Extension Agents’ Perception on Suitability of Climate Change Information Disseminated to Smallholder Farmers

Abstract

This study examined gaps in climate information within public agricultural extension in Limpopo Province, South Africa. It assessed extension officers’ climate change perceptions, knowledge and climate education. Lastly, the study examined the extension approaches for overall suitability of climate information disseminated to rural smallholder farmers. The results indicated that participants were predominately male, with tertiary education. Education levels had an influence on exposure to climate education and extension approaches in disseminating agricultural information to farmers. There is a need to retool extension officers in climate change extension work, integrating indigenous knowledge to increase suitability and acceptability of information by smallholder farmers.

Keywords

Agricultural extension and advisory services climate change perceptions gender

Introduction

The South African agricultural sector is performing at a below average level, compromising the country’s gross domestic product (Hellin, 2012; IFPRI, 2002). At household level, food insecurity is worsening and agricultural involvement is decreasing due to decreasing yields and worsened hardships in agriculture posed by climate change effects. Accessibility of extension services, accurate information on climate information and adequate support on climate change, to enhance climate adaptability and to strengthen resilience of farmers, seems to be a barrier to obtaining significant livelihoods and prosperity of smallholders. The role of agricultural institutions is significant as they are responsible for providing agricultural extension and advisory services (AEAS) to rural subsistence and smallholder farmers. In developing countries, AEAS have been a vehicle for rural economic development, providing rural farmers with the opportunities and assistance that have resulted in improved agricultural yields, translating to enhanced livelihoods and household food security for smallholder farmers. Despite the strides made by government-led AEAS in Africa, especially sub-Saharan Africa, institutional failures undermine extension service delivery. This has contributed to under-resourced and demotivated extension officers in the field. Climate change introduces an array of new challenges that are always geographically and context-specific, intensely diversifying the needs of smallholder farmers. Due to the long-term working relationships between extension officers and smallholder farmers, AEAS have the potential to build the climate resilience of rural agrarian communities (Davis et al., 2014).

People develop coping strategies to deal with climate change as with other shocks or stresses based on the adaptation strategies they have adopted (Berman et al., 2012). Farmers’ coping strategies are not only limited to adjusting agricultural practices. They also include building social networks, use of traditional forecasting to get ready for climatic changes and other innovative and resourceful ways of protecting their assets. For example, in Asia during times of floods, farmers float their seedbeds (Thornton, 2011). Resource-poor smallholder farmers develop coping strategies that are naturally more restricted by climate change as a stressor on their livelihoods, due to socio-economic inequity (Codjoe et al., 2014). This forces individuals to employ unsustainable coping strategies that put further strain on the households’ ability to rebound after a climatic stressor, such as taking out a loan, decreasing food portions and migration to larger towns to participate in unskilled labour.

Another barrier to farmers adopting sustainable coping strategies is climate information that conflicts with farmers’ indigenous beliefs and value systems, which leads to suspicion or scepticism about the occurrence of climate change. Kahan et al. (2007) uses a theory termed ‘identity-protective cognition’ to explain why individuals dismiss or adopt evidence, according to how it fits in with the common value they have with others and their own cultural norms. This suggests that evidence on climate change is either accepted or rejected based on whether the information is affirmed by farmers’ cultural values and beliefs (Cohen et al., 2007; Donnelly et al., 2009).

There is no universal definition of AEAS. Different organizations, literature and academics define the concept according to their specific circumstance and context. Jones and Garforth (1997) explain that the term ‘extension’ is derived from educational development that notions to ‘extending’‘ relevant and useful information to the adult population at large. In the context of rural development, AEAS are ‘mechanisms and systems that are designed to build the capacities and strengths of rural farmers and other affected stakeholders’ (Mbo’o-Tchouawou and Colverson, 2014). The primary function of AEAS is the application of scientific knowledge and technologies, which aims to improve agriculture through non-formal farmer education (Abdu-Raheem and Worth, 2011; Zwane, 2012). Providing access to information and technologies improves rural agricultural practices and skills of rural farmers, in order to address various rural development challenges (Birner et al., 2009; Christoplos, 2010; Zakaria, 2013). Various stakeholders, including non-governmental organizations, governments and private sector firms all work to provide extension services to farmers (Kazbekov and Qureshi, 2011; Nkonya, 2009; Preissing et al., 2013). These actors interact to provide the flow of information and inform planning, implementing and monitoring various policies, programmes and initiatives to affect rural agricultural development.

This paper assessed extension officers’ climate change perceptions, climate change knowledge and their formal and informal climate education in Limpopo Province, South Africa.

Methodology

The study used an integrated research method, which employs both qualitative and quantitative methodologies to collect data on public AEAS and the extent of their challenge to meet the climate information needs of smallholder farmers. The study was conducted in Limpopo Province over two districts in two local municipalities per district; Mopani district: Maruleng and Tzaneen local municipalities; also Vhembe district: Mutale and Musina local municipalities. The Limpopo Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (LDARD) as a public provincial agricultural institution, assisted in identifying the study areas, based on the severity of climate change impacts, predominantly drought. In the study Agricultural Extension Officers (AEO) from crop and livestock production and their service centre heads participated in this study.

Sampling techniques

The populations for this study were both crop and livestock Extension Advisory Service Personnel from the public sector and one farmer association group per district municipality. The study used non-probability sampling with judgemental sampling commonly known as purposive sampling (Creswell et al., 2011). With this type of sampling, participants are chosen to be part of the sample with a specific purpose. For this study, identification of the sampling unit relied on their knowledge and employment as AEAS personnel, agricultural extension systems, farming systems and interactions with smallholder farmers (Latham, 2008). The sample had 90 participants consisting of both men and women. Within the sample unit, four senior managers were identified as key informants and four AEAS Service Centres were selected per district municipality. Also within each district municipality, one farmer association group per district municipality was identified to participate in the study. There were no criteria to select farmer associations; selection depended on availability and identification by AEOs.

Data collection techniques

Before applying the integrated research methods approach and conducting the study, a preliminary visit to the Limpopo took place to present the research proposal for this study to LDARD. This step assisted in gaining the necessary contacts, support and information that made the study possible, in Limpopo.

Qualitative approach

This study used Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) techniques such as semi-structured interviews, key informant interviews and focus group discussions.

Key informant interviews conducted aimed to gain a general perspective of the state of AEAS and climate change within public extension. Two key informants per study area district were selected, making a total of eight key informants. The selection of key informants was targeted at participants with vast knowledge and/or experience and involvement in the subject matter and environment/community.

LDARD assisted in identifying key informants in the Agricultural Extension Services; through the key informants farmer association groups were identified. The key informants further provided information about the areas most affected by climate variability and various agricultural activities of smallholder farmers within their local municipalities. The criterion for selecting municipal managers and service centre heads as key informants were based on their knowledge and experience in the field of agriculture and extension, public extension policies and their mandates and in-depth institutional challenges. Data from the key informants was collected using semi-structured interview.

The semi-structured interview questions for the key informants were formulated before conducting the interview (Narayanasamy, 2009). The purpose of the semi-structured interview was to allow participants to answer freely to give rich and descriptive answers that give in-depth insight on their experiences and attitudes (Harrell and Bradley, 2009). The questions in the semi-structured interview aimed to answer the research objectives, from the perspective of service centre heads.

Focus group discussions were conducted using focus group discussion guidelines. The aim of the focus group discussions was to help in identifying and obtaining preliminary information about beliefs, ideas, opinions, attitudes and behaviours about the topic of the study.

Quantitative approach

With the expertise and assistance of LDARD senior managers, field extension advisory personnel were identified.

The criteria for identifying field extension and advisory personnel were their expertise (crop extension), regular interaction with smallholder farmers and knowledge of local farming practices. Each field AEO received questionnaire surveys investigating the perspective and opinions of those who have realist insight on the needs and challenges of smallholder farmers at grass roots level.

Both open- and closed-ended questions featured in the questionnaires. The questionnaires were checked immediately to ensure all sections in the questionnaire had been completed and void of error. This allowed enumerators to clarify any unclear response before leaving the field. Conducting the focus group discussion was extremely cost effective and was advantageous, as it allowed several people at once to participate in a short amount of time. According to Veal (2006) focus group discussions allowed the researcher to observe the interaction and non-verbal cues within the group. The participants are also able to support each other when points are discussed, which has the potential to evoke deeper conversation and views on the subject matter (Overlien et al., 2005). Key informant interviews and semi-structured interviews were all recorded on tape and notes were taken while focus groups were recorded via video. This process minimized the researcher’s bias on topics within the study.

Data analysis

The data was coded and entered into the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS), version 23. To test whether the proportions were different in each group, the Pearson’s Chi-square (χ²) test of independence with α = 0.005 as a criterion for significance was used; content analysis was also applied.

Results

Types of farmers serviced by extension officers

Figure 1 illustrates that extension officers in the study area mostly serviced smallholder farmers (69%) and subsistence farmers (20%). AEOs characterized their farmers as predominantly illiterate to moderately literate, middle-aged to elderly and resource poor smallholders, farming for both household consumption and market production.

Figure 1.

Enterprise of farmers serviced by extension officers in the study area.

Extension approaches used for climate change dissemination

Formal extension

Table 1 indicates that formal extension (68.9%) characterized by training and visiting (T&V) and the transfer of technology model were the most used extension approaches. There were statistically significant differences in the use of formal extension across education levels of extension officers (P ⩽ 0.05). AEOs with a diploma qualification were more inclined to use formal extension, whereas AEOs with either a B. Tech/degree or postgraduate qualification were less likely to use formal extension to disseminate climate information to farmers.

Table 1.

Extension methods used to disseminate climate and agricultural information.

Variable	Education level			Total (%)
Variable	Diploma (%)	B. Tech/degree (%)	Postgraduate (%)	Total (%)
Formal extension
Yes	80.0	74.4	64.7	68.9
No	20.0	35.5	35.3	31.1
Farmer–farmer extension
Yes	73.3	34.9	23.5	45.6
No	26.7	65.1	76.5	54.4
Farmer-led extension
Yes	20.0	25.6	88.2	35.6
No	80.0	74.4	11.8	64.4
Farmer field school
Yes	6.7	11.6	41.2	15.6
No	93.3	88.4	58.8	84.4
n	30	43	17	90

Farmer–farmer extension

Farmer–farmer (F2F) extension approach was the second most widespread approach used by extension officers. There was a statistically significant difference in the use of F2F extension across education levels of extension officers (P ⩽ 0.05). More AEOs with a diploma qualification were prone to disseminate climate change information using this extension approach. In contrast, AEOs with a postgraduate qualification were less prone to use F2F extension to disseminate climate change information.

Farmer–led extension

Farmer–led extension (FLE) is the third most utilized extension approach; there was a statistically significant difference in the use of FLE across education levels of AEOs (P ⩽ 0.05). Extension officers with a postgraduate qualification were more likely to use FLE. While AEOs with either diploma or B. Tech qualifications were less prone to use FLE to disseminate climate change information.

Farmer field school

Farmer field school (FFS) was the least predominant (15.6%) approach used by AEOs. There were statistically significant differences in the use of FFS to disseminate climate change information across education levels of extension officers (P ⩽ 0.05). Extension officers with a postgraduate qualification were more likely to use FFS. On the other hand, AEOs with either a diploma or B. Tech qualification were less prone to use FFS extension methods for climate change information dissemination.

Types of information disseminated to farmers

Figure 2 illustrates results from a multiple response question from AEOs, which required them to indicate the types of climate change information they disseminated to farmers. ‘Extreme weather alerts’ (hailstorms, heat waves, frost, drought and strong winds) (73%) and associated preventive methods were the most predominant information types disseminated; followed by ‘water management (64%), that is, water harvesting and irrigation methods and schedules; ‘crop management’ (54%), that is, use of climate resilient seeds, invasive species control, cultivators and pesticide application; ‘climate forecasts’ (48%), that is, seasonal calendars, short–medium term weather forecast, fluctuations in temperature and rainfall patterns; and lastly ‘livestock management’ (28%), that is, nutrition, disease and vaccinations.

Figure 2.

Climate information disseminated to farmers.

Frequency of climate information dissemination to farmers

Table 2 requested extension officers to indicate whether they disseminated climate information provided by LDARD. There was a statistically significant difference in the frequency of dissemination of climate change information to farmers between the Mopani and Vhembe districts (P ⩽ 0.05). AEOs from the Vhembe district were more likely to disseminate climate change information to their farmers regularly. In contrast, extension officers from the Mopani district were less inclined to disseminate climate change information to farmers. Extension officers from Mopani district cited lack of transportation, poor ICT infrastructure, being short-staffed and poor coordination within AEAS as reasons for the irregular dissemination of climate change information to farmers.

Table 2.

Frequency of disseminating climate change information to farmers.

Variable	District		Total (%)
Variable	Mopani (%)	Vhembe (%)	Total (%)
Yes	28.9	53.3	41.1
No	71.1	46.7	58.9
n	45	45	90

However, in the Vhembe district only AEOs from the Mutale municipality cited similar constraints to their colleagues in the Mopani district rural service centre. Extension officers stationed at the Musina rural service centre reported they worked in partnership with a private organization called Timbali Technology Incubator, located within the premises of the Musina service centre. According to the Timbali Technology Incubator’s manager, they work in conjunction with LDARD to provide agricultural extension services that are in line with those of the government. Timbali Technology Incubator provides its own extension staff, who each use motorbikes to travel to farmers who are often unreachable due to poor road infrastructure in the area. Extension officers in Musina stated that the presence of Timbali Technology Incubator has assisted in increasing extension coverage, knowledge sharing and regularity of agricultural information dissemination on their behalf. Other service centres visited in Tzaneen, Maruleng (Mopani district) and Mutale (Vhembe district) reported not to have any assistance from any private organizations offering extension services.

Frequently requested climate forecasting

Figure 3 indicates seasonal forecasts (69%) were the most requested types of forecasts in both districts. Vhembe district (37%) accounted for the highest consumption of seasonal forecasts compared with Mopani district (32%).

Figure 3.

Climate forecast frequently requested by farmers from extension officers.

Weather forecasts (30%) accounted for the second most frequently requested type of forecast. Mopani district accounts for 18% of the result compared to 12% for Vhembe district. This could be attributed to Mopani district having one prevalent farming enterprise over another (subsistence, smallholder), in comparison to Vhembe, which was observed to have a larger mix of farming enterprises (subsistence, smallholder, emerging and commercial farmers) requiring different climate forecasting to suit farmers’ forecasting needs. Long-term forecasts (2%) were the least used form of forecast disseminated in both districts; farmers asked about long-term climate forecasts only in Vhembe district (2%).

Weather forecasts (daily to weekly) and seasonal forecasts have been directly linked to planning farming activities such as crop diversification, land preparation, irrigation, and insecticide, pesticides and fertilizer application and also to preparing for unfortunate weather or poor crop seasons on a socio-economic level to some extent, buffering farmers from climate vulnerability.

Types of communication used to disseminate agricultural information to farmers

Personal communication

Table 3 indicates that face-face communication (57.8%) was the most frequent primary method used by AEOs. There were statistically significant differences in communication methods used to disseminate information across educational levels of AEOs (P ⩽ 0.05). AEOs with a diploma or a B. Tech/degree qualification were more prone to use face-face communication. Whereas AEOs with a postgraduate qualification were less prone to use face-face communication to disseminate information.

Table 3.

Techniques AEOs used to disseminate climate information to farmers.

Variables	Education levels			Total (%)
Variables	Diploma (%)	B. Tech/degree (%)	Postgraduate (%)	Total (%)
Face-face communication
Yes	73.3	70.6	41.9	57.8
No	26.7	29.4	58.1	42.2
Workshops
Yes	65.1	70.0	70.6	53.3
No	34.9	30.0	29.4	46.7
Information days
Yes	16.7	18.6	76.5	28.9
No	83.3	81.4	23.5	71.1
Cell phone communication
Yes	13.3	30.2	41.2	26.7
No	86.7	69.8	58.8	73.3
n	30	43	17	90

Workshop

Workshops (53.3%) were the second most dominant channel to communicate climate information. There was a statistically significant difference in the use of workshops to disseminate agricultural information across education levels of AEOs (P ⩽ 0.05). AEOs with a postgraduate or B. Tech/degree qualification were more inclined to use workshops to disseminate agricultural information compared to those with a diploma qualification.

However, AEOs from the Mopani district said ‘poor coordination’ between other government departments negatively affects the quality of information presented at workshops, as officials from the relevant departments are seldom available. A key informant from Musina (Vhembe district) stated that they have to improvise or completely cancel segments of the workshops, because government officials are not attending the workshops.

AEOs in Mutale added that the attendance records of workshops have seen a steady decrease of farmers, especially amongst female farmers.

Information days

Information days (28.9%) were the second least utilized means of information dissemination. There were statistically significant differences in the use of information days to disseminate agricultural information across education levels of AEOs (P ⩽ 0.05). AEOs with a postgraduate qualification were more disposed to use information days to disseminate agricultural information. Whereas AEOs with either a diploma or B. Tech/degree qualification were less liable to use information days to disseminate agricultural information.

AEOs in Musina stated their experience was different, as they have assistance from Timbali Technology Incubators; hence organizing information days is easier.

Cell phone communication

Cell phone communication (26.7%) was least popular means of agricultural information dissemination. Results also show a statistically significant difference in the use of cell phone communication in the dissemination of agricultural information, between the education levels of AEOs. AEOs with a postgraduate qualification were more inclined to use cell phone communication to disseminate agricultural information, while AEOs with a diploma or B. Tech/degree qualification were less prone to use cell phone communication.

Correct use of climate information by farmers

AEOs were asked their opinion on whether their farmers used agricultural information, especially on climate correctly. Table 4 indicates a statistically significant difference in the correct use of climate change information by farmers between AEOs (P ⩽ 0.05). AEOs from the Vhembe district were more confident in their ability to use climate change information correctly. In contrast, AEOs from the Mopani district reported their farmers used climate information incorrectly.

Table 4.

Farmers use of climate change information correctly as perceived by AEOs.

Variable	District		Total (%)
Variable	Mopani (%)	Vhembe (%)	Total (%)
Yes	15.6	31.1	46.7
No	34.4	18.9	53.3
n	45	45	90

AEOs in the Mopani district stated that the majority of their farmers, regardless of age, still had a tendency to adhere towards traditional African religion and practices, often a barrier to using agricultural information prescribed by LDARD. The AEOs stated that one popular explanation farmers give for the occurrence of climate change is ‘The ancestors are punishing us for turning our backs on traditions or cultural rituals.’ This is attributed to the belief that ancestors have a direct and indirect impact on the ability to influence nature especially climate variability though rain-making.

Gender dynamics in climate information dissemination

The results show that the majority (53.3%) of extension officers observed gender differences in the use of climate change information amongst female and male farmers (Table 5). There was a statistically significant difference in the views on use of climate change information by female and male farmers between AEOs in the study area (P ⩽ 0.05). AEOs from the Vhembe district were more prone to report that male and female farmers used climate change information differently. Whereas AEOs from Mopani were less prone to report any differences in the use of climate information amongst male and female farmers, in areas they serviced.

Table 5.

Gender differences in climate information perceived by AEOs.

Variable	District		Total (%)
Variable	Mopani (%)	Vhembe (%)	Total (%)
Yes	37.8	68.9	53.3
No	62.2	31.1	46.7
n	45	45	90

Focus group discussions revealed that female farmers, in addition to the general agricultural information, request additional information on improving nutrition and household food security. Additionally, women were more likely to use organic farming practices such as manure, inter-cropped with indigenous leafy vegetables and were observed to diversify the crop variety. Male farmers asked for climate information and technologies that improved yields and produced cash crops such as maize, tomatoes and cabbages.

Extension officers stated that men were more likely to register for new programmes and to adopt new technologies and climate resilient seeds than women.

Perception on suitability of climate change information by extension services

A Likert scale using variables such as ‘Strongly Agree’, ‘Agree’, ‘Disagree’ and ‘Strongly Disagree’, were used to assess whether extension officers observed current climate information to be compatible and appropriate to climate adaptation and mitigation needs of farmers. Table 6 indicates that there were statistically significant differences between female and male extension officers in their perception on the suitability of climate change information disseminated to farmers (P ⩽ 0.05). Female extension officers were more inclined to ‘disagree’ with the suitability of climate change information disseminated to farmers than men. Men were more likely to either ‘strongly disagree’ or ‘agree’ with the suitability of climate information disseminated to farmers’ needs.

Table 6.

Climate change information disseminated is suitable for farmers’ needs.

Variables	Gender of participants		Total (%)	Significance level
Variables	Females (%)	Males (%)	Total (%)	Significance level
Agree	7.1	11.1	18.9	0.007
Disagree	57.8	44.4	51.1
Strongly disagree	35.1	44.4	30.0
n	28	62	90

AEOs revealed that they felt that the technologies prescribed by LDARD were not compatible with the resource levels of farmers; the majority could not afford agricultural inputs such as climate resilient seeds, environmentally friendly cultivators and fertilizers, more so in female-headed households.

Discussion

Types of farmers serviced by extension workers

Agriculture for most of these farmers is the primary source of income that supports their households, coupled with part-time or sometimes seasonal employment. This is similar to findings by Oni et al. (2012) who state that smallholder farming is the predominant agricultural enterprise in Limpopo, contributing immensely towards the province’s GDP. Several other authors showed similar trends on smallholder farmers across the sub-Saharan region (Afenyo, 2012; Kalungu et al., 2013; Schaffnit-Chatterjee, 2014: 1–28, 101). Emerging smallholder farmers accounted for 49% of the farmers serviced in the area, whereas commercial farmers accounted for the least serviced farmer enterprise.

Extension approaches

Nkonya (2009) stated that formal extension characterized by the Training and Visit (T&V) methods is still widely implemented within government-led either in its original form or modified in Sub-Saharan Africa. Baloyi (2010) also stated that formal extension, particularly T&V, was the most common form of extension service in Limpopo. Several authors have noted formal extension to be unsuitable in addressing needs of smallholder farmers, especially new challenges linked to climate adaptation and mitigation (Akinnagbe and Ajayi, 2010; Anandajayasekeram et al., 2008; Berthe, 2010; Davis, 2009). Yet, Ekenta et al. (2013) found formal extension through training and visits (67%) was one of the most effective extension information dissemination methods employed by extension agents in the Kogi State, Nigeria in disseminating organic agriculture practices, used as a strategy to mitigate the effects of climate change. Findings by Mandleni (2011) support that dissemination through formal extension positively and significantly affected awareness of climate change and adaptation by livestock farmers in Eastern Cape, South Africa. Oduniyi (2013) reported a similar trend in small-scale maize farmers in Mpumalanga, South Africa.

Zeleke and Aberra (2014) in Ethiopia established formal extension to have a positive statistical significance with the adoption of climate adaptation/mitigation strategies such as rainwater harvesting, manure application and tree planting. However, the same study revealed formal extension to have negative statistical significance in farmers adopting some climate adaptation/mitigation strategies such as the application of modern fertilizers and terrace construction. This is attributed to the failure of the current extension approach: its shortfall in sustaining the process of extension diffusion, the top-down approach of formal extension and lack of understanding of the role of extension in climate change adaptation, compounded by the inconsistent participation of the beneficiaries in Ethiopia’s extension services (Zeleke and Aberra, 2014).

Oduniyi (2013) found farmer-to farmer extension (92.4%) to be the extension service available to the farmers used to disseminate services and information. Furthermore, several authors have noted that F2F extension had a positive influence on the adoption of adaptive technologies in response to climate change (Deressa et al., 2010; Di Falco et al., 2011). Zeleke and Aberra (2014) add that F2F extension has the potential to inspire resource-poor farmers to teach other farmers to incorporate methods they have developed and found successful in mitigating climate change impacts.

However, Simpson and Burpee (2014: 3) argue that the perception of the F2F approach by many organizations in increasing the sustainability of their programmes requires a temporal interpretation of what is meant by sustainability. Within a given locality, at some point, the adoption potential of any new technology will become saturated. Lead farmers that are not connected with some lasting source of new information and training will only have limited opportunity to acquire new skills and information within the time frame of project-based initiatives, and cannot be viewed as a long-term solution to progressive and evolving extension needs, such as those associated with adapting to climate change.

Findings by Wettasinha et al. (2014) found dissemination impacts using FLE on rural livelihoods and food security generally improved crop diversity and agro-biodiversity which led to greater resilience to environmental hazards. For example, farmers in Zimbabwe adopted farming practices and strategies that had a positive environmental impact. FLE in Niger had a positive impact on livelihoods and a high significance in improving social and environmental benefits for farming communities. Karttunen et al. (2015) noted that FLE was an effective and successful method to disseminate information regarding climate—smart agriculture in Morogono, Tanzania. The success of FLE could be due to the extensive use of local resources, which are often low-cost and incorporate indigenous knowledge. The approach also allows farmers to take ownership of their learning experience and become innovators of technologies they chose to implement.

Gwary et al. (2015) stated that FFS educates Nigerian farmers on the environment, climate change and sustainable land and water use. Gwary et al. (2015) adds that the approach also promotes farmers’ awareness of the reduction of negative environmental impacts of unsustainable farming practices and the protection of the local environment. According to extension officers FFS approaches are difficult to disseminate due to limited climate change information and facilitation skills and training they have. In addition, there is no clear indigenous terminology for climate process and concepts, making it challenging to engage farmers on climate change in their indigenous language and not sounding too academic/technical in front of an illiterate audience.

Types and frequency of information disseminated to farmers

These findings are consistent with Afful et al. (2015) who found that public extension services provided similar information to 20 villages in Limpopo concerned with maize production as coping and adaptation strategies against climate variability. Several authors suggested similar climate change information is being disseminated to farmers in semi-arid environments (Cherotich et al., 2012; Churi et al., 2012; Elias et al., 2015). According to Mpandeli (2014), the rainfall distribution patterns in the Vhembe district vary from location to location; smallholder farmers in the district use seasonal climate forecasting to inform various coping and climate adaptation strategies. Climate forecasting informs a range of farming business decisions about changes in farming practices better suited for semi-arid conditions overwhelmed by climatic variability and poor rainfall distribution that make agricultural productivity tough. Githungo et al. (2009) corroborated that Kenyan farmers recognized seasonal forecasts to be the most valuable type of climate information, which gave early warning and anticipation of poor crop seasons. This result shows that farmers in the study area seek seasonal forecasts that are more localized, accurate and reliable than indigenous weather/climate forecasting methods that have become increasingly unreliable due to climate variability.

Manjula and Rengalakshmi (2015) noted that smallholder farmers in India, who rely on rain-fed agriculture, accessed reliable climate forecasts in conjunction with short and medium range weather forecasts to support adaptive risk reduction measures. Roudier et al. (2014) add that climate forecasts have been shown to have a positive impact in improving the resilience of African agriculture to climate shocks.

Types of communication

According to extension officers, face-to-face communication of agricultural extension services, especially climate change information, makes it easier to explain as it allowed AEOs to sense whether the farmers understood, allowed an opportunity for conversation with farmers and an opportunity to clarify any misunderstanding or queries immediately.

This is consistent with findings by several authors stating that several aspects of face-to-face communication are more salient and effective (Dryzek et al., 2011; Wolf and Moser, 2011). Dryzek et al. (2011) specifically argues that face-to-face communication is more personal. Secondly, non-verbal cues such as body language allow the communicator to gauge how information is received at that time and responses come accordingly; direct communication also allows dialogue to emerge, and finally it fosters trust between conversing individuals, which goes a long way towards engaging and convincing someone. However, Bello and Obinne (2012) argued that interpersonal channels of communication have the disadvantage of being costly in terms of staff requirements, time and extension service coverage in comparison with other forms of communication. In addition, the quality of interpersonal channels was perceived to be low because messages communicated through them become greatly distorted as they flow along interpersonal chains.

Findings by Donnelly et al. (2009) suggest that farmers are less likely to undertake adaptation methods or practices that require them to leave their land. Meinzen-Dick et al. (2011) stated that female farmers would attend workshops, demonstrations and training courses if they were held in their villages between certain periods of the day to accommodate household responsibilities.

This is consistent with findings by Baloyi (2010), who found that information days were one of the agricultural services provided by extension officers in Limpopo. However, AEOs stated that organizing information days is quite challenging when coordinating with other organizations and departments, as they often have their own constraints (staff, time and transport shortages).

Several authors have noted that cell phones as ICT were the most effective, popular and low-cost way to deliver agricultural information, especially on climate change to smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa (Asenso-Okyere and Mekonnen, 2012; Davis, 2008; Omotesho et al., 2012). In contrast, AEOs cited cell phone tariffs to be too expensive, especially during the day, which for them deters the use of voice calls. Furthermore, AEOs stated that short message services (SMSs) were not effective as the majority of smallholder farmers were illiterate and/or elderly and had difficulties in operating a cell phone.

Correct use of climate information by farmers

The incorrect use of climate information could be attributed to factors such as prolonged results from sustainable farming practices, as farmers would much rather use environmentally unsustainable agricultural inputs and practices that produce high yields in short time frames, than adopt sound agricultural practices that have slower results. This is in line with findings by Singh et al. (2015), who stated that farmers do not adopt practices such as incorporation of organic matter as they lack immediate results. The authors suggested that there is a need for suitable mechanisms and incentives that would motivate the adoption of climate—smart agriculture practices amongst farmers.

The use of traditional knowledge is supported by Christian (2014), who stated that indigenous people in African countries affected by adverse climatic conditions, for example prolonged drought (Kenya, Ethiopia and Somalia) and heavy floods (Nigeria), believe that ‘the gods are angry’ and/or pray to their gods to remedy their environmental misfortunes. However Christian (2014) states that farmers are not completely ignorant of the causes of climate change. The causes are regarded as man-made disasters (sickness, death and adverse climate variability) and are seen and understood to happen as a result of mankind’s bad behaviour. There are also farmers who understand climate change and its implications for their livelihoods, but cannot afford agricultural inputs such as climate resilient seeds, drip pipes for irrigation and environmentally friendly cultivators’ pesticides and herbicides (Afful et al., 2015).

Gender dynamics

The results report any differences in the use of climate information amongst male and female farmers, in areas they serviced. This is in line with findings by Adeola and Ayoade (2011), who found that the majority (66.7%) of extension agents agreed that the information needs of female farmers are somewhat different from those of men while 9.5% disagreed with the statement.

Silvestri and Schubert (2015) corroborate that men and women farmers in West and East Africa tend to pursue different livelihood portfolios, that is, what is grown and produced on the farm; women were less likely to grow high-value crops than men. Female farmers had a less diversified crop portfolio in contrast to what extension officers in the study area had reported.

Perception on climate information use

The traditional extension approach, especially characterized by Transfer of Technology, dispenses developed and tested agricultural products (technologies, inputs and knowledge) straight from science to the farmer. This widely used extension method prescribes farmers a passive role in their development, technologies are not developed with the end user in mind and are often not suitable for the farmer’s environmental and socio-economic situation (Akinnagbe and Ajayi, 2010; Akpalu, 2013; Gonsalves, 2005).

AEOs also indicated that the linear communication approach in public extension makes it very difficult for them to voice the views and needs of farmers; as they are seen as subordinates and mere technicians. This is unfortunate, as AEOs through their field experiences and perceptions could contribute to improving information flow and linkages between themselves, farmers and research, to produce solutions that would directly improve farmers’ adaptation strategies and food security. AEOs also stated that they have observed that the majority of their superiors do not hold the relevant qualifications in the field of agriculture extension or work experience in agricultural extension services at the grass roots level. This in the experience of extension officers meant supervisors and managers did not fully grasp the role of AEAS, which has led to the misalignment of programmes, projects and policies.

The agricultural extension policies have not yet found a way to integrate indigenous knowledge system (IKS) and cultural beliefs. Therefore, rural farmers, especially the elderly, are sceptical and less likely to adopt long-term climate adoption programmes and projects. Altieri and Koohafkan (2008) suggest that traditional/indigenous farming systems are recognized worldwide as an effective measure in successfully combating rural climate change. Bonye et al. (2012) state that farmer’s indigenous knowledge in extension service delivery is still by-passed; relevant support resources are not linked to or supportive of grass roots efforts. Anaeto et al. (2012) argue that though IKS integration in agricultural extension is a new paradigm, being aware of and harnessing it would have a positive impact on rural agricultural development through improving the relevance of information dissemination to farmers.

Conclusion

The findings indicate that formal (traditional) extension is still the most dominant approach used to diffuse agricultural information to the majority of smallholder farmers serviced in the study area. However, formal extension was integrated with participatory extension approaches such as farmer-to-farmer, farmer-led and farmer field extension. Literature suggests that there is no one extension method or approach that can address the challenges climate change presents to rural farming communities. Therefore, it important to integrate various approaches that better fit the varying extension needs of farmers.

Climate information regarding extreme weather occurrences, water management and climate forecasts were the types of climate information disseminated most by extension officers. However, farmers were more likely to request weather–seasonal types of climate forecasting as they were more likely to have an impact on day-to-day farming activities such as irrigation, pest spraying, sowing and harvesting. Extension officers primarily used personal communication to disseminate agricultural and climate information, which was unexpected as rural extension services in Africa are moving towards the ICT type of communication credited for increasing extension coverage and farmer contact.

Lastly, extension officers observed gender dynamics. Men and women used climate change information according to their farming profile: men for high value crops for market purposes and women for more diverse crop variation used for household food security and nutrition. Despite these factors, extension officers perceived government-led agricultural climate information to be unsuitable for smallholder farmers. They attributed this to the costly environmentally friendly agricultural inputs and climate resilient seeds, misaligned agricultural policies and blanket recommendations that are major hindrances to effectively delivering best-fit agricultural practices and climate resilient extension services.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by the National Research Foundation of South Africa through the Research Chair: Agronomy and Rural Development, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa.

ORCID iD

Obert Jiri

Author biographies

Zafezeka Mbali Zikhali is a Research Assistant and MSc candidate at the University of KwaZulu-Natal. Her areas of interest include, but not limited to, Agri-Food Systems Transformation, Smallholder Participation and Climate Change adaptation.

Paramu L Mafongoya is a Full Professor of Soil Science currently based at the University of KwaZulu Natal. He holds a PhD in Forestry and Natural Resources Management (Agroforestry) from the University of Florida. He is currently a South Africa National Research Foundation Research Chair in Agronomy and Rural Development. He is also a Fellow of the Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences. He has extensively published in various fields of soil science and agroforestry. He has over 200 refereed journal articles to date and has published 2 books. His current research interests are in integrated soil fertility management, integrated natural resource management, biofuels and renewable energy, sustainable livelihoods and food security, climate change adaptation and mitigation, indigenous knowledge systems and natural resource management.

Maxwell Mudhara is a Professor of Agricultural Economist of more than 20 years of experience. In addition to being an academic, he was the Director of the Farmer Support Group, a community development, outreach and research unit of the University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. He holds a PhD in Food and Resource Economics from the University of Florida, Gainesville, USA. His experience is in farming systems research and extension, participatory approaches, and economics of smallholder farming systems, impact assessment. Prof Mudhara has published a number of peer-reviewed papers in renowned journals, and a number of book chapters.

Obert Jiri is a Professor at the University of Zimbabwe. He holds a PhD in Crop Science from the University of KwaZulu Natal, South Africa. Dr Jiri has more than 20 years’ experience working with various government, private sector and institutions of higher education in the areas of climate change adaptation, indigenous knowledge systems, agricultural research, seed production, precision agriculture, geotechnology, education and integrated natural resources management. He has also conducted field surveys, working with communities on issues to do with land reform, redistribution, general agriculture and climate change adaptation. His current research interests are in investigating indigenous knowledge systems as they impact livelihoods in smallholder farming communities. He has published over 50 research papers on various issues including climate change perceptions and adaptation in these communities.

Blessing Mudaniso is an MSc student (Agronomy) in the Plant Production Sciences and Technologies Department at the University of Zimbabwe. Her research interests are in farming systems research with a particular interest in cereal performance in different agro-ecological regions. She is also an Innovation Hub intern at the University of Zimbabwe where she focusses on development of pesticides for Lepidopteran pests in cereal and horticultural crops.

References

Abdu-Raheem

Worth

(2011) Household food security in South Africa: Evaluating extension’s paradigms relative to the current food security and development goals. South African Journal of Agricultural Extension 39(2): 91–103.

Adeola

Ayoade

(2011) Extension agents’ perception of the information needs of women farmers in Oyo State, Nigeria. Global Journal of Human-Social Science Research 11(10): 33–36.

Afenyo

(2012) Making small scale farming work in sub-Saharan Africa. In: Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition ‘FSN Forum’. Rome: FAO.

Afful

Oluwatayo

Kyei

, et al. (2015) Contribution of public extension to food security of smallholder farmers in Limpopo Province, South Africa in an era of climate variability. Journal of Human Ecology 50(3): 205–212.

Akinnagbe

Ajayi

(2010) Challenges of farmer-led extension approaches in Nigeria. World Journal of Agricultural Sciences 6(4): 353–359.

Akpalu

(2013) Agriculture extension service delivery in a semi-arid rural area in South Africa: The case study of Thorndale in the Limpopo Province. African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development 13(4): 8034–8057.

Altieri

Koohafkan

(2008) Enduring Farms: Climate Change, Smallholders and Traditional Farming Communities, vol. 6. Penang, Malaysia: Third World Network (TWN).

Anaeto

Asiabaka

Nnadi

, et al. (2012) The role of extension officers and extension services in the development of agriculture in Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Research 1(6): 180–185.

Anandajayasekeram

Puskur

Workneh

, et al. (2008) Concepts and Practices in Agricultural Extension in Developing Countries: A Source Book. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), International Livestock Research Institute.

10.

Asenso-Okyere

Mekonnen

(2012) The importance of ICTs in the provision of information for improving agricultural productivity and rural incomes in Africa. African Human Development Report, UNDP Sponsored Research Series.

11.

Baloyi

(2010) An analysis of constraints facing smallholder farmers in the agribusiness value chain. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pretoria, South Africa.

12.

Bello

Obinne

CPO

(2012) Problems and prospects of agricultural information sources utilization by small scale farmers: A case from Nasarawa State of Nigeria. Journal of Communication 3(2): 91–98.

13.

Berman

Quinn

Paavola

(2012) The role of institutions in the transformation of coping capacity to sustainable adaptive capacity. Environmental Development 2: 86–100.

14.

Berthe

(2010) Extension and advisory services rural extension: Services for agricultural transformation, background technical paper. Available at: http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Events/DakAgri2015/Extension_and_Advisory_Services_Rural_Extension_Services_for_Agricultural_Transformation.pdf (accessed 16 June 2015).

15.

Birner

Davis

Pender

, et al. (2009) From best practice to best fit: A framework for designing and analysing pluralistic agricultural advisory services worldwide. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 15(4): 341–355.

16.

Bonye

Alfred

Jasaw

(2012) Promoting community-based extension agents as an alternative approach to formal agricultural extension service delivery in Northern Ghana. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development 2(1): 76.

17.

Cherotich

Saidu

OSENI

Bebe

(2012) Access to climate change information and support services by the vulnerable groups in semi-arid Kenya for adaptive capacity development. African Crop Science Journal 20(2): 169–180.

18.

Christian

(2014) The impact of climate change on African traditional religious practices. Journal of Earth Science and Climatic Change 5(7): 1–5.

19.

Christoplos

(2010) Mobilizing the Potential of Rural and Agricultural Extension. Rome: FAO.

20.

Churi

Mlozi

Tumbo

, et al. (2012) Understanding farmer’s information communication strategies for managing climate risks in rural semi-arid areas, Tanzania. International Journal of Information 2(11): 838–845.

21.

Codjoe

SNA

Owusu

Burkett

(2014) Perception, experience, and indigenous knowledge of climate change and variability: The case of Accra, a sub-Saharan African city. Regional Environmental Change 14(1): 369–383.

22.

Cohen

Sherman

Bastardi

, et al. (2007) Bridging the partisan divide: Self-affirmation reduces ideological closed-mindedness and inflexibility in negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 93(3): 415–430.

23.

Creswell

Klassen

Plano Clark

, et al. (2011) Best Practices for Mixed Methods Research in the Health Sciences. Bethesda: National Institutes of Health.

24.

Davis

(2008) Extension in sub-Saharan Africa: Overview and assessment of past and current models and future prospects. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education 15(3): 15–28.

25.

Davis

Babu

Blom

(2014) The Role of Extension and Advisory Services in Building Resilience of Smallholder Farmers. Building Resilience for Food and Nutrition Security 2020. Available at: http://www.ifpri.org/publication/building-resilience-smallholders-through-extension-and-advisory-services (accessed 26 April 2015).

26.

Davis

(2009) Agriculture and climate change: An agenda for negotiation in Copenhagen. In: The Important Role of Extension Systems. Washington, D.C: International Food Policy Research Institute, 16: 2.

27.

Deressa

Ringler

Hassan

(2010) Factors affecting the choices of coping strategies for climate extremes: The case of farmers in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia. IFPRI discussion paper no. 01032. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

28.

Di Falco

Veronesi

Yesuf

(2011) Does adaptation to climate change provide food security? A micro-perspective from Ethiopia. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 93(3): 829–846.

29.

Donnelly

Mercer

Dickson

, et al. (2009) Australia’s Farming Future Final Market Research Report: Understanding Behaviours, Attitudes and Preferences Relating to Climate Change. Sydney: Instinct and Reason.

30.

Dryzek

Norgaard

Schlosberg

(2011) The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

31.

Ekenta

Ayanlere

Afolabi

, et al. (2013) Effective extension information dissemination methods used in disseminating organic agricultural practices as mitigating strategy for climate change in Kogi State–Nigeria. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare 4(20): 189–195.

32.

Elias

Rango

Steele

, et al. (2015) Assessing climate change impacts on water availability of snowmelt-dominated basins of the Upper Rio Grande basin. Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 3: 525–546.

33.

Fallows

(2005) How Women and Men Use the Internet. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org (accessed 15 March 2016).

34.

Githungo

Kinuthia

Kizito

, et al. (2009) Effects of seasonal forecasts on farm decision making for small holder farming systems in semi-arid parts of Kenya. Available at: https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/38812625/title-effects-of-seasonal-forecasts-on-farm-decision-dew-point (accessed 17 January 2015).

35.

Gonsalves

(2005) Participatory Research and Development for Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management: Understanding Participatory Research and Development, vol. 1. CIP-UPWARDS, IDRC.

36.

Gwary

Muhammad

Mustapha

(2015) Review of farmer field schools approach to extension service delivery: Utilization and impact in Nigeria. World Journal of Agricultural Sciences 11(4): 229–238.

37.

Harrell

Bradley

(2009) Data Collection Methods: Semi-Structured Interviews and Focus Groups. Santa Monica: Rand National Defense Research Institute.

38.

Hellin

(2012) Agricultural extension, collective action and innovation systems: Lessons on network brokering from Peru and Mexico. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 18(2): 141–159.

39.

IFPRI (2002) Fighting Famine in Southern Africa: Steps Out of Crisis. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

40.

Jones

Garforth

(1997) The history, development, and future of agricultural extension. In: Swanson

Bentz

Sofranko

(eds) Improving Agricultural Extension: A Reference Manual. Rome, Italy: FAO, 3–12.

41.

Kahan

Braman

Gastil

, et al. (2007) Culture and identity-protective cognition: Explaining the white-male effect in risk perception. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 4(3): 465–505.

42.

Kalungu

Filho

Harris

(2013) Smallholder farmers’ perception of the impacts of climate change and variability on rain-fed agricultural practices in semi-arid and sub-humid regions of Kenya. Journal of Environment and Earth Science 3: 129–140.

43.

Karttunen

Rioux

Kitalyi

(2015) Workshop Summary Report: Evidence and Experience on Climate-Smart Agriculture in Tanzania. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4368e.pdf (accessed 31 August 2016).

44.

Kazbekov

Qureshi

(2011) Agricultural extension in central Asia: Existing strategies and future needs. IWMI working paper 145. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute.

45.

Latham

(2008) Quantitative research methods: Sampling: What is it? Available at: http://webpages.acs.ttu.edu/rlatham/Coursework/5377(Quant))/Sampling_Methodology_Paper.pdf (accessed 30 July 2015).

46.

Mandleni

(2011) Impact on climate change and adaptation on cattle and sheep farming in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. Doctoral Dissertation, University of South Africa, South Africa.

47.

Manjula

Rengalakshmi

(2015) Seasonal climate information for ensuring agricultural sustainability and food security of smallholder farmer. Available at: http://www.gdn.int/fullpaper/Session-18-Manjula.M%20and%20Rengalakshmi.R-Seasonal%20Climate%20Information.pdf (accessed 31 August 2016).

48.

Mbo’o-Tchouawou

Colverson

(2014) Increasing Access to Agricultural Extension and Advisory Services: How Effective Are New Approaches in Reaching Women Farmers in Rural Areas? Nairobi, Kenya: International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI).

49.

Meinzen-Dick

Quisumbing

Behrman

, et al. (2011) Engendering Agricultural Research, Development, and Extension. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. Available at: www.ifpri.org/publication/engendering-agricultural-research-development-and-extension (accessed 31 September 2015).

50.

Mpandeli

(2014) Managing climate risks using seasonal climate forecast information in Vhembe district in Limpopo province, South Africa. Journal of Sustainable Development 7(5): 68.

51.

Narayanasamy

(2009) Participatory Rural Appraisal: Principles, Methods and Application. India: SAGE.

52.

Nkonya

(2009) Current extension service models: What works and what does not work. In: PowerPoint presentation, IFPRI, UN Expert Group Meeting on ‘SLM and agricultural practices in Africa: Bridging the gap between research and farmers’, University of Gothenburg, Sweden, 16–17 April 2009.

53.

Oduniyi

(2013) Climate Change Awareness: A Case Study of Small Scale Maize Farmers in Mpumalanga Province, South Africa. Master of Science dissertation, University of South Africa. South Africa.

54.

Omotesho

Ogunlade

Muhammad

(2012) Information and communication technology training needs assessment of agricultural extension officers in Kwara State, Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Agriculture, Food and Environment 8(2): 6.

55.

Oni

Nesamvuni

Odhiambo

JJO

, et al. (2012) The Study of Agricultural Industry in the Limpopo Province (Executive Summary). The School of Agriculture, Rural Development and Forestry. University of Venda.

56.

Overlien

Aronsson

Hyden

(2005) The focus group interview as an in-depth method? Young women talking about sexuality. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8(4): 331–344.

57.

Preissing

Leeuwis

Hall

, et al. (2013) Facing the Challenges of Climate Change and Food Security: The Role of Research, Extension and Communication for Development. Rome: FAO.

58.

Roudier

Ducharne

Feyen

(2014) Climate change impacts on runoff in West Africa: A review. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 18: 2789–2801.

59.

Schaffnit-Chatterjee

(2014) Agricultural value chains in sub-Saharan Africa: From a development challenge to a business opportunity. A report prepared for Deutsche Bank. Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

60.

Silvestri and Schubert (2015) What climate adaptation strategies can both men and women farmers adapt for a more food secure future? Available at: https://ccafs.cgiar.org/blog/why-are-some-farmers-more-food-secure-others#.V7rmhFt97cs (accessed 22 July 2016).

61.

Simpson

Burpee

(2014) Adaptation under the ‘new normal’ of climate change: The future of agricultural extension and advisory services. Modernizing Extension and Advisory Services discussion paper. United States of America: United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

62.

Singh

Subash

Gangwar

, et al. (2015) Assessing economic impacts of climate change and adaptation in Indo-Gangetic Basin. Procedia Environmental Sciences 29: 229–230.

63.

Thornton

(2011) A framework on addressing climate change adaptation and vulnerabilities. In: Gonsalves

Mohan

(eds) Strengthening Resilience in Post-Disaster Situations: Stories, Experience and Lessons From South Asia. New Delhi: Academic Foundation and International Development Research Centre (IDRC).

64.

Veal

(2006) Research Methods for Leisure and Tourism, 3rd edn. London: Financial Times/Prentice Hall/Pearson Education.

65.

Wettasinha

Waters-Bayer

van Veldhuizen

, et al. (2014) Study on impacts of farmer-led research supported by civil society organizations. Working paper AAS-2014-40. Penang, Malaysia: CGIAR Research Program on Aquatic Agricultural Systems.

66.

Wolf

Moser

(2011) Individual understandings, perceptions, and engagement with climate change: Insights from in-depth studies across the world. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 2(4): 547–569.

67.

Zakaria

(2013) Introduction to agricultural extension: Extension models and approaches (PowerPoint presentation). Available at: http://www.academia.edu/6059496/Lecture_two_extension_model__approaches_By_Hudu_Zakaria (accessed 1 July 2015).

68.

Zeleke

Aberra

(2014) Determinants of the adoption of land management strategies against climate change in Northwest Ethiopia. Ethiopian Renaissance Journal of Social Sciences and the Humanities 1(1): 93–118.

69.

Zwane

(2012) Does extension have a role to play in rural development? South African Journal of Agricultural Extension 40(1): 6.