Gendered Uptake of Sustainable Intensification Practices among Maize Commercializing Smallholder Farmers in Eastern Districts of Uganda

Siraj Ali Mayambala, P. Kibwika, Herbert Talwana, Frank Matsiko
{"title":"Gendered Uptake of Sustainable Intensification Practices among Maize Commercializing Smallholder Farmers in Eastern Districts of Uganda","authors":"Siraj Ali Mayambala, P. Kibwika, Herbert Talwana, Frank Matsiko","doi":"10.5539/jsd.v17n4p73","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Commercialization of food crops, such as maize can dynamically shift control over productive resources or accrued income from women to men. This can restrict women’s ability to access or buy productive inputs. However, scanty information is available on how changing gender roles and relations can affect smallholder farmers’ use of sustainable intensification practices. This study described how gender inequalities in access to resources and appropriation of gains affect the uptake of sustainable intensification (SI) practices among maize commercializing farmers in eastern Uganda. Qualitative Survey data collected from a random sub-sample of 72 (36 women and 36 men) maize farmers from 584 maize commercializing smallholder farmers survey participants, was subjected to thematic content analysis. It was intended to follow up four unique profiles of farmers; those who did not use SI practices, the ones who used only intensification (improve maize varieties and fertilizers) or sustainable practices (organic manure and maize-legume intercrop), and those who used joint, one or more sustainable intensification practices. Findings revealed all four profiles to be highly gendered. Only women did not use any SI practice, and only men used intensification practices due to gender roles, responsibilities, and tasks shaped by traditions that give men terminal control over productive assets and gained resources. Both men and women used sustainable and sustainable intensification practices because of the negotiation process and opportunities that gave women more rights over resources. Thus, social-cultural histories and values constrain married women from implementing innovations such as SI practices because these values restrict women’s authority over productive resources. It is recommended that for inclusive transformative interventions to be introduced successfully in rigid patriarchal contexts, it is vital to enhance the negotiation skills of women.","PeriodicalId":91562,"journal":{"name":"Journal of sustainable development","volume":"32 47","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of sustainable development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v17n4p73","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Commercialization of food crops, such as maize can dynamically shift control over productive resources or accrued income from women to men. This can restrict women’s ability to access or buy productive inputs. However, scanty information is available on how changing gender roles and relations can affect smallholder farmers’ use of sustainable intensification practices. This study described how gender inequalities in access to resources and appropriation of gains affect the uptake of sustainable intensification (SI) practices among maize commercializing farmers in eastern Uganda. Qualitative Survey data collected from a random sub-sample of 72 (36 women and 36 men) maize farmers from 584 maize commercializing smallholder farmers survey participants, was subjected to thematic content analysis. It was intended to follow up four unique profiles of farmers; those who did not use SI practices, the ones who used only intensification (improve maize varieties and fertilizers) or sustainable practices (organic manure and maize-legume intercrop), and those who used joint, one or more sustainable intensification practices. Findings revealed all four profiles to be highly gendered. Only women did not use any SI practice, and only men used intensification practices due to gender roles, responsibilities, and tasks shaped by traditions that give men terminal control over productive assets and gained resources. Both men and women used sustainable and sustainable intensification practices because of the negotiation process and opportunities that gave women more rights over resources. Thus, social-cultural histories and values constrain married women from implementing innovations such as SI practices because these values restrict women’s authority over productive resources. It is recommended that for inclusive transformative interventions to be introduced successfully in rigid patriarchal contexts, it is vital to enhance the negotiation skills of women.
乌干达东部地区玉米商业化小农对可持续集约化做法的性别接受情况
粮食作物(如玉米)的商业化会将生产资源或累积收入的控制权从妇女手中动态地转移到男子手中。这会限制妇女获得或购买生产性投入的能力。然而,有关性别角色和关系的变化如何影响小农使用可持续集约化做法的信息却很少。本研究描述了在获取资源和收益分配方面的性别不平等如何影响乌干达东部玉米商业化种植农户对可持续集约化(SI)做法的采用。从 584 名玉米商业化小农调查参与者中随机抽取了 72 名(36 名女性和 36 名男性)玉米种植者,对他们的定性调查数据进行了主题内容分析。其目的是对四种独特的农民进行跟踪调查:不使用可持续集约化做法的农民、只使用集约化做法(改良玉米品种和肥料)或可持续做法(有机肥料和玉米-豆类间作)的农民,以及联合使用一种或多种可持续集约化做法的农民。调查结果显示,所有四种做法都具有很强的性别特征。只有妇女没有采用任何可持续农业生产方式,只有男性采用了集约化生产方式,这是由于传统形成的性别角色、责任和任务使男性对生产性资产和获得的资源拥有最终控制权。男性和女性都使用可持续和可持续的集约化做法,因为谈判过程和机会赋予了女性对资源更多的权利。因此,社会文化历史和价值观限制了已婚妇女实施创新,如可持续强化做法,因为这些价值观限制了妇女对生产资源的权力。建议在僵化的父权制环境中成功引入包容性变革干预措施,至关重要的是提高妇女的谈判技能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信