The results regarding farmers’ level of knowledge on soil conservation techniques
(SCT) and their related adoption behavior are presented in Table 5.8. Three-quarters
of the farmers said they knew at least one SCT, corroborating that they were aware of
the problem of soil erosion. When looking separately at different technologies,
knowledge diffusion varied widely. The farmers’ level of knowledge on terracing,
contour plowing and ditch techniques
24 has been spread mostly through social
networks, whereas other technologies have been diffused by more formal communication channels, such as mass media and external organizations. With the exception
of agroforestry related techniques, the government’s agricultural extension service as
well as non-governmental organizations (NGOs), appear to be of limited importance
as sources of information on SCT.
Table 5.9 shows adoption rates, defined as the share of households having a level
of knowledge of and using a given technology on at least one of their plots. Fiftythree percent of the sample farmers said they were currently practicing at least one
technique to reduce soil loss, with the digging of small ditches to channel run-off
water away from the plot being the most prominent (34 % of households). Most
other SCTs, such as the establishment of vegetative strips along the contour lines,
the use of cover crops or mulching to protect the soil against erosive rainfall, or the
building of terraces were hardly being practiced at all. The table also contains an
effectiveness score, which is based on adopters’ perceptions. From this, it is
apparent that those methods requiring a relatively high labor input took up a lesser
proportion of the cultivated land (these methods being terraces, vegetative contour
strips, agroforestry and cover crops), although they are perceived as effective in
terms of reducing soil erosion. Short-term and low extra-input technologies (contour plowing or ditches) were more attractive to farmers but were deemed to be less
effective.
Among the adoption constraints reported (i.e., the main reasons given by
respondents for not adopting a known technique), a lack of land was frequently
cited in the case of vegetative strips, cover crops and agroforestry, while a lack of
labor was identified by farmers as an important constraint on the building of
terraces and planting cover crops. Respondents emphasized a lack of access to
seedlings as a major reason for not adopting agroforestry and, with regard to their
low use of ditches, their ineffectiveness against erosion. The differentiated answers
given by the respondents showed that farmers’ perception of costs and benefits over
time differed significantly between SCT, as did their adoption decisions. Overall,
the cited adoption constraints show that farmers faced high opportunity costs when
setting aside land and labor resources for soil conservation purposes, preferring to
use them for the cultivation of highly profitable cash crops such as maize. This also
means that the soil conservation techniques in question were not economically
24 The ditch technique consists of channels oriented diagonally to the slope of the land, so that rain
water can be captured and channeled away from the field. This technique is used for soil
conservation rather than water conservation purposes, as the channels are rarely connected to
the paddy fields themselves.
204
C. Saint-Macary et al.
(SCT) and their related adoption behavior are presented in Table 5.8. Three-quarters
of the farmers said they knew at least one SCT, corroborating that they were aware of
the problem of soil erosion. When looking separately at different technologies,
knowledge diffusion varied widely. The farmers’ level of knowledge on terracing,
contour plowing and ditch techniques
24 has been spread mostly through social
networks, whereas other technologies have been diffused by more formal communication channels, such as mass media and external organizations. With the exception
of agroforestry related techniques, the government’s agricultural extension service as
well as non-governmental organizations (NGOs), appear to be of limited importance
as sources of information on SCT.
Table 5.9 shows adoption rates, defined as the share of households having a level
of knowledge of and using a given technology on at least one of their plots. Fiftythree percent of the sample farmers said they were currently practicing at least one
technique to reduce soil loss, with the digging of small ditches to channel run-off
water away from the plot being the most prominent (34 % of households). Most
other SCTs, such as the establishment of vegetative strips along the contour lines,
the use of cover crops or mulching to protect the soil against erosive rainfall, or the
building of terraces were hardly being practiced at all. The table also contains an
effectiveness score, which is based on adopters’ perceptions. From this, it is
apparent that those methods requiring a relatively high labor input took up a lesser
proportion of the cultivated land (these methods being terraces, vegetative contour
strips, agroforestry and cover crops), although they are perceived as effective in
terms of reducing soil erosion. Short-term and low extra-input technologies (contour plowing or ditches) were more attractive to farmers but were deemed to be less
effective.
Among the adoption constraints reported (i.e., the main reasons given by
respondents for not adopting a known technique), a lack of land was frequently
cited in the case of vegetative strips, cover crops and agroforestry, while a lack of
labor was identified by farmers as an important constraint on the building of
terraces and planting cover crops. Respondents emphasized a lack of access to
seedlings as a major reason for not adopting agroforestry and, with regard to their
low use of ditches, their ineffectiveness against erosion. The differentiated answers
given by the respondents showed that farmers’ perception of costs and benefits over
time differed significantly between SCT, as did their adoption decisions. Overall,
the cited adoption constraints show that farmers faced high opportunity costs when
setting aside land and labor resources for soil conservation purposes, preferring to
use them for the cultivation of highly profitable cash crops such as maize. This also
means that the soil conservation techniques in question were not economically
24 The ditch technique consists of channels oriented diagonally to the slope of the land, so that rain
water can be captured and channeled away from the field. This technique is used for soil
conservation rather than water conservation purposes, as the channels are rarely connected to
the paddy fields themselves.
204
C. Saint-Macary et al.