Factors affecting the adaptation of farmers to innovations according to extension workers: The case of Aegean Region

Yıl 2022, , 43 - 59, 30.03.2022

Murat Boyacı

https://doi.org/10.20289/zfdergi.891627

Cited By: 2

Öz

Objective: In this study, the adoption of innovations, which is the main performance indicator in extension organizations examined with the help of data collected from 966 extension workers in the Aegean Region. The main purpose of the study was to determine the effective factors in the adoption of innovations in agricultural extension.
Material and Methods: The research was data collected from public, private companies, extension workers working in farmers' organizations, and dealers by using a survey in eight provinces in the Aegean Region. In the interpretation of data, descriptive statistics such as percentages, and averages, and Kruskal Wallis, chi-square, T, reliability tests and factor, correlation, and logistic regression analyses were employed for interpret the data.
Results: An extension worker in the region averagely serves 1559 farmers. Although one-fourth of the extension workers in the region are women, the levels of benefiting of services by women farmers are low. The rate of extension activities in working hours (26.4%) and farmers' adoption rates of innovations/suggestions (56%) are low. Extension workers give 1.5 suggestions/innovations per year to farmers in the region. The adoption levels of innovations are high for fruits and vegetables production.
Conclusions: The age of extension workers, their occupational satisfaction, extension share in the working hours, and the number of days devoted to farmers' visits, the number of farmers reached, the farmers' education levels, attending in-service training, as information sources to utilize the market mechanisms, and giving the place for economic, social, and environmental dimensions besides technical increase the adoption rates of the farmers to innovations in the region.

Anahtar Kelimeler

adoption of innovations, Aegean Region, agricultural extension

Destekleyen Kurum

TUBİTAK

Proje Numarası

TUBITAK Program: 1001, Project No: 112O208

Teşekkür

Acknowledgment: The study was prepared by using the data of “A Research on Improving of Agricultural Innovation System: the case of Aegean Region” TUBITAK Program 1001, Project No 112O208

Yayımcılara göre çiftçilerin yenilikleri benimsemesini etkileyen faktörler: Ege Bölgesi örneği

Öz

Amaç: Çalışmada yayım örgütlerinde başlıca performans göstergesi olan yeniliklerin benimsenmesi Ege Bölgesindeki 966 yayımcıdan derlenen veriler yardımıyla incelenmiştir. Tarımsal yayımda yeniliklerin benimsenmesinde etkili faktörlerin belirlenmesi çalışmanın ana amacını oluşturmaktadır.
Materyal ve Yöntem: Araştırma verileri Ege Bölgesi’ndeki sekiz ildeki kamu, özel şirket, çiftçi örgütleri ve girdi bayilerinde çalışan yayımcılardan anket yoluyla toplanmıştır. Verilerin yorumlanmasında yüzdeler ve ortalamalar gibi tanımlayıcı istatistikler ve Kruskal Wallis, ki-kare, T, güvenilirlik testleri ve faktör, korelasyon, lojistik regresyon analizleri kullanılmıştır.
Araştırma Bulguları: Bölgede bir yayımcı ortalama olarak 1559 çiftçiye hizmet vermektedir. Bölgede yayımcıların dörtte biri kadın olmasına rağmen kadın çiftçilerin hizmetlerden yararlanma düzeyi düşüktür. Mesaide yayım etkinlikleri (%26,4) ve çiftçilerin yenilikleri/önerileri benimseme (%56) oranları düşüktür. Yayımcılar çiftçilere yılda 1,5 adet öneri/yenilik aktarmışlardır. Yeniliklerin benimsenme düzeyi meyve ve sebzelerde yüksektir.
Sonuç: Yayımcıların yaşı, mesleki memnuniyeti, yayımın mesaideki payı ve çiftçi ziyaretleri için ayırılan gün sayıları, ulaşılan çiftçilerin sayısı, çiftçilerin eğitim düzeyi, hizmet içi eğitim alınması, piyasa mekanizmalarının bilgi kaynağı olarak kullanımı, teknik kadar ekonomik, sosyal ve çevresel boyutlara yer verilmesi benimseme düzeyini arttırmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

yeniliklerin benimsemesi, Ege Bölgesi, tarımsal yayım

Proje Numarası

TUBITAK Program: 1001, Project No: 112O208

Kaynakça

• Arnon, I., 1989. Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer, Elsevier Applied Science, London, and New York, 684 pp.
• Axinn, G., 1988. Guide on Alternative Extension Approaches, FAO, Rome, Italy, 148 pp.
• Balit, S., 1993. Development support communication and agriculture, the road ahead. Development Communication Report, 80 (1): 1-4.
• Boyaci, M., 1996. Agricultural Extension in European Union Countries and Turkey, Ege University Agricultural Research and Extension Centre, Extension Series (3), Bornova, Izmir, Turkey, 21s.
• Boyaci, M., 2016. A Research on Improving of Agricultural Innovation System: case of Aegean Region” TUBITAK Program 1001, Project No: 112O208, 148 pp.
• Boyaci, M., 2020. Agricultural extension and innovative culture in the Aegean Region, Ege Universitesi Ziraat Fakultesi Dergisi, 57 (2): 191-208.
• Chambers, R., 1994. Challenging the Professions, Frontiers for Rural Development, Intermediate Technology Publications, 143 pp.
• Csaki, C., 1999. Agricultural higher education in transforming Central and Eastern Europe. Agricultural Economics ,21: 109-120.
• Engel, P., 1990. Knowledge management in agriculture, building upon diversity, knowledge in society. The International Journal of Knowledge Transfer, 3 (3): 28-35
• Expere, J.A., 1974. A comparative study of job performance under two approaches to Agricultural Extension Organization, Land Tenure Centre. Research Paper, 61: 62.
• Feder, G., A. Willett & W. Zijp, 1999. Agricultural Extension Generic Challenges and Some Ingredients for Solutions, The World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 2129, Washington DC., 32 pp.
• Misra, D.C., 1991. Extension training strategy for training extension personal for rainfed agriculture in India, Rainfed Extension Strategies for Rainfed Agriculture (Eds. C. Prasad & P. Das). Indian Society of Extension Education New-Delhi, India, 299-321.
• Roling, N., 1989. The Agricultural Research Technology Transfer Interface: A Knowledge System Perspective, ISNAR, Hague, Netherlands, 42 pp.
• Saidin, M. & I. Khairuddin, 1995. Research-extension approach: its impact on Malaysian cocoa smallholder’s technology utilization, Journal of Extension Systems, December, 2 (11): 1-12.
• Strauss, J., M. Barbosa, S. Teixaria, D. Thomas & R. Gomes, 1991. Role of Education and Extension in The Adoption of Technology: A Study of Upland Rice and Soybean Farmers in Central-West Brazil, Yale University Economic Growth Center, Paper (456), Connecticut, USA., 20 pp.
• Swanson, B. E., B. J. Farnel & R. Bahal, 1989. The Current Status of Extension Worldwide. Global Consultation on Agricultural Extension, (Ed. B. E. Swanson), FAO, Rome, Italy, 43-76.
• TOKB, 1987. TYUAP, Extension Guide, Chapter 1, Ankara, 28 pp.
• TUIK, 2019. Agriculture Statistics. (Web page: https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/bolgeselistatistik) (Date accessed: 12.1.2021).
• Van der Bor, M.J. Brydan. & A.M. Fuller, 1995. Rethinking higher agricultural education in a time of globalization and rural restructuring. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 2 (3): 29-40.
• Wagemans, M.C.H., 1990. Analysis the role of information in planning: the case of town and country planning. Knowledge in Society the International Journal of Knowledge Transfer, 3 (4): 72-90.
• Yilmaz, E. & B. Dilmac, 2011. An investigation of teacher’s values and job satisfaction. Elementary Education Online, 10 (1): 302-310. (Web page: http://ilkogretim-online.org.tr) (Date accessed: 07.11.2014).