Improving how farmers receive agricultural information in Kenya
Context
Agricultural productivity in Sub-Saharan Africa remains low. Adoption and use of locally appropriate agricultural technologies, such as the use of agricultural lime to address soil acidity, has the potential to improve yields. However, cost-effective delivery of relevant information to farmers and encouragement to use appropriate technologies remain key stumbling blocks.
KALRO (formerly the Kenyan Agriculture Research Institute) recommends that farmers use integrated soil fertility management techniques that are appropriate to local agro-climatic conditions. However, it was not clear which approaches would reach more farmers and change agricultural practices most efficiently.
In response to this concern, KALRO in Kakamega county collaborated with researchers at Innovations for Poverty Action to evaluate farmers’ willingness to pay for agricultural information and the effectiveness of two alternative extension approaches to spreading information about agricultural technologies. Specifically, the collaboration evaluated whether farmers’ knowledge, beliefs and choice of agricultural inputs are influenced through participation in demonstrations and discussions on farmer field days or by receiving agricultural messages on their mobile phones.
Evidence
The 3ie-supported evaluation in Kakamega county, conducted between July 2014 and March 2017, found that farmers valued locally relevant agricultural information. Those assigned to the areas where farmer field days were held had higher levels of awareness and changed reported beliefs about the profitability of using the KALRO-recommended chemical fertiliser. However, there was no increase in the purchase of that fertiliser.
For farmers who received advice from KALRO through short messages on mobile phones, there was no increase in knowledge or in the use of recommended inputs. However, the researchers pointed to limitations in the reliability and content of the short messages and recommended further fine-tuning of the short messaging intervention.
Evidence impacts
Type of impact: Change policies or programmes
Decision makers use findings from an evaluation or systematic review to adjust their programming to fix targeting, cash transfer amounts, training modules or other factors that inhibit the policy or programme’s ability to achieve its intended impacts.
This is one of 3ie’s seven types of evidence use. Impact types are based on what we find in the monitoring data for an evaluation or review. Due to the nature of evidence-informed decision-making and action, 3ie looks for verifiable contributions that our evidence makes, not attribution.
Read our complete evidence impact typology and verification approach here.
Close windowDisappointing findings on the effectiveness of farmer field days prompted KALRO to review their programming and include value-added farm products to stimulate farmer interest and participation. KALRO also collaborated with the researchers to review short messages containing locally appropriate agricultural information and partnered with a local telecommunications company to make mobile-based extension more interactive and reliable.
Type of impact: Inform the design of other programmes
Where findings from the evaluation or review inform the design of a programme(s) other than the one(s) evaluated.
This is one of 3ie’s seven types of evidence use. Impact types are based on what we find in the monitoring data for an evaluation or review. Due to the nature of evidence-informed decision-making and action, 3ie looks for verifiable contributions that our evidence makes, not attribution.
Read our complete evidence impact typology and verification approach here.
Close windowEvaluation findings, along with the findings from other evaluations of short message-based agricultural information dissemination, informed Precision Agriculture for Development, a US-based non-profit organisation founded in 2016 by a group of academics, including the 3ie research team members. Since then, Precision Agriculture for Development has worked in partnership with KALRO and other agencies to study short messaging-based agricultural extension in other contexts within and outside Kenya.
Type of impact: Improve the culture of evidence use
When decision makers or implementers demonstrate positive attitudinal changes towards evidence use or towards information the research team provides. Examples include strengthening monitoring and evaluation systems, increasing understanding of evidence and openness to using it, integrating these systems more firmly into programming or commissioning another evaluation or review.
This is one of 3ie’s seven types of evidence use. Impact types are based on what we find in the monitoring data for an evaluation or review. Due to the nature of evidence-informed decision-making and action, 3ie looks for verifiable contributions that our evidence makes, not attribution.
Read our complete evidence impact typology and verification approach here.
Close windowSuggested citation
International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie), 2020. Improving how farmers receive agricultural information in Kenya [online summary], Evidence Impact Summaries. New Delhi: 3ie.
Related
Case study: Phone-based technology for agricultural information delivery
This case study shares the other evaluations which contributed to the founding of Precision Agriculture for Development (now Precision Development).
Evidence impact summaries aim to demonstrate and encourage the use of evidence to inform programming and policymaking. These reflect the information available to 3ie at the time of posting. Since several factors influence policymaking, the summaries highlight contributions of evidence rather than endorsing a policy or decision or claiming that it can be attributed solely to evidence. If you have any suggestions or updates to improve this summary, please write to influence@3ieimpact.org
Last updated on 11th November 2020