Human Ecology

, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 283–305 | Cite as

Modes of Communication and Effectiveness of Agroforestry Extension in Eastern India

  • Anthony Glendinning
  • Ajay Mahapatra
  • C. Paul Mitchell


Development of extension in agroforestry draws on the application of the innovation-diffusion process in agriculture. To be effective, agroforestry extension needs to fit the dynamics of the target farming system, the local socioeconomic and technological systems, and land use constraints. Failure of agroforestry extension has been blamed on inadequate and inappropriate methods, but there have been few studies to identify those factors that determine a farmer's awareness of, or attitude to, agroforestry. The present study focused on the modes of communication used in extension and how they affected adoption of agroforestry in a subsistence farming region of eastern India. The decision to adopt agroforestry was found to be determined by the farmers' attitude to agroforestry, which in turn was shaped by information received through farmer-to-farmer and farmer-to-extension contact. The mode of communication was important and, to be effective, needs to be customized for each target group.

agroforestry extension communication India adoption 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adegbehun, J. O., and Omijeh, J. E. (1993). Agroforestry diagnostic survey of some parts of Niger state of Nigeria. Agroforestry Systems 22: 1–15.Google Scholar
  2. Adhikari, S. R., and Patel, A. A. (1986). Socio-psychological correlates of technology utilization by Nepalese farmers. Research Journal (S.K.N. College of Agriculture, Jobner Gau) 11(2): 52–54.Google Scholar
  3. Alavalapati, J. R. R., Luckert, M. K., and Gill, D. S. (1995). Adoption of agroforestry practices: A case study from Andhrapradesh, India. Agroforestry Systems 32: 1–14.Google Scholar
  4. Barrow, E. G. C. (1991). Evaluating the effectiveness of participatory agroforestry extension programmes in a pastoral system based on existing traditional values. Agroforestry Systems 14: 1–21.Google Scholar
  5. Bentley, W. R. (1982). Forestry research, education, and extension in India. Paper presented for the Asia society, Calcutta.Google Scholar
  6. Bose, S. P. (1961). Characteristics of farmers who adopt agricultural practices in India villages. Rural Sociology 26(June): 138–145.Google Scholar
  7. Brokensha, D., Warren. D. M., and Werner, O. (1980). Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Development, University Press of America, Maryland.Google Scholar
  8. Burch, W. R. (1986). The uses of social science in agroforestry project design implementation and evaluation. Journal of Tree Science 5(1): 1–15.Google Scholar
  9. Castro, A.H. P. (1992). Social forestry:Across cultural analysis. In M.K. Wali (eds.), Ecosystem relationship. Vol. 1: Policy issues, SPB Academic Publishing, pp. 63–78.Google Scholar
  10. Chambers, R. (1983). Rural Development. Putting the Last First, Longman, London.Google Scholar
  11. Chambers, R., Pacey, A., and Thrupp, L. A. (1989). Farmers First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research, International Technical publication, London.Google Scholar
  12. De Vries, J. (1980). Extension or dialogue. Journal of Adult Education (Tanzania) 2(August).Google Scholar
  13. Evans, T. P. (1988). Designing agroforestry innovations to increase their adoptability: A case study from Panaguay. Journal of Rural Studies 4(1): 45–55.Google Scholar
  14. Falconer, J. (1987). Forestry extension—review of the key issues, Social Forestry Network Paper 4e, Overseas Development Institute, London.Google Scholar
  15. Falusi, A.O. (1974). Multivariate Probit: Analysis of selected factors influencing fertilizer adoption among farmers in West Nigeria. The Nigerian Journal of Economic and Social Study 16: 3–16.Google Scholar
  16. FAO (1986). Forestry extension organisation, FAO Forestry Paper 66, FAO, Rome, pp. 167.Google Scholar
  17. Foley, G., and Barnard, G. (1984). Farm and Community Forestry, Earthscan, IIED, London.Google Scholar
  18. Forest Survey of India [FSI] (1991). The State of India's Forests, FSI, Dehradun, India.Google Scholar
  19. Green, W. H. (1990). Econometric Analysis, MacMillan, New York.Google Scholar
  20. Hardcastle, P.D. (1987). Microplanning for social forestry:Adescription of the system designed for Karnatak social forestry project, India, Social Forestry Network Paper 4c, Overseas Department Institute, London.Google Scholar
  21. Hardt, L. T. (1981). Decision Making Roles in the Rural Household and the Adoption and Diffusion of an Improved Maize Variety in Northern Shaba Province, Zaire, Unpublished PhD Thesis, Iowa State University.Google Scholar
  22. Hocking, D., and Islam, K. (1995). Trees in Bangladesh paddy fields: Survival of trees planted in crop fields. Agroforestry Systems 31: 39–57.Google Scholar
  23. Hoskins, M.W. (1987). Agroforestry and the social milieu. In Steppler, H. A., and Nair, P. K. R. (eds.), Agroforestry a Decade of Development, ICRAF, Nairobi, pp. 192–203.Google Scholar
  24. Kerkhoff, P. (1990). Agroforestry in Africa. A Survey of Project Experience, Panos. London.Google Scholar
  25. Kivlin, J. E., Fliegel, F. C., Roy, P., and Sen, L. K. (1977). Innovation in Rural India, Bowling Green University Press, Ohio.Google Scholar
  26. Kramer, J. M. (1987). Sustainable resource management. Paper presented at the IIED conference on sustainable development, London.Google Scholar
  27. Lowdermilk, M. K. (1972). Diffusion of Dwarf Wheat Production Technology in Pakistan's Punjab, Unpublished PhD Thesis, Cornell University.Google Scholar
  28. Maddala, G. S. (ed.). (1983). Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics, Cambridge University Press., Cambridge.Google Scholar
  29. Mahapatra, A. K. (1997). Factors Influencing Adoption of Farm Level Tree Planting in Social Forestry in Orissa, India, PhD Thesis, University of Aberdeen, UK, 370 pp.Google Scholar
  30. Moulick, T. K., Harbouszky, J. P., and Rao, C. S. S. (1966). Predictive values of some actors of adoption of nitrogenous fertilizers by North India Farmers. Rural Sociology 31(4): 467–480.Google Scholar
  31. Nowak, P. J. (1987). The adoption of agricultural conservation technologies: Economic and diffusion explantions. Operation Research Group [ORG] (1991).Wood Balance Study in Orissa,ORG, Bhubneshwar, India.Google Scholar
  32. Pelinck, E., Manandhar, P. K., and Gecolea, R. H. (1982). Forestry extension and community development in Nepal. Unasylva 36(143): 2–12.Google Scholar
  33. Raintree, J. B., and Hoskins, M. W. (1990). Appropriate R&D support for forestry extension, ICRAF Print No. 65, ICRAF, Nairobi, 21 pp.Google Scholar
  34. Ratnarajah, A. D. R. (1981). Forestry extension programme in Sri Lanka. The Sri Lankan Forester 15(1): 17–20.Google Scholar
  35. Rocheleau, D. E. (1991). Participatory research in agroforestry: Learning from experience and expanding our repertoire. Agroforestry Systems 15: 111–137.Google Scholar
  36. Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of Innovations, The Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  37. Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations, 3rd edn., The Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  38. Rogers, E. M., and Shoemaker F. F. (1971). Communication of Innovations: A Cross-Cultural Approach, The Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  39. Scherr S., and Muller, E. U. (1991). Technology impact evaluation in agroforestry projects. Agroforestry Systems 11: 141–173.Google Scholar
  40. Scherr, S. J. (1992). The role of extension in agroforestry development evidence fromWestern Kenya.Google Scholar
  41. Shepherd, G. (1985). Social forestry in (1985): Lessons learnt and topics to be addressed, Social Forestry Network Paper 1a, Overseas Development Institute, London.Google Scholar
  42. Sim, D., and Hilmi, H. A. (1987). Forestry extension methods, FAO Forestry Paper 80, FAO Rome.Google Scholar
  43. Tschinkel, H. (1987). Tree planting by small farmers in upland watersheds. Experience in Central America. The International Tree Crops Journal 4: 249–268.Google Scholar
  44. Wilken, G. (1987). Integrating forest and small scale farm systems in middle America. Forest Ecology and Management 1: 223–234.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anthony Glendinning
    • 1
  • Ajay Mahapatra
    • 2
  • C. Paul Mitchell
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUnited Kingdom
  2. 2.Department of Agriculture and ForestryUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations