Evaluation of farmer participatory extension programmes

ABSTRACT

Purpose: Participatory extension programmes are widely used to promote change in the agricultural sector, and an important question is how best to measure the effectiveness of such programmes after implementation. This study seeks to understand the current state of practice through a review of ex post evaluations of participatory extension programmes.

Design/methodology/approach: A systematic literature review of the peer-reviewed literature was undertaken to analyse the evaluations based on: (i) year of publication; (ii) location of the study; (iii) programme delivery; (iv) evaluation methods; (v) outcome variables; and (vi) inclusion of evaluation in initial programme design.

Findings: The review finds that almost all studies use an experimental or quasi-experimental research design (i.e. using a control group or counterfactual), but some studies do not account for endogeneity or selection bias. Furthermore, only a small number of the evaluations were planned as part of the original programme design, which causes difficulties in obtaining robust counterfactuals. The review also finds that relatively few evaluations, approximately 20%, measure the programme impact on environmental outcomes and only 15% of the evaluations have been undertaken for programmes in developed countries.

Practical implication: Limitations with current evaluation practice are identified, and recommendations are provided for improving practice, including better treatment of endogeneity, and the complementary use of qualitative data.

Theoretical implication: The review provides a contribution to the debate about the use of quantitative versus qualitative evaluation methods, by addressing the use of both quantitative and qualitative evaluation methods in a complementary way.

Originality/value: Despite their widespread implementation, this is the first systematic literature review for published evaluations of participatory extension programmes in the agricultural sector.

KEYWORDS:

• Impact evaluation
• voluntary uptake
• extension programme
• agriculture
• ex post evaluation
• discussion groups

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers whose suggestions have helped to improve the manuscript. Furthermore, we would like to thank our colleagues Robyn Dynes and Cecile de Klein for supporting Jorie Knook during her research.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes on contributors

Jorie Knook is a doctoral student at the University of Edinburgh. Her research is conducted at the University of Edinburgh Business School, Scotland's Rural College (SRUC) and AgResearch in New Zealand. Her research focuses on the evaluation of participatory extension programmes focused on the uptake of environmentally friendly farming practices.

Vera Eory is a researcher at Scotland's Rural College in Edinburgh. Her research focuses on the economic and environmental implications of greenhouse gas reduction practices in agriculture, particularly on the cost-effectiveness of mitigation practices, environmental co-effects and the heterogeneity of GHG abatement at farm type level.

Matthew Brander is a Lecturer in Carbon Accounting at the University of Edinburgh Business School’s Centre for Business and Climate Change. His research focuses on the development of greenhouse gas accounting methods for organisations, products, projects, policies and countries.

Dominic Moran is Professor of Agricultural and Resource Economics at The Global Academy of Agriculture and Food Security at the University Edinburgh. His research focuses on the management of external impacts from agriculture and food supply chains.

ORCID

Jorie Knook http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2356-8008

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Scotland’s Rural College.