Rhys Manners , Jim Hammond , David Renaud Umugabe , Milindi Sibomana , Marc Schut
{"title":"A farm typology development cycle: From empirical development through validation, to large-scale organisational deployment","authors":"Rhys Manners , Jim Hammond , David Renaud Umugabe , Milindi Sibomana , Marc Schut","doi":"10.1016/j.agsy.2024.104250","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>CONTEXT</h3><div>The publication of farm (or farmer) typologies has increased over recent years. The purpose of these studies is usually to differentiate groups of farmers so that they are “targeted” with specific agricultural innovations, or best-bet interventions can be “prioritised”. The degree to which such typologies actually influence development practice is however unclear, and little has been published on that topic.</div></div><div><h3>OBJECTIVE</h3><div>The paper aims to move narratives and practices around farm typologies from theoretical to applied and present a novel methodology for typology validation. We worked with a large-scale development organisation to develop a typology for their use, and report here on the process of enabling the organisation to make use of the typology. The lessons from this process are intended to inform the use of farm typologies in agricultural development work.</div></div><div><h3>METHODS</h3><div>A typology of farming households was derived from a household survey in Rwanda (previously published), in partnership with a large-scale agricultural development organisation. Responding to the organisation's requests, the researchers created a decision tree tool to rapidly assign households to types; conducted validation exercises to establish confidence in the typology and the decision tree (making adaptations as needed). Validation was with farmers and extensionists and included developing key word and pictorial representations of farm types which were compared against the empirical typology. The decision tree was tested and questions adapted to maximise accuracy. The organisation then used the tools for a period of two years. Finally, the researchers interviewed representatives of the organisation to find out how the tools had been used.</div></div><div><h3>RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS</h3><div>The typology validation exercises showed a high level of agreement between farmers and extensionists, and a moderate level of agreement between the empirical typology and the types defined by farmers and extensionists. There was a low level of agreement in the Western province of Rwanda, where the socio-economic situation was radically different to other areas, which had not been accounted for in the empirical typology definition. Establishing the correct questions in the decision tree tool proved important. The organisation reduced the number of farm types, and categorised over 350,000 households, with four use cases developed for the farm typologies: planning for the recruitment of clients (farming households are referred to as clients by the organisation), client needs assessment, intervention adoption rate assessment, and monitoring of farmers along the organisation's conception of their (farmers') journey to prosperity.</div></div><div><h3>SIGNIFICANCE</h3><div>This study provides lessons on what is required for the application of farm typologies by development organisations.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":7730,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural Systems","volume":"224 ","pages":"Article 104250"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Agricultural Systems","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X24004001","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
CONTEXT
The publication of farm (or farmer) typologies has increased over recent years. The purpose of these studies is usually to differentiate groups of farmers so that they are “targeted” with specific agricultural innovations, or best-bet interventions can be “prioritised”. The degree to which such typologies actually influence development practice is however unclear, and little has been published on that topic.
OBJECTIVE
The paper aims to move narratives and practices around farm typologies from theoretical to applied and present a novel methodology for typology validation. We worked with a large-scale development organisation to develop a typology for their use, and report here on the process of enabling the organisation to make use of the typology. The lessons from this process are intended to inform the use of farm typologies in agricultural development work.
METHODS
A typology of farming households was derived from a household survey in Rwanda (previously published), in partnership with a large-scale agricultural development organisation. Responding to the organisation's requests, the researchers created a decision tree tool to rapidly assign households to types; conducted validation exercises to establish confidence in the typology and the decision tree (making adaptations as needed). Validation was with farmers and extensionists and included developing key word and pictorial representations of farm types which were compared against the empirical typology. The decision tree was tested and questions adapted to maximise accuracy. The organisation then used the tools for a period of two years. Finally, the researchers interviewed representatives of the organisation to find out how the tools had been used.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
The typology validation exercises showed a high level of agreement between farmers and extensionists, and a moderate level of agreement between the empirical typology and the types defined by farmers and extensionists. There was a low level of agreement in the Western province of Rwanda, where the socio-economic situation was radically different to other areas, which had not been accounted for in the empirical typology definition. Establishing the correct questions in the decision tree tool proved important. The organisation reduced the number of farm types, and categorised over 350,000 households, with four use cases developed for the farm typologies: planning for the recruitment of clients (farming households are referred to as clients by the organisation), client needs assessment, intervention adoption rate assessment, and monitoring of farmers along the organisation's conception of their (farmers') journey to prosperity.
SIGNIFICANCE
This study provides lessons on what is required for the application of farm typologies by development organisations.
期刊介绍:
Agricultural Systems is an international journal that deals with interactions - among the components of agricultural systems, among hierarchical levels of agricultural systems, between agricultural and other land use systems, and between agricultural systems and their natural, social and economic environments.
The scope includes the development and application of systems analysis methodologies in the following areas:
Systems approaches in the sustainable intensification of agriculture; pathways for sustainable intensification; crop-livestock integration; farm-level resource allocation; quantification of benefits and trade-offs at farm to landscape levels; integrative, participatory and dynamic modelling approaches for qualitative and quantitative assessments of agricultural systems and decision making;
The interactions between agricultural and non-agricultural landscapes; the multiple services of agricultural systems; food security and the environment;
Global change and adaptation science; transformational adaptations as driven by changes in climate, policy, values and attitudes influencing the design of farming systems;
Development and application of farming systems design tools and methods for impact, scenario and case study analysis; managing the complexities of dynamic agricultural systems; innovation systems and multi stakeholder arrangements that support or promote change and (or) inform policy decisions.