Departments of Sociology and Department of Agriculture and Forestry, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom

According to the authors of this study, failure of agroforestry extension has been blamed on inappropriate communication methods, but there have been few studies to identify those factors that determine farmer's awareness of, or attitude towards, agroforestry. Published in the Human Ecology journal in 2001, this study focuses on the modes of communication in the extension activities for a community forestry project in the state of Orissa, eastern India in 1998. The main concern is the ways in which modes of communication affected the adoption of agroforestry in this subsistence farming region. The study specifically analysed: (1) the relationship between extension sources and methods and farmers' decisions to participate in farm forestry; (2) the social and economic characteristics of farm households and their relationship to extension sources and methods; and (3) the impacts of communication-extension factors on programme participation.

Information flow was promoted by three means: mass media, group media, and interpersonal contact. Radio broadcasts, television programmes, newspaper articles, and the distribution of posters, leaflets, and booklets were used to disseminate information and to publicise issues. Group media included methods such as street plays, films, dance-dramas, meetings, training events, and visits to nurseries and plantations by farm groups and villagers. Interpersonal contact involved social forestry supervisors (SFS) and village forestry field-workers (VFW) visiting farmers, villagers, and village leaders
in order to promote participation in community forestry programmes and to plant trees on farm land. The decision to adopt agroforestry was found to be determined by the farmers' attitude to agroforestry, which in turn was shaped by information received through farmer-to-farmer and farmer-to-extension contact. The mode of communication was important and, to be effective, needs to be customised for each group.



Evaluation/Research Methodologies:

A survey was conducted among the participants and nonparticipants of the social forestry project (SFP). The survey used a comprehensive interview-led questionnaire. An assumption was made that household features are interrelated with individual propensity to accept innovation. Households' social and economic characteristics and interactions with extension information sources constituted the main explanatory factors for farm forestry participation along with openness to new farm practices and level of awareness of and attitudes towards the social forestry project. The questionnaire survey was supplemented by group discussions.

The sample was drawn through a stratified random sample procedure from 24 communities in two distinct districts of Orissa. The final survey sample included 428 respondents evenly spread across the participants and nonparticipants of SFP, and across the two study districts. The two districts contrasted in forest cover, population density, and tribal concentration. Farm ownership was viewed as characterising the general socioeconomic status of respondents, thus the survey distinguished four classes of farm size: marginal (<1 ha.), small (1–2 ha), medium (2–4 ha.), and large (>4 ha).

Bivariate statistical analysis tested the relation between socioeconomic variables. It then used multiple regression analysis to analyse factors related to awareness of SFP and attitude to SF. Finally, logistic modeling was employed to examine the likelihood of participation in farm forestry on the basis of communication-extension factors.



Key Findings/Impact:

This study found that extension-communication factors were linked to project participation in a number of ways. Farmers utilised a range of information sources in order to acquire information and knowledge about farm forestry. The three most commonly used channels of communication were the extension agents, neighboring farmers, and group meetings. Direct personal contact by social forestry extension workers appeared to be the key factor related to project participation, in particular among disadvantaged farm households. The decision to adopt agroforestry was affected by the farmers' attitude to agroforestry, which in turn was shaped by information received through farmer-to-farmer and farmer-to-extension contact.



Farmers with higher socioeconomic status were found to be more "progressive" and to utilise formal and mass media channels of communication more extensively than smallholder subsistence farmers. With one-third of respondents lacking formal education and, thus, being illiterate, education was identified as an important variable limiting access to information, particularly from written communication materials.

Based on these findings, the authors suggest that farm forestry extension should be more sensitive to the kinds of media used to promote communication and information flow. Farm forestry projects would be strengthened by promoting farmer-to-farmer, and farmer-to-extension dialogue. The authors argue that if smallholders' participation is to be improved, the focus should be on more direct interpersonal contact with extension project personnel.