IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i7p4190-d784943.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact of Farmer Field School on Crop Income, Agroecology, and Farmer’s Behavior in Farming: A Case Study on Cumilla District in Bangladesh

Author

Listed:
  • Mohammad Mahfuzur Rahman Bhuiyan

    (Graduate School for International Development and Cooperation, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima 739-8529, Japan
    Directorate of Secondary and Higher Education Bangladesh, Ministry of Education, Dhaka 1000, Bangladesh)

  • Keshav Lall Maharjan

    (International Economic Development Program, Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima 739-8529, Japan)

Abstract

The Farmer Field School is a season-long training for farmers involving participatory activities and interactive learning with the doctrine of integrated pest management and agroecosystem analysis. It has become a popular education and extension approach worldwide. This study tried to evaluate the FFS as a vehicle for sustainable agriculture which has economic viability, ecological soundness, and social acceptability. The study aimed to analyze the impact of the FFS on crop income, agroecology, and farmers’ behavior in farming. The empirical models, such as propensity score matching, Mahalanobis distance matching, and difference in differences, were applied for estimating the impact of FFS on crop income, more specifically, real income from brinjal. The environmental impact quotient was used to assess the agroecological impact of using pesticide, and a graded response model was used to investigate farmer behavioral changes in farming. The treatment effect based on the empirical models has shown a positive, significant effect on crop income. The findings also revealed that FFS farmers had a lower agroecological impact from pesticide use, and their behavior in farming practices was improved. Therefore, FFS was demonstrated to be a key strategy in strengthening agricultural extension services, which will contribute to promoting sustainable agriculture.

Suggested Citation

  • Mohammad Mahfuzur Rahman Bhuiyan & Keshav Lall Maharjan, 2022. "Impact of Farmer Field School on Crop Income, Agroecology, and Farmer’s Behavior in Farming: A Case Study on Cumilla District in Bangladesh," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-20, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:7:p:4190-:d:784943
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/7/4190/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/7/4190/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Esperanza Arnés & Carlos G. H. Díaz-Ambrona & Omar Marín-González & Marta Astier, 2018. "Farmer Field Schools (FFSs): A Tool Empowering Sustainability and Food Security in Peasant Farming Systems in the Nicaraguan Highlands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-24, August.
    2. Godtland, Erin M & Sadoulet, Elisabeth & De Janvry, Alain & Murgai, Rinku & Ortiz, Oscar, 2004. "The Impact of Farmer Field Schools on Knowledge and Productivity: A Study of Potato Farmers in the Peruvian Andes," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 53(1), pages 63-92, October.
    3. Davis, K. & Nkonya, E. & Kato, E. & Mekonnen, D.A. & Odendo, M. & Miiro, R. & Nkuba, J., 2012. "Impact of Farmer Field Schools on Agricultural Productivity and Poverty in East Africa," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 402-413.
    4. Gershon Feder & Rinku Murgai & Jaime B. Quizon, 2004. "Sending Farmers Back to School: The Impact of Farmer Field Schools in Indonesia," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 26(1), pages 45-62.
    5. Muhammad Azeem Khan & M. Iqbal & Iftikhar Ahmad, 2007. "Environment-Friendly Cotton Production through Implementing Integrated Pest Management Approach," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 46(4), pages 1119-1135.
    6. Friis-Hansen, Esbern & Duveskog, Deborah, 2012. "The Empowerment Route to Well-being: An Analysis of Farmer Field Schools in East Africa," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 414-427.
    7. King, Gary & Nielsen, Richard, 2019. "Why Propensity Scores Should Not Be Used for Matching," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(4), pages 435-454, October.
    8. Praneetvatakul, Suwanna & Waibel, Hermann, 2006. "Impact Assessment of Farmer Field School Using A Multi-Period Panel Data Model," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25499, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Henk Berg & Suzanne Phillips & Marcel Dicke & Marjon Fredrix, 2020. "Impacts of farmer field schools in the human, social, natural and financial domain: a qualitative review," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 12(6), pages 1443-1459, December.
    10. Santi Sanglestsawai & Roderick M. Rejesus & Jose M. Yorobe Jr., 2015. "Economic impacts of integrated pest management (IPM) farmer field schools (FFS): evidence from onion farmers in the Philippines," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 46(2), pages 149-162, March.
    11. Jinyang Cai & Guanming Shi & Ruifa Hu, 2016. "An Impact Analysis of Farmer Field School in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-14, February.
    12. Godtland, Erin M & Sadoulet, Elisabeth & De Janvry, Alain & Murgai, Rinku & Ortiz, Oscar, 2004. "The Impact of Farmer Field Schools on Knowledge and Productivity: A Study of Potato Farmers in the Peruvian Andes," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 53(1), pages 63-92, October.
    13. Stephen G. Donald & Kevin Lang, 2007. "Inference with Difference-in-Differences and Other Panel Data," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 89(2), pages 221-233, May.
    14. Larsen, Anna Folke & Lilleør, Helene Bie, 2014. "Beyond the Field: The Impact of Farmer Field Schools on Food Security and Poverty Alleviation," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 843-859.
    15. Yorobe Jr., J.M. & Rejesus, R.M. & Hammig, M.D., 2011. "Insecticide use impacts of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Farmer Field Schools: Evidence from onion farmers in the Philippines," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 104(7), pages 580-587, September.
    16. Guido W. Imbens, 2004. "Nonparametric Estimation of Average Treatment Effects Under Exogeneity: A Review," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 86(1), pages 4-29, February.
    17. Masaood Moahid & Ghulam Dastgir Khan & Yuichiro Yoshida & Niraj Prakash Joshi & Keshav Lall Maharjan, 2021. "Agricultural Credit and Extension Services: Does Their Synergy Augment Farmers’ Economic Outcomes?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-23, March.
    18. Dasgupta, Susmita & Meisner, Craig & Huq, Mainul, 2005. "Health effects and pesticide perception as determinants of pesticide use : evidence from Bangladesh," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3776, The World Bank.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Henk Berg & Suzanne Phillips & Marcel Dicke & Marjon Fredrix, 2020. "Impacts of farmer field schools in the human, social, natural and financial domain: a qualitative review," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 12(6), pages 1443-1459, December.
    2. Jinyang Cai & Fengxiang Ding & Yu Hong & Ruifa Hu, 2021. "An Impact Analysis of Farmer Field Schools on Hog Productivity: Evidence from China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-14, October.
    3. Carlberg, Eric & Kostandini, Genti & Dankyi, Awere, 2014. "The Effects of Integrated Pest Management Techniques Farmer Field Schools on Groundnut Productivity: Evidence from Ghana," Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, Humboldt-Universitaat zu Berlin, vol. 53(1), pages 1-16, February.
    4. Jinyang Cai & Guanming Shi & Ruifa Hu, 2016. "An Impact Analysis of Farmer Field School in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-14, February.
    5. Cai, Jinyang & Chen, Yiming & Hu, Ruifa & Wu, Mingyin & Shen, Zhiyang, 2022. "Discovering the impact of farmer field schools on the adoption of environmental-friendly technology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    6. Davis, K. & Nkonya, E. & Kato, E. & Mekonnen, D.A. & Odendo, M. & Miiro, R. & Nkuba, J., 2012. "Impact of Farmer Field Schools on Agricultural Productivity and Poverty in East Africa," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 402-413.
    7. Joanna Chilemba & Catherine Ragasa, 2020. "The Impact on Farmer Incomes of a Nationwide Scaling Up of the Farmer Business School Program: Lessons and Insights from Central Malawi," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 32(4), pages 906-938, September.
    8. Larsen, Anna Folke & Lilleør, Helene Bie, 2014. "Beyond the Field: The Impact of Farmer Field Schools on Food Security and Poverty Alleviation," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 843-859.
    9. Carlberg, Eric & Kostandini, Genti & Dankyi, Awere, 2012. "The Effects of Integrated Pest Management Techniques (IPM) Farmer Field Schools on Groundnut Productivity: Evidence from Ghana," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124876, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Chrysanthi Charatsari & Evagelos D. Lioutas & Alex Koutsouris, 2020. "Farmer field schools and the co-creation of knowledge and innovation: the mediating role of social capital," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 37(4), pages 1139-1154, December.
    11. Praneetvatakul, Suwanna & Waibel, Hermann, 2006. "Impact Assessment of Farmer Field School Using A Multi-Period Panel Data Model," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25499, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Praneetvatakul, S. & Waibel, H., 2007. "The Impact of Farmer Field School On Pesticide Use and Environment in Thailand," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 42, March.
    13. Ram Fishman & Stephen C. Smith & Vida Bobic & Munshi Sulaiman, 2022. "Can Agricultural Extension and Input Support Be Discontinued? Evidence from a Randomized Phaseout in Uganda," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 104(6), pages 1273-1288, November.
    14. Santi Sanglestsawai & Roderick M. Rejesus & Jose M. Yorobe Jr., 2015. "Economic impacts of integrated pest management (IPM) farmer field schools (FFS): evidence from onion farmers in the Philippines," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 46(2), pages 149-162, March.
    15. Yao Pan & Stephen C Smith & Munshi Sulaiman, 2018. "Agricultural Extension and Technology Adoption for Food Security: Evidence from Uganda," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1012-1031.
    16. Yorobe Jr., J.M. & Rejesus, R.M. & Hammig, M.D., 2011. "Insecticide use impacts of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Farmer Field Schools: Evidence from onion farmers in the Philippines," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 104(7), pages 580-587, September.
    17. Stephen C. Smith & Ram Fishman & Vida BobicÌ & Munshi Sulaiman, 2017. "How Sustainable Are Benefits from Extension for Smallholder Farmers? Evidence from a Randomised Phase-Out of the BRAC Program in Uganda," Working Papers 2017-1, The George Washington University, Institute for International Economic Policy.
    18. Tambo, Justice A. & Matimelo, Mathews & Ndhlovu, Mathias & Mbugua, Fredrick & Phiri, Noah, 2021. "Gender-differentiated impacts of plant clinics on maize productivity and food security: Evidence from Zambia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    19. Martey, Edward & Etwire, Prince M. & Mockshell, Jonathan, 2021. "Climate-smart cowpea adoption and welfare effects of comprehensive agricultural training programs," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    20. Jacopo Bonan & Laura Pagani, 2018. "Junior Farmer Field Schools, Agricultural Knowledge and Spillover Effects: Quasi-Experimental Evidence from Northern Uganda," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(11), pages 2007-2022, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:7:p:4190-:d:784943. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.