A farm typology development cycle: From empirical development through validation, to large-scale organisational deployment

IF 6.1 1区 农林科学 Q1 AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Agricultural Systems Pub Date : 2024-12-24 DOI:10.1016/j.agsy.2024.104250
Rhys Manners , Jim Hammond , David Renaud Umugabe , Milindi Sibomana , Marc Schut
{"title":"A farm typology development cycle: From empirical development through validation, to large-scale organisational deployment","authors":"Rhys Manners ,&nbsp;Jim Hammond ,&nbsp;David Renaud Umugabe ,&nbsp;Milindi Sibomana ,&nbsp;Marc Schut","doi":"10.1016/j.agsy.2024.104250","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>CONTEXT</h3><div>The publication of farm (or farmer) typologies has increased over recent years. The purpose of these studies is usually to differentiate groups of farmers so that they are “targeted” with specific agricultural innovations, or best-bet interventions can be “prioritised”. The degree to which such typologies actually influence development practice is however unclear, and little has been published on that topic.</div></div><div><h3>OBJECTIVE</h3><div>The paper aims to move narratives and practices around farm typologies from theoretical to applied and present a novel methodology for typology validation. We worked with a large-scale development organisation to develop a typology for their use, and report here on the process of enabling the organisation to make use of the typology. The lessons from this process are intended to inform the use of farm typologies in agricultural development work.</div></div><div><h3>METHODS</h3><div>A typology of farming households was derived from a household survey in Rwanda (previously published), in partnership with a large-scale agricultural development organisation. Responding to the organisation's requests, the researchers created a decision tree tool to rapidly assign households to types; conducted validation exercises to establish confidence in the typology and the decision tree (making adaptations as needed). Validation was with farmers and extensionists and included developing key word and pictorial representations of farm types which were compared against the empirical typology. The decision tree was tested and questions adapted to maximise accuracy. The organisation then used the tools for a period of two years. Finally, the researchers interviewed representatives of the organisation to find out how the tools had been used.</div></div><div><h3>RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS</h3><div>The typology validation exercises showed a high level of agreement between farmers and extensionists, and a moderate level of agreement between the empirical typology and the types defined by farmers and extensionists. There was a low level of agreement in the Western province of Rwanda, where the socio-economic situation was radically different to other areas, which had not been accounted for in the empirical typology definition. Establishing the correct questions in the decision tree tool proved important. The organisation reduced the number of farm types, and categorised over 350,000 households, with four use cases developed for the farm typologies: planning for the recruitment of clients (farming households are referred to as clients by the organisation), client needs assessment, intervention adoption rate assessment, and monitoring of farmers along the organisation's conception of their (farmers') journey to prosperity.</div></div><div><h3>SIGNIFICANCE</h3><div>This study provides lessons on what is required for the application of farm typologies by development organisations.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":7730,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural Systems","volume":"224 ","pages":"Article 104250"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Agricultural Systems","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X24004001","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

CONTEXT

The publication of farm (or farmer) typologies has increased over recent years. The purpose of these studies is usually to differentiate groups of farmers so that they are “targeted” with specific agricultural innovations, or best-bet interventions can be “prioritised”. The degree to which such typologies actually influence development practice is however unclear, and little has been published on that topic.

OBJECTIVE

The paper aims to move narratives and practices around farm typologies from theoretical to applied and present a novel methodology for typology validation. We worked with a large-scale development organisation to develop a typology for their use, and report here on the process of enabling the organisation to make use of the typology. The lessons from this process are intended to inform the use of farm typologies in agricultural development work.

METHODS

A typology of farming households was derived from a household survey in Rwanda (previously published), in partnership with a large-scale agricultural development organisation. Responding to the organisation's requests, the researchers created a decision tree tool to rapidly assign households to types; conducted validation exercises to establish confidence in the typology and the decision tree (making adaptations as needed). Validation was with farmers and extensionists and included developing key word and pictorial representations of farm types which were compared against the empirical typology. The decision tree was tested and questions adapted to maximise accuracy. The organisation then used the tools for a period of two years. Finally, the researchers interviewed representatives of the organisation to find out how the tools had been used.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The typology validation exercises showed a high level of agreement between farmers and extensionists, and a moderate level of agreement between the empirical typology and the types defined by farmers and extensionists. There was a low level of agreement in the Western province of Rwanda, where the socio-economic situation was radically different to other areas, which had not been accounted for in the empirical typology definition. Establishing the correct questions in the decision tree tool proved important. The organisation reduced the number of farm types, and categorised over 350,000 households, with four use cases developed for the farm typologies: planning for the recruitment of clients (farming households are referred to as clients by the organisation), client needs assessment, intervention adoption rate assessment, and monitoring of farmers along the organisation's conception of their (farmers') journey to prosperity.

SIGNIFICANCE

This study provides lessons on what is required for the application of farm typologies by development organisations.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
农场类型学发展周期:从经验发展到验证,再到大规模的组织部署
农场(或农民)类型学的出版近年来有所增加。这些研究的目的通常是区分不同的农民群体,以便他们成为特定农业创新的“目标”,或者可以“优先考虑”最佳干预措施。然而,这些类型学对开发实践的实际影响程度尚不清楚,关于这一主题的文章也很少。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Agricultural Systems
Agricultural Systems 农林科学-农业综合
CiteScore
13.30
自引率
7.60%
发文量
174
审稿时长
30 days
期刊介绍: Agricultural Systems is an international journal that deals with interactions - among the components of agricultural systems, among hierarchical levels of agricultural systems, between agricultural and other land use systems, and between agricultural systems and their natural, social and economic environments. The scope includes the development and application of systems analysis methodologies in the following areas: Systems approaches in the sustainable intensification of agriculture; pathways for sustainable intensification; crop-livestock integration; farm-level resource allocation; quantification of benefits and trade-offs at farm to landscape levels; integrative, participatory and dynamic modelling approaches for qualitative and quantitative assessments of agricultural systems and decision making; The interactions between agricultural and non-agricultural landscapes; the multiple services of agricultural systems; food security and the environment; Global change and adaptation science; transformational adaptations as driven by changes in climate, policy, values and attitudes influencing the design of farming systems; Development and application of farming systems design tools and methods for impact, scenario and case study analysis; managing the complexities of dynamic agricultural systems; innovation systems and multi stakeholder arrangements that support or promote change and (or) inform policy decisions.
期刊最新文献
Patterns, processes and scales shaping invasive pest species dynamics within agricultural landscapes: Modelling the spread of the African citrus psyllid in European lemon orchards Intensifying neotropical beef cattle grazing systems: Navigating complexity through modelling Characterizing implementers of on-going large-scale diversification of land use in Finland – One of the northernmost agricultural regions in Europe Selecting suitable sites for livestock manure composting via the integration of machine learning, median center and geographic information system Optimization of manure recycling and fertilizer use to meet crop nutrient demands and reduce nutrient losses, a case study in Quzhou, China
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1