07)
Fish revenue (US$/ha)	1854.50	1650.80	3333.18	2946.55
	(64.25)	(52.02)	(153.42)	(147.15)
Panel 2: Explanatory variables
Farmer’s age (years)	44.86	45.38	41.46	42.27
	(0.55)	(0.46)	(0.70)	(0.65)
Male farmer (yes)	0.99	0.94	0.86	0.65
	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.02)	(0.03)
Farmer is married (yes)	0.97	0.95	0.92	0.91
	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.02)	(0.02)
Farmer's years of schooling (years)	7.91	7.51	8.63	8.07
	(0.21)	(0.18)	(0.27)	(0.24)
Main occupation is aquaculture (yes)	0.05	0.03	0.17	0.09
	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.02)	(0.02)
Years of fish farming experience (years)	9.91	10.04	9.92	10.27
	(0.26)	(0.25)	(0.39)	(0.38)
Receive other training on fish farming (yes)	0.11	0.05	0.41	0.44
	(0.02)	(0.01)	(0.03)	(0.03)
Has smart phone (yes)	0.09	0.09	0.22	0.20
	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.02)	(0.02)
Household size (count)	4.42	4.52	4.69	4.88
	(0.07)	(0.06)	(0.11)	(0.09)
Land owned by the household (decimal)	228.63	166.94	204.00	225.19
	(11.89)	(6.28)	(11.75)	(12.84)
Distance of pond from nearby fish market (km)	4.80	4.49	6.76	5.44
	(0.18)	(0.15)	(0.26)	(0.23)
Distance of pond from homestead (km)	0.22	0.17	0.27	0.22
	(0.02)	(0.01)	(0.02)	(0.02)
Sample size	379	636	347	291

Note: Standard error in parenthesis.

Table 3. Impact of LSP extension delivery on farmers’ production outcome.

VARIABLES	Number of species cultured			Productivity (Kg/Ha)			Fish sold (%)			Fish revenue (US$/ha)
	(Model 1)	(Model 2)	(Model 3)	(Model 1)	(Model 2)	(Model 3)	(Model 1)	(Model 2)	(Model 3)	(Model 1)	(Model 2)	(Model 3)
T01 – (Non-participant farmers within LSPs reach)	0.0459	0.0281	0.161	−64.81	51.57	2.529	−5.839*	−3.579	−0.999	−203.7	18.82	82.37
	(0.439)	(0.396)	(0.426)	(76.94)	(65.49)	(89.39)	(3.106)	(2.798)	(2.758)	(158.7)	(127.9)	(176.5)
T11 – (Participant farmers by expert trained LSPs)	1.039**	1.137***	1.020**	844.0***	509.6***	379.0***	12.72***	8.575***	9.543***	1479***	810.3***	776.7***
	(0.481)	(0.426)	(0.459)	(150.5)	(115.3)	(105.7)	(2.789)	(2.382)	(2.338)	(267.6)	(188.6)	(159.9)
T12 – (Participant farmers by NGO-trained LSPs)	1.012**	1.191***	0.874**	793.3***	587.0***	561.9***	7.871***	6.053**	7.537***	1092***	697.4***	834.6***
	(0.468)	(0.426)	(0.399)	(123.7)	(121.0)	(131.6)	(2.794)	(2.614)	(2.341)	(241.9)	(199.0)	(201.5)
Constant	4.879***	2.080***	5.172***	2106***	1549***	2234***	64.22***	54.94***	64.80***	1855***	941.8**	1957***
	(0.354)	(0.565)	(0.341)	(66.79)	(221.7)	(71.19)	(2.475)	(5.297)	(1.928)	(132.4)	(413.0)	(109.4)
Observations	1653	1653	1653	1653	1653	1653	1653	1653	1653	1653	1653	1653
R-squared	0.037	0.128	NA	0.136	0.261	NA	0.084	0.155	NA	0.113	0.262	NA

Notes: The table presents an analysis of the average treatment effect (ATE) of LSP extension training on various aquaculture farming metrics using three distinct models. The ATE, in this context, indicates the mean difference in outcomes (like species cultured or productivity) between those who received a specific treatment (either by expert-trained LSPs or NGO-trained LSPs or living close to LSPs) and the control (T00-non-participant farmers outside the LSP reach). Model 1 is a basic linear regression without controls; Model 2 is a linear regression with control variables included; and Model 3 utilizes a multi-value treatment effect model using augmented inverse-probability weighting. Each model accounts for cluster random errors at the union level. To interpret the ATE: positive coefficients suggest an increase in the outcome variable for the participant group compared to the non-participant group. For example, in the T11 category for the number of species cultured, positive coefficients across all models indicate that farmer participants by expert-trained LSPs, on average, cultured more fish species than their control counterparts. Conversely, a negative coefficient would imply a decrease in the outcome variable for the participant group. This table, thus, offers a nuanced look into how different exposure to the LSP either through training (or lack thereof) impacts farming outcomes, and the magnitude of these effects. Robust standard errors are in parentheses. Three significant levels are presented as ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1.

Figure 1. Differences in better management practices among the treatment groups.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in Harvard Dataverse at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/WIOZM6

 Google Scholar

, reference number [V4].