IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i20p8784-d1496387.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Empowering Resilience: The Impact of Farmer Field Schools on Smallholder Livestock Farmers’ Climate Change Perceptions in Raymond Local Municipality

Author

Listed:
  • Lwandiso Mdiya

    (Department of Sustainable Food Systems and Development, University of Free State, Bloemfontein 9300, South Africa
    Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, Faculty of Science and Agriculture, University of Fort Hare, Dikeni 5700, South Africa)

  • Michael Aliber

    (Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, Faculty of Science and Agriculture, University of Fort Hare, Dikeni 5700, South Africa)

  • Lelethu Mdoda

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, University of KwaZulu-Natal, P/Bag X01, Scottsville, Pietermaritzburg 3209, South Africa)

  • Johan Van Niekerk

    (Department of Sustainable Food Systems and Development, University of Free State, Bloemfontein 9300, South Africa)

  • Jan Swanepoel

    (Department of Sustainable Food Systems and Development, University of Free State, Bloemfontein 9300, South Africa)

  • Saul Ngarava

    (Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, 3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands)

Abstract

Experiential learning and discovery through farmer field schools (FFS) have the potential to empower smallholder livestock farmers who face heightened vulnerability to climate change. However, there are various levels of learning and discovery in FFS that can inform smallholder livestock farmer knowledge and perception. Understanding this is vital, as farmers’ perceptions influence their readiness to adopt climate-smart practices, informing effective resilience-building strategies. Therefore, this study sought to investigate and assess the impact of the FFS approach on smallholder livestock farmers’ perceptions of climate change, taking Raymond Local Municipality in South Africa as a case. The design followed by the study was a longitudinal survey, with three pools each signifying various FFS intervention points. The study utilized simple random sampling to collect data from 80 smallholder livestock farmers using structured questionnaires in each of the three cross-sectional pools, while descriptive statistics, Min–Max Normalization, and t -tests were used for analysis. The results show that there was an increase in the awareness of climate change due to the interventions of the FFS. Furthermore, there are cumulative differences between the knowledge and perception towards climate change between the three pooled cross-sections. In conclusion, participating in FFS had a significant impact on farmers’ level of understanding and adaptation to climate change. The study recommends that the government and policymakers extensively promote FFS and support them financially so that they can provide more support to rural farmers as well as enhance knowledge on climate change. This study recommends the provision of workshops and awareness campaigns on climate change for farmers through FFS as this will assist farmers to be more sustainable on their farming systems and production.

Suggested Citation

  • Lwandiso Mdiya & Michael Aliber & Lelethu Mdoda & Johan Van Niekerk & Jan Swanepoel & Saul Ngarava, 2024. "Empowering Resilience: The Impact of Farmer Field Schools on Smallholder Livestock Farmers’ Climate Change Perceptions in Raymond Local Municipality," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(20), pages 1-16, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:20:p:8784-:d:1496387
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/20/8784/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/20/8784/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    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. 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.
    3. Audrey Pereira & Sudhanshu Handa & Goran Holmqvist, 2017. "Prevalence and Correlates of Food Insecurity among Children across the Globe," Papers inwopa900, Innocenti Working Papers.
    4. Issahaku, Gazali & Abdulai, Awudu, 2020. "Sustainable Land Management Practices and Technical and Environmental Efficiency among Smallholder Farmers in Ghana," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 52(1), pages 96-116, February.
    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. 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.
    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. Lara Cockx & Nathalie Francken, 2016. "Evolution and impact of EU aid for food and nutrition security: a review," Working Papers of LICOS - Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance 572519, KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), LICOS - Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance.
    4. Christopher Ksoll & Randall Blair & Seth Morgan & Caroline Lauver & Yiriyibin Bambio, "undated". "Evaluation of the Burkina Faso Agriculture Development Project: Interim Report," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 453bcac409384bf9817e4bb1b, Mathematica Policy Research.
    5. Desiere, Sam & Vellema, Wytse & D’Haese, Marijke, 2014. "A validity assessment of the Progress out of Poverty Index (PPI) for Rwanda," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182727, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Zheng, Hongyun & Ma, Wanglin & Wang, Fang & Li, Gucheng, 2021. "Does internet use improve technical efficiency of banana production in China? Evidence from a selectivity-corrected analysis," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    7. Amadu, Festus O. & McNamara, Paul E. & Davis, Kristin E., 2021. "Soil health and grain yield impacts of climate resilient agriculture projects: Evidence from southern Malawi," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    8. Masa, Rainier & Khan, Zoheb & Chowa, Gina, 2020. "Youth food insecurity in Ghana and South Africa: Prevalence, socioeconomic correlates, and moderation effect of gender," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    9. Phuc Trong Ho & Pham Xuan Hung & Nguyen Duc Tien, 2023. "Effects of varieties and seasons on cost efficiency in rice farming: A stochastic metafrontier approach," Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 13(2), pages 120-129.
    10. Joab J. L. Osumba & John W. Recha & George W. Oroma, 2021. "Transforming Agricultural Extension Service Delivery through Innovative Bottom–Up Climate-Resilient Agribusiness Farmer Field Schools," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-24, April.
    11. 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.
    12. Araya Teka & Sung-Kyu Lee, 2020. "Do Agricultural Package Programs Improve the Welfare of Rural People? Evidence from Smallholder Farmers in Ethiopia," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-20, May.
    13. Awal Abdul‐Rahaman & Gazali Issahaku & Wanglin Ma, 2023. "Agrifood system participation and production efficiency among smallholder vegetable farmers in Northern Ghana," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(3), pages 812-835, July.
    14. 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.
    15. 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).
    16. Adetomiwa Kolapo & Akeem Abiade Tijani & Seyi Olalekan Olawuyi, 2024. "Exploring the Role of Farmer-Led Jumpstarting Project on Adoption of Orange-Fleshed Sweet Potato in Nigeria: Implications on Productivity and Poverty," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-35, August.
    17. 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).
    18. Eilish Crilley & Iain Brownlee & Margaret Anne Defeyter, 2021. "The Diet of Children Attending a Holiday Programme in the UK: Adherence to UK Food-Based Dietary Guidelines and School Food Standards," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-13, December.
    19. 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.
    20. Evan Borkum & Anitha Sivasankaran & Elena Moroz & Matt Sloan, "undated". "Evaluation of the Fruit Tree Productivity Project in Morocco: Final Report on Irrigation Activities," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 09644639569a4e0a8cb85cee5, Mathematica Policy Research.

    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:16:y:2024:i:20:p:8784-:d:1496387. 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.