Factor Affecting Agriculture

Copyright is owned by the Author of the thesis.
Permission is given for

a copy to be downloaded by an individual for the purpose of research and
private study only. The thesis may not be reproduced elsewhere without
the permission of the Author.
Factors Affecting Cassava Adoption
in Southern Province of Zambia:
A Case Study of Mazabuka District
Tionenji Phiri
2011
Factors Affecting Cassava Adoption
in Southern Province of Zambia:
A Case Study of Mazabuka District
A thesis prepared in partial fulfilment of the requirements

for the degree of Master of Applied Science in Agri-Commerce
at Massey University, New Zealand
Tionenji Phiri
2011
Abstract
Southern Province of Zambia is a drought prone area and the main crop that is grown
is maize which requires a high amount of rainfall. As a result maize does not do well
in the area and there are frequent food shortages. The Government and Non-
Governmental Organisations (NGOs) have been promoting cassava technology which
is drought tolerant to improve the food security in the area. However, the adoption of
cassava technologies has been low. The findings of this study will inform the
development of more effective strategies to improve food security in southern
province of Zambia and it has done this by exploring the cassava promotion
programme.
A single case study was used to investigate the factors that affect cassava adoption in
Mazabuka district. Purposive and snowball sampling methods were used to select
participants for interviews and observations. 40 farmers who included opinion leaders
and 6 key informants were interviewed. The data was analysed using qualitative data
methods.
The results of the study indicated that although a small number of farmers continue to
grow cassava, the cassava promotion programme was a flawed programme because
cassava did not meet the needs of the majority of the farmers. There was a mix of
complex and interrelated factors that affected the adoption of cassava. These included
internal and external factors to the farm and farm household and those related
specifically to the characteristics of cassava relative to the farmers’ existing crop of
maize. Cassava is a substitute crop to maize.
The result of the study indicated that the farmers’ adoption decision was based on the
fact that they wanted a crop that would not only meet their food needs but also
income. Cassava is a substitute crop and the farmers compared it with maize, an
existing crop, which provided them with both food and income. Processing facilities
and a market supported by government policy existed for maize and not for cassava.
Land tenure was the internal factor, but not as a result of the length of time the lease
i
was held, but because of the conditions imposed on the leasers in terms of crops they
were able to grow.
The most important factors were external factors and these included government
policy and an aspect of extension service delivery. A competitive government policy
that supported processing and marketing facilities for maize, undermined cassava, for
which there was no processing facilities and only a small local market. Lack of
training and knowledge amongst the local government agricultural extension
personnel as to how to grow and process cassava impacted also on farmers’
knowledge and hence adoption of cassava. Although the inputs for growing cassava
were provided for free, they were supplied at the wrong time and this impacted also
on farmers’ willingness to grow the crop.
The research highlights the importance of using bottom-up and not top down
approaches in food security programmes. The results suggest that it is important for
food security policy and development interventions to understand the needs of farmers
in terms of food, income and livelihoods.
ii
Acknowledgements
Firstly, I would like to thank God who guided and protected me during my study and
stay in New Zealand. Even when things were hard and difficult, he was with me.
I would like to thank the New Zealand Government for offering me the scholarship to
further my studies at Massey University. Many thanks also go to the International
Student Support office, especially Sylvia and Olive for their support during my study.
I would like to thank my major supervisor Ms Janet Reid for her valuable advice,
insight and guidance throughout the research work. I am again thankful to my second
supervisor, Dr. David Gray for his valuable guidance, constructive comments and
support throughout my research work. Both have worked hard to keep me on the right
track and complete my study.
I am also grateful to the lecturers and staff of the Institute of Natural Resources and
the Institute of Animal Food and Nutrition for their support. I would also like to thank
my friends and course mates for their support during my study and stay in New
Zealand. Special thanks go to Mr Bornwell Mupeyo who informed me about the
scholarship and encouraged me to apply for it.
My deepest thanks also go to all my family particularly my father Mr Lazarus Phiri

my brothers, Kabvinira, Raphael, Shadreck, Justin and my sister Falesi for being the
pillar for my academic progress. Sincere thanks go to the farmers who volunteered to
be interviewed. Without sacrificing their valuable time to answer the questions, this
study would not have been possible. I am grateful to the Ministry of Agricultural and
Cooperatives in Mazabuka district, Plan Zambia and PAM for their assistance and
guidance during my data collection.
Lastly, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my husband, Ishmael, for his
love, care and patience. Ishmael, you were my pillar of strength and your support and
encouragement gave me a reason to look towards my goals. For these, I cannot thank
you enough.
iii
iv
Dedication
This thesis is dedicated to Ishmael and the boys; Luundu and Nduba for the support
and patience during the time I was studying and working on the thesis. I dedicate the
thesis to my Dad, brothers and sister for their continued support and encouragement
the time I was far away from home, without forgetting my late mother who made me
realise the value of education at an early age.
v

vi
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................... 1
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................... iii
Dedication ...................................................................................................................... v
Table of contents ..........................................................................................................vii
List of tables ................................................................................................................... x
List of figures ................................................................................................................xi
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ...........................................................................xii
List of Appendices ..................................................................................................... xiii
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION.................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background .......................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Problem statement ................................................................................................ 7
1.3 Research Question ............................................................................................... 7
1.4 Objectives ............................................................................................................ 7
1.5 Thesis structure .................................................................................................... 8
Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW......................................................................... 9
2.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 9
2.1 Food security strategies........................................................................................ 9
2.2 Role of agriculture extension in food security ................................................... 11
2.3 Types of technologies associated with food security ......................................... 11
2.4 Technology adoption and food security ............................................................. 12
2.5 Technology adoption ......................................................................................... 13
2.6 Factors affecting adoption.................................................................................. 19
2.6.1 The Characteristics of a technology ............................................................ 21
2.6.2 Internal factors ............................................................................................ 24
2.6.3 External factors ........................................................................................... 33
2.7 Summary/Conclusion ......................................................................................... 47
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ..................................................... 48
3.1 Research Strategy............................................................................................... 48
3.2 Case study design ............................................................................................... 49
3.3 Case Selection .................................................................................................... 50
3.4 Sampling ........................................................................................................... 50
3.5 Data collection .................................................................................................. 52
vii
3.6 Data analysis ..................................................................................................... 53
3.7 Ethical considerations ....................................................................................... 56
3.8 Summary ........................................................................................................... 56
CHAPTER 4: CASE DESCRIPTION ..................................................................... 58
4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 58
4.2 Climate ............................................................................................................... 59
4.3 Ethnicity/poverty/literacy .................................................................................. 59
4.4 Livelihoods ........................................................................................................ 59
4.5 Infrastructure ...................................................................................................... 60
4.6 Non-Governmental Organisations in Mazabuka district ................................... 64
4.7 Government cassava program in Mazabuka ...................................................... 64
4.8 History of Maize ................................................................................................ 65
4.8.1 Uses for maize............................................................................................. 68
4.9 History of Cassava ............................................................................................. 68
4.9.1 Policies affecting Cassava........................................................................... 69
4.9.2 Uses of cassava ........................................................................................... 70
4.9.3 Storage of cassava ....................................................................................... 72
4.10 Seasonal Calendar ........................................................................................... 73
4.11 Comparing maize and cassava ......................................................................... 74
4.12 Summary .......................................................................................................... 75
CHAPTER 5: FACTORS AFFECTING CASSAVA ADOPTION ........................ 76
5.1 Over view of adoption ....................................................................................... 76
5.2 Non- adopters of cassava ................................................................................... 77
5.2.1 Characteristics of the cassava technology................................................... 77
5.2.2 Internal factors ............................................................................................ 79
5.2.3 External factors ........................................................................................... 80
5.3 Adopters of Cassava technology ........................................................................ 85
5.3.1 Characteristics of the technology ................................................................ 85
5.3.2 Internal factors ........................................................................................... 87
5.3.4 External factors .......................................................................................... 88
5.4 Summary ............................................................................................................ 89
viii
CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION ................................................................................... 91
6.1 Classification of the case ................................................................................... 91
6.2 Agriculture extension, food security programmes and food security
strategies ........................................................................................................... 95
6.3 Dual role of food crops ..................................................................................... 95
6.4 Appropriateness of the cassava technology ....................................................... 96
6.5 Over view of adoption ...................................................................................... 97
6.6 Adoption process ............................................................................................... 98
6.7 Factors affecting adoption................................................................................. 99
6.7.1 Characteristics of the cassava technology.................................................. 99
6.7.2 Internal and external factors.......................................................................... 103
6.7.2.1 Internal factors ...................................................................................... 104
6.7.2.2 External factors ..................................................................................... 106
6.8 Summary ......................................................................................................... 111
CHAPTER 7: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ............................................... 113
7.1 Main research findings ................................................................................... 113
7.2 Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 114
7.3 Policy Implications .......................................................................................... 116
7.4 Evaluation of the research methodology........................................................ 117
7.4 Further Research ............................................................................................ 119
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 120
ix
List of Tables
Table 3.1 Conditions for selecting appropriate research strategy. ............................. 48
Table 3.2 Unordered response to the open ended question. What are the
reasons why you do not grow cassava? ..................................................... 55
Table 3.3 Categorisation of responses to the open ended question. What
are the reasons why you do not grow cassava? .......................................... 55
Table 4.1 Cassava Varieties ....................................................................................... 69
Table 4.2 Seasonal calendar for maize ....................................................................... 73
Table 4.3 Seasonal calendar of cassava ..................................................................... 74
Table 6.1 Farmer and farm characteristics ................................................................. 92

Table 6.2 District characteristics ................................................................................ 93
Table 6.3 Characteristics of maize and cassava ......................................................... 94
Table 7.1 Factors influencing the adoption of cassava technology. ........................ 114
x
List of Figures
Figure 1.2 Zambia’s Agro Ecological Zones ............................................................. 3
Figure 2.1 Rogers adoption/ innovation curve ......................................................... 16
Figure 3.1 The data analysis Spiral (Dey, 1993:53; Creswell, 1998:143) ............... 54
Figure 4.1 Map of southern province of Zambia showing the study area................ 58
Figure 4. 2 Fresh cassava roots and peeling .............................................................. 61
Figure 4.3 Cassava being washed and cleaned ........................................................ 61
Figure 4.4 Cassava soaked in a dish......................................................................... 62
Figure 4.5 Cassava being grated .............................................................................. 62
Figure 4.6 Cassava being dried on a reed mat ......................................................... 63
Figure 4.7 A man pounding cassava ........................................................................ 63
Figure 4.8 Cassava field in Mazabuka ..................................................................... 69
Figure 4.9 Cassava leaves ........................................................................................ 70
Figure 4.10 Fresh cassava tubers. .............................................................................. 71
Figure 4.11 Cassava chips .......................................................................................... 71
Figure 4.12 Packaged cassava meal ........................................................................... 72
xi
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
ACF Agriculture Consultative Forum
CSO Central Statistics Office
DFID Department for International Development
DMEWU Database Management and Early Warning Unit
FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation
FRA Food Reserve Agency
FoDis Food Crop Diversification Support Project
GDP Gross Domestic Product
JAICAF Japan Association for International Collaboration of Agriculture and
Forestry
MACO Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives
MAFF Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries
MCB Maize Control Board
MOFED Ministry of Finance and Economic Development
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
RTIP Root and Tuber Improvement Program
PAM Program Against Malnutrition
SAP Structural Adjustment Program
WTO World Trade Organisation
xii
List of Appendices
Appendix 1 Interview Guide ...................................................................................... 141
Appendix 2 Ethics Approval Letter ........................................................................... 143
xiii
xiv
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Zambia is a landlocked country occupying a near central position on the southern
African subcontinent and it covers an area of 752,620 square kilometres, which is
approximately 2.5% of the continent’s total area. It shares borders with eight
countries: Angola, Botswana, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Malawi,
Mozambique, Namibia, Tanzania and Zimbabwe. It is administratively divided into
nine provinces: Central, Copperbelt, Eastern, Lusaka, Western, Luapula, Northern,
North Western and Southern provinces (Figure 1.1). This research project was
undertaken in the southern province of Zambia.
Figure 1.1 Map of Zambia showing the provinces, the capital and the study area
Source: Maps of Zambia
Zambia has a tropical climate and it is situated at a relatively high altitude across most
parts of the country (between 900 and 1,500 m above sea level). This permits the
production of temperate crops and exotic breeds of livestock. The 7.5 million hectares
which comprises the country of Zambia, 4.2 million (58%) are classified as medium
1
to high potential for agricultural production and 12% is suitable for arable production
although only an estimated 14% of this is currently cultivated (MAFF, 2000a).
Zambia’s agriculture potential remains largely unexploited (Kambikambi, 2004).
Zambia also has abundant groundwater resources in the Congo/Zaire and Zambezi
river basins. The combined irrigation potential for these areas is 523,000ha, of which
only 46,400ha (9%) is currently being used, mostly by commercial farmers cultivating
sugar, wheat and plantation crops (Kambikambi, 2004). The majority of agricultural
production remains rain-fed and therefore production varies according to variations in
rainfall. Agricultural is one of the main contributors to the country’s Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) and in 2007 it was estimated that it contributed 13 per-cent of GDP
(from the primary sector) and 9 per cent of GDP from (the secondary sector) (CSO,
2008). Although Zambia has a relatively large urban population, approximately 45%
of the total population (4.6 million people) are poor people living in rural areas who
are dependent on agriculture (CSO, 2000).
Zambian agriculture, as defined by the Ministry of Agriculture Food and Fisheries,

has three broad categories of farmers, small-scale (or subsistence) farmers, medium
(or emergent) farmers, and large-scale or commercial farmers. Small-scale farmers are
generally subsistence producers of staple foods, with an occasional marketable
surplus. These farmers will be the focus of this research. Medium-scale farmers
produce maize and a few other cash crops for the market. Large-scale farmers produce
various crops for local and export markets. According to the Ministry of Agriculture
Food and Fisheries (2000a), from the estimated 600, 000 farmers in Zambia, 76% are
small-scale farmers. Their farm holdings are less than five hectares. Medium-scale
farmers account for 20% of these farmers and they focus on food and cash crop
farming. Their holdings range from 5 to 20 hectares. Commercial farmers make up
the remaining 4% of the farming population and their focus is on cash crops.
Commercial farmers operate farms that are larger than 20 hectares. It has been
observed that the number of households in the small-scale category has been
increasing in recent years, whilst the numbers of medium and large-scale farmers
have remained more or less the same (Hantuba, 2002). Increased unemployment in
Zambia, which is at 50% (The World Fact Book, 2000 est.), has led people into
agriculture as small-scale farmers.
2
The farming systems in Zambia are generally influenced by the physical and climatic
characteristics of the three Agro Ecological Regions or Zones which divide the
country (Figure 1.2). Region I, where this research is located, covers the southern and
eastern river valleys and it receives an average annual rainfall of less than 700 mm per
annum (FAO, 1978–81). It is the driest region and the one most prone to drought with
limitations in terms of crop production. Regions IIa and IIb, the central and western
plateaux, receive between 800 – 1000 mm of rain per annum. Region III, the north
and north western plateaux receives between 1000 – 1500 mm of rain per annum.
Figure 1.2 Zambia’s Agro Ecological Zones

Data source: FEWS NET Dept. of Meteorology
There are two main staple food crops grown in these regions. These are maize and
cassava, which both arrived from the Americas with Portuguese traders, during the
17th century (Jones, 1959; Miracle, 1966). Since their arrival, these two crops have
revolutionised Zambian agriculture. Whilst maize has become the principal staple
food in regions I and II, cassava is now the mainstay of diets in region III.
3
For the country as a whole, maize is the most important staple. It is also the main
staple food in urban areas which comprise nearly half of the population. The Zambian
Government (between 1964 and 1991), in its effort to ensure food security, started
promoting increased crop production of maize, by supporting high producer prices
(Howard & Mungoma, 1996). They introduced uniform prices for inputs such as
fertiliser, seed and agriculture chemicals and uniform producer prices. At their peak,
in the late 1980s, maize subsidies amounted to 17% of total government spending
(Howard & Mungoma, 1996). The production of maize was encouraged, even in areas
that were not suitable for maize production.
After 1991, there was a change in agriculture policy and agricultural production and
marketing was liberalised (Seshamani, 1998). Subsidies on maize were removed, in
addition to controls on the prices of inputs and other crops. Farmers were encouraged
to grow crops that were ecologically adapted to their respective regions (high rainfall,
medium rainfall and low rainfall regions) (Chizuni, 1994). Following the withdrawal
of these substantial support programmes, maize production has gradually declined,
whilst the production of cassava, groundnuts, cotton, tobacco and horticultural
products has expanded significantly (Jayne, Govereh, Mwanaumo, Nyoro, &
Chapoto, 2002). Amongst staple foods, cassava output has grown most rapidly
(Govereh, 2007). At the present time, maize supplies about 60% of the national
calorie consumption, with supplying a further 15% (FAO, 2002).
The increase in cassava output has occurred because of the interest that the
government has been showing in it as a food security crop. In 1979, it established the
first root crop research and support programme, the ‘Root and Tuber Improvement
Program’ (RTIP). This resulted in the release of a great many new, highly productive,
early maturing cassava varieties. NGOs, concerned with household food security,
have also contributed to supporting the increase in cassava production amongst
vulnerable households, after realising the potential of the new varieties to improve
food security, in drought prone areas. In the late 1990s, they began to distribute
cassava cuttings in food security packs, as part of drought mitigation in the central
and southern province (Chitundu, Droppelmann & Haggblade, 2006).
4
Around the same time, the private sector began to develop commercial cassava-based
products, on a small scale (Chitundu, Droppelmann, & Haggblade, 2006). Several
local livestock farmers and feed companies began experimenting with cassava-based
feed rations. A few local bakeries and catering services began developing cassava-
based biscuits, nshima and composite-flour fritters, whilst several West African
immigrants have worked to develop local gari production (Chitundu, Droppelmann &
Haggblade, 2006). Zambia’s largest brewery, together with a newly established food
processor, has been exploring the prospects for cassava-based malt beer, in addition to
cassava-based sweeteners for soft drinks, juices and prepared foods. However, the
development of cassava-based products was not implemented in the southern
province, where this study is located, since there was little production of cassava.
In the continued effort to promote cassava, a cassava task force was formed in 2005
(Simwambana, 2005) which was comprised of the ‘Agriculture Consultative Forum’
(ACF), an association promoting information exchange and policy dialogue amongst
farm groups, agribusinesses and the government. The other members are stakeholders
from private and public sectors. The main objective of ACF is to realise the
commercial potential of cassava and to consolidate its contribution to household food
security.
Cassava varieties have been spreading rapidly in northern Zambia (region III),
through farmer to farmer distribution of planting material (MAFF, 2000b). Outside
the north, cassava production has grown most rapidly in the eastern province. In the
southern province (region I), apart from small pockets of growth, cassava remains a
minor crop (Barratt et al., 2006). Maize is the primary source of food in addition to
being a source of income for most rural households in the southern province (Murray
& Mwengwe, 2005). As a crop, maize is particularly vulnerable to drought and since
the southern province has erratic and low rainfall, it has had a severe impact on maize
production in that area (Murray & Mwengwe, 2005). In addition to the unfavourable
climate, the country underwent a structural adjustment programme in 1992, which
resulted in the withdrawal of government support to producers of maize (Seshamani,
1998). The state marketing boards and cooperatives were replaced with private traders
and a free market. As a result, farmers had to struggle to secure inputs for maize and
this led to a reduction in yields.
5
During the late 1990s, people protested against the withdrawal of government support
for maize production and marketing. In response, the government went back to pan-
territorial pricing. To date, the support for maize, in terms of price and fertiliser
subsidies is still there throughout the country, including the southern province:
although the amount of support has been reduced.
There have also been economic changes in the southern province that have had an
impact on households key assets, such as livestock (Lungu, 2003). In addition there
have been high cattle mortalities, due to tick-borne diseases and corridor disease and
this has left many families in the southern province without draft animals and
therefore, they are unable to cultivate adequate areas of land. As a consequence of
these environmental and economic shocks, the southern province, which was
historically the source of a great deal of the country’s agricultural produce, has
become characterised by chronic food insecurity (Murray & Mwengwe, 2005). The
province now depends on food aid during some parts of the year.
Cassava is being promoted in the southern province because, it could potentially play
a major role in food security (Prudencio & Al-Hassan, 1994). It can bridge the food
gap during the ‘hungry season’. In Zambia this period is usually in December,
January and February, before the maize harvest. During this time, maize prices are at
their peak, incomes are low, and hunger is most acute (M. Chitundu et al., 2006).
Cassava can also be used as a food reserve on which to fall back on, in the case of
adverse weather conditions or pest infestations (Prudencio & Al-Hassan, 1994) since
it is less sensitive than most crops to environmental changes (IITA, 1990b). Even in
sufficient rainfall years, when maize yields are highest, cassava production, per
hectare, exceeds that of smallholder maize by about 20% for fertilised maize hybrids
and by 100% compared to unfertilised local maize varieties (Barratt et al., 2006).
Cassava also produces more calories per unit of land and per unit of labour, than does
maize (Chitundu et al., 2006). Whilst cultivation of other crops, such as hybrid maize,
requires the purchase of new seeds and inorganic fertiliser each season, cassava
farmers require neither. They simply replant cuttings from their existing fields.
Therefore cassava production, it is argued, is accessible to even the very poorest
families (Chitundu et al., 2006).
6
Despite the benefits associated with cassava, the majority of farmers in the southern
province have not adopted it. According to CSO (2003), 95.5% of the farmers still
grow maize and only 9% have incorporated cassava into their farming systems. There
is little information known about why farmers have not adopted cassava.
1.2 Problem statement
Maize is the predominant crop for small-scale farmers in the southern province of
Zambia. However, maize needs adequate rainfall and a high level of inputs (fertiliser,
seeds, and insecticides). The southern province has a low rainfall and it is subject to
regular droughts. As a result, maize does not grow well in this area and this has
created food security problems in the southern province.
In order to overcome this food security problem, the government together with several
NGOs have put in place various policies to promote cassava, as an alternative crop.
Cassava is being promoted as a food security crop, because it is a famine crop: or last
resort crop. It is high yielding and it has an ability to tolerate highly unfavourable
environmental conditions. The aim of this research, therefore, is to inform the
development of more effective strategies for improving cassava technology adoption
and food security, in the southern province of Zambia.
1.3 Research Question
How can the adoption of cassava technology be improved in order to assist farmers
improve their food security in the southern province of Zambia.
1.4 Objectives
1. To identify and describe factors that influence the adoption and non-adoption
of cassava technology, by farmers in the southern province of Zambia and the
reasons why these factors are influential.
7
1.5 Thesis structure
This research identifies and describes the factors that affect cassava adoption in
Mazabuka district. The thesis is organized into seven chapters. It begins with the
introduction, which includes a statement of the problem, the research question and the
objectives. The second chapter reviews the literature that deals with past studies and
information which are pertinent to the study. The third chapter explains the research
methodology, including sampling techniques, methods of data collection and tools for
data analysis. The fourth chapter provides a description of the study area and in the
fifth chapter the main findings of the study are outlined. In the sixth chapter, the
research results are compared and contrasted with the reviewed literature and the key
findings relevant to the research question, are discussed. Finally, the conclusions and
discussion on possibilities for further research are provided in Chapter Seven.
8
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Introduction
The purpose of this research is to inform the development of more effective strategies
for improving cassava technology adoption and food security, in the southern
province of Zambia. The literature relevant to this study will be reviewed in this
chapter. Firstly, food security strategies, the role of extension agents in food security
and the different types of technologies associated with food security will be reviewed.
This is followed by a review on the importance of technology adoption, in relation to
food security. Subsequent sections will define the term ‘technology’ and examine how
technologies are classified in addition to an examination of the adoption decision
process. Finally, this chapter reviews the factors that affect adoption; the
characteristics of the technology; internal factors, such as farm and farmer
characteristics and external factors, such as social and institutional factors,
infrastructure, government policy and extension systems.
2.1 Food security strategies
Food security is a situation that exists when all people, at all times, have physical,
social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their
dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life (FAO, 2000). Food
is one of the fundamental necessities for life. A reduction in food intake not only
increases the chances of early death, but it also reduces the physical, mental and social
development of a human being, which has consequential impacts on the productivity
potential and respect for people (Latham, 1997). Due to the importance of food, there
are strategies being used by stakeholders to improve food security.
The strategies to increase food security identified in the literature can be placed in two
groups: 1) those that focus solely on on-farm food production (Sahn, 1989) and 2)
those that, in addition to on-farm production, also focus on income diversification
(Gladwin et al., 2001). The food production strategies focus on how farmers can
increase their production, in addition to post-harvest handling of their produce.
Increasing food production involves the use of new varieties, new crops, agricultural
extensification and agricultural intensification (Pretty, 1995; Sahn, 1989; Stout). New
9
varieties and new crops increase yields and reduce food insecurity directly. Farmers
can sell their surplus food from increased crop yields and use the income to buy food
when it is scarce. The promotion of cassava as a new crop in the southern province of
Zambia is one such strategy now being used to increase food production.
Agricultural extensification entails an increase in food production by households

expanding their farm size (Stout 1990). The farmers are able to increase their total
yield by growing produce on larger tracts of land. Agricultural intensification is
associated with increasing yields per hectare through the use of external inputs
(especially fertiliser), high yielding crop varieties and improved livestock breeds
(Pretty 1995). The use of external inputs increases yield and reduces the risk of crop
failure. This leads to an increase in food supply and farmers can then sell off this
surplus for income and buy food, in times of scarcity.
Post-harvest handling of produce is important in achieving food security, since it

prevents loss of farmers produce (Sahn 1989). This includes storage and processing of
the produce. Improved storage leads to a reduction in wastage and consequently, more
food is available during times of scarcity (Sahn 1989). Developing countries,
including Zambia, have a sub-standard quality of storage for some crops and this
contributes to high levels of food losses (Eade & Williams, 1995). Clarke and
Friedrich (2000) estimated that 30% of harvested food can be lost due to sub-standard
storage in developing countries, whilst (in Zambia) local estimates have shown that
this can be as high as 50% (Luswishi Small Scale Farmers, 1997). Processing
enhances storage and it also adds value and farmers can receive a more desirable
income for their produce (Saka et al., 1998).
Strategies that focus on on-farm food production and income diversification focus on
the use of multiple approaches to generate income, such as agriculture, non-farm
micro-enterprises and agricultural labour (Orr & Orr, 2002). Multiple approaches to
generate income have been used because food insecurity is primarily a problem of
low household incomes and poverty and not just inadequate food production
(Gladwin, Thomson, Peterson, & Anderson, 2001). For instance, Peters (1992) found
that, particularly where drought or pest attacks had a major effect on food security, the
households whose members had multiple sources of income were better off in
10
Malawi. Similarly, Devereux (1993, 1999) and Maxwell and Frankenburger, (1992)
found that African women who combined farm and non-farm income-earning had a
lower risk of starvation for themselves and their families, during periods of chronic or
transitory food insecurity.
2.2 Role of agriculture extension in food security
Agriculture extension is being used to enhance the improvement of food security in

rural development programmes, in many developing countries (Ison & Russell, 2000;
Kennedy & Bouis, 1993; Rivera & Qamar, 2003) as observed in Zambia. Extension
organisations help to devise strategies that will help the achievement of such
development programmes (Peterson, 1997). Agriculture extension is extremely
important in helping to confront the problems of availability, access and the utilisation
of food ( Rivera & Qamar, 2003). Extension, it is argued, improves farmers access to
information and knowledge relating to improved agricultural practices, in both
developed and developing countries (Anderson & Feder, 2004; Marsh, Pannell, &
Lindner, 2000). Extension can help to enhance the productivity and hence the
production of food (Rivera & Qamar, 2003). Extension can assist in providing
opportunities for income generation and it generally provides improvement in
nutritional advice, through home economics programmes. It also enhances the quality
of rural life, by way of community development. For instance, in Pakistan, extension
professionals worked with farmers to better manage soil and water; to diversify their
animal production; to intensify their agriculture and to organise themselves around
their special agricultural interests, such as the building of greenhouses and processing
facilities (Rivera & Qamar, 2003). This led to improved nutritional intake and
enhanced income generation for the farmers.
2.3 Types of technologies associated with food security
The technologies associated with food security can usefully be separated into
production and post-harvest technologies (United Nations, 2010). Production
technologies can be placed in three broad categories (United Nations, 2010). Firstly,
there is mechanical technology, encompassing various degrees of mechanisation
within agricultural operations, ranging from simple traditional hand tools to animal
11
and engine-powered equipment, implements and farm machinery and irrigation

systems that control the timing and volume of water (United Nations, 2010).
Secondly, there is biological or biochemical technology, comprised of a package of
high-yielding varieties of seeds, chemical fertilisers and pesticides. Thirdly, there is
biotechnology, consisting of commercially acceptable techniques that use living
organisms (or their parts) to make or modify a product: this includes improving,
modifying or manipulating the characteristics of economically important plants and
animals and their derivative products and developing micro-organisms, which act
favourably on the environment for agricultural production (United Nations, 2010).
Cassava technology is an example of biological technology.
Post-harvest technologies are important in achieving food security (United Nations,

2010). This is because post-harvest losses can offset any significant investment made
in raising productivity. Studies have shown that post-harvest losses of cassava, in
developing countries, are between 5 and 30 per cent (Wenham, 1995). Crop losses
could be reduced and the food supply increased by between 10 and 30 per cent,
through the use of post-harvest technologies (Wenham, 1995). Appropriate
technologies for processing cereals, legumes and roots and tubers (such as cassava)
into flours that serve as convenience foods, in the rural areas of many developing
countries, are necessary to upgrade traditional food technologies, thus enabling them
to enhance the shelf-life and acceptability to consumers, as well as to develop value-
added products (United Nations, 2010). Processing enhances cassavas industrial
potential and contributes to households’ income and food security (Nweke, 1994 and
Saka et al., 1998). Appropriate technologies for storage are also important in order to
reduce food loss and increase food availability in times of scarcity (Sahn 1989).
2.4 Technology adoption and food security
Studies have shown that food security can be enhanced through technology adoption
(Kristjanson, Place, Franzel, & Thornton, 2002; Mendola, 2007; Minten & Barrett,
2008). Minten and Barrett (2008) found that in Madagascar, communities with higher
rates of adoption of improved agricultural technologies had higher crop yields and
lower levels of food insecurity. Similarly, the widespread adoption of high-yielding
varieties of wheat and rice led to major increases in food-grain production in Asia and
12
an increase in food security (Khush, 1999). Kristjanson et al., (2002) also found that
there was an increase in the production of maize, due to the adoption of improved
fallows, in Zambia and Kenya. The adoption of cassava has also been found to be
important in increasing household food security in Ghana, Nigeria and Malawi
(Azilah, 2007; Omonona, Oni, & Uwagboe, 2006; Prudencio & Al-Hassan, 1994;
Saka et al., 1998).
2.5 Technology adoption
In this section the term ‘technology’ will be defined and the various ways
technologies are classified will be reviewed. Finally, the technology adoption process
will be reviewed. Rogers (1995. p 12) defined technology as “the design for
instrumental action that reduces the uncertainty in the cause-effect relationship
involved in achieving a desired outcome.” Guerin and Guerin (1994) and Rogers
(1995) suggested that technology is usually comprised of hardware (the object
component) and software (the idea component) but it can also be entirely made up of
information, which is the software component. Ison and Rusell (2000) defined
technology as the “application of scientific knowledge to practical tasks”. Abara and
Singh (1993) argued that it is the actual application of that knowledge that would be
termed ‘technology’. The definitions of Ison & Russell (2000) and Abara and Singh
(1993) are, however, directed more towards the meaning of the idea or software
component of the technology and not the object component. This definition is more
useful for technologies that are comprised of entirely ideas or information.
Some studies use the term technology to describe agricultural practices that are
considered new to the areas the agricultural practices have been introduced (Feder,
Just, & Zilberman, 1985; Ogunlana, 2004). These new agricultural practice
(technology) may take the form of a new piece of machinery, a new method for soil
cultivation or advice not to cultivate or the recommendation to sow a new cultivar
which has improved agronomic properties over one previously grown (Guerin &
Guerin, 1994).
Rogers (1995) used the word technology and innovation synonymously. An

innovation is an idea, practice or object that is perceived as new, by an individual or
13
other unit of adoption (Rogers, 1995). Guerin and Guerin (1994) agreed with Rogers’
(1995) definition of innovation as being a new idea or practice, which is perceived as
new by an individual. Technology can, therefore, be an innovation and thus, a new
idea, technique or object. The term technology will be used (from this point onwards)
in this study to also mean innovation. Cassava technology, in this study, will be
defined as a new agriculture practice that is designed to alleviate food security in the
southern province of Zambia. Technology transfer is the process of moving scientific
and technical knowledge, ideas, services, inventions and products from the origin of
their development, to where they can be put into operation (Rogers 1995).
Technologies have been classified in many ways (Feder et al., 1985; Just, Zilberman,
& Rauser, 1980). Firstly, they are classified by resource use, such as labour-saving or
labour-intensive, capital-saving or capital-intensive and land-saving or land-using
(Feder et al., 1985). Labour-saving technologies are technologies which require less
labour input (such as ox cultivation) and the adoption of these technologies might be
encouraged by labour shortage (Feder et al., 1985). On the other hand, labour-
intensive technologies generally require more labour inputs and an example of this is
high yielding crop varieties (Feder et al., 1985). Some of the labour inputs include the
requirement for fertiliser and pesticide applications. A labour shortage might
discourage the adoption of these types of technologies (Feder et al., 1985). Capital-
intensive technology is one for which the initial investment cost is high, for its
implementation (Zepeda, 1990). Capital-saving technologies require less capital for
investment such as high yielding varieties (Feder et al., 1985). Land-saving
technologies are ones which permit substitution of capital and labour for land, such as
chemical fertilisers, pesticides and high yielding varieties (De Janvry, 1973). Land-
using technologies are technologies that require vast tracts of land, such as shifting
cultivation (Ker, 1995).
Secondly, some technologies are classified in reference to their scale of operation and
they are scale-dependent or scale-neutral. Technologies are classified as scale-
dependent because farm size is an important determinant of their adoption. Farm size
is an important determinant because technologies often require capital investment and
large farms are better able to provide this type of investment (Just et al., 1980). A
technology is said to be scale-neutral, if it involves an inexpensive variable-cost input
14
and the size of the farm has no effect on its adoption. In contrast, scale-dependent
technologies require a fixed-cost input, normally in the form of a large capital
investment and their adoption is dependent on the size of the farm (Kinnucan, Hatch,
Molnar, & Venkateswaran, 1990).
Cassava agricultural production activities are said to be labour intensive (Ebukiba,

2010), as is cassava processing (Nweke, 1994). Therefore, cassava can be classified as
being labour intensive. Cassava technology is capital saving (Binswanger & Pingali,
1988). This is because the establishment cost of cassava production, for home
consumption, is generally low. Stem cuttings and family labour are the main inputs.
The cost for new cuttings is low and this is often only a one-off cost: thereafter
farmers can multiply their cuttings locally or obtain them from their friends
(Binswanger and Pingali, 1988). Cassava technology is scale neutral, because it
requires low cost variable inputs and its adoption is not dependent on farm size
(Binswanger and Pingali, 1988).
The adoption process

Rogers (1962 p. 17) defined the adoption process as “the mental process an individual
passes through from first hearing about an innovation to the final adoption”. A more
precise definition, which will be more useful for this study was offered by Shultz
(1975). This definition distinguishes individual (farm level) adoption and aggregate
adoption. Final adoption at the level of the individual farmer is defined as the degree
of use of a new technology in a long-run equilibrium, when the farmer has full
information about the new technology and its potential (Schultz, 1975). In this
definition, Schultz (1975) contended that the introduction of new technologies results
in a period of disequilibrium behaviour, where resources are not utilised efficiently by
the individual farm: and learning and experimentation lead the farmer towards new
equilibrium levels. In the context of aggregate adoption behaviour, the diffusion
process is defined as the process of a spread of new technology within a region
(Schultz, 1975). The study of cassava adoption, in this research, refers to both types of
adoption.
Adoption studies may fall into two categories: the rate of adoption and the intensity
of adoption (Rogers, 1995). It is usually necessary to distinguish between these two
15
concepts since they frequently have different policy implications (Rogers, 1995). The
rate of adoption is the relative speed by which farmers adopt an innovation and it has,
as one of its pillars, the element of time (Feder et al., 1985; Rogers, 1995). The rate of
adoption is usually measured by the length of time required, for a certain percentage
of members of a system, to adopt an innovation (Rogers, 1995). The rate of adoption
can vary with the level of education, access to mass media and the influence of other
situational factors, since individuals may be selective in their exposure and
perceptions about the new idea (Boahene, Snijders, & Folmer, 1999; Rogers, 1995). A
study by Henry & Gottre (1995) found that the rate of cassava technology adoption
was low in Colombia and Thailand due to technological, biological, institutional,
socioeconomic and political constraints. This situation suggests that there is a vast
range and a complex mix of different on-farm and off farm factors that affect
adoption.
Rogers (1995) classified members of a population, in relation to their rate of adoption

over time.
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
A
d
o
p
t
i
o
n
Time
Figure 2.1 Rogers adoption/ innovation curve
Rogers, (1995, 2003) classified individuals, who take a short period of time to adopt
innovations, as ‘innovators’ whilst those who are slowest to adopt he referred to as
16
‘laggards’ (Figure 2.1). In his model, the majority of individuals fall between the
categories of innovators and laggards.
Critics of this model state that it is an overly simplified representation of a complex

reality (Steinerb, Scheggc, & Murphy, 2005; Mahajan, Muller, & Wind, 2000).
Rogers’ (1995, 2003) analysis of adopters is only based on the time of adoption and
he assumes that diffusion follows a normal and symmetrical distribution (Mahajan,
Muller, & Wind, 2000). It is argued that, in reality, this is not the case. There are
external and internal factors influencing adoption, which make it dynamic not
symmetrical (Bass, 1969).
The intensity of adoption refers to the level of use of a given technology, during any
particular time period (Feder et al., 1985). The intensity of adoption of innovation can
be measured at individual farm level or a region level, during a given time period, by
the amount or share of farm area utilising the technology, or by the per hectare
quantity of input used, where applicable (Feder et al., 1985). In the case of cassava
technology, the number of hectares planted in cassava in the southern province of
Zambia, can be referred to as the ‘intensity’ of adoption. In this research the low level
of adoption of cassava was identified, based on the rate and intensity of adoption in
the province. This study will, therefore, examine the factors, in relation to both the
rate and intensity of adoption.
The adoption process, according to Rogers (1983), involves five stages: Firstly,
farmers must learn about the innovation (knowledge); secondly, they must be
persuaded of the value of the innovation (persuasion); then, they must decide to adopt
it or not (decision); the innovation must then be implemented (implementation); and
finally, the decision must be reaffirmed or rejected (confirmation). Other authors,
such as Spence (1994), have indicated that the stages involved in the adoption process
are: awareness, interest, evaluation, trial and adoption. The terms are different, but the
steps are similar, with some minor differences.
The knowledge stage, as defined by Rogers (1995), will occur when the farmer is
exposed to the innovation’s existence and s/he gains an understanding of how it works.
Spence (1994) described this first stage as awareness although it differs from Rogers
(1995) definition, in that the individual learns of the existence of the innovation but
17
s/he has little knowledge about it. There has been minimal research on the transition
from ignorance to awareness, in the literature. Gibbs, Lindner, & Fischer (1987)
found that the time taken for different farmers in South Australia to become aware of
the existence of new innovations, varied markedly. They found that some farmers
took years to become aware of a technology, despite the presence of extension
activities designed specifically to raise their awareness.
The persuasion stage is when the individual changes his/her attitude towards the
technology that has been introduced (Rogers 1995, 2003). Spence (1994) referred to
this stage as the ‘interest’ stage. At this stage, the person develops an interest and has
the motivation to search for further information about the technology and examine its
application, with regards to his/her circumstances (Spence, 1994). The individual will
form a favourable or unfavourable attitude towards the adoption or rejection of the
innovation which will be based on how they perceive the innovation (Rogers, 1995)
and this might lead to rejection, if perceptions are unfavourable. Kaura (1967) found
that farmers’ unfavourable attitude towards artificial insemination was the major
cause for its non-adoption, in Haryana villages in India. They had an unfavourable
attitude towards artificial insemination because they lacked sufficient information.
At the decision stage, individuals engage in activities that lead to a choice to adopt or
reject the innovation (Rogers, 1995). They will try the innovation and if it proves to
have at least a certain degree of relative advantage, then they will adopt it (Rogers,
2003). Spence (1994) considered that this stage occurs when the individual has
undertaken some mental evaluation of the new idea in order to assess the potential
benefits and possible disadvantages, before trying it. Batz, Peters, & Janssen (1999)
found that farmers in Kenya adopted technology, if its characteristics promised a
higher utility than the traditional technology. Utility was defined as satisfaction with
the technology, in terms of profitability, risk, initial cost and management complexity.
The implementation stage occurs when the adopter actually puts the new idea into
practice (Rogers, 1995). At this stage, the adopter looks for more information
regarding the innovation and finds out if they have made the right decision about
adopting the innovation or not (Van den Ban & Hawkins, 1996). They also look for
more information on how to use it. According to Rogers (1995), this stage is regarded
as full implementation because the decision has already been made to adopt.
18
However, Spence (1994) regarded this stage as a trial stage and the implementation of
the innovation is undertaken on a smaller scale. This implies that Spence (1994)
considered the fact that some individuals would like to try the innovation, before
finally deciding to adopt or reject it, depending upon the outcome.
The confirmation stage is the stage in which the individual continues to question the
wisdom of his/her decision, once the decision to adopt the innovation has been made
(Rogers, 1995). Spence (1994) described this stage as adoption. The adopters seek
reinforcement of the innovation-decision already made, or they reverse a previous
decision to adopt or reject the innovation, if exposed to conflicting messages about the
innovation (Rogers, 1995). Some individuals may discontinue the use of a technology,
after being dissatisfied with the performance of the new idea or practice (Rogers,
2003). Moser and Barrett (2003) found that farmers in Madagascar had adopted and
then discontinued the system of rice intensification, when they discovered that the
innovation was labour intensive and required specialist skills to manage it.
Rogers (1995) adoption model has been tested empirically and it is widely used. For
example, Gladwin and Murtaugh (1980) and Gladwin (1980) identified stages of
farmer decision-making that are largely consistent with Rogers (1962, 1995) stages of
the adoption process. Despite its wide use, Rogers’ (1995) adoption model has been
criticised for being prescriptive, static and deterministic, suggesting an orderly,
predictable and linear progression from awareness through to adoption (Öhlmér,
Olson, & Brehmer, 1998), whereas, in reality, the process is unpredictable, uncertain
and very diverse (Öhlmér et al., 1998).
In spite of the criticisms, Rogers’ (1995) model can still provide a useful tool for
structuring the analysis of the adoption process of a new technology, including
cassava. Moreover, it can also be extended or adapted to cover most other models
related to the adoption process. In the following section, the factors that affect the
technology adoption process are reviewed.
2.6 Factors affecting adoption
A variety of studies have been undertaken in order to identify the factors that
influence the adoption of various technologies. As such, there is an extensive body of
literature on technology adoption. Many factors have been found to affect adoption.
19
These include the age of the potential adopter; education level; experience; gender;
farm size; ownership structure; availability of labour; access to credit; membership of
organizations; access to extension; infrastructure; government policies; extension
service delivery mechanism; and the characteristics of the technology (Anderson &
Feder, 2003; Baidu-Forson, 1999; Batz et al., 1999; Eze, Ibekwe, Onoh, & Nwajiuba,
2008; Feder et al., 1985; Jimenez, 1995; Kassie, Zikhali, Manjur, & Edwards, 2009).
Some studies classify the factors into broader categories: farmer characteristics; farm
structure; institutional characteristics; and managerial structure (McNamara,
Wetzstein, & Douce, 1991), whilst others classify them under social, economic and
physical categories (Kebede, Gunjal, & Coffin, 1990). Others group the factors into
human capital, production, policy and natural resource characteristics (Wu &
Babcock, 1998), or internal and external factors (Chieochan, Lindley, & Dunn, 2000;
Gong & Beck, 1992).
The literature reviewed does not define most of the categories but instead it gives
examples of what is found in each category. For instance farmers’ characteristics
include factors such as age, education, gender and income (McNamara et al., 1991).
Farm characteristics include factors such as farm size, labour availability and land
tenure (McNamara et al., 1991). Institutional characteristics include factors such as
access to extension, access to credit and availability of inputs (McNamara et al.,
1991). Social factors include education, exposure to information, family size, and
experience (Kebede et al., 1990). Economic factors include factors such as income
and farm size (Kebede et al., 1990). Human capital includes factors such as education
and health (Wu & Babcock, 1998). Internal factors include the characteristics of the
adopters and organisation (farm), whilst external factors include policy, economic,
institutional and infrastructure factors that are outside the farmers control (Chieochan
et al., 2000; Gong & Beck, 1992).
There is no clear distinguishing feature between elements within each category. In

fact, some factors can be correctly placed in either category. For instance, education
can be placed under farmers’ characteristics (Fernandez-Cornejo, Beach, & Huang,
1994) or under human capital (Wu & Babcock, 1998). Farm size can also be placed
20
under farm characteristics (Feder, et al., 1985; Feder and Umali, 1993), or under
economic factors (Kebede et al., 1990).
Categorisation of factors is usually undertaken to suit the current technology being

investigated, the location and the researcher’s preference (Bonabana-Wabbi, 2002). In
this study, the factors that affect cassava adoption are classified into characteristics of
the technology, internal and external factors. They were classified as such, because
the results of the study clearly fitted into these categories. The influence of these
factors on technology adoption will be reviewed in the following section.
2.6.1 The Characteristics of a technology
The characteristics of technologies, as perceived by individuals, help to explain their
different rates of adoption (Rogers, 1995). Rogers (1995) identified five
characteristics of a technology that influenced adoption. These were: relative
advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability and observability. Relative
advantage is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being better than the
idea it supersedes (Rogers, 1995). The degree of relative advantage may be measured
in economic terms, but it can also include (or be based on) social prestige,
convenience and satisfaction (Rogers, 1995). For example, Marsh, Pannell and
Lindner (2000) and Ghadim, Pannell and Burton (2005) found that the short-term
profitability (economic advantage) of new legume crops (e.g. lupins and chick peas)
significantly influenced their adoption in Australia. Similarly, Udoh and Kormawa
(2009), in their study on cassava adoption in African countries, found that the
expected economic benefit to be gained from cassava adoption increased the
probability of it being adopted. Kang and Akinnifesi (2000) also found that alley
farming was adopted in West Africa, since it was more advantageous (convenient)
than the bush fallow system, due to its continuous cropping, thus eradicating a fallow
phase and land clearing. Satisfaction with conservation farming technology in Malawi
led to its wide spread adoption (Williams, 2008). Farmers were satisfied because
conservation technology required less labour, in terms of time and it also led to
greater profitability.
21
The relative advantage is also affected by the innovation’s impact on the risks
involved in production (Abadi Ghadim, Pannell, & Burton, 2005; Marra, Pannell &
Abadi Ghadim, 2003) which include uncertain yield; severe drought which affects
yields; crop failure; and crop establishment failure (Juma, Nyangena & Yesuf, 2009).
Farmers may also fear the effects of pests and diseases that lead to reduced yields or
crop failure. The relative advantage of a technology would be reduced, if it were
perceived to be more subject to establishment failure, or to yield losses due to
drought, weeds or pests, than the current technology. A study by Batz, Peters and
Janssen (1999), found that Kenyan dairy farmers were more likely to adopt
technologies that promised a lower production risk (disease), relative to traditional
technologies. Juma, Nyangena and Yesuf (2009) found that yield variability and the
risk of crop failure affected the adoption of farming inputs, in Kenya. They reported
that farmers did not apply manure and fertiliser in sufficient quantities, because yields
of these crops were less certain. They would rather have a low output than spend
money on applying fertiliser onto a crop they were not sure would give them high
yields. A higher probability of crop failure (downside risk) also reduced the farmers’
likelihood of adopting fertilizer.
Relative advantage can be affected, positively or negatively, by government policies

(Pannell et al., 2006). For example, in the USA, support programmes based on yield,
tended to increase the relative advantage of the intensification of farming and thus it
increased adoption and use of herbicides (Helms et al.1987; Miranowski et al. 1991).
The previously mentioned literature suggests that relative advantage is an important
consideration for farmers’ production decisions, in both developed and developing
countries. The relative advantage is likely to be made up of a mix of considerations
upon which farmers place different weight. Studies that identify ‘economic’ as being
important may ignore the fact that other factors have also been considered by the
adopters.
Compatibility is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being consistent

with the existing values, past experiences and needs of potential adopters (Rogers,
1995). “An innovation can be compatible or incompatible with 1) sociocultural values
and beliefs 2) previously introduced ideas and 3) client needs for the innovation”
(Rogers 2003, p 240). Rogers, (1995) definition of compatibility has been expanded
22
by Ogunlana (2004) to include compatibility with the existing farming system. This
study, therefore, combines Rogers (2003) and Oglunlanas, (2004) definition of
compatibility. An idea that is not compatible with the values and norms of a social
system will not be adopted, as rapidly as an innovation that is compatible (Rogers,
1995). Ogunlana (2004) found that alley farming was quickly adopted in Nigeria, due
to its similarities with the bush fallow systems that were being practiced. Farmers,
whose farmlands had deteriorated, due to the use of foreign technologies, were
adopting technologies that were consistent with their indigenous practices, as a means
of restoring their farmland (Ogunlana, 2004). Similarly, Brandner & Straus (1959)
also found that hybrid sorghum was adopted at a dramatic rate, where hybrid corn was
already in general use in America. The reasons for this situation were not offered.
Gladwin (1979) also found that farmers in Mexico did not adopt a recommendation to
increase the number and change the timing of fertiliser application in their corn fields.
This was because the recommendations were not compatible with their past
experiences when fertilising corn.
A study by Lubwama (1999) found that some conservation tillage practices were not
adopted in Uganda, because they were not compatible with certain communities’
cultures and traditions. The author gives an example of the use of draft animals in
some communities. The value attached to cattle in some communities could not
permit their use for traction and the adoption of donkeys also failed to gain ground in
some of these communities, due to a fear of those animals.
Complexity is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as difficult to

understand (Rogers, 1995). Some innovations are readily understood by most
members of a social system; others are more complicated and they will be adopted
more slowly. A study by Batz, Peters and Janssen (1999), in Kenya, found that many
farmers in Meru did not adopt complex technologies such as new dairy technologies.
These technologies were complex because there were many activities that had to be
performed in order to use the technologies. Similarly, Rodriguez, Molnar, Fazio,
Sydnor, & Lowe (2008) found that the complexity of many sustainable agriculture
practices, in the USA, impeded their adoption. Alley farming was adopted in the
Philippines because it was easy to learn and understand (Cramb & Nelson, 1998).
23
Trialability is the degree to which an innovation may be experimented with, on a

limited basis (Roger, 1995). New ideas which can be tried as an instalment plan will
generally be adopted more quickly than innovations that are not divisible. Some
innovations are more difficult to divide for trial, than are others (Rogers, 1995, 2003).
Ryan and Gross (1943) found that all of their Iowa farmer respondents adopted hybrid
seed corn by first trying it on a partial basis. Similarly, Öhlmér, Olson, and Brehmer
(1998), in their study on understanding farmers’ decision making processes and
improving managerial assistance in USA, found that farmers adopted technologies
which they could try out on a small scale.
Observability is the level to which the outcome or benefits derived from new practices
are seen (or can easily be measured) by the prospective users (Rogers, 1995). The
earlier the results from using a technology can be seen by the farmer, the better the
chances of it being adopted (Rogers, 1995). Geroski (2000) and Shampine (1998)
found that observability enhanced the prospects of ‘over the fence’ learning by
farmers and thus, it promoted diffusion of a practice and enhanced the rate of
adoption. Rodriguez, Molnar, Fazio, Sydnor, & Lowe (2008) also found that the
adoption of sustainable agriculture practices was low because its results could not
easily be observed and the results did not occur quickly. Similarly, Pannell (2001)
found that the results of salinity management technologies in Australia could not
easily be seen and were slow to appear and as a result the adoption rate was low.
Although a vast amount of empirical work confirms Rogers (1995, 2003) categories,
as influencing farmers’ perception of technology and hence their decisions to adopt or
not, they do not capture the diversity and characteristics of technologies that influence
farmer adoption decisions. Although the characteristics of the technology are
important in influencing the adoption of technologies, internal factors are also
important. These are reviewed below.
2.6.2 Internal factors
Internal factors are factors associated with individuals involved in the innovation
process and those that directly affect the individuals interaction with the innovation
and also the way they view the technology (Chieochan et al., 2000). In this research,
the unit of analysis is a household and not an individual, but this is an aspect not
24
highlighted in the literature reviewed. The adoption literature focuses on individual

farmers and the focus of food security is the household. The factors that are classified
as internal factors are personal characteristics of the adopter and farm (organisation)
characteristics (Chieochan et al., 2000; Gong & Beck, 1992). This classification is
consistent across a number of authors (Chieochan et al., 2000; Gong & Beck, 1992).
Personal characteristics of the adopter include the age of the potential adopter,
education level, gender-related aspects and wealth (Chieochan, et al., 2000; Feder,
Lau, & Slade, 1987; Fernandez-Cornejo, Beach, & Huang, 1994; Fernandez-Cornejo
& McBride, 2002; Franzel, 1999; Lubwama, 1999; Omonona, et al., 2006). Farm
characteristics include farm size, labour availability and land ownership (Doss,
Mwangi, Verkuijl, & De Groote, 2003, (Feder et al., 1985). These factors are
reviewed in the following sections.
2.6.2.1 Personal characteristics of the adopter
The personal characteristics of adopters are characteristics that are inherent to the
individual and they cannot be changed (Spence 1994). Personal characteristics include
factors such as the age of the potential adopter, education level, gender-related aspects
and income levels which influence the farmers’ adoption decisions (Chieochan et al.,
2000; Feder, Lau, & Slade, 1987; Fernandez-Cornejo, Beach, & Huang, 1994;
Fernandez-Cornejo & McBride, 2002; Franzel, 1999; Lubwama, 1999; Omonona et
al., 2006). There is consistency amongst the authors in the factors they group as
personal characteristics.
Most studies show mixed evidence regarding the effect of personal characteristics in
technology adoption. This is because personal characteristics, alone, are not the
driving force for someone to adopt a technology (Spence 2004). The factors interact
together and influence the adoption decision process (Spence 2004). These factors
are discussed in more detail.
Age
The relationship between age and the adoption of technology is not consistent within
the literature (Rodgers, 1983). Some studies show age as not being significant, others
show it to be positively related to adoption and others show it to be negatively related
25
to adoption. For example, age was found not to be significant in the adoption of rice
in Guinea (Adesina & Baidu-Forson, 1995) and Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
sweep nets in Texas (Harper, Rister, Mjelde, Drees, & Way, 1990). The reasons why
age was not significant were not explained.
Age was found to positively influence the adoption of cassava and soya bean in
Nigeria (Omobolanle, 2007) and sorghum in Burkina Faso (Adesina & Baidu-Forson,
1995). The positive relationship between age and adoption could be due to the fact
that older farmers have more experience in cultivation and they are better able to
assess the characteristics of modern technology, than younger farmers (Teklewold,
Dadi, Yami, & Dana, 2006).
Age however, was found to negatively influence the adoption of hybrid cocoa in
Ghana (Boahene et al., 1999), natural resource management practises in the USA
(Caswell, Fuglie, Ingram, Jans, & Kascak, 2001) and site specific technologies in the
USA (Khanna, 2001). Khanna (2001) suggested that older farmers, perhaps due to
investing several years in a particular practice, may not want to jeopardise their
livelihoods by trying out a completely new method. In addition, older farmers’
perception that they will not live long enough to enjoy the benefits of some
technologies may also affect their decision not to adopt such practices (Caswell et al.,
2001). Younger farmers have been found to be more knowledgeable about new
practices and more willing to bear risks, due to their longer planning horizons (Polson
& Spencer, 1991). The literature suggests that the relationship between age and
adoption is linked to many other factors, such as risk and type of technology.
Education
Studies that have sought to establish the effect of education on adoption, in most
cases, relate it to years of formal schooling (Feder & Slade, 1984; Tjornhom, 1995). It
is often believed that higher education gives farmers the ability to perceive, interpret
and respond to new information more effectively, than their counterparts with lower
education (Feder et al., 1985; Rahm & Huffman, 1984). Several studies support this
view. For example, in a study of cassava adoption in Nigeria, Eze et al., (2008) found
that education positively affected adoption. In other studies by Daku (2002) and Doss
and Morris (2001), education positively affected IPM adoption in Albania and Ghana.
26
Similarly, a study of IPM practices in potatoes identified the level of education as one
of the major factors that positively affected the observed level of IPM practices with
Ohio potato growers (Waller, Hoy, Henderson, Stinner, & Welty, 1998).
Importantly, other studies in the literature refute the view that education is positively
related to adoption. For example, in a study of the adoption of insect sweep nets for
IPM in Texas, higher education was negatively related to adoption (Harper et al.,
1990). The authors attributed this to the simplicity of the IPM technique that they
studied. The insect sweep net was not difficult to understand and did not require
specific technical ‘know-how’, hence its adoption by poorly educated farmers.
Bussolo, Godart, Lay & Thiele (2007) also found that less educated farmers were
more likely to adopt coffee farming in Uganda. However, the reasons behind these
results were not explained. Dadi, Burton, & Ozanne (2004) found that less educated
farmers adopted fertiliser and herbicides in Ethiopia. This was because fertiliser and
herbicide are relatively simple technologies that do not require a high level of
education for their use. Annor & Kusi (2008) found that less educated farmers
adopted grass-cutter farming in Ghana. They explained that this could be due to the
fact that uneducated farmers copied from the educated farmers in order to effect
economic change in their lives. The grass-cutter technology could be copied because
it was simple.
The empirical results suggest that education is important for the adoption of
technologies that may require specific technical know-how, but for some simple
technologies, it may not be important. Education is also linked to other personal
characteristics such as gender and wealth.
Gender
Gender issues in agricultural production and technology adoption have been
investigated for many years. Most studies show mixed evidence regarding the effect
of gender on technology adoption. A study by Doss and Morris (2001), on the factors
influencing improved maize technology adoption in Ghana, found that gender had no
effect on adoption. This was because males and female had equal access to resources,
such as land, extension and education. Similarly, studies by Thapa (2009) and Gilbert,
Sakala, & Benson (2002), in Nepal and Malawi, also reveal that given equal access to
27
inputs, adoption rates and production levels were no different between men and
women farmers.
Adesina, Mbila, Nkamleu and Endamana (2000) found that men adopted alley
farming more than women in the Cameroon. Other studies, which have shown that
women farmers are less likely to adopt new technologies, include studies by Tiruneh
(2001) on wheat adoption in Ethiopia and Sanginga, Adesina, Manyong, Otite and
Dashiell (2007) on improved soyabeans adoption in Nigeria. These studies reported
that the lower adoption rates by women was because women farmers are not
traditionally targeted by extension agents and research and development activities.
Another study by Kassie, Zikhali, Manjur, and Edwards (2009), on the adoption of
organic farming in Ethiopia, found that males adopted conservation tillage, whilst
females adopted the use of compost. This was because conservation tillage is a labour
intensive technology, whilst compost is a labour saving technology. Women did not
adopt conservation tillage technologies because they did not have the strength to
utilise this technology.
Gender does not influence technology adoption where both males and female have
equal access to resources, such as education, land, labour and extension. Gender is an
influence on adoption, when there are situational differences between men and
women, for example, if there is a difference in access to resources, such as education
and extension. The other issue, which may lead to disparities in adoption between
men and women, is the differences in physical strength. Women may not have the
physical strength to utilise some technologies, such as some labour intensive
technologies.
Income level of farmers

The income levels of farmers can influence adoption in several ways. Farmers with
high levels of income may be less risk averse (Ogunlana, 2004). They can undertake
financial risks since they can afford to offset losses from some of their less successful
experiments (Ogunlana, 2004). A study by Feder et al., (1985) found that farmers
with off-farm income were more likely to adopt technologies, because the off-farm
income provided a buffer if the technology failed. Farmers with high incomes are
better educated and they invest more in information acquisition and they will
28
accumulate knowledge that leads to adoption (Feder & Slade, 1984). Farmers with
low incomes tend to adopt capital saving technologies and they may not be willing to
adopt capital intensive technologies (Peterson, 1997). The literature suggests that the
relationship between levels of income and adoption is linked to other factors, such as
risk, education and type of technology.
Risk aversion
Risk aversion describes an individual’s tendency to take or avoid risks in their
decision making (Pannell et al., 2006). Feder and Umali (1990) and Cornejo et al.
(2002) reviewed factors that affect technology adoption and they highlighted risk
aversion as being one of the key determinants of adoption for the majority of
agricultural innovations. More risk-averse farmers may tend to rapidly adopt an
innovation that is perceived to reduce risk or to not adopt an innovation which is
perceived to increase risk (Pannell et al., 2006).
When an innovation first appears, potential users are generally uncertain of its
effectiveness and they tend to view its use as experimental (Mansfield, 1966). Hiebert
(1974) and Feder and O’Mara (1981, 1982), in their study showed that uncertainty
declines with learning and experience, thus inducing more risk averse farmers to
adopt an innovation, provided it is profitable. Innovators and other early adopters are
believed to be more inclined to take risks, than the majority of farmers (Fernandez-
Cornejo, Dabercow and Mcbride, 2002).
Risk aversion is also linked to farm size and income. In a study by Feder and O’Mara
(1981), higher risk aversion was found amongst smaller farmers and this hindered
their adoption decisions. Smaller farmers due to less wealth (Oglunlana, 2004), are
possibly more risk averse since they cannot afford to offset losses, if their experiments
fail.
The other internal factors, apart from the personal characteristics that influence the
adoption of technology, are the farm characteristics. In the following section the
relevant farm characteristics are reviewed.
29
2.6.2.2 Farm characteristics
Farm characteristics, in combination with personal characteristics affect the farmers
goals and their capacity to adopt specific technologies (Pannell et al., 2006). These
factors include farm size, labour availability and land tenure (Feder, et al., 1985 Feder
and Umali (1993), Ouédraogo, Mando and Zombré, 2001). This framework of factors
is consistent across all authors. These factors are reviewed in detail in the following
sections.
Farm Size
Farm size is one of the important factors that affect the adoption of technologies.
Farm size is also used as a proxy for wealth, in most adoption studies (Doss, Mwangi,
Verkuijl, & De Groote, 2003; Ntege-Nanyeenya, Mugisa-Mutetikka, Mwangi, &
Verkuijl, 1997). Depending upon the type of technology, farm size has different
effects on the rate of adoption. Some studies on the effect of farm size on adoption
have found it to be positive, whilst others have found it to be negative. Studies have
shown that farmers with large farms have a greater probability of adopting
technologies, than small-scale farmers (Abara & Singh, 1993; Boahene et al., 1999;
Ogunlana, 2004). This is because such technologies require capital investment and if
the technology requires a substantial amount of initial set up costs, small farmers are
not able to afford it (Abara & Singh, 1993; Boahene et al., 1999; Ogunlana, 2004). In
contrast, larger farms are better able to provide this investment (Feder et al., 1985).
Large farms may have an economic advantage in that they have better access to credit
(Feder & O'Mara, 1981) and they also have assets, which they can use as collateral to
obtain credit (Godoy et al., 2000).
Large farms can also afford the input costs, such as seeds, fertiliser and labour, which
may be associated with a new technology. They also enjoy economies of scale from
buying large quantities of certain inputs, which can help reduce their production costs
(Boahene et al., 1999; Ogunlana, 2004). A study by Gabre-Madhin and Haggblade
(2001), in Kenya, found that large commercial farmers adopted new high-yielding
maize varieties more rapidly than smallholders. This was because the large farmers
could afford the high yielding varieties, whilst small-holder farmers, after withdrawal
of subsidies from the government, were struggling to buy them.
30
Farm size also has an effect on the adoption of new crops and crop diversification.
Brush & Mauricio (1992) found that larger farms are more likely to adopt new crops
and diversify because of their ability to partition a single farm into different cropping
systems, to grow both the new crop and other crops. For small farms, however, the
land available for other crops may be limited, once adoption of the new crop takes
place.
Contrasting results have been reported by Yaron, Dinar and Voet, (1992) who
undertook a study on family farms in the Nazareth region of Israel(a developed
country). They demonstrated that, since land is a limiting resource for small farms,
they are more likely to adopt specific technologies, such as input-intensive or land-
saving technologies that increase output per hectare. Similarly, a study by Fernandez-
Cornejo (1996), found that farm size did not positively influence the adoption of a
new fungicide in the USA (a developed country), because the technology was not
capital intensive. The farmers could afford to buy the fungicide, regardless of the size
of their farms.
The empirical results suggest that the relationship between farm size and the adoption
of technology is influenced by factors, such as access to credit and the requirement of
the technology for capital and inputs. As noted previously, in developed economies,
farm size does not constrain the adoption of technologies because even small farmers
have access to credit compared to small farmers in developing countries. In
developing countries, small-scale farmers do not have access to credit, since they do
not have collateral or assets to borrow against. Farm size is also linked to income
levels and types of technology. Large farms, since they have a higher level of income,
are more likely to adopt capital intensive, land using and risky technologies. In
contrast, small farms are more likely to adopt technologies that are capital saving,
land saving and low risk.
Land tenure
The views expressed in the literature on the effects of land tenure and the adoption of
technologies are not unanimous and they vary depending on the type of technology,
its cost and the time to gain the benefits. Some studies show that land tenure has an
influence on the adoption of new technologies. For example, studies by Feder and
31
Umali (1993) concluded that farmers who leased land are less likely to adopt
conservation practices, than farmers who are landowners. This is because the term of
the lease limits the leaseholder’s ability to benefit from the conservation technologies,
whose benefits are long-term. Similarly Juma, Nyangena and Yesuf (2009) found that
secure land tenure increased the probability of the adoption of terracing. Terracing is
an expensive technology (in the short term) and its returns are not immediate as such,
it would only be undertaken by a farmer who was assured of land ownership. A study
by Ouédraogo, Mando and Zombré (2001) also found that farmers who leased land
did not adopt compost technology in Burkina Faso. This was because compost
technology had long-term soil benefits which the farmers may not obtain, due to the
terms of their lease. What is important for the leaseholder’s adoption decision is the
period of the lease. Where a farmer has a short term lease, he will not adopt
technologies that provide benefits beyond the term of that lease.
Studies of other technologies and their adoption, however, have shown that land
tenure has no influence on adoption. For example, Fernandez-Cornejo, Beach, &
Huang (1994) found that land ownership did not influence the adoption of integrated
pest management. This was because the benefits of integrated pest management
occurred quickly. The apparent inconsistencies in the empirical results are due to the
nature of the technology and the time frame for receiving benefits. Land ownership is
likely to influence adoption, if the innovation requires investments tied to the land that
provide benefits over a long time period (Fernandez-Cornejo et al., 1994). Tenants are
less likely to adopt these types of innovations, because they perceive that they will not
capture the majority of the benefits, relating to the adoption of the technology.
Labour Availability
Labour availability is another often-mentioned variable which affect farmers'
decisions relating to the adoption of new agricultural practices or inputs. Some
aspects of labour availability and adoption have been referred to in an earlier section.
Technologies can be usefully separated into labour saving and labour intensive
technologies (Feder et al., 1985). For example, ox cultivation technology is labour
saving and its adoption might be encouraged by labour shortages. On the other hand,
high yielding variety technology generally requires higher labour input, so therefore,
labour availability may prevent its adoption. Moreover, new technologies may
32
increase the seasonal demand for labour, so that adoption is less attractive for those
with limited family labour, or those operating in areas with less access to labour
markets.
Krishna and Quaim (2007) found that the availability of family labour led to a greater
adoption of labour-intensive Bt eggplant hybrids in India. Labour was required for the
application of insecticides, the removal of infested fruits and twigs and harvesting.
Similarly, Ouédraogo, Mando and Zombré (2001) found that a shortage of family
labour explained the non-adoption of labour intensive compost technology in Burkina
Faso. This was because the production of compost requires intensive work, which
cannot be managed by small households. Moser & Barrett (2003) also found that
farmers did not adopt a system of rice intensification (SRI) in Madagascar, because
the method required significant additional labour input, at a time of the year when
liquidity was low and labour effort was already high.
In addition to internal factors, external factors are also important in influencing

adoption of technologies. In the following section, the relevant external factors that
could influence the adoption of technologies are reviewed.
2.6.3 External factors
External factors are factors external to the individual farmer, but they are part of the
environment within which they carry out their daily activities (Spence, 1994). These
include institutional factors, infrastructure, government policy and extension service
delivery (Eze et al., 2008; Feder et al., 1985; Fernandez-Cornejo & McBride, 2002;
Kassie et al., 2009; Nkonya, Schroeder, & Norman, 1997; Ogunlana, 2004; Zeller,
Diagne, & Mataya, 1998). This framework of factors is consistent across all the
authors. These factors are reviewed in detail in the following sections.
2.6.3.1 Institutional factors
Farmers make decisions within a broader environment or context (Tesfaye, 2003).
Institutional factors are part of such broader environments, which affect farmers’
adoption decisions on agricultural technologies. Institutional factors include support
provided by various institutions and organisations to enhance the use of new
technologies (Negash, 2007). These factors include membership of organisations
(social organisation); access to extension; availability of inputs; and access to credit
33
(Karki and Bauer, (2004), Mazvimavi and Twomlow, (2009), Sodiya, Lawal-
Adebowale & Fabusoro, (2007). This framework of factors is consistent across
authors. These factors are reviewed in detail below.
Membership of organisations
Membership of organisations such as farmers’ cooperatives and other associations,
has been found to be very important in changing the attitudes of farmers towards new
agricultural practices and thereby enhancing the adoption of such practices (Gottret,
Henry, & Duque, 1993; Ogunlana, 2004; Zeller et al., 1998). Such organisations serve
as forums for gaining access to information, credit and other productive inputs
(Caviglia & Kahn, 2001). Membership of cooperatives was found to positively
influence the adoption of new practices in Nigeria (Omobolanle, 2007) and
conservation tillage in Ethiopia (Kassie et al., 2009). This was because farmers
obtained information about the new technologies from different organisations and this
influenced their decisions to adopt. Deji (2005) found that membership of
cooperatives increased the likelihood that women farmers would adopt technology, in
Nigeria. Membership of cooperative societies provided better and more reliable
access to credit facilities, which determined the extent of production capacity and
influenced the attitude of the farmers towards new innovations (Deji, 2005).
In some studies, however, membership of organisations has been found not to be a

factor in adoption. Kuntashula, Ajayi, Phiri, Mafongoya, & Franzel (2002) found that
membership of cooperatives did not affect adoption of improved tree fallow
technology, in Zambia. This was because the farmers belonged to cooperative groups,
whose objectives were not related to tree fallow farming. In another study of factors
that affected the adoption of cassava, in a range of African countries, Udoh and
Kormawa, (2009) found that membership of cassava cooperatives did not affect the
adoption of cassava in Ghana, Niger and Burkina Faso, but it did have an effect in
Nigeria and Chad. The reasons why these differences existed were not explained.
The above empirical studies point to the fact that membership of organisations can
provide enhanced access to information relating to the technologies and importantly it
can also provide access to credit, which can enhance the adoption decisions of
farmers. However, the work of Kuntashula, Ajayi, Phiri, Mafongoya, & Franzel
34
(2002) suggests that, if farmers belong to cooperatives whose objectives are not
related to the new technology, organisation membership will have no impact on
adoption.
Access to Extension
The influence of extension on the adoption of new technologies is of major
importance. Access to extension is also linked to wealth and education, as earlier
stated. Farmers with wealth are better educated: they invest more in information
acquisition and they accumulate knowledge that leads to adoption (Feder & Slade,
1984). Contact with extension services can provide farmers with access to information
about innovations (Kassie et al., 2009). Consequently, access to extension is often
used as an indicator of access to information (Adesina et al., 2000; Honlonkou, 2004).
In their study on the factors that determined cassava adoption in a range of African
countries, Udo and Kormawa (2007) found that contact with extension agents (and
through them access to adequate information), was one of the major predictors of the
decision by farmers to allocate land for the cultivation of cassava. The probability of
adopting cassava, in these countries, increased as contact with extension agents
increased. These results were similar to those reported by Adesina and Zinnah (1993),
who found that farmers were more likely to adopt a technology, if they had been
provided with information about the technology from an extension agent. In fact,
Yaron, Dinar and Voet (1992), showed that the influence of information, through
contact with extension agents, can counter-balance the negative effects of a lack of
formal education, in the overall decision to adopt some technologies. This implies that
farmers with less schooling may adopt and implement innovative and even
sophisticated technologies, if they receive proper guidance from extension agents.
Access to extension is also linked to the distance from main centres and the quality of
roads. Households further from main centres have less access to extension support
and as a result the adoption of new technologies is a challenge (Stall, Delgado and
Nicholson, 1997).
35
Availability and access to inputs

The availability and access to inputs can also affect the adoption of some
technologies. Availability and access to inputs is also linked to roading infrastructure
and distance from market centres. Poor road infrastructure and long distance from
market centres limit the availability and access to inputs: and this may lead to low
adoption of technologies (Nzomoi, Byaruhanga, Maritim and Omboto, 2007). Studies
by Omonona, Oni and Uwagboe, (2006) and Sodiya, Lawal-Adebowale, & Fabusoro
(2007), in Nigeria, found that access to agro-input support services was a significant
factor in influencing farmers’ adoption of cassava technologies. This was because
farmers were able to gain timely access to the cassava technologies and associated
inputs, such as fertiliser, at an affordable price and this enhanced their adoption
decisions.
In Zimbabwe, Mazvimavi and Twomlow (2009) found that the provision of free
inputs by NGOs increased the rate of conservation farming adoption. The provision of
free inputs ensured that farmers could access and use critical inputs and this
influenced their adoption decision. Similarly, Kohli and Singh (1997) also found that
inputs played an important role in the rapid adoption of high yielding varieties of rice
in the Punjab area in India. They claimed that the effort made by the Punjab
government, to make the technological innovations and their complementary inputs
more easily and cheaply available, allowed the technology to diffuse faster than in the
rest of India. In a similar vein, Ehui, Lynam and Okike (2004) stated that, for efficient
utilisation of a new technology, the availability of the necessary inputs to small-
holders, at the right time and place and in the right quantity and quality, should be
ensured.
Access to credit
A substantial amount of the adoption literature has reported on the impact of access to
credit in relation to adoption of new technologies and a vast amount of this literature
shows that the availability of credit has a positive impact on adoption. This is
particularly important in lesser developed countries for small scale subsistence
farmers. Feder and Umali (1993) reviewed factors that affect technology adoption in
these countries and they highlighted access to credit, as being a key determinant of the
adoption of most agricultural innovations. Any fixed investment requires the use of a
36
farmer’s own or borrowed capital. The adoption of a technology, which requires a

large initial investment, may be hampered by a lack of borrowing capacity (Batz et
al., 1999; El-Osta & Morehart, 1999). The adoption of such technologies is limited to
larger farmers, who have sufficient wealth that allows them to make the capital
investment (Khanna, 2001). A study by Karki and Bauer (2004), on the adoption of
improved technologies by peasant farmers in Nepal, found that the availability of
credit encouraged farmers to adopt improved technologies which required high capital
outlay.
Other studies have also found that a lack of credit played a significant role in the
adoption of technologies, which did not involve large fixed costs, such as high
yielding varieties. Simtowe and Zeller (2006) and Doss, Mwangi, Verkuijl and De
Groote (2003) found that lack of access to credit led to the low adoption of improved
maize varieties, amongst farmers in Zambia and East Africa. This credit was required
to purchase maize seed and associated inputs. Similarly, Udoh & Omonona (2008)
also found lower levels of improved rice adoption amongst households that had no
access to credit in Nigeria. These results show that access to credit is linked to
wealth, farm size and type of technology. Large farms have more wealth and they are
able to borrow and adopt capital intensive technologies, compared to small farmers.
Apart from institutional factors, the quality of the local infrastructure has been found
to affect adoption. In the following section the importance of infrastructure is
highlighted.
2.6.3.2 Infrastructure
Infrastructure plays a key role in facilitating technology adoption (Jimenez, 1995).
Infrastructure affects agricultural production indirectly through prices, diffusion of
technology and the use of inputs: it also has a profound impact on the incomes of the
poor (Ahmed & Hossain, 1990; Dorward, Kydd, Morrison & Urey, 2004). The state
of infrastructure implies improved access to markets and institutions. Infrastructure
includes transport, roading and processing infrastructure (Binswanger, 1989;
Langyintuo & Mungoma, 2008; Nweke, 1994). This is consistent across all the
authors. These factors are now discussed.
37
Transport Infrastructure
The state of road infrastructure has been found to be important in influencing the
adoption of agriculture technology (Binswanger, 1989; Nzomoi, Byaruhanga, Maritim
& Omboto, 2007). Sub-standard roads lead to high transport costs for transporting
agricultural products to markets as well as high cost of farm inputs, thus reducing
farmers’ competitiveness (Binswanger, 1989; Nzomoi, Byaruhanga, Maritim, &
Omboto, 2007). A study by Binswanger (1989) in India, showed that improvements in
infrastructure (rural road density, paved roads) led to a significant increase in fertiliser
adoption. A study by Nzomoi, Byaruhanga, Maritim and Omboto (2007), in Kenya,
found that sub-standard road networks led to the low adoption of technology, in the
production of horticultural export produce. It limited the farmers to where they could
source their inputs and where they could sell their produce. Sub-standard road
networks also led to the damage of fresh consignments of produce and greatly
reduced the life span of the vehicles carrying the produce, due to excessive wear and
tear. A sub-standard transportation system also makes it difficult for extension efforts
to reach farmers with the improved technology and (as a result) the adoption of
improved technology is limited (Leta et al., 2004; Nzomoi et al., 2007; Peterson,
1997).
Access to markets
A farmer’s access to markets may influence the net benefits available from a new
technology and therefore, its likely adoption (Langyintuo & Mungoma, 2008).
Distance to markets is also used as a proxy for market accessibility in adoption
studies (Langyintuo & Mungoma, 2008). Distance from major market centres leads to
more limited and costly access to inputs. Distance from major markets is also linked
to transport infrastructure as previously discussed. Longer distances can reflect
increased marketing costs (transport, organisation costs). Zeller et al. (1998) found
that households that were far from markets had low levels of hybrid corn adoption in
Malawi. This was because of the high costs of inputs, due to high transportation costs.
Another study, by Udoh & Kormawa (2007), on the factors that farmers considered
relevant, when adopting cassava production in African countries, found that distance
to a nearby urban market was important in the adoption of cassava technology. The
nearby market reduced transport costs for the farmers to get their produce to the
market and it therefore encouraged them to adopt the cassava technologies.
38
Distance to output markets also affects the adoption of agriculture technology.

Langyintuo & Mungoma (2008) found that distance to output markets had a negative
and significant relationship, with adoption of improved maize varieties, in Zimbabwe.
The reason for this was that farmers who were further away from market centres
tended to be less market orientated and this meant that their technology-use decisions
would rely less on profitability considerations and more on subsistence production. As
a result, they were not interested in investing in improved varieties, so long as the
traditional varieties provided a subsistence level of output for their families. Wiggins’
(2000) survey of African case studies found a number of agriculture innovations were
adopted because of easy access to output markets.
Distance to markets may also negatively affect the adoption of perishable products,
especially in less developed countries, where transport is expensive. Staal, Delgado,
& Nicholson (1997) found this to be true, particularly in the dairy sector in Kenya,
with the high perishability of raw milk. This reduced the time available for marketing
and raised the risks of spoilage with the increased distance to market. As a result,
farms that were located further from central markets had lower levels of adoption of
crossbred cow technology, in Kenya.
Access to Processing equipment

Access to post-harvest processing equipment has a relatively large influence on
farmers’ decisions to produce crops that need processing, including cassava (Nweke,
1994). Cassava is easily cultivated, but, in its fresh form, it is bulky and perishable
and many varieties are ‘bitter’ with high levels of toxic hydrocyanic acid (HCN),
which must be removed before consumption (Hahn, 1989; IITA, 1990a). Processing
reduces the bulkiness of cassava, extends shelf-life and therefore it reduces the
transportation cost, in addition adding value to the product (Janssen & Wheatley,
1985; Jeon & Halos, 1991, 1992). The processed products can be sold at a higher
price and the farmers can obtain a higher income. The Collaborative Study of Cassava
in Africa found that, in both Ghana and Nigeria, cassava cash incomes were the
highest amongst farms with access to mechanised cassava processing equipment for
the preparation of gari (Nweke, 1988). In Tanzania and Uganda, farmers’ income
from cassava was low, because the majority of farmers in both countries lacked access
39
to improved cassava processing equipment. A study by Johnson and Masters (2004)

and Agwu and Anyaeche (2007), in Nigeria, found that new cassava varieties were
adopted, because processing equipment was available.
Another external factor which is important in influencing the adoption of technologies

is government policy. This is reviewed in the following section.
2.6.3.3 Government Policy
Policy support from Government has been found to affect the adoption of new
technologies. Governments can use macro-economic policy, trade regulations, input
subsidies, regulations or education and extension, to alter the decision-making
environment in which farmers choose one practice over another (Drechsel et al.,
2005). Studies have shown government policy to positively and negatively impact on
the adoption of new technology. Government policies which have had a positive
impact on adoption include direct support, such as price subsidies, input subsidies,
credit facilities and indirect support such as marketing facilities and input facilities. A
study by Howard and Mungoma (1996), on the impact of policies and organisations
on the development and spread of maize technology in Zambia, found that small-
holders adopted improved maize technology, because the government provided direct
price subsidies on fertiliser; pan-territorial pricing of fertiliser, seeds and in addition
they also provided local credit, input and marketing facilities through cooperatives.
Government policies, which have had a negative impact on the adoption of

technologies, include indirect support, such as maintaining artificially high exchange
rates; maintaining low prices for imported substitutes; and the removal of direct
support such as credit and price subsidies (Ahmed, Salih & Sanders, 1992).
Government policy may also be antagonistic to technology adoption, because it
supports competing technologies. For instance, in Nigeria, an overvalued exchange
rate, combined with food subsidies for imported rice, hindered the adoption of
improved cassava varieties during the early years of their release, in the late 1970s
(Haggblade, 2004). A decade later, after petroleum revenues dried up and the
government was forced to devalue the Naira (Nigerian currency) and suspend its
subsidies on imported foods, the adoption of improved cassava varieties increased.
Similarly, a study by Ahmed, Salih & Sanders (1992) found that the adoption of
40
improved sorghum, in Sudan, suffered a set-back when the government pricing policy
changed. Subsidies on land and credit were eliminated and the production of sorghum
reduced.
A study by FAO (2001) on the economics of conservation agriculture, in Sub-Saharan

Africa, found that many programmes promoting conservation farming have been
relatively ineffective. This was because policies designed to promote sustainable
agriculture were undermined by other policy measures in support of highly erosive
cash crops, or by weak or slow-to-respond research and extension efforts.
The final external factor that can influence the adoption of technology is the extension
service delivery system. This is reviewed in the following section.
2.6.3.4 Extension service delivery
Extension service delivery involves the adequate and timely provision of information
to farmers, so that they can adopt new technologies if they suit their socio-economic
and agro-ecological circumstances (Anderson & Feder, 2003). The extension service
can be private or public. In developing countries such as Zambia, the provision of
extension is mainly through the government. However, this government service has
been reduced, in some developing countries, as government funding has been cut back
(Swanson & Samy, 2002). It is being replaced, to some extent, by user-pays services
and cost recovery procedures (Kidd, Lamers, Ficarelli, & Hoffmann, 2000; Rivera,
1997; Umali-Deininger & Schwartz, 1994). Important to the delivery of extension
information is the communication method and role of extension agents; attributes of
the communicators; and other factors internal to the extension system, including
financial sustainability and the working conditions of staff. These important factors of
extension service delivery and their impact on technology adoption are now reviewed.
Communication and role of extension personnel

Extension personnel are critical to the extension process. These are the mediators, in
regards to the communication of the technology (Rogers 1983). They are in contact
with the farmers and they transfer information about the technology, to the
prospective adopters (Feder & Slade, 1993; Feder & Umali, 1993). According to
41
Guerin and Guerin (1994), the contact has to be dynamic and the flow of information
must be two-way, from farmers to the extension organisations (about what
information they need) and from the institutions where the new technologies originate
to the farmers. Studies have shown that farmers, who have contact with extension
personnel, are more willing to adopt new technologies, than those who do not
(Adesina et al., 2000; Kassie et al., 2009; Udoh & Kormawa, 2009; Yaron et al.,
1992). This is because extension personnel provide information about new
technologies and this enhances the farmers’ decisions to adopt them. Extension
personnel can raise awareness and to some extent, change perceptions of the
relevance and performance of an innovation (Pannell et al., 2006). Extension agents
must be capable of more than just communicating messages to farmers. They should
have certain attributes to do their work effectively and these will be reviewed in the
following section.
Attributes of extension personnel

The critical attributes that the literature argues are important for extension personnel
to be effective in facilitating technology adoption include technical knowledge,
respect for farmers’ knowledge and credibility (Belay & Abebaw, 2004; Boyd, 2003;
Guerin & Guerin, 1994). Extension personnel need strong technical knowledge, since
they provide technical advice, which applies more directly to the production activities
of the farmers and to the actions needed to improve or sustain this production (Boyd,
2003; Guerin & Guerin, 1994). Technical knowledge also helps the extension
personnel to identify and diagnose problems. Belay & Abebaw (2004) found that the
adoption rate of modern agriculture practices, in south-western Ethiopia, were low
because extension personnel lacked the technical knowledge, relating to the
technologies. Similarly, Rahim M.Sail et al. (1990) found that one of the factors that
led to the low adoption of current rubber technology, amongst Malaysian smallholders,
was the lack of the extension personnel’s knowledge and skills on current rubber
production technology.
It is also important for extension personnel to respect the farmers’ skills and
knowledge (Guerin & Guerin, 1994). This is because extension programmes that
ignore farmers skills and knowledge frequently do not succeed (Mwangi, 1998).
Belay & Abebaw (2004) found that the adoption of modern agriculture practices, in
42
south-western Ethiopia was low because extension personnel gave little consideration
to the farmers’ experiences and knowledge.
Extension personnel need to develop credibility with the farmers (Guerin & Guerin,
1994). Farmers are more likely to believe information about a new technology, if they
perceive the extension personnel as being credible (Guerin & Guerin, 1994; Mwangi,
1998) and this may enhance their adoption decisions. Matthews-Njoku & Asiabaka
(2004) and Pannell et al. (2006) found that the credibility of an extension agent
positively influenced the adoption of recommended improved cassava technologies, in
Nigeria and the adoption of agricultural conservation practices, in Australia.
Promoting technologies, which meet farmers’ needs, also encourages a positive
attitude toward change and it improves the extension agents’ credibility (Mwangi,
1998; Pannell et al., 2006). The constraints that extension personnel face are now
discussed.
Constraints faced by the extension system

Agriculture extension systems, in developing countries, have faced a number of
problems which have limited their effectiveness. One such constraint is the quality of
infrastructure. Studies have shown that infrastructure, particularly the condition of
transport and communication facilities, affects both the farmers and extension agents
(Anderson & Feder, 2004; Leta, Murray-Prior, & Rola-Rubzen, 2004; Peterson, 1997).
In developing countries, there are a large number of farmers who live in
geographically dispersed communities, with sub-standard infrastructure (Anderson &
Feder, 2004). These geographically dispersed areas are difficult to reach, due to bad
roads and/or vehicles may be in short supply (Anderson & Feder, 2004; Leta et al.,
2004). In either case, it is difficult for extension efforts to reach farmers with
improved technology and (as a result) the adoption of improved technology is limited
(Leta et al., 2004; Nzomoi et al., 2007; Peterson, 1997).
Communication infrastructure can impose additional constraints for extension

organisations. Farmer access to mass media, such as publications, radio or television,
may be limited, thus reducing the options available to extension organisations for
communicating its messages (Peterson, 1997). At the same time, the extension agents
may have little or no access to telephone and radio services for long-range
43
communications. This can severely hamper their ability to organise and carry out field
operations (Peterson, 1997).
The other constraints that hinder the effectiveness of public extension systems, in
developing countries, are the limited staff and financial resources. Studies have shown
that, in developing countries, the ratio of extension agents to farmers is low and (as a
result) the number of farmers who need to be covered by the extension service is large
and the cost of reaching them is often high (Agbamu, 2005; Anderson & Feder, 2004;
Leta et al., 2004). This means that very few farmers have contact with extension
agents. Contact with extension personnel has been found to be important in
influencing farmers’ decisions to adopt new technologies (Adesina & Zinnah, 1993;
Udoh & Kormawa, 2009).
Extension personnel are often hindered by a lack of financial resources (Birkhaeuser,

Evenson, & Feder, 1991; Birner & Anderson, 2007; Muyanga & Jayne, 2006). The
financial resources, which they lack, include training, operational funds, reward and
incentives system, salaries and transport. The number of staff in the public sector, in
many developing countries, (including Zambia), is high and with budget restrictions
which they have, the available resources such as training for the extension agents are
limited: consequently, it is difficult for them to do their jobs effectively (Birkhaeuser
et al., 1991; Birner & Anderson, 2007; Muyanga & Jayne, 2006).
The lack of operational funds contributes to the low morale of extension personnel. In
developing countries, the extension systems also lack the reward and incentive
systems needed to attract, retain and motivate extension personnel (Belay & Abebaw,
2004). A lack of motivation may make it difficult for extension personnel to be
committed to their job and to work effectively (Anderson & Feder, 2004). Extension
workers, in developing countries, also receive low salaries and this contributes to poor
staff motivation (Leta et al., 2004). Further studies have shown that extension workers,
in developing countries, do not have adequate transport for visiting farmers
(Blanckenburg, 1982; Kassa, 1999; Leta et al., 2004; Van den Ban & Hawkins, 1996).
As a result, they cannot deliver information about new technologies to the farmers
(Blanckenburg, 1982; Kassa, 1999; Leta et al., 2004; Van den Ban & Hawkins, 1996).
44
A lack of supportive government policies also hinders the effectiveness of public

extension systems, in some developing countries (Anderson & Feder, 2003).
Government policies, in developing countries, in relation to such areas as the
provision of credit, input and seed supplies, price incentives, marketing channels and
human resources, are important in determining the effectiveness of extension systems.
Extension agents do not have any influence on policy factors and (whilst they can
give advice), the value of information is diminished, when there is a lack of a
supportive policy environment (Anderson & Feder, 2003).
The other problem, identified by Anderson Feder (2004), within the public extension
systems in developing countries, is the weak linkages between research, extension and
the farmers (Anderson & Feder, 2004). The information on which the extension
advice is based is often not generated within the extension organisation, but in
separate systems, such as research institutes or universities. These research systems
often put their agendas first, generally wanting recognition within the scientific
community and their areas of priority are not necessarily aligned with what extension
managers perceive as priorities: given their farm-level feedback (Kaimovitz, 1991).
As a result, the technologies developed by research organisations are not specifically
tailored to the problems faced by farmers (Mureithi & Anderson, 2002).
A lack of government support, commitment and or conflicting policy measures, is

also another problem for extension organisations, in developing countries. A review
of extension operations, in developing countries undertaken by the World Bank
(Purcell & Anderson, 1997), pointed out that, in nearly one-half of the agriculture
extension projects examined, a lack of commitment and support by senior government
officials adversely affected implementation and funding. Extension services are
usually comprised of a large number of public servants, who function at rural
community level and governments are frequently inclined to utilise extension staff for
other duties related to the farming population. Such duties include collecting statistics;
administering loan paperwork and input distribution (for government-provided inputs);
implementation of special programmes; and the performance of regulatory duties
(Feder & Slade, 1993). As a result of this situation, the extension workers may not
concentrate on their work of disseminating technology information to the farmers.
45
This may lead to low levels of technology adoption by farmers, due to a lack of
information.
The prevailing extension approach used by an extension organisation will also have a
significant impact on the nature of the adoption process used by farmers. The
extension approach is now reviewed.
Extension approaches
Extension approaches are important in the transfer of information and knowledge to
farmers and (as a result) they have an influence on the adoption of food security
technologies. The approaches differ, in that some may target all farmers as one entity,
whilst others use specific criteria in order to cater for the specific concerns of a
targeted farmer group (Manig, 1992). In Zambia the extension approach which is
currently in use is the participatory extension approach.
The participatory extension approach combines modern scientific knowledge with the
indigenous knowledge of the farmers in order to enhance technology adoption (Belay
& Abebaw, 2004). Studies have shown that ttechnologies which have been developed
without the knowledge of farmers, in most cases, failed: what was required was the
involvement of farmers in technology generation (Axinn, 1991). This led to the
emergence of participatory approaches of extension, in the late 1980s. In this
approach, farmers are seen as partners in research and extension and as the key
players in the innovation process (Hagmann, Chuma, Murwira, & Connolly, 1999).
The participatory technology development and dissemination approach makes
research outcomes more useful, since it helps to meet the actual needs of farmers
(Ison & Russell, 2000).
Participatory technology development incorporates the criteria farmers use for

judging agricultural technologies (Horne & Stur, 1998), which are usually different
from those perceived by researchers. For example, in the case of forage crops,
researchers usually focus on adaptation and yield potential. Farmers, on the other
hand, may select species based on such criteria as the "greenness of leaf in the dry
season", "softness of leaf" or "hairyness of leaf" (Horne & Stur, 1998). For example,
Horne & Stur, (1998) in Tuyen Quang province, Vietnam, found that farmers selected
46
forage species for buffalo, based on palatability and softness of the leaf. An
understanding of these criteria allowed the researchers to narrow down the types of
species that the farmers needed.
The use of participatory extension approaches has led to an increased adoption for
many technologies, in Africa. For instance participatory extension approaches, were
used in the development and spreading of soil conservation practices, in Zimbabwe
(Hagmann et al., 1999); in pasture management technology generation and
dissemination, in South Africa (Botha & Stevens, 2003); in integrated soil fertility
management, in Kenya (Baltissen, Wabwile, Kooijman, & Defoer, 2000); in irrigation
and water use projects, in Zambia (Rivera, 2001); and in a FAO special programme
for food security, in Tanzania (Rivera, 2001).
2.7 Summary/Conclusion
Food security is a situation that exists, when all people, at all times, have physical,
social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their
dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life. There are two main
strategies that have been used to improve food security, in developing countries: 1)
increasing on-farm food production and 2) increasing on-farm food production and
income diversification. On-farm food production requires the adoption of improved
technology, in order to increase food production. Therefore, technology adoption is
very important in achieving food security.
Farmers’ technology adoption decisions, however, are influenced by a number of

interrelated factors. These include the characteristics of the technology; internal
factors, which include personal and farm characteristics; and external factors such as
policy and infrastructure. Critical to the adoption of this technology is the extension
service, which is a major means of disseminating information about the technology. It
is, therefore, important to improve the research, extension and farmer linkages, in
order to promote food security, through the development of technologies that match
the farmers’ needs. Infrastructure and government policies are equally important as
tools to enhance the extension services.
47
Chapter 3: Research Methodology
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This chapter contains a description of: the research strategy, the case study design, the
sampling strategy, and the methods used in the collection of data, the data analysis
and lastly the ethical considerations associated with the study.
3.1 Research Strategy
There are five research strategies that can be used to undertake research (Yin, 2003):
Experiment; survey; archival analysis, history; and case study (Table 3.1). Yin (2003)
suggested that a researcher should consider three criteria when deciding upon which
research strategy to adopt: (1) the type of research question posed; (2) the extent of
control the investigator has over events; and (3) whether or not the focus is on
contemporary phenomenon within some real-life context.
Table 3.1 Conditions for selecting appropriate research strategy.
Strategy Form of Research Requires Control of Focuses on

Question Behavioural Contemporary
Events? Events?
Experiment How, why? Yes Yes
Survey Who, what, where , No Yes
how many, how
much?
Archival analysis Who, what, where, No Yes/No
how many, how
much?
History How, why? No No
Case study How, why? No Yes
(Source: Yin 2003)
48
In research strategies involving experiments, the researcher requires control over the
behaviour of the research subjects and this is focused on contemporary events in an
attempt to answer ‘how’ and ‘why’ research questions. Research strategies involving
surveys and archival analysis do not require control over research subjects: they focus
on contemporary events and they address the research questions to do with ‘who’,
‘what’, ‘where’, ‘how many’ and ‘how much’ type of questions. Historical studies
using the ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions, do not require control over the research subjects
and they do not focus on contemporary events. The case study approach is used to
address the ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions and it focuses on contemporary events (Yin,
2003): and the researcher has no control over the subjects.
Given the aim of this research, which is to inform the development of more effective
strategies for improving cassava technology adoption and food security in the
southern province of Zambia, a case study was the most appropriate one to use for this
research. A case study approach helps to determine the influence of multiple factors
on the character of the research subjects whilst also providing opportunities for in-
depth analysis of the case under study (Blaikie, 1995, 2000).
3.2 Case study design
According to Yin (2003), there are four types of case study designs: single-case
(holistic) designs; single-case (embedded) designs; multiple-case (holistic) designs;
and multiple case (embedded) designs. The holistic case studies are ones which
merely examine one unit of analysis, such as an organisation or a programme (Yin,
2003). The embedded case studies are ones which involve studying more than one
unit of analysis (Yin, 2003) and the unit of analysis defines the case study. This could
be a group, an organisation, a process, a programme, or simply an object/event (Yin,
2003).
The design chosen for this study is an embedded single-case design, which was
appropriate, given the in-depth analysis required and the amount of time available for
the research. Although Yin (2003) stressed that multiple case study designs have the
advantage of robustness, over a single case design, this can sometimes result in a
trade-off in relation to depth, especially where resources and time are limited. The
units of analysis include farm households and the extension organisations.
49
3.3 Case Selection
The research focused on Mazabuka district, which was chosen because it is one of the
districts in the southern province of Zambia that is drought prone: and the promotion
of cassava as a food security crop (by NGOs and Government) has been undertaken in
this area. The mainstay of the people in this area is agriculture and also the researcher
is familiar with the language spoken in this area. The case was also selected because it
was easily accessible. According to Yin (2003), it is better to use a case which is more
convenient, close and easy to access in order that the researcher can have more time
and thereby develop a close relationship with the interviewees, in order to gather the
information needed.
Within the district, two villages were selected, with the help of the NGOs and the
Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. The selection of the villages took into
consideration ease of accessibility of the villages by the researcher. These villages
were also selected because they were comprised of farmers: some who had adopted
cassava and some who had not.
3.4 Sampling
The identification of individual farmers, who had adopted and not adopted cassava, in
addition to key informants, was undertaken with the help of the Ministry of
Agriculture and Cooperatives and NGOs working in the area. The farmers were
selected based on ease of access for the researcher, since some of them lived in distant
places.
Purposive and snowball sampling methods were used to select participants for
interviews and observations (Ruane, 2004; Scheyvens & Storey, 2003). Purposive
sampling was also used to include people of interest: in this case men and women.
Snowball sampling also known as chain referral sampling is where participants or
informants, with whom contact has already been made, use their social networks to
refer the researcher to other people who could potentially participate in (or contribute
to) the study (Goodman, 1961). In this study, snowball sampling was the most
appropriate, since a list of farmers, who had (or had not), adopted cassava was not
50
available. The use of other sampling strategies, such as simple random sampling,
would have required a list of farmers.
The number of farmers interviewed was 40. The size of the sample was selected on
the basis that it allowed the researcher to complete interviews given the time and
resources available for the study. Both farmers who had adopted and those who had
not adopted cassava were interviewed in order that the researcher could gain an
understanding of the different decisions made by the farmers. The farmers were
interviewed in their local language.
Amongst the 40 farmers interviewed, there were three opinion leaders. Opinion
leaders, who were also key informants, are people whose social status in the
community is considered to be above average and they are given due respect. These
included a retired agriculture researcher, a teacher and a pastor. Opinion leaders help
to provide insights into a matter and they can initiate also access to corroboratory or
contrary sources of evidence (Spence, 1994). Ten of the farmers interviewed had
adopted cassava, whilst 30 had not. An equal number of men and women were
interviewed. The age of the farmers interviewed ranged between 22 and 60 years. The
level of education varied: Some had attended primary school, whilst others had
received a secondary school education. Some of the farmers interviewed were farming
on customary land, whilst others leased land from the Zambia Sugar Company. Six of
the farmers had adopted cassava leased land from the Zambia Sugar Company, whilst
four were farming on customary land.
The researcher also interviewed two Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives

officers, two agriculture extension agents working in the area and 2 representatives of
NGOs in the area. The Ministry of Agricultural and Cooperatives and NGOs were
interviewed because they are involved in agriculture in the district and they have
played a major role in the promotion of cassava, in the district. They have also been
working in these farming communities and they know the communities well. The
Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives officers, extension agents and NGO
representatives, were interviewed in English.
51
3.5 Data collection
Yin (2003) recommended the use of a protocol in case study research, in order to
guide data collection. This protocol covers the field procedures, case study questions
and data sources, through which these questions can be answered. The aim in this
study was to: inform the development of more effective strategies for improving
cassava technology adoption and food security in the southern province. In order to
achieve this aim, a data collection protocol was developed from the literature review
(Chapter 2). The data collection protocol consisted of a set of broad topic areas that
were set out as questions (Yin, 2003). The broad topic areas covered the farmers, the
Ministry of Agriculture and NGOs. In this study, the main source of data was primary
data gathered through interviews. Secondary data was collected from documents and
field observations (the data was collected between April and May 2010).
Primary data was collected through taped semi-structured interviews with farmers,
extension officers, NGO representatives and Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives
officers. Interviews were used because they provided an opportunity for a deeper
understanding of the issues surrounding this study, from the participants’ own
perspective (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003). Prior to each interview, the researcher gave brief
background information on what the research was all about. The participants were
assured that their responses would be confidential. This was important, in order to
prevent respondents from withholding information that may be important to the
research (Foddy, 1996; Patton, 2002). The researcher used a tape recorder to record
the interviews and this was placed at a distance from the participants. Permission to
record each interview was sought from the respondents, before they were interviewed.
One of the respondents refused to be recorded, but after reassurance that the interview
was confidential and his name would not be revealed, he agreed. Field notes were
taken as a backup for the taped interviews in case the recorders were damaged or did
not function.
The researcher used an interview guide to guide the interview process (Appendix 1).
The guide had fixed questions but the questions were open ended and interviewees
could provide answers that they considered to be important, without any restriction
(Bryman, 2001; Patton, 2002). Probing and clarification questions were also used, in
52
order to obtain further detail about the various topic areas (Legard, Keegan, & Ward,
2003).
The researcher also used observations as a means of collecting data. Field

observations are important, because information from documents and interviews can
be misinterpreted (Tellis, 1997). Yin (2003) argued that observations form a useful
supplement to other data collection techniques, in case study research. This involved
carefully observing and listening. The researcher also visited and observed the
farmers’ cassava fields. A structured data protocol was not used to record the
researcher’s field observations but instead, field notes were taken about activities that
were observed.
Secondary data was collected by using documents from the district and national
offices of the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives and the NGOs. The
documents collected by the researcher included the district profile on agriculture,
annual reports and district food security reports. The use of these documents was to
substantiate and augment the evidence gathered from the other sources (Creswell,
1998; Thomas, 2003). Multiple sources were used to address the issues of validity and
therefore improve the quality of the results (Yin, 2003), since the information
collected from one source could be compared with information gathered from another
source. The information gathered from the farmers and the opinion leaders was
compared with the documents obtained from the Ministry of Agricultural and
Cooperatives and the NGOs.
3.6 Data analysis
Qualitative data analysis was used for analysing the data collected for this study.
Eight of the interview tapes were transcribed using Creswell’s (1998) and Dey (1993)
Data Analysis Spiral ( Figure 3.1) in order to provide a basis for the analysis. The data
analysis spiral involved the process of describing, classifying and connecting (Dey,
1993). The interviews that were transcribed included two cassava adopters, two non-
adopters of cassava, one opinion leader, one Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives
officer, one extension agent and one NGO personnel. The other interviews with the
farmers were listened to, categories drawn out and each interview was summarised. In
53
the process they were checked for accuracy, errors were corrected and new categories
drawn out. Information was drawn from all the interviews, the supporting documents
and observations, in order to present a view of all the relevant factors in this study.
The first step of transcribing the data was undertaken by typing the text from the
interviews into word processing documents. The second step was to describe the
situations and events and here the researcher perused through the entire body of data
collected, in order to obtain an understanding of the entire data. At this time, notes
were made that suggested possible categories and interpretations.
Figure 3.1The data analysis Spiral (Dey, 1993:53; Creswell, 1998:143)
Classification was the third step and the researcher identified general categories (and
sub-categories) or themes (and sub-themes). The development of categories of
information is an approach used to reduce the data to a manageable format for
analysis (Creswell, 1998; Punch, 2005). An example of categorisation is shown in
Table 3.2 and 3.3.
54
Table 3.2: Responses to the open-ended question (not in order). What are the reasons why you do
not grow cassava?
Participant responses
- There is nowhere to sell the cassava
- It takes too long for it to mature as compared to maize
- It is difficult to grow it, termites attack it in early establishment
- There is no processing equipment for cassava
- It is destroyed by livestock such as goats and cattle
- Lack of government support in terms of price and market: too much emphasis
has been placed on maize.
- The taste is not good
- My land is too small to grow cassava
Table 3.3: Table 2 Categorisation of responses to the open- ended question: What are the reasons
why you do not grow cassava?
Inductive categories Participant responses

Infrastructure - There is nowhere to sell cassava
- There is no processing equipment
Characteristics of the technology - It takes too long to mature
- It is attacked by termites
- Its destroyed by livestock
- Do not like the taste
Farm characteristics - My land is too small
Government policy - There is no government support:
- price and market
The farmers were asked their reasons for not growing cassava and they indicated that
there was no market or processing equipment for cassava. The other reasons were that
the period of maturity of cassava was too long and it was susceptible to termites. They
did not like the taste of cassava and for those who had tried growing it, the cassava
fields were destroyed by livestock. Other reasons included the small size of the land,
55
which the farmers could not divide up to include cassava: and a lack of government
support in terms of price and markets.
These factors were categorised as infrastructure; the characteristics of the technology;

farm characteristics; and government policy. The final step of analysing the data was
to integrate and synthesise the data according to collective points that addressed the
purpose of the study. The data was analysed manually and this was because the
researcher did not have enough time to learn how to use the qualitative data analysis
software.
3.7 Ethical considerations
This research was assessed and approved as low-risk with no potential harm to the
participants anticipated by the Massey University Human Ethics Committee
(Appendix 2). The researcher ensured that the code of conduct of the Massey
University Human Ethics Committee, which underlies any research involving human
participants, was adhered to in this study (MUHEC, 2005). At the beginning of each
interview, the participant was informed of the aims, methods and anticipated benefits
of the research in order that they could decide to be part of the research, or decline.
Oral consent was sought from the participants. The participants were informed that
details which might allow them to be identified, would not be published, or made
available to anybody who was not involved in the research, unless explicit consent
had been given by them, or such information was already available in the public
domain. The participants were also assured of confidentiality regarding the
information provided. The researcher was also sensitive to the age, gender, culture,
religion and social class of the participants.
3.8 Summary
A single case design was used for this study. The case area was Mazabuka district,
which is a drought prone area, where government and NGOs have been promoting
cassava. The selection of farmers was undertaken with the help of the Ministry of
Agriculture and Cooperatives in the district in addition to NGOs working in the area.
The selection of farmers took into consideration the accessibility of the farmers by the
researcher.
56
Purposive and snowball sampling methods were used to select participants for
interviews and observations. Primary data was collected through taped semi-
structured interviews with farmers and key informants. Field observations were also
used as a means of collecting data. Secondary data was collected by using documents
from the district and national offices of the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives
and the NGOs. This data was analysed using qualitative data analysis. The results
were then compared and contrasted with the literature and conclusions were drawn,
which indicate any policy implications and/or possibilities for further research in the
area.
57
Chapter 4: Case Description
CHAPTER 4: CASE DESCRIPTION
4.1 Introduction
The study was undertaken in Mazabuka district (Figure 4.1), which is located 120km
southwest of Lusaka the capital city of Zambia. The district is connected by a bitumen
road to Lusaka, which is the largest potential market for the district. According to
CSO (2000), the population of Mazabuka district was 240,116, the total urban
population was 82,163 and the rural population was 157,953.
Study area
Zambezi
river
Figure 4.1: Map of southern province of Zambia showing the study area.
Source: Wikimedia Commons.
The total land area of Mazabuka is 6 444 km2 (CSO, 2002), of which 4, 253 km2 is
arable land 2 900 km2 is cultivated land. According to CSO (2000), state land covers
1 933 km2 and customary land covers 4 511 km2. The commercial farmers in the
district are located on state land which has the best potential (Adams, 2003). These
farmers are fortunate to be in the area with the most communications infrastructure.
The smallholder farmers are located on customary land, on soils with lower potential
58
and in areas that are less well connected to urban centres: and where marketing and
physical infrastructure is less developed.
4.2 Climate
Mazabuka district lies within the tropical zone and the lowest average temperature in
June and July (coldest months) is 10.2oC (Met, 2002). The maximum temperatures are
32.5 degrees and these occur between December and February. The district receives
less than 800mm of rainfall per annum (Met, 2002) and distribution of rainfall is
erratic; drought is recurrent and under normal conditions the growing season lasts
from 60 – 90 days.
The topography of Mazabuka is relatively flat and has brown red clay loams which
are highly erodible. Small grains such as sorghum and millet are grown and in
addition livestock rearing is successful in the district. However, maize is also grown
by a large proportion of small-scale farm households in the district. Agricultural
production is comparably lower than that in other areas of the country, which
experience a higher rainfall (Murray & Mwengwe, 2005). Households frequently have
to depend on food from outside the area, in order to meet their needs, for part of the
year.
4.3 Ethnicity/poverty/literacy
The Batonga people are the largest ethnic group living in the district. This society is
homogeneous amongst the ethnic groups in that they have similar access to land and
the poverty levels are the same. Mazabuka district is characterized by high levels of
poverty and low literacy levels (USAID, 2008). Statistics for literacy and numeracy
rates in Mazabuka District were not readily available.
4.4 Livelihoods
The people’s livelihood, in Mazabuka district, is mostly dependent on agriculture.
Farming is generally undertaken by small holder farmers (MACO, 2007), who are
generally subsistence producers of staple foods (mostly maize) with an occasional
marketable surplus. These small-scale farmers depend on hand-hoe cultivation and
they use little draught power usually depending on unpaid family labour (Saasa,
2003). There are 24,400 small holder farmer (households) in the district and these
own less than 5ha of land each (MACO, 2007). They occupy an area of 825 km2.
59
Other crops which they grow are groundnuts, sweet potatoes, Irish potatoes, cowpeas,
sugar beans, cassava and bambara nuts. Livestock such as cattle, sheep and goats are
important and food purchases are often financed through livestock sales; they can also
gather fish from the Zambezi and Luangwa rivers and Lake Kariba. Agriculture is
mainly dependent on natural irrigation, as access to water is low in many areas. Apart
from farming, the farmers are also petty traders, food processors and they engage in
informal labour markets. A number of them trade in buns or fritters and some have
small shops (tuntemba) where they sell soap, cooking oil, sugar and cigarettes: others
are involved in beer brewing.
There are 1 312 medium scale (emergent farmers) (MACO, 2007) and each family
own between 5 and 20 ha. (98 km2 in total). They produce maize and a few other cash
crops for the local market. There are 94 commercial farmers in Mazabuka (MACO,
2007) and these occupy an area of 1 200 km2. Each of these farmers own more than
20 hectares of land. Commercial farmers produce various crops for the local and
export markets.
4.5 Infrastructure
The road infrastructure in the district is poorly developed. There are 37 feeder roads
(413km) within the district and 12km of bitumen roads (Council, 2007). The rural
areas are connected by feeder roads to the district’s villages. The main market for the
farmers’ agriculture produce is the local communities where they live. However,
some farmers sell their agriculture produce at urban markets and they transport their
produce on bicycles or oxcarts. A few transport their produce using hired vehicles.
There is a well established market for maize in the district. The government through
the ‘Food Reserve Agency’ (FRA), buys maize from the farmers and stores it in its
storage sheds. There are eight FRA storage sheds in the district (MACO, 2007). There
is no established market for cassava and the farmers mostly sell it in within their local
communities.
In the district there are a number of hammer mills which are used to process maize
into maize meal. There are also few a farmers in the rural communities who own
hammer mills and they operate them on a commercial basis. There are, however, no
60
cassava processing machines. Very few of the cassava growers process it at household
level. The cassava processing process is shown in Figure 4.2 to Figure 4.7. The
photographs were taken from a ‘Food Crop Diversification Support Project’ (FoDiS)
brochure, since the researcher could not witness any such events in the study area,
during the interview period. The processing at household level is undertaken in the
same way throughout the country.
The cassava is first peeled using knives (Figure 4.2).
Figure 4. 2: Fresh cassava roots and peeling

Source: Food Crop Diversification Support Project (FoDiS)
The cassava is then thoroughly washed in water. This is done using plastic drums or
dishes (Figure 4.3).
Figure 4.3: Cassava being washed and cleaned

61
The peeled roots are placed in a drum or dish to ferment (Figure 4.4). Fermentation is
complete when the roots soften. Soaking generally takes three to four days in hot
weather and four to seven days in the cold season.
Figure 4.4: Cassava soaked in a dish

The cassava is then sliced using a knife or a grater (Figure 4.5).
Figure 4.5: Cassava being grated

62
Cassava is then placed in bags and stones are put on top of it to remove water. The
cassava is then sun dried on a reed mat (Figure 4.6).
Figure 4.6: Cassava being dried on a reed mat
The dried cassava is then pounded. This is done manually using a mortar (Figure 4.7).
Figure 4.7: A man pounding cassava

In terms of agricultural extension, the district is divided into four agricultural blocks.
Each block is headed by a block extension supervisor. The blocks are further sub-
divided into camps which are staffed by extension officers. There are 31 camps in the
Mazabuka district (MACO, 2007). Therefore, the camp is the lowest level of
63
agricultural administration. Staff to farmer ratio is one extension worker to 787

farmers (MACO, 2007). This is high, since the average ratio in the country is one
extension worker to 1700 farmers (Sheba, 1997).
4.6 NonGovernmental Organisations in Mazabuka district
There are a number of NGOs which have been working in Mazabuka district to
improve food security. These include the ‘Program Against Malnutrition’ (PAM),
PLAN Zambia and ‘World Vision’. PAM has been working in drought prone areas
including Mazabuka since 1995. They have been promoting and distributing cassava
cuttings to small holder farmers. In 2000, PAM formed the Small Holder Access to
Processing, Extension and Seeds Project (SHAPES) (Simwambana, 2005). SHAPES’
overall objective was to encourage smallholder farmers to increasingly cultivate food
security crops. This project was phased out in 2004 and since that time PAM has
implemented a food security pack with government support.
The other NGO working in the district is Plan Zambia and its main goal is to reduce
malnutrition and household poverty through improved household food security and
family incomes (Ndiyoi, Simwambana, Chiona, & Ndhlovu, 2007). In order to
contribute to the achievement of this goal, Plan Zambia supports increased and
sustainable agricultural production, crop diversification and irrigation. In addition, it
enables communities to access quality seed and it supports seed multiplication
projects, in order to boost agricultural production. In the Mazabuka district, Plan
Zambia, has distributed inputs such as cassava cuttings, beans and sweet potato seeds.
It also gives cattle, goats, poultry and pigs to farmer groups. Due to the low adoption
of the cassava in the district, Plan Zambia has stopped distributing cassava cuttings.
World Vision has also been involved in the distribution of cassava cuttings to help
improve food security in the area. All these NGOs employ their own people to
oversee the distribution and promotion of cassava.
4.7 Government cassava program in Mazabuka
The Ministry of Agriculture started distributing cassava cuttings in the southern
province including Mazabuka district, in the late 1990’s (Chitundu, Haggblade, 2006).
Cassava planting sticks were hauled in large trucks from the northern parts of the
country, where cassava is grown for distribution to drier parts of the county. The
64
agricultural extension officers were responsible for the distribution of the cassava
cuttings to the farmers. These efforts however, did not involve any follow up
activities, in order to assess the performance of the distributed cassava planting
materials and the adoption by receiving households. As a result, these efforts were
poorly documented at local level.
The Ministry of Agriculture then decided to change their mode of promoting cassava.
In 2005, they partnered with PAM, a local NGO, in order to implement the ‘Food
Security Pack’ (FSP) (Simwambana, 2005). This pack includes cereal seeds, legume
seeds and root or tuber crop cuttings. In the Mazabuka district, the government and
PAM have promoted the cultivation of cassava as a complementary crop in the case of
maize failure. Due to fears of cassava poisoning from the high hydrogen cyanide
content in some of the varieties, the strategy used for cassava distribution was based
on the distribution of sweet varieties. The great bulk of the promotion efforts and
resources have focused on distribution of cassava cuttings to food-insecure
households for their subsistence consumption (Simwambana, 2005). These farmer
households were identified by the agricultural extension officers who have been
working in these areas.
4.8 History of Maize
Maize originated from Brazil and it came to Zambia with the Portuguese slave traders
(Jones, 1959; Miracle, 1966). Due to its physical characteristics, it was the ideal crop
for the slave trade. It has a hard outer shell and can withstand long storage periods
without spoiling. In addition, due to its low water content, maize contains more
calories per kilogram than many other crops, thus making it easy to transport large
quantities of calories within small spaces.
The importance of maize in Zambia extends as far back as the 1900’s during the
colonial times. Maize policies in Zambia are tied to its history. In the 1900s, Zambia
was colonised by the British and mining served as the main form of industrialisation
(Brelsford, 1960). By the early 1920s, mining in Zambia was expanding and in order
to feed the growing industrial population (i.e. non farming population), the colonial
government had to look for reliable sources of food. During this time, African
65
farming systems were disrupted by the colonial settlers (who acquired prime
agriculture land) and also by the migration of males to work on the mines. As a result,
the colonial government believed that African farming systems were not able to meet
the country’s demand for food and they instituted policies that would encourage
European settlement and maize production in the fertile plateau of southern Zambia
(Colonial Report, 1946). Therefore, maize production and marketing was
monopolised by the Europeans and the indigenous farmers were confined to their own
traditional areas. As a result of these policies, maize became the staple food for the
industrial population.
In the 1930s, there was a global recession which led to the closure of the mines and
this led to a reduction in demand for maize and a decline in its price. Despite the local
Zambians having lost their prime land, sales volumes ( from their land) tripled from
the 1920s through to the 1930s, whilst produce from the European settlers’ land only
increased by 25 percent (Colonial Repor, 1951). Pressure from the Zambian farmers
led the colonial government to establish the Maize Control Boards (MCBs) in 1936.
This marked the beginning of Government interventions in maize marketing in
Zambia. The MCBs favoured the European settlers at the expense of indigenous
Zambians. The colonial government provided a market for the European settlers’
maize and they constructed a railway line that connected the European maize farms in
the south with the copper mines in the central province. At the same time, Zambian
farming was forcibly confined to ‘traditional areas’, in order to prevent Zambian
farmers from encroaching on the European maize monopoly. Through these policies,
maize became the dominant staple food in the country. These maize policies
encouraged the growing of maize however; this was at the expense of other crops
such as millet, sorghum and cassava.
In 1964, when Zambia obtained its independence the mainstay of its economy was
copper mining (Seshamani, 1998). Revenue from the export of copper was used to
finance domestic expenditure and the cost of importing food during years of
shortages. During this time, maize was still the most important food crop and (since
the majority of the population resided in rural areas) the post-colonial government
used maize production incentives and input subsidies as a way of improving rural
welfare.
66
In 1970, there was another global recession and the Zambian copper industry
collapsed and this created problems for the government in terms of funding the maize
policies (Woods, 1990). The Government ‘ran out’ of foreign exchange and it used
loans to finance the operation of the MCBs for more than a decade. In 1980, interest
rates were rising and copper prices on the international market remained low. It
became increasingly difficult for the Government to service the loans required to
support its MCBs. In 1992, the Zambian Government was forced by the international
community into a structural adjustment programme and (as a result) it stopped its pan
territorial pricing policy and reduced the amount of maize purchased from farmers. As
a result of reduced intervention in maize production and marketing, farmers
diversified into other crops. From 1990 to 1999 the area planted with maize declined
by 22% whilst that planted with cassava increased by 65% (Zulu, Nijhoff, Jayne, &
Negassa, 2000).
During the late 1990s, the Zambian people protested about the withdrawal of
government support for maize production and marketing. In response to this protest,
the government returned to pan-territorial pricing (in 2001) and formed the ‘Food
Reserve Agency’ (FRA) which is a government buying agent. Its functions to
purchase maize for the national food reserve at pan-territorial prices fixed by
government (Seshamani, 1998). The agency operates crop purchase depots in many
far distant areas of rural Zambia. This reduces farmer’s transportation costs thereby
enhancing their net earnings. The agency’s programme also protects farmers from
some socially insensitive traders who offer very low prices which work against
sustained production and food security. In addition, FRA also distributes fertiliser and
accepts maize as ‘payment in kind’ for the fertiliser (Govereh et al., 2002).
Although (at the beginning of 2001) the volumes of purchased maize had reduced, in
2005, the government became more involved in the marketing of maize (Govereh,
Jayne, & Chapoto, 2008). The rationale behind renewed government involvement in
maize marketing has been to provide renewed production incentives for maize and for
Zambia to become self-sufficient (as a nation) in its primary staple foods. The
channelling of the majority of producer and consumer subsidies into maize has been
at the expense of other crops (Tschirley, Abdula, & Weber, 2006). Up to the present
67
day, even though the magnitude of the intervention has been reduced from post-
independence years, price supports and fertiliser subsidies for maize are in place, to
such a degree, that nearly 50% of the total agricultural budget was devoted to the FRA
and fertilizer support in 2005 (Jayne et al., 2007).
4.8.1 Uses for maize
Maize is generally used as food for people. In this case it’s roasted or boiled and it is
eaten on the cob. It is also processed into maize meal and made into nsima (thick
dough made by boiling maize meal in hot water). Maize is also used for brewing beer
and for animal consumption: There is processing infrastructure for maize in the study
district.
4.9 History of Cassava
Similarly to maize, cassava (Figure 4.8) came to Africa with Portuguese slave traders
during the 17th century (Sitko, 2008). It was introduced to the southern province of
Zambia by the colonial government. This is unlike the northern province of Zambia
where cassava was cultivated long before colonial occupation.
Unlike maize, cassava has high water content: it is bulky and it spoils quickly. These
features did not make it attractive as a food crop. However, its ability to withstand
drought conditions made it attractive to the colonial government, who made strenuous
efforts to encourage the cultivation of famine reserve cassava gardens in every village
in the southern province (Colonial Report, 1951). These strenuous efforts included
penalizing farmers whose cassava gardens were smaller than a stone’s throw in width
(Haggblade & Zulu, 2003.). As a result of this colonial legacy, older people in
southern Zambia still associate cassava with colonial oppression.
68
Figure 4.8: Cassava field in Mazabuka

Photographed by the researcher
4.9.1 Policies affecting Cassava
The Zambian government has influenced cassava production and marketing through
its investment in research. The research stations have released two waves of varieties
of cassava (Haggblade & Nyembe, 2007): the first wave in 1993 and the second in
2000 (Table 4.1). The new varieties are high yielding as compared to traditional
varieties and four of the seven varieties are sweet.
Table 4.1 Cassava Varieties
Variety Date Yield(tons/ha) Taste
Traditional 1600 7 Bitter
Bangweulu 1993 31 Bitter
Kapumba 1993 22 Sweet
Nalumino 1993 29 Bitter
Mweru 2000 41 Sweet
Chila 2000 35 Bitter
Tanganyika 2000 36 Sweet
Kampolombo 2000 39 Sweet
Source: Chitundu and Soenarjo (1997); Simwambana, Chiona, Chalwe, &

Mutuna, 2004) .
69
Cassava is mainly consumed as a snack in the district. The sweet varieties are the ones
being promoted in the Mazabuka district because they contain a low cyanide content,
which means that the sweet cassava varieties are safe to eat as snacks and without
processing, since the majority of the people do not have any knowledge regarding the
processing of cassava. Sweet varieties are also said to taste better and have a good
flavour as compared to the bitter varieties. Sweet varieties can also be processed into
flour but the bitter varieties have an advantage in that they produce high quality flour
with high content of dry matter, which can be used for human and industrial
consumption (Oben & Menz, 1981).
In the Mazabuka district, there is a government research station, Nanga Research

Station, which has been involved in research on vegetables, tree and plantation crops,
irrigation engineering and pathology. In recent years the government has included the
multiplication and distribution of cassava cuttings to its activities in the district.
4.9.2 Uses of cassava
Cassava leaves are consumed as a vegetable in the Mazabuka district (Figure 4.9).
The cassava leaf is richer in protein and energy than rape, a commonly accepted
Zambian vegetable (Hichaambwa, 2005). The leaves of cassava are pounded, to
ensure that the cell walls of the leaf are ruptured. Once the leaves are pounded, they
are cooked until they change colour.
Figure 4.9: Cassava leaves

70
Sweet cassava varieties that are sweet are consumed as fresh raw tubers (Figure 4.10)
or boiled. As mentioned previously, this is the main way in which it is eaten in the
district.
Figure 4.10: Fresh cassava tubers.

A few people dry the cassava, store it and eat it as fried and roast chips or they mill it
into flour which they mix with maize meal to make nsima (Figure 4.11- figure 4.12).
Figure 4.11: Cassava chips

71
Figure 4.12: Packaged cassava meal

Source: Langmead & Baker Ltd (2003)
Dried cassava provides a cheap source of calories and it offers an attractive substitute
for the wheat and maize products that are common amongst Zambia’s food, feed and
industrial processors. In Zambia, a number of innovative farmers and feed companies
are experimenting with cassava-based stock feed rations, as a means of lowering feed
costs, which is the major cash expenditure in livestock production ((Haggblade &
Nyembe, 2008). However this is not undertaken in the Mazabuka district since there
are not any processing facilities.
4.9.3 Storage of cassava
Cassava has a shelf life of about 24-48 hours after harvest (Westby, 2002). It needs to
be processed into storable form or it can be stored in the ground. The farmers in the
Mazabuka district lack processing equipment and (as result) they store it in the
ground. The farmers harvest the crop when it is needed. This flexibility in storage is
one of the most important features, when the crop is used for food security. However,
cassava roots have an optimum age after which there is loss in yield and impairment
in flavour (Lancaster, Coursey, 1984). During storage, there is a danger that the roots
72
will be infested by pathogens. There is also a danger that during storage, the land is
tied up and cannot be used for other crops (Westby, 2002).
4.10 Seasonal Calendar
Maize seeds are sown in November when the rains start (Table 4.2). Since the
Mazabuka district has a low rainfall, early maturing varieties which take 110 to 115
days, are planted. At planting, or two weeks after planting, basal dressing (NPK) is
applied. At four to six weeks after planting, top dressing (urea or CAN) is applied.
Weeding is done after planting or just before the second dose of fertiliser application
and it is done manually. In February green maize is ready to be harvested. The main
harvest starts in May and finishes in June. Thereafter, livestock is left in the fields to
graze on the maize stalks until land preparation begins in October.
Table 3.2 Seasonal calendar for maize

Maize Maize- Green harvest of maize Main Livestock grazing
planting top harvest
-basal dressing
dressing
Land Rainy Season Land
Prep Prep
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Year 1
Cassava is planted at the same time as maize in November when the rains start (Table
4.3). Fertilisers and manures are usually not used by small-scale cassava growers
because they cannot afford such additional inputs. Weeding is done every three to
four weeks until two to three months after planting. Afterwards the canopy covers the
soil and weeding is not necessary. Cassava is usually harvested 24 months after
planting. Once the harvesting begins, it continues throughout the year. In the third
year the cassava field is replanted.
73
Table 4.3 Seasonal calendar for cassava

Cassava Weeding Cassava Harvested Replant in a
planting continuously staggered manner
Land Rainy Season
Prep
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr- Dec Jan- Dec Jan- Dec
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
4.11 Comparing maize and cassava
When compared with other staple crops (cassava, sweet potato, sorghum), maize is
more susceptible to drought, and its production may be hit substantially by bad
weather (JAICAF, 2008). In addition, inputs such as chemical fertiliser and improved
seeds are very important for achieving high yields: maize crops tend to fail without
those inputs. Maize can be processed into maize meal which is used for nsima. Other
products include beverages such as maheu or munkoyo. Maize is used as an ingredient
for beer and it is also the main ingredient for Chibuku, a local alcoholic beverage
which is generally consumed by the low-income and rural population.
The advantage of cassava is that it has a greater resistance to drought, as compared to

maize. It can grow in low fertile soils and it has little requirements for inputs,
including chemical fertilizers (Polson & Spencer, 1991; Prudencio & Al-Hassan,
1994). Comparing the yields of cassava and maize, cassava has an advantage in that
it yields over 30 tons of fresh roots per hectare, or 9 tons of dry matter ,compared to
1.5 tons for maize (Barratt et al., 2006). Dividing by three, in order to account for a
staggered harvest over a three-year cycle, this represents a 10 ton/ha annual yield,
equivalent in calorie terms to three tons of maize.
Cassava can be consumed in various ways. The leaves can be eaten as a vegetable
and the tubers can be eaten either as a raw snack or it can be boiled. It also has the
potential for processing into foods such as cassava flour, chips and starch. Cassava
meal can also be used as an additional ingredient with the staple food (nsima), which
eliminates the necessity of changing traditional diets. Cassava can be consumed
throughout the year in addition to providing a source of income for farmers since the
harvest is not concentrate during a short period of time (JAICAF, 2008). However,
74
cassava also has some disadvantages (JAICAF, 2008), for example, it requires a long
period of growth before harvest (9-24 months), creating competition for land with
other crops, where land is scarce. The bitter varieties require detoxification, and
farmers need knowledge of relevant processing techniques, in order to detoxify them.
Cassava quality deteriorates rapidly after harvest and it is more ‘bulky’ than maize,
thus creating more difficulties for transportation and processing: Cassava does remain
edible, when not harvested.
4.12 Summary
The Mazabuka district is in the southern province of Zambia. It is a drought prone
area. Agriculture is the predominant activity in the district. Farming is generally
undertaken by small-scale farmers and the main crop is maize. Other crops grown
include groundnuts, sweet potatoes, Irish potatoes, cowpeas, sugar beans, cassava and
bambara nuts. Livestock such as cattle, sheep and goats is also important for the
farmers. The largest ethnic group in the district is the Batonga people. The society is
homogeneous among the ethnic groups in that they have similar access to land and
poverty levels are the same.
In terms of infrastructure, the Mazabuka district is poorly developed. There are few
bitumen roads and most areas are connected by feeder roads. The main market for
agricultural produce is the local market but a few farmers to urban markets. The
transport generally used to transport the produce, is bicycles and oxcarts and a few
farmers hire vehicles. The district has a number of hammer mills for processing maize
but there are none for cassava.
Maize is the main crop grown but it does not do well since the area is drought prone.
As a result, the government and NGOs, such as Plan International, PAM and World
Vision, have been promoting the growing of cassava in the district. This has been
achieved by distributing cassava cuttings and providing extension services. Cassava,
which came to Africa with Portuguese slave traders during the 17th century, is being
promoted, because it is drought tolerant, it does not require many inputs and it grows
well in less fertile soils.
75
Chapter 5: Factors affecting cassava adoption
CHAPTER 5: FACTORS AFFECTING CASSAVA ADOPTION
Introduction
The purpose of this research is to inform the development of more effective strategies
for improving cassava technology adoption and food security, in the southern
province of Zambia. The first section offers an overview of the nature of cassava
adoption in Mazabuka. The second section outlines factors that have led to the non-
adoption of cassava. Several inter-related factors were found to affect adoption and
these can be divided into three major categories: 1) characteristics of the technology;
2) internal factors such as personal characteristics of the farmers and their farm
characteristics; and 3) external factors such as institutional factors, infrastructure,
government policy and extension service delivery. Examining factors identified in the
study, as affecting cassava adoption, it was found that they could be usefully
categorised into internal and external factors. The third section will outline factors
that have influenced farmers to adopt cassava and the constraints that are limiting the
size of the benefits they could obtain from cassava.
5.1 Over view of adoption
The cassava promotion programme has been undertaken in Mazabuka district, since
the late 1990s. The people involved have been the Ministry of Agriculture and
Cooperatives and NGOs. The level of adoption of cassava technology was reported to
be low: and this was confirmed by this research. Forty farmers were interviewed and
only 10 of these had adopted cassava, whilst 30 farmers had rejected it. Amongst the
non-adopters of cassava, five had adopted it in the past but, after it was eaten by
termites, they stopped growing it. The farmers who had never tried it but still rejected
it completely numbered 25.
Out of the 10 adopters interviewed, six had personal circumstances that differed from
the other four adopters. These six adopters leased land from the Zambia Sugar
Company. They were long term leases (more than 10 years) and these farmers were
not allowed to grow maize, by the Zambia Sugar Company and this was a factor in
influencing their choice of cassava.
76
5.2 Non adopters of cassava
As mentioned previously, the non-adopters are people who are not growing cassava,
when the researcher went into the field. The factors that influenced these farmers’
decision not to adopt cassava can be classified into three main types: characteristics of
the technology; internal factors; and external factors. These are outlined in detail in
the following sections.
5.2.1 Characteristics of the cassava technology
Several characteristics of the technology were identified by those farmers who have
not adopted cassava. These include the time of maturity; immediacy of reward/cash
flow; storage characteristics; perceived benefits; susceptibility to termites;
requirements for fencing; taste or palatability; management and input requirements;
and culture and tradition.
The length of time it takes for cassava to mature was identified as a reason why the
farmers did not want to grow it. The varieties available in the district were late
maturing and they took approximately two years to reach maturity and begin
producing roots for harvest. Some farmers believed that they had insufficient land to
commit to a crop that took two years to reach maturity. For example, one of the
farmers said “My land is very small and I cannot plant both maize and cassava.
Cassava takes 12 to 24 months to mature. This is too long for me to commit my land
to it. If I grow cassava it would mean that the land available for me to grow other
crops would be limited”.
Cash flow implications for farmers, relating to the two year production cycle of
cassava, were also identified as a reason for non-adoption. Cassava took two years to
reach maturity and therefore, this limited the cash flow available to the farmers.
During that two year period, many of the farmers stated that they could grow two
crops of maize and this would provide a much better pattern of cash flow. Some of the
farmers indicated that they had to pay school fees for their children. The cash flow
associated with cassava meant they would not be able to pay the school fees on time.
One of the farmers stated: “When I grow maize, I get my money within a short period
77
of time and use it for any emergency as compared to a cassava grower who will be
selling it over a long period of time.”
The lack of perceived benefits from cassava affected the farmers’ decisions not to
grow cassava. A number of non-adopters stated that they did not know of anyone who
was growing cassava and making a profit. As a result they did not see the benefits of
growing cassava. One of the farmers stated: “If I have a big field of maize, I know that
I will get more profit from selling it than the one who has a field of cassava.”
Cassava cannot be stored easily for a long period of time, after harvesting. However,
it can be stored in the ground. The requirement for in-ground storage limited the
adoption of cassava, because it meant that farmers could not use the land for
alternative crops. The farmers interviewed said that the alternative crops, which were
early maturing, helped them in receiving cash sooner compared to cassava, which
took longer.
The susceptibility of cassava to white ants (termites), prior to sprouting, was an

important factor that resulted in farmers not wanting to grow cassava. Termites were a
problem throughout the case study area. These termites would eat the cassava cuttings
before they sprouted. As a result, farmers were discouraged from growing it. Some of
the farmers had attempted to grow cassava but, after crop failure due to termites, they
did not want to grow the crop again.
The need for fencing to protect cassava fields also affected the levels of adoption.
Cassava needs to be protected from livestock, which damage the plants through
grazing. The non-adopters said that, after harvesting their fields of maize, they would
let their livestock loose in the fields to feed on the maize stalks. This occurs at a time
when the cassava crop is still actively growing and the livestock would tend to eat the
cassava leaves and damage the crop.
The taste of cassava, which meant that people were not familiar with it, was one of the
factors that influenced the farmers’ decision not to grow cassava. Farmers who had
not adopted cassava said that they were not used to the taste of the sweet cassava
varieties, as a staple food. They were used to eating maize as a staple and they
78
perceived it to taste better than cassava. They would eat the sweet cassava as a snack
but they did not process it into cassava flour for making their staple food, nsima.
The non-adopters considered maize to be more management-intensive, compared with

cassava. This includes planting, weeding and fertiliser application. Despite these
requirements, the non-adopters still preferred to grow maize because they were
familiar with the cropping practices. The non-adopters also said that maize required
more inputs than cassava (fertiliser, seed, and labour for weeding and fertiliser
application). These factors however, did not discourage them from growing maize
since they made sure that they acquired the inputs.
The farmers’ culture and tradition influenced the non-adoption of cassava. The non-
adopters said that maize is used as an important gift, in addition to being an important
source of food that can be given to other farmers, during traditional ceremonies and at
functions. Through gift exchanges of maize, they create systems where they can
reciprocate and then maintain their social relationships. The farmers also believed
that, for one to be called a ‘real farmer’, they needed to grow maize. They attached a
high value to the growing of maize. One of the farmers stated: “Maize is what we take
as contributions to funerals and people really appreciate. If I were to take other crops
such as cassava, they would not appreciate it as much. As care givers we also give
maize to people who are sick in the community. If they did not bring us cassava
cuttings we would not miss them”. They should have asked us the crops we wanted
before bring cassava here.” This farmer even went on to suggest that promoting crops
such as sweet potatoes and Irish potatoes would be more acceptable to them, than
cassava.
The internal factors that influenced the non-adoption of cassava included the personal
characteristics of their farmers and farm characteristics such as farm size. These are
now outlined.
79
Personal characteristics of farmers
This research did not specifically explore the influence of personal characteristics,
such as age, gender and education, on the adoption of cassava technology. However,
the data collected did not suggest any clear link between any one or group of personal
characteristics and the adoption of cassava technology. The age of the youngest
farmer interviewed was 22 years, whilst the older ones were in their 60s. The level of
education of the farmers varied. Some had attended primary school, whilst others had
completed their secondary school education. There were an equal number of both
females and males amongst the farmers interviewed.
Farm characteristics
The size of the farm, although not specifically mentioned, was a factor in influencing
the farmers’ decision not to grow cassava. The non- adopters on average, had three
hectares of land and due to small size of their land, they felt that they could not divide
their farms into different cropping systems. The adoption of cassava would mean that
they would not be able to grow a diversity of other crops, like sweet potatoes and Irish
potatoes.
Several external factors influenced the farmers’ decisions not to adopt cassava
technology. These included institutional factors: infrastructure; government policy;
and extension service delivery.
Institutional factors
The institutional factors included membership of cooperatives, access to extension

and access to inputs. Although many of the farmers were members of cooperatives or
community groups, this did not positively influence their decision to adopt cassava.
The non-adopters, who belonged to cooperatives, said that the cooperatives they
belonged to were formed to access maize inputs and these groups did not discuss
cassava as an option. A number of groups within the community were formed by
NGOs, such as Plan International and initially the purpose of these groups was to give
them credit for group enterprises and the purchase of goats and chickens. Later on, the
NGO distributed cassava cuttings to the groups and told the people about the benefits
80
of cassava. After undertaking monitoring and assessment, the NGO found that the
farmers had not planted the cassava cuttings and thereafter, the NGO stopped
distributing cassava cuttings.
Although the farmers had access to extension personnel, in most cases this did not
positively influence the farmers’ decision to adopt cassava. The farmers who had not
adopted cassava said that they had heard about cassava as an alternative crop to
maize. They were also aware of a promotion of the benefits of growing cassava which
included the fact that cassava was drought tolerant, it required less fertile soils and it
was more secure than maize, because it could be stored in the ground. This
information was provided by NGOs and government extension agents. The NGOs,
such as PAM and Care International, played a major role in disseminating information
about cassava and the benefits of growing it. There were also cassava field days,
which were held by NGOs. This was another forum which farmers attended in order
to hear about the cassava. The farmers, however, said that they lacked information on
how to correctly grow the cassava, manage it and utilise it.
The government, in conjunction with the ‘Program Against Malnutrition’ (PAM) and
other NGOs, such as Plan International have been distributing food security packs,
which consist of a cereal such as maize, a legume (beans), cassava cuttings and
fertiliser to farmers. Their aim has been to promote food diversification. The farmers
would, however, plant the cereal and the legumes but not plant the cassava. When the
non-adopters were asked why they had not planted the free cassava cuttings, they said
that the cassava cuttings were distributed too early in the year, before the rainy
season. They decided to keep them but by the time the rains arrived, the cuttings were
dead or they had been eaten by livestock, since they had stored them outside. A
number of farmers mentioned that they had no interest in growing cassava: they were
only interested in the cereal and legume in the food security pack.
81
Infrastructure
The infrastructure factors, which were important in influencing cassava adoption,

include access to markets and access to processing equipment. Market access is one of
the factors that affected these farmers’ adoption decision. The non-adopters said that
they did not grow cassava because there was no market for it. One farmers stated: “I
am not sure of the cassava market. I wonder if I were to grow it where I would sell it.
I see those who grow it selling it to people in the community and a few customers who
come from town but I do not think that market is enough”.
Access to processing equipment also affected farmers’ decisions to grow cassava. In

order to enhance the storage capacity of cassava outside the soil, the farmers needed
to process the cassava. The non-adopters interviewed said that there was no
processing equipment in the district. One of the farmers stated: “Here in Mazabuka, I
have not seen any Chigayo (hammer mill) for cassava. I only see milling equipment
for maize. So even if I grow it, how can I make it into cassava meal? I do not have the
capital to buy my own processing equipment.
Government policy
Government policy also contributed to the low levels of cassava adoption. A key
informant said that there was no government policy on cassava marketing in the
district. The government has only been distributing cuttings and encouraging the
production of cassava in the district. In contrast, the government has been providing
subsidised inputs and a market for maize. In 1992, it withdrew subsidies on maize, to
encourage the production of other crops, such as cassava. However, in 2005, the
government reintroduced the subsidy for maize production and marketing. The
rationale behind the renewed government involvement in maize marketing was to
ensure that the country became self-sufficient in maize production, as a primary staple
food. As a result of these policies related to maize, the farmers were more inclined to
grow a crop that had full government support, in terms of production and marketing,
than a crop (cassava) that did not have such support. By maintaining positive policies
for which cassava is a substitute, the government has inhibited the adoption of
cassava.
82
Extension related factors
This section describes factors which relate to the extension system. The research
found that extension agents disseminated information through groups. The research
also found that extension agents had constraints that affected their work. The use of
farmer groups, as a method of disseminating information is outlined, in addition to
factors that constrain the effectiveness of agricultural extension agents.
Use of groups
The agriculture extension officers and NGOs working in the area disseminated their
information on cassava through farmers’ groups. They got in touch with the contact
farmer of the group, who then summoned the groups’ members. Where there are no
groups, they contacted the village headman or the chief. The extension agents and
NGOs preferred working with groups of farmers since they were able to reach many
farmers, within a short period of time. In this research, the results showed that group
membership did not influence the farmers’ decisions to adopt cassava.
Factors constraining agricultural extension agents

The constraints preventing extension agents from carrying out their work effectively
were a lack of resources; poor road infrastructure; a lack of training; low motivation
and morale; and bureaucratic processes. Of these constraints, the one which clearly
influenced the adoption of cassava technology in this study was a lack of training.
The resource issues identified by extension personnel, as constraining their work,

included a lack of vehicles and fuel. The extension agents said that they lacked
dependable, official means of transportation, in order to fulfil their work. The motor
bikes available were few and as a result, most of the personnel had no means of
transport, on which to reach the farmers. The agents who had motor bikes did not
have the adequate fuel needed to regularly visit the farmers. The allowance for
maintaining the motor bikes was also very meagre and they had problems fixing the
motor bikes, if they broke down. The settlement areas of farmers was approximately
30km or more between villages and these areas are connected by feeder roads, which
are in substandard state and poorly maintained. During the rainy season, the roads
83
became impassable. This substandard road infrastructure has also contributed to their
motor bikes breaking down more often.
The extension agents said that they did not have any training on cassava production.
In addition, they did not have any training materials that had been developed by
research stations for teaching the recommended ways of planting cassava. Most of the
farmers planted cassava by using their own methods. One of the agents stated: I am a
college graduate but I need to be trained in cassava production since it is a new crop
that is being promoted. The periodic trainings can help me to update my knowledge
levels as researchers on cassava are coming up with new things.” A lack of training
for these extension agents resulted in farmers not having adequate information about
how to grow cassava.
The extension agents had low motivation and morale. This was contributed to by a
lack of supervision, poor accommodation and low salaries. One of the agents stated:
“I am not motivated to do my job as there is limited supervision from my supervisors
at the district level. My supervisor visits me every 6-12 months and I receive limited
feedback on my work.” The extension agents attributed the lack of supervision from
their supervisors to a lack of adequate transport and fuel, for the supervisors to
oversee their field work.
Substandard accommodation has also dampened the extension agents’ morale to

work. The government houses they lived in had no power and no running water. Low
salaries also contributed to the low levels of motivation observed in the field staff.
The agents mentioned that they are the poorest paid government officials. One of the
extension officers stated: “My salary is very little. It’s even a wonder that I am able to
survive on it. Worse still, the salaries do not come on time. Imagine this is the 10th of
May and we have not yet been paid the April salaries. How can I be motivated to
work like that? Instead of working, I am forced to do other things not related to my
work which can bring me money so that I can feed my family.” Workers in Zambia
are paid at the end of each month. The agents said that the government and others
often blamed them if a programme did not succeed: however, if the programme was
successful, they were never rewarded.
84
The bureaucratic system within government had an impact on the work of these
extension agents. When farmers needed help, the agents had to report the farmers’
needs to the district agricultural officer, who then reported this to the provincial
agricultural officer. The provincial agricultural officer then reported to the national
office and so on. Hence, despite the farmers facing problems which needed to be
quickly overcome, they have to wait for a decision, from a high-level official, on how
the problem should be overcome. One of the agents stated that: “The farmers have
been requesting us to ask the government to assist them with a market and processing
equipment for the cassava and we have been conveying the message but nothing has
been done to date. This has resulted in most farmers stopping to take the cassava
promotions seriously. It has also made our work difficult as the farmers stop trusting
us and think that we are not conveying their messages to the relevant authorities.”
5.3 Adopters of Cassava technology
In the previous section, the factors that influenced the non-adoption of cassava were
described. In this section, the reasons why some farmers have adopted cassava are
explained, together with the means by which they have overcome many of the
constraints to adoption, which were outlined in the previous section.
5.3.1 Characteristics of the technology
The farmers, who have adopted cassava, have adapted management of the crop to
overcome or eliminate many of the issues that led others to reject cassava. These are
now outlined.
The adopters interviewed said that the length of time to reach maturity of cassava was
not an issue that prevented them from growing cassava. They divided their land in
order that they had an area in cassava for two years and they had other parts of their
land where they grew early maturing crops, such as maize. The farmers who adopted
cassava stored it in the ground after it was ready for harvest: and they harvested it
when it was needed. They accepted that this was the ‘cost’ of growing cassava and
they knew that the piece of land planted in cassava would be unavailable for other
crops, for two years.
85
In the early years of establishing their cassava fields, the farmers who adopted cassava
relied on income from maize. Once they had established cassava within their cropping
systems, they could generate satisfactory cash flow from selling both maize and
cassava. In addition, the cassava had cash flow benefits above those of maize. This
was due to the fact that they could harvest and sell cassava throughout the year. After
the maize season was over, they could still generate a cash flow from their cassava
crop. The other benefit of growing cassava was that the crop was more ‘secure’, than
maize. Maize cobs were often stolen from the fields but cassava, as an underground
tuber, is much more difficult to steal.
Termites were also a potential issue for farmers who adopted but they overcame this
problem by using a higher planting density. This ensured that sufficient plants
survived to establish a good cassava crop. An alternative approach was to plant the
cassava crop during the rainy season. By the time the rains finished, the cassava
would have already sprouted. Cassava planted in the rainy season has a high chance
of survival, since the termites get moisture from the soil, which is their primary source
of moisture: and not the cassava plant. The farmers do not use chemicals to control
termites since the cost is high and they cannot afford this cost.
To overcome the problem of livestock damaging the cassava fields, the framers either
fenced their fields using thorny hedges, a practice that deters livestock from eating the
crop, or they used wire and stick fences to keep livestock off their cassava crops.
Other farmers used goat dung, which they mix with water and pour around the
perimeter of the fields, to deter livestock from grazing the cassava.
The taste of cassava was unfamiliar to the farmers and not favoured by them, but they
mixed the cassava meal with the maize meal, when cooking the staple food, nsima.
The nsima made from a mixture of cassava and maize meal tasted better than eating
cassava nsima alone. Mixing the two also made their maize meal last longer.
Management and Input requirements

The farmers said that cassava required less management, compared to maize. Once
planted, cassava only required occasional weeding and did not require very fertile
soils and so they did not have to apply fertiliser. In terms of labour requirements,
86
these farmers said that maize needed more labour for weeding and fertiliser
application. It was advantageous to grow cassava for the adopters due to its low input
and management requirements.
Production Risk
The adopters noted that an important reason for the adoption of cassava was its lower
production risk, relative to maize. They also stated that maize required a high amount
of rainfall for good yields. If there was drought, the yields were very low. Since they
grew both maize and cassava, they did not worry about the low yields of maize since
they had cassava to rely on. One of the farmers stated: “I have three fields of cassava
and each is about 0.03 hectares. I staggered the planting of the fields at an interval of
one year. After two years of planting I started harvesting my fields one after the other.
Doing this insures me against hunger in the event that maize does not do well.
Cassava also helps me during the hungry season which is between December and
February before the maize harvest.”
Culture and tradition

The farmers who have adopted cassava had been prepared to change their way of life
and add cassava to their farming system, given its benefits. They said that they had
been growing maize alone over the past years and they had experienced periods of
hunger, when there was a drought and the maize did not do well. As a result, when
they heard about the drought tolerance nature of cassava, from the government,
extension agents and fellow farmers, they decided to incorporate it into their farming
systems.
Internal factors include personal and farm characteristics. Familiarity with the crop
emerged as being important in influencing the adoption of cassava technology. This
factor is now outlined.
Familiarity with the crop

Familiarity with the crop influenced the level of adoption. Some farmers who adopted
cassava had migrated from cassava growing regions in Zambia. They had previously
87
grown cassava whilst farming in these regions and after moving to the Mazabuka
district they continued to do so.
Land Tenure
Land tenure was not one of the factors that influenced the adoption decision of the
farmers. 60% of the cassava adopters interviewed were located on state land, which
has been leased to the Zambia Sugar Company: and this company runs a sugar cane
out-grower scheme. Under this scheme, the Zambia Sugar Company, in turn, leases
the land to smallholder farmers who grow sugarcanes on its behalf. The sugar cane
fields are far from the farmer’s homesteads. They each have an area of land (0.5ha)
around their homesteads but they are not allowed to grow maize, due to the conditions
of their lease. The Zambia Sugar Company does not allow these farmers to grow
maize near their homesteads, because maize attracts mosquitoes, due to the pollen that
it produces. As a result of these restrictions, a number of these farmers had adopted
cassava, to utilise this land resource. However, many of the farmers on leased land did
not grow cassava, due to reasons already mentioned, such as a lack of markets and
processing facilities and the long length of maturity. Conversely, there were some
farmers who did not have leased land, but they still grew cassava because of the
reasons already mentioned for those who had adopted cassava.
The external factors that contributed to the farmers’ adoption of cassava include
information on cassava; access to planting material; market access and the price of
cassava; and access to processing equipment.
Information on cassava
The adopters received the information about cassava from the NGOs and government
extension agents. Some of the farmers learnt about cassava from their friends. One
farmer stated: “I was motivated to grow cassava by my neighbour. He had a big field
of cassava and I saw that he was making some income from selling cassava. I
approached him and he taught me how to grow it.”
88
Access to planting material

Access to planting material was not a positive influence for the non-adopters, because
the planting material was distributed at the wrong time. However, the adopters
overcame this problem by making small nurseries near their homesteads, which they
watered until the rainy season. After the rains came, they expanded their fields. These
farmers also relied on other farmers with already established fields for plant material.
Market access and price of cassava

Farmers who had adopted cassava confirmed that marketing was a problem and their
market was limited to the local area. This situation occurred because transportation of
fresh products from their farms, to distant and larger markets, was very costly and
they could not afford it. As a result, these farmers sold their fresh cassava to nearby
markets and some local customers went to the farmers to buy cassava. There were
also a few customers who came from Mazabuka town in order to buy cassava. The
lack of processing equipment prevented them from adding value to the cassava and
selling it at a higher price. They also pointed out that processed products were easier
and cheaper to transport to distant and larger markets, such as Lusaka, than the fresh
cassava.
A lack of processing equipment resulted in them processing the cassava manually.

They stated that manual processing was labour intensive and time consuming. As a
consequence, they could only process small quantities of cassava and they had to sell
the majority of the cassava in an unprocessed form. When asked what they thought
about the benefits of processing cassava, one of the farmers stated: “Processing would
have helped me to store the cassava and maybe even sell it at a higher price.’ They
also said that they did not have the funds to buy processing equipment.
5.4 Summary
In this chapter, the factors that affect adoption and the means with which the adopters
overcame the constraints to adoption have been described. Some of the key factors
that have been identified as affecting the adoption of cassava technology include the
characteristics of the technology, such as the time of maturity; immediacy of
reward/cash flow; storage characteristics; perceived benefits; susceptibility to
89
termites; requirements for fencing; taste, management and input requirements; and
culture and tradition. The internal factor that was identified as affecting cassava
adoption was farm size while the external factors included institutional factors
relating to infrastructure, government policy and extension service delivery.
90
Chapter 6: Discussion
CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION
In this chapter, the factors that affect cassava adoption are compared and contrasted to
the literature, in order to provide an understanding about the factors that affect
adoption. The chapter begins with a classification of the case. This provides the
context in which the results can be interpreted and compared to those of other studies.
This is then followed by the overall trend of adoption in the district and the dual role
of food crops. The factors that affect adoption will then be discussed and these will be
divided into three parts. The first part will offer the characteristics of the technology,
followed by the internal and external factors. Each category will be outlined followed
by a discussion relating to each category. The final section will summarise the
chapter.
6.1 Classification of the case
The purpose of this section is to describe the distinct characteristics of the case, in
order to provide a context in which the results can be compared and interpreted, with
those of other studies (Hartley, 2004; Rousseau & Fried, 2001). The case area is the
Mazabuka district where farming (Table 6.1) is generally undertaken by small holder
farmers, who own less than 5 ha of land (MACO, 2007). These farmers are mixed in
age: young ones and old ones. The majority of the farmers are not educated and few
have completed their secondary school education. There are no gender differeneces
between men and women. The Batonga are the largest ethnic group in the district.
Other minority groups have migrated into the district from other provinces in the
country, including the cassava growing areas of the northern and north-western
provinces. The society is homogeneous across the ethnic groups in that they have
similar access to land and their poverty levels are the same. All of the farmers in the
province own land under customary law and some lease additional land.
The small holders are subsistence producers of maize and they sell some of their
maize when they have a surplus. The other crops which they grow include
groundnuts, sweet potatoes, Irish potatoes, cowpeas, sugar beans, cassava and
91
bambara nuts. They also have livestock such as cattle, sheep and goats, which they
sell in times of need.
Table 6.1 Farmer and farm characteristics
Characteristic Case study classification

Type of farmers Mostly subsistence
Farm size All have < 5 ha
Age Mixed age
Education level Primary and secondary education
Gender equality Men and women
Ethnicity Mostly Batonga with few migrants
Knowledge and experience in growing Some new migrants
cassava
Wealth The levels of wealth are the same for all
the smallholder farmers
Land tenure All own some land and some lease
additional land
Livelihood situation Grow their own food also gain an income
from trading surplus produce and
informal labouring
Apart from farming, some of the farmers gain income from trading small items, or
from informal labour.
The Mazabuka district falls within Agro Ecological Zone I (Table 6.2) and it receives
less than 800mm of rainfall per annum (Met, 2002). The district is drought prone and
since the main crop that is grown is maize, which requires high rainfall, the area
constantly suffers from food shortages, particularly between December and February.
In terms of infrastructure, the road infrastructure in the district is substandard and
poorly developed. The main market for the farmers’ agriculture produce in the district
is the local communities where they live. Some farmers sell their agriculture produce
to urban markets. There is a well-established market for maize in the Mazabuka
district whilst for cassava the market is limited. There are a number of hammer mills
92
which are used to process maize into maize meal. There are also a few farmers in the
rural communities who own hammer mills, which process maize and they operate
them on a commercial basis. There are, however, no cassava processing machines.
Very few of the cassava growers process cassava at household level. Both cassava and
maize planting materials are provided by the government.
Table 6.2 District and programme characteristics
Characteristic Case study classification

Agro Ecological Zone I receives < 800mm of rainfall/annum
Infrastructure:
Road/transport - Poor
Market access - Maize –well developed
- Cassava- limited-local
Processing facilities available locally - Maize – yes
- Cassava - no
Access to plant material for crop - Maize- yes
establishment - Cassava- yes
Programme
Improving food security Promoting cassava
Period of promotion Over 10 years
Strategy Food production- introducing a
new drought tolerant crop
Extension
Providers Government and NGOs
Ratio of extension agents to farmer 1:787- High
The cassava programme is an intervention aimed at improving food security in the

district. This programme effectively wants farmers to substitute a new crop (cassava
which is drought tolerant), for their current crop (maize which is drought intolerant),
which they have been growing for many years and which has a well-developed
market, processing and is positively supported by Government policy initiatives. This
programme has been on-going for over 10 years now. The strategy the government
has been using is increasing food production through the introduction of a new crop
93
that is drought tolerant. The government together with NGOs have been providing
free cassava cuttings to the farmers. The government extension agents, in addition to
NGO personnel have played an important role in the promotion of cassava. The staff
member to farmer ratio is one extension worker to 787 farmers (MACO, 2007). This
is high for the country, since the average ratio in the country is one extension worker
to 1,700 farmers (Sheba, 1997).
The decision of the farmers to adopt cassava technology was based on comparison
with the crop that it was meant to replace. The farmers compared the characteristics of
maize (the existing technology) with cassava (substitute technology) (Table 6.3).
Table 6.3: Characteristics of maize and cassava
Characteristic Maize (Existing Cassava (Substitute

technology) technology)
Growth cycle 3-6 months 24 months
Livestock Can be grazed by cattle Damaged by livestock
post-harvest
Labour requirement More labour intensive Less labour intensive
Input requirements Higher input requirement Lower input requirement
Storage Stored in bags In-ground storage
Price Guaranteed by Not guaranteed by
government government
Cassava takes approximately 24 months to grow, whilst maize only takes three to six
months. After harvesting maize, farmers let their livestock graze the maize stubble,
which they cannot do with cassava. Cassava fields need fencing to protect livestock
from grazing it. Maize is more labour intensive than cassava. The labour is required
for weeding, applying fertiliser and pesticides. In addition, maize has higher input
requirements in the form of fertiliser. After harvest, maize can be stored in bags,
while cassava is stored in the ground. The price of maize is also guaranteed for maize
whilst for cassava it is not.

94
6.2 Agriculture extension, food security programmes and food
security strategies
Agriculture extension has been used to enhance the improvement of food security in
rural development programmes in developing countries, including Zambia (Anderson
& Feder, 2004; Ison & Russell, 2000; Rivera & Qamar, 2003). Extension
organisations help to devise strategies that will help with the achievement of such
development programmes (Peterson, 1997).The cassava programme is an example of
a programme that has used agricultural extension to improve food security in the
Mazabuka district. However, the programme had little impact on improving food
security since the majority of the farmers in the area did not adopt the cassava
technology. This research was intended to find out how the adoption of cassava
technology can be improved in order to assist the farmers improve food security.
What was found was the failure of the cassava promotion programme. It was poorly
designed in that there were only partial policies in terms of providing inputs and
extension services. There was a lack of policy on marketing and processing of
cassava.
The strategy being used to improve food security in the Mazabuka district is that of
increasing food production through the growing of cassava. This research, however,
found that the farmers’ livelihoods were not only dependant on agriculture. Apart
from farming, the farmers were petty traders and food processors and they engaged in
informal labour markets. This is consistent with Gladwin (2001), who found that
farmers in Africa had multiple livelihood strategies which they used to generate
income: they used strategies such as agriculture, non-farm micro-enterprises and
agricultural labour.
6.3 Dual role of food crops
One of the important findings in this study is that farmers in the Mazabuka district
were reluctant to adopt cassava, because it would only potentially meet their need for
food. The farmers wanted a crop that would not only meet their food needs but it
would also be a source of income. The need for income for these farmers was as
important as the need for food. This is consistent with Gladwin (2001) who stated that
food security is a problem of low household income and poverty and not just food
95
production. This result implies that farmers in a situation of food insecurity seek not
only to grow adequate food for their family, but they also seek a source of income that
will allow them to purchase other things which they need and value, including their
children’s education.
In the literature, cassava is defined as a new agriculture practice, which is for the
majority of the farmers located in the case area (Feder, Just & Zilberman, 1985;
Ogunlana, 2004). However, an important aspect of the farmers’ response to cassava is
related to the crop that it is designed to replace. Maize not only provides a food source
for the household, it also importantly provides a source of income. It is against these
two criteria that farmers judged the new crop. Although cassava has potential benefits,
in terms of providing a more secure food source in times of drought, the lack of a
market for cassava compared to maize influences their decision whether to adopt
cassava. This government initiative is attempting to substitute a technology, which
improves one aspect of the existing technology, but fails to meet the other qualities.
The factors that affected adoption in this study indicate that it is difficult to separate
the issue of food security and income.
6.4 Appropriateness of the cassava technology
The study has revealed that some of the reasons for non-adoption of cassava were the
inappropriateness of the technology within the Mazabuka district. This is evident in
the way the programme was developed. It was more of a top-down approach, rather
than understanding the needs of the farmers, who were not involved in the
development and dissemination of the technology that was intended to meet their
needs. This is consistent with findings of Axinn (1991), that technologies that are
developed without the knowledge and input of farmers were often not adopted.
When cassava technology was taken to the area, the programme only considered the
fact that the Mazabuka district was a drought prone area and needed a crop that was
resistant to drought, in order to improve food security. As a result, they only
considered improving food security in the area. This research however, revealed that
farmers were aware of other factors which they considered to be important. They
compared the characteristics of cassava to the existing crop, maize. Maize had a
readily available market and processing facilities and farmers could receive an income
96
from selling it. Cassava, on the other hand, fell short of these factors and as a result,
the farmers did not consider it to be appropriate. This supports the literature on the
importance of understanding farmers’ criteria for judging technologies in order that
technologies that meet farmers’ needs are developed and promoted (Guerin and
Guerin, 1994; Horne & Stur, 1998).
6.5 Over view of adoption
Some farmers in the district have adopted cassava, others adopted and rejected it (due
to pests) and the majority have rejected it. Sixty per cent of the adopters were located
on land, which they leased from Zambia Sugar Company. Their circumstances were
different from the non-adopters, in that these farmers were not allowed by the sugar
company to grow maize. The adopters figured out a way of growing the cassava and
overcame constraints that the non-adopters encountered. The adopters, in this case,
could be called innovators. According to Rogers (1995, 2003) and Spence (1994)
innovators are the first people to be persuaded that there is an advantage for them in
incorporating a new technology into their way of life. In this study, however, the
innovators are not just those who were persuaded of the advantages of the technology,
they were innovative in finding practical solutions to overcome the same constraints
that had led to the rejection of the technology by others. Some of the constraints they
had to overcome had to do with the characteristics of the technology, such as the long
time for maturity; storage characteristics; immediacy of reward/cash flow;
susceptibility to termites; requirements for fencing; and taste.
The long time for maturity was not a problem for the adopters, since they had divided
their land up, so that they had an area in cassava for two years and they had other
parts of their land where they grew early maturing crops such as maize. The farmers
who adopted cassava stored it in the ground, after it was ready for harvest and they
only harvested cassava when it was needed. The adopters overcame the problems of
cash flow by relying on income from maize, during the early years of establishing
their cassava fields. Once they had established cassava within their cropping systems,
they could generate an excellent cash flow from the selling of both maize and cassava.
97
The adopters overcame the problem of termites by using a higher planting density. In
order to deter livestock from the cassava fields, the adopters fenced their fields or they
used goat dung, which they mixed with water and poured around the perimeter of the
field, to deter livestock from grazing the cassava. The taste of cassava was not a
problem for the adopters, since they mixed the cassava meal with the maize meal,
when cooking the staple food, nsima.
According to Rogers (1995), the adoption of a technology follows a normal

distribution curve, over time: in this study, however, it did not. The promotion of
cassava has been going on for over 10 years and the adoption rate has been low. This
is consistent with the findings of Bass (1969) that diffusion of innovations does not
follow a normal distribution. There are other internal and external factors influencing
adoption, which make it dynamic and not evenly distributed. In addition, “Whatever
the nature of the technology, not all people will accept it and of those who do, not all
will adopt it at the same time” (Spence, 1994 p. 41).
6.6 Adoption process
According to Rogers (1995, 2003), over time, the potential adopters of a technology
progress through five stages in the diffusion process. These are knowledge,
persuasion, decision, implementation and finally, confirmation. These stages are also
known as awareness, interest, evaluation, trial and adoption (Spence, 1994). This
research suggests that these are a useful way to consider the farmers’ adoption
process. Some of the farmers had gone from knowledge/interest into evaluation/trial
or decision and then based on their own experiences either rejected or adopted it. In
addition to Rogers’ (1995) stages, this research found that the farmers, who adopted
the technology, actively adapted the technology package, which was originally
provided to them, before adoption.
The extension agents and NGOs played an important role in making people aware of
the cassava technology. Some of the farmers had developed an interest in the cassava
technology, evaluated it and trialled it: but it was eaten by termites. Other non-
adopters did not try it, in order to assess the potential benefits, before deciding not to
adopt it: these farmers immediately rejected the cassava technology. This was due to
the fact that, even though these farmers were told about the cassava technology by the
98
extension agents, they did not feel a need for the technology. Hassinger (1959) argued
that, when individuals are exposed to innovative messages they feel they do not need,
such exposure will have little effect, unless the innovation is perceived as relevant to
the individual’s needs and it is consistent with the individual’s attitudes and beliefs.
The findings in this study show that an awareness of technology, an interest in it and
even a trial of it, do not automatically guarantee adoption, when the technology is not
appropriate to the needs of the farmers. There are also other factors that interfere with
the adoption of technologies.
6.7 Factors affecting adoption
The factors that were found to influence adoption of cassava technology are consistent
with some factors identified in the literature. The factors that affected cassava
adoption were many, complex and interrelated. These included the characteristics of
the technology (Batz et al., 1999; Ogunlana, 2004; Rogers, 1995) and internal factors,
such as the personal characteristics of the adopters and their farm characteristics
(Doss & Morris, 2001; Feder et al., 1985; Spence, 1994). In addition there are
external factors such as institutional factors, the quality of infrastructure, government
policy and extension service delivery (Eze et al., 2008; Feder et al., 1985; Kassie et
al., 2009; Ogunlana, 2004). The factors that were found to be important for cassava
adoption were characteristics of the technology; government policy; infrastructure;
and some aspects of the extension system. These are discussed in the following
section.
6.7.1 Characteristics of the cassava technology
The characteristics of technology, according to Rogers’ (1995, 2003) model, that
influence the adoption of technologies are relative advantage, compatibility,
complexity, trialability and observability. Although the characteristics of the
technology, according to Rogers (1995, 2003), were useful, they are somewhat
simplistic and they do not adequately capture the complexity of the factors that
contributed to the adoption of cassava in this study. Rogers’ (1995, 2003) work
identifies the characteristics as being discrete and he does not address the interrelated
nature of these characteristics, within the adoption process. Farmers are also in
different situations, which affect their adoption decisions, but this has not been
99
reported by Rogers (1995, 2003). Guerin and Guerin (1994) noted the importance of
recognising the different situations of farmers, in order to develop technologies that fit
into various farmers’ situations.
In this study, farmers’ consideration of the relative advantage, compatibility,

trialability, observability and complexity of cassava was found to capture the many
attributes of the technology, influential in their decisions to adopt or not.These
characteristics of the technology have also been identified by Azilla (2007) and
Ogunlana (2004) as having an influence on the adoption of cassava technologies.
Relative advantage
Relative advantage of cassava was found to be a consideration influential to the
farmers’ decision to adopt cassava technology, because as previously stated, cassava
was replacing an existing crop, maize, which farmers had grown for a long time. The
literature reviewed did not address the issue of crop substitution and relative
advantage. The staple crop currently grown by the farmers was maize: and this was
perceived by non-adopters of cassava to have a relative advantage over cassava, in
three key areas: 1) potential price and cash flow; 2) palatability; and 3) surety of crop
establishment. This is consistent with the literature (Rogers, 2003) that farmers will
adopt a technology that they perceive to be better.
Cassava took a long time to reach maturity (two years) and this limited the farmers’
immediate cash flow, compared to maize, which matured within six months. The non-
adopters also said that maize had an economic advantage, because the price was
guaranteed, as compared to cassava. The taste of maize was perceived to be better
than that of cassava. Cash flow and palatability were both factors that influenced the
adoption of fish by households in Tanzania (Wetengere, 2009). However, fish was not
a substitute food in this study. Both fish and cassava are a source of food for
households: and a source of income. Farmers rely on maize for food and income and
therefore, it is not surprising that palatability and income/cash flow are factors.
Where a crop technology is not a source of food the household relies on, palatability
is probably not going to be as important an issue. This was the case with the new
legume crops in Australia, where short term profitability was the primary motivator of
100
adoption by farmers (Ghadim, Pannell and Burton, 2005). These findings reflect the
nature of the technology and the circumstances of the adopters and their relationship
with the technology. In developed countries, farmers do not tend to eat the food they
produce. Palatability is not a criterion they would use in an adoption decision,
compared to subsistence farmers in developing countries, where a large proportion of
their crops are eaten as a staple: and a small surplus is sold.
The government support for maize and the existence of a maize market meant that the
price of cassava was never likely to compete. The government support for maize also
reduced the relative advantage of cassava and it contributed to its low adoption. This
finding is consistent with the findings of Pannell et al. (2006) that relative advantage
can be affected positively or negatively, by government policies (Pannell et al., 2006).
The non-adopters perceived the establishment of cassava as being more risky than
maize, because cassava was more susceptible to termites, which destroyed the crop
during establishment. The adopters overcame the risk of crop failure by having a high
planting population. Conversely, cassava was considered to have a relative advantage
over maize, in that it required less input and it was less likely to fail in droughts.
However, these attributes were outweighed by the relative advantage of maize over
cassava, for the majority of the farmers. As stated by Rogers (1995), farmers must see
an advantage or expect to obtain greater utility if they are to adopt a new technology.
However, as highlighted by this study, the process of assessing relative advantage is
one of weighing up the pros and cons of the existing and new technology: and these
may be many and varied. In this instance, cash flow and palatability were more
important than input requirements and the ability to tolerate droughts.
Compatibility
According to Rogers (1995), compatibility is the degree to which an innovation is
perceived as being consistent with the existing values, past experiences and needs of
potential adopters. “An innovation can be compatible or incompatible with 1)
sociocultural values and beliefs 2) previously introduced ideas and 3) client needs for
the innovation” (Rogers 2003, p 240). Rogers, (1995) definition of compatibility has
been expanded by Ogunlana (2004) to include compatibility with the existing farming
101
system. This study, therefore, combines Rogers (2003) and Oglunlanas, (2004)
definition of compatibility.
The growing of cassava was not compatible with the farmers’ values. The farmers
placed a strong value on the palatability of cassava. The palatability or taste of
cassava was different from that of maize. Palatability was also identified earlier as
being an important factor affecting the relative advantage. This shows the
interrelatedness of the attributes of the technology, which has not been highlighted by
Rogers (2003).
The growing of cassava was not compatible with the farmers’ existing farming
systems. This result is consistent with the findings of Ogunlana (2004) who found that
farmers did not adopt technologies that were not compatible with their existing
farming systems. The growing of cassava was quite different to growing maize.
Cassava took two years to be ready for harvest and harvesting was undertaken in
small portions, whilst maize took about six months to be harvested: and it was
harvested all at once. The growing of cassava was also not compatible with other
enterprises, such as livestock, which the farmers had. After harvesting their fields of
maize, the farmers could allow their livestock into the fields, to graze on the maize
stubble. They could not do this if they had planted cassava, since the cattle would eat
the cassava and therefore planting cassava would require them to fence their fields.
The growing of cassava was also not compatible with traditional processing
techniques. It required a different processing method, which was laborious for the
farmers. The growing of cassava was not also compatible with the farmers’ culture
and tradition and this impacted on their decision to adopt. This is consistent with
Rogers (2003).
Trialability
Consistent with Rogers (1995, 2003), the ability of cassava to be tried out in a small
way did encourage many farmers to initially adopt cassava and to trial it in their
fields. However, in this instance, the results of the trials led to rejection and dis-
adoption of the technology. This is consistent with Rogers, (2003) and Moser and
Barrett (2003), who found that some individuals may discontinue the use of a
technology, after being dissatisfied with the performance of the new idea or practice.
102
However, counter to this, some farmers identified the reasons for the failure and
developed strategies to overcome them.
Observability
Observability is the level to which the outcome or benefits derived from new practices
are seen by the prospective users (Rogers, 1995). The earlier the results from using a
technology can be seen by the farmer, the better the chances of it being adopted
(Rogers, 1995). In this case, the advantages of growing cassava were not going to be
realised for two years. This length of time discouraged some of the prospective
adopters, whilst some did adopt. This highlights the importance of individual farmers
personal attributes in the technology adoption process.
Complexity
Complexity is the relative ease or difficulty with which the farmer can understand and
use the innovation (Rogers, 1995). The production system of cassava was not
considered complex as compared to that of maize. Cassava was thought to be easy to
understand by the farmers and it did not require any improved skills about its
cultivation: it also required fewer inputs. There were, however, some cassava post-
production components, such as processing, storage and marketing that appeared to be
complex for some of the farmers. The farmers needed to process cassava into various
products and they did not have the knowledge of processing, or the processing
equipment. In accordance with Batz et al. (1999), the number of activities that the
farmers had to perform if they were to grow cassava, discouraged the prospective
adopters from adopting. The farmers who had adopted cassava admitted that they had
to perform a great many activities in order to process the cassava and: it was laborious.
6.7.2 Internal and external factors
The results of this research show that the factors that affected cassava adoption fitted
into the internal and external framework of Chieochan, Lindley, & Dunn, (2000) and
Gong & Beck, (1992). The most important factors that affected cassava adoption in
this research are external factors. This is because the promotion of cassava was an
initiative driven by the government and not the farmers themselves.
103
McNamara et al.’s (1991) categorisation of factors was only partially relevant, with
farm structure and institutional characteristics being important for cassava adoption:
but not managerial structure. Similarly, the categorisation of factors into human
capital, production, policy and natural resource characteristics (Wu & Babcock, 1998)
were also partially relevant for the cassava technology with human capital, production
and policy being important: but not natural resource characteristics.
The social, economic and physical categories of factors influencing adoption (Kebede
et al., 1990) were not appropriate to the factors influencing cassava adoption since
there was an overlap of economic and social factors on internal and external factors,
whilst physical factors (physical strength required to use the technology) were found
not to be important in this study.
The research found that viewing factors in a logical framework is useful in terms of
classification, but this way of viewing the phenomenon does not capture the
complexity of the interactions that occur in relation to a farmer’s decision to adopt
cassava.
6.7.2.1 Internal factors
Internal factors identified in the literature include the personal characteristics of the
farmers and their farm characteristics (Chieochan et al., 2000; Gong & Beck, 1992).
The influence of the farmers personal characteristics such as age, gender and
education, which have been identified in the literature as being influential in the
adoption of some technologies (Feder, Lau, & Slade, 1987; Fernandez-Cornejo,
Beach, & Huang, 1994; Fernandez-Cornejo & McBride, 2002; Franzel, 1999;
Omonona, Oni, & Uwagboe, 2006), did not emerge as being important in this study.
The reasons could be due to the fact that, there were few farmers who had adopted the
technology and their circumstances were similar. There were also more important
factors than the internal factors that affected their decisions to adopt cassava.
Farm characteristics
Farm characteristics likely to influence farmers’ decisions to adopt a technology
include farm size, labour availability and land ownership (Feder et al., 1985; Feder &
104
O'Mara, 1981; Ouédraogo et al., 2001). In this research, farm size and land ownership
emerged as being important in the adoption of cassava technology.
Farm size
The significance of farm size in this study is not related to the relative adoption
behaviour of farmers with small or large farms, as is identified in the literature
(Boahene, et al., 1999; Fernandez-Cornejo, 1996; Ogunlana, 2004; Yaron, Dinar and
Voet, 1992). This literature suggests that farm size is a proxy to wealth and larger
farmers are more likely to adopt technologies since they can afford the cost of these
technologies. In this study, farm size is simply the absolute small size of the
subsistence farmers’ farms and the implication of this for farmers. The farmers in this
study are all small- scale farmers with small pieces of land. Their levels of wealth are
low and also homogeneous. Farm size was only important in this study because some
farmers thought that the size of their farms was too small and this limited the options
for them, on the number of crops they could grow. They felt they could not partition
their land and grow two crops rather than just maize. This result is similar to Brush &
Mauricio (1992) who found that farmers with small farms are not likely to adopt new
crops and diversify, because they are not able to partition their farm into different
cropping systems, to grow both the new crop and other crops. However, for those who
had adopted the cassava technology, this was not an issue since they divided their
land and grew both cassava and maize.
Land tenure
Land tenure was not important in influencing the adoption of cassava but the
requirements placed on the use of land that was leased, was a factor for the small
number of farmers who had leased land. Most of the adopters interviewed were
located on leased land and a few were on customary land. The farmers on leased land
adopted cassava, due to the conditions of their lease. The Zambia Sugar Company,
from whom they leased the land, did not allow them to grow maize near their
homesteads and this ‘condition’ enhanced the adoption of cassava. In this instance,
the term of the lease had no effect on the technology adoption, because the lease term
was for over 10 years. Other studies by Feder et al. (1985); Juma et al. (2009) and
Ouédraogo et al. (2001) have shown that the term of a lease can influence adoption
(i.e farmers are less likely to adopt technologies that provided benefits beyond the
105
period of their lease), but no mention has been made in the literature of the influence
of the conditions of a lease on adoption of a new technology.
6.7.2.2 External factors
External factors that can influence the adoption of technology include government
policy; social factors; institutional factors; the quality of infrastructure and extension
service delivery (Eze et al., 2008; Feder et al., 1985; Fernandez-Cornejo & McBride,
2002; Kassie et al., 2009; Nkonya et al., 1997; Ogunlana, 2004; Zeller et al., 1998). In
this study, the external factors that were important in influencing the adoption of
cassava included government policy; infrastructure such as marketing and aspects of
extension service delivery. These are now discussed.
Government Policy
Government policy is one of the major factors that influenced the non-adoption of
cassava technology. Government policy only provided one small part of the farmers’
needs, which was the provision of inputs and extension. Other policies, such as the
provision of processing facilities; market infrastructure (local); transport infrastructure
to supply non-local markets; and supportive policy for extension, were not there. This
is similar to other studies that have shown that government policies can impact either
positively or negatively on the adoption of technologies (Ahmed et al., 1992; Drechsel
et al., 2005; Haggblade, 2004; Howard & Mungoma, 1996). The lack of the provision
of a market and processing infrastructure could be explained by the fact that the
government viewed cassava as a food crop only: and not as a source of income. This
implies that there was a lack of understanding in the government of the circumstances
and needs of these farmers. The results also imply that it is not only government
policy which is directly related to a particular crop that is important, but the
government policy which is related to an existing technology which is to be
substituted.
Another important finding was that even though cassava was being encouraged to be
grown in the Mazabuka district, the crop which it was supposed to replace (maize)
was receiving more government support. There were processing facilities for maize
and the government provided a market for it. This implies that policies that undermine
106
the new crop that is being promoted must be avoided, when the aim is crop
substitution. This is consistent with findings of a study by FAO (2001).
Institutional factors
Institutional factors include support provided by various institutions and organizations
to enhance the use of new technologies (Negash, 2007). These factors include
membership in an organisation (social organisation); access to extension; availability
of inputs; and access to credit (Johnson & Masters, 2004; Kassie et al., 2009;
Odoemenem & Obinne, 2010; Okuthe, Ngesa & Ochola, 2007; Omonona et al., 2006;
E. J. Udoh & Kormawa, 2009). In this study, only access to extension emerged as
important in influencing the adoption of cassava adoption. These factors are discussed
in the following section.
Membership of Organisations
The literature argues that, membership of cooperatives influences the adoption of new
technologies, since cooperatives serve as fora for access to information, credit and
other productive inputs (Caviglia & Kahn, 2001; Deji, 2005; Kassie et al., 2009).
However, in this study, it was not the case, because the farmers belonged to
cooperative groups, whose objectives were not related to the cassava technology. The
cooperatives to which the farmers belonged were mainly for the access of maize
inputs. The growing of cassava, as an option, was not discussed at any cooperative
meetings and hence, it did not assist the farmers’ understanding of the crop. This
result is consistent with the findings of Kuntashula, Ajayi, Phiri, Mafongoya, &
Franzel (2002) who found that membership of cooperatives did not affect the adoption
of improved tree fallow technology in Zambia, because the cooperatives did not
discuss fallow technology.
Access to Extension
The literature clearly shows that access by farmers to extension services and therefore
information about a technology, contributes to the adoption of technology, including
cassava (Adesina et al., 2000; Honlonkou, 2004; Kassie et al., 2009). In this case,
although farmers had some access to extension and were aware of cassava as an
alternative to maize, the level of information they received about how to grow and use
cassava was inadequate. Farmers were only told about the benefits of growing
107
cassava. Nwankwo, Peters, & Bokelmann (2009) found that farmers do not adopt
innovations, if they lack adequate knowledge regarding the innovation. Although this
lack of information may have influenced farmers’ decisions to reject cassava, some
farmers did adopt cassava in spite of the inadequate information. The result implies
that providing farmers with adequate information about technologies is important
especially if the aim is crop substitution.
Access to inputs
Households that receive free inputs, in the form of planting materials, are more likely
to adopt new technologies, than those that do not (Kohli & Singh, 1997; Mazvimavi
& Twomlow, 2009). In this study, it was found that in spite of farmers being given
free inputs, the level of cassava adoption remained low. This can be explained by the
fact that the time, at which the inputs were distributed, was too early (before the rainy
season) and by the time the rains came the cassava cuttings had dried and were no
longer of use. Ehui, Lynam & Okike (2004) argue that for adoption of new
technology to occur, farmers need to not only have access to the necessary inputs, but
they should also be available at the correct time and place: and in the correct quantity
and quality. The adopters overcame the problem of receiving the inputs early by
making small nurseries near their homesteads, which they watered until the rainy
season. After the rains came, they expanded their fields.
Access to credit
A substantial amount of literature shows that the availability of credit has a positive
impact on adoption of technologies (Feder and Umali, 1993, Batz et al., 1999; El-Osta
& Morehart, 1999). This literature states that any fixed investment, requires the use of
a farmers’ own or borrowed capital. In this study, however, access to credit was not
important in influencing the adoption of cassava technology because the cassava
inputs were distributed for free and farmers did not need credit to buy inputs.
Infrastructure
The quality of infrastructure in the Mazabuka district was another factor that
influenced the farmers’ decision to grow cassava. The infrastructure that was
important was marketing infrastructure. The problem of marketing was also
compounded by difficulties in transportation to the markets and lack of access to
108
processing equipment. As stated earlier, farmers rely on their crops for food and a
source of income therefore marketing infrastructure is important. The crop (maize)
that cassava is intended to replace, has marketing infrastructure in place and as a
result it can provide both food and income for the farmers.
Access to markets
A lack of market for cassava influenced its adoption as a food security crop because
farmers would not receive similar levels of income from the sale of cassava as maize.
The farmers originally grew maize and cassava was being promoted as a substitute
crop and there was a well-developed market for maize. As a result, the farmers did not
want to grow cassava, because they lacked a well-developed market for it. The market
was small and the farmers only sold at the local market. They did not sell their
cassava at the larger and distant markets, due to constraints such as a lack of
transportation and lack of the ability to process it. The size of the local market was
also small, because the locals did not have a culture of eating cassava, as a staple.
Cassava was eaten as a snack and this meant that the quantities purchased by local
people were also small. Due to this limited market, the farmers were concerned that, if
everyone went into cassava production, the markets would become saturated and
prices would fall. This is consistent with Sturm & Smith (1993) who found that a
limited market led to the low adoption of alternative crops, in Bolivia.
The difficulties found transporting the harvested cassava, from the farms to the
markets, was another issue which contributed to the poor marketability of cassava.
This was so because cassava is a bulky crop in nature. This is consistent with the
findings of Azilah (2007) in Ghana. This district has a poor road network and as a
result smallholder farmers have to depend on inefficient forms of transportation. The
farmers generally carry their produce on their heads to local markets. Few of the
farmers have access to animal drawn carts or bicycles. Poor road nework also meant
that farmers could not access the larger potential markets in the larger cities. A poor
transportation system constrains the activities of farmers in terms of marketing as
found by Azilah (2007) in Ghana. When a crop is bulky and difficulty to transport,
this will probably be an issue. The adopters of cassava carried their produce on their
heads to markets and a few used bicycles.
109
Cassava is a perishable product once harvested, if it is not processed. Consistent with

Staal et al. (1997), the perishability of cassava reduced the time available for
marketing and it raised the risks of spoilage, for farmers. The problem of perishability
was worsened by the fact that farmers did not have processing and storage facilities.
Once the farmers harvested their cassava, they had to sell it immediately. As
highlighted by Jeon & Halos, (1991, 1992), processing reduces the bulkiness of
cassava and extends its shelf life and therefore, it reduces the transportation cost, in
addition to adding value to the product. Processed products can be sold at a higher
price and the farmers can receive a higher income. In these studies, as in this research,
cassava was not solely a food security crop: but it was both a food crop and a source
of income and therefore the ability to process the crop was important, if income was
to be gained from it.
Extension service delivery

Extension service delivery involves the adequate and timely provision of information
to farmers in order that they can adopt new technologies, if they suit their socio-
economic and agro-ecological circumstances (Anderson & Feder, 2003). Important to
the delivery of extension information is the communication method; attributes of the
communicators; and other factors internal to the extension system, including financial
sustainability and the working conditions of staff members. In this study, it was found
that extension workers had constraints, although it was not clear the extent to which
the constraints affected the adoption of cassava technology. These are now discussed.
Constraints of the extension System

The constraints that were identified in this research that influenced the adoption of
cassava include lack of resources such as training and weak research, extension and
farmer linkages. Many authors have also noted that lack of resources also affects the
extension agents morale and level of commitment for work (Anderson & Feder, 2004;
Leta et al., 2004).
The extension workers conceded that they did not have any regular training in cassava
technology and they also lacked training materials. Training, according to Boyd
(2003) and Guerin & Guerin (1994), improves the technical knowledge of extension
workers. A lack of training was a limitation to the extension agents undertaking their
110
work effectively (Birkhaueser, evenson & Feder, 1991; Birner & Anderson, 2007) and
this affected the adoption of cassava technology.
The findings in this research have revealed poor linkages between the users of the
technology (farmer) and those who developed and extended it. The cassava
technology was developed by the research stations and there was limited involvement
from farmers. This was evident in that farmers mentioned that they should have been
asked about the crops they wanted to grow, before cassava was introduced to their
area. They stated they would rather be given other crops, such as sweet potatoes and
Irish potatoes, than cassava. This supports the literature on the importance of ensuring
that farmers are involved in the technology generation process (Axinn, 1991; Belay &
Abebaw, 2004; Horne & Stur, 1998).
6.8 Summary
In this chapter, the factors that affect cassava adoption were compared and contrasted
to the literature in order to provide an understanding about the factors that affect
adoption. One of the important findings was that farmers needed a crop that provided
both food and income. Cassava only provided farmers with food, except for a small
number of farmers who were able to market locally: but a very limited market.
The factors identified, which influenced adoption, were many and interrelated. These
included the characteristics of the technology; internal and external factors, such
government policy; infrastructure and aspects of the extension service delivery. The
characteristics of the technology, in terms of relative advantage regarding the time of
maturity, susceptibility to termites, taste and price, were important in influencing the
farmers’ adoption decisions. Compatibility, in terms of the requirement for fencing,
time of maturity and taste, also influenced their adoption decisions. In the case of
observability, the benefits of cassava could not been easily observed and this
discouraged the farmers from adopting it.
A lack of government policy also had an impact on the farmers’ adoption decisions.
The policy of government and other NGOs to provide free cassava planting materials
was only a small part. Other supporting policies, such as market provision and
111
processing infrastructure were not present. The policies to support cassava were also
undermined by other policy measures in support of maize. The quality of
infrastructure such as access to markets was important in influencing the farmers’
adoption decision. The farmers did not have access to markets and (as a result) they
were discouraged from growing cassava.
The extension service delivery was constrained by a lack of resources, such as

training. As a result of this, extension agents had problems in delivering adequate
information about the new technology to the farmers. The research, extension and
farmer linkages were also weak. This resulted in farmers not showing a great deal of
interest in adopting the cassava technology since they did not have any input into the
development of the technology and it appeared to be inappropriate to their situation.
112
Chapter 7: Summary and Conclusion
CHAPTER 7: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
This chapter outlines the main research findings and the conclusions of the study. In
addition, sections assess the research methods used and identify further research that
will build on this research.
7.1 Main research findings
The objective of the research was to identify and describe the factors that affect
cassava adoption in Mazabuka district, which is located in the southern province of
Zambia. A single case study approach was used in order to achieve this objective. One
of the important findings of this research was that farmers did not adopt cassava
because it would only meet their need for food. The farmers wanted a crop that would
meet both their need for food and income.
The promotion of cassava was a strategy being used to increase food production in
Mazabuka district. However, the research found that the livelihood of farmers in
Mazabuka was not only dependant on agriculture: These farmers had other micro-
enterprises and they were also engaged in informal labour.
The factors that affected adoption were many, complex and interrelated. These
factors were categorised as characteristics of the technology, internal and external
factors relevant to farms. The farmers compared the characteristics of cassava with
those of maize, before making their adoption decisions. The characteristics of cassava
which affected its adoption were taste; cash flow/immediacy of reward; time of
maturity; storage characteristics; susceptibility to termites; and requirements for
fencing. Internal factors that emerged as having an influence on the adoption of
cassava technology where linked to farm size and land tenure.
The external factors which were important in influencing the adoption of cassava
were government policy, infrastructure and extension service delivery. Government
policy could be seen to be supportive of maize in terms of processing and marketing
and unsupportive of cassava. Infrastructure, such as access to markets and access to
113
processing equipment, was also an important factor. Some aspects of the extension
service delivery such as training were also important.
A summary of the factors identified to have influenced the adoption of cassava is
provided in Table 7.1.
Table 7.1 Factors influencing the adoption of cassava technology.
Main factor Area of influence

Characteristics of cassava comparative - Taste
with maize - Cash flow
- Time of maturity
- Storage
- Susceptibility to termites
- Requirements for fencing
Farm characteristics - Farm size/small

- Land tenure/conditions of lease
Infrastructure - Lack of processing facilities
- Lack of marketing facilities
Government policy - Supportive of maize-
processing/marketing
- Unsupportive of cassava
Extension service delivery - Lack of training in cassava
7.2 Conclusion
The research question that guided this research initially was: how can the adoption of
cassava technology be improved in order to enhance food security in southern
province of Zambia? This question assumed that the cassava technology promoted by
the government and NGOs was an appropriate food security crop that met the needs
of the farmers. The research results showed that this was not a case of low adoption,
but a case of a flawed government programme in terms of the technology it had
selected to promote.
114
The research found as has previous studies, that the factors that affected cassava
adoption were many, complex and interrelated and specific to the particular context
and characteristics of the technology and farmers in southern province of Zambia. The
factors that affected cassava adoption included characteristics of the technology,
internal and external factors including, land tenure, government policy, marketing
infrastructure and aspects of the extension service.
The characteristics of the technology that affected cassava adoption included taste;
cash flow/immediacy of reward; time of maturity; storage characteristics;
susceptibility to termites; and requirements for fencing.
The competing government policies that support an existing crop and not a new
substitute crop undermine the likelihood of adoption of the new crop. Maize
processing and marketing was supported directly through government policy, whereas
cassava was not.
Consistent with other research, personal characteristics of farmers including age,

education and gender were not influential in cassava adoption. The framework on
factors that affect adoption in the literature focuses on factors as independent concepts
and not on their interrelatedness. This is a weakness in the literature as it relates to
food security technologies like cassava.
This research revealed that small-scale farmers in a food insecurity situation decide
whether to adopt a new alternative food crop or not by comparing its
advantages/disadvantages with the existing crop grown. The farmers compared the
characteristics of maize which was an existing crop with the characteristics of cassava,
a substitute crop.
Small scale farmers in southern province of Zambia rely on crops not only as a
reliable food source for the household, but also as a source of income and hence
evaluate all new crops in terms of these dual characteristics.
115
A new finding highlighted by this research is that for leased land, it is not only the
time period of the lease that is important, but also the conditions imposed on the
leasee’s use of land that will also influence the adoption decisions of farmers. This
research supports the literature that land tenure is an important factor in technology
adoption.
Cassava can be grown as an alternative food source for southern province of Zambia.
A small number of farmers overcame the constraints and developed practices to grow
cassava successfully. However, most of the farmers who adopted and continued to
grow cassava, farmed on leased land on which they are unable, as a condition of the
lease, to grow maize. Further, the farmers have access to a small market for cassava.
This finding supports the influence of individual innovativeness and circumstances on
farmers’ adoption decisions.
The research also highlights that it is not only the provision of inputs that is important
for a broad scale adoption of a food security crop, but also the time at which these
inputs are distributed.
In the promotion of a new substitute crop to enhance food security, if extension agents
lack training and therefore knowledge in how to grow, harvest and further process the
crop, this will limit farmers’ knowledge of the crop and affect their adoption
decisions.
7.3 Policy Implications
There are a number of policy related issues that have been raised by this research. The
government has to put in place a number of policies in order to improve adoption of
cassava technology and food security in southern province of Zambia. In particular,
the implementation of policy needs to address the following issues:
Addressing food insecurity in the southern province of Zambia through the growing
of cassava requires the development of markets and processing facilities for the crop.
A deliberate policy needs to be put in place by the government. By being able to meet
people’s needs, both for cash and for food, cassava, like maize, would become a more
116
viable choice for farmers. The immigrants with experience of growing cassava could
be used for demonstrations.
Farmers had other sources of income, which they relied upon, apart from agriculture.
They engaged in the selling of livestock and cooking oil, in addition to sugar,
cigarettes and other items. This, implies that stakeholders (Government and NGOs)
promoting food security should look for ways to improve returns to farmers’
resources within a broader context, which includes the use of multiple livelihood
strategies, such as agriculture and micro-enterprises.
The policy on cassava focussed on creating awareness about cassava and provision of
plant materials but it ignored the provision of technical information. Since cassava is a
new crop, there is need for extension agents to have technical knowledge on the
establishment, growing, harvesting and processing of cassava so that they can provide
adequate information to the farmers.
The cassava promotion program was an initiative by government to improve food

security. It is top-down in nature. There is need to change the agricultural-
development approach, from one that is top-down to one that is bottom-up. The
adoption of a bottom-up approach by the stakeholders, in relation to food security,
would require that the research agenda be determined by farmers' preferences, rather
than those of the experts. This means that a needs assessment of the farmers'
circumstances should be undertaken, before promotion of any crops, rather than the
experts merely choosing a crop for them. An analysis of the impact of changing crops
should also be undertaken.
Extension discipline needs to move away from a typology of factors approach to the
development of theory that describes the complex interactions that affect the adoption
of technologies
7.4 Evaluation of the research methodology
This section evaluates the research methodology, its appropriateness and what aspects
could be improved, in order to answer the research question. A case study approach
117
was found to be appropriate for identifying and describing the factors that have
influenced cassava adoption, in the southern province of Zambia.
The choice of a single case study (instead of a multiple case one) was appropriate,
because there was need for an in-depth understanding of the farmers’ experiences.
Data was collected between April and May 2010 through interviews with 40 farmers
and six key informants. In addition to the interviews, documents and field
observations were collected for analysis. The organisation and analysis of these
materials from this case study took the researcher five months to complete. The
researcher would not have been able to conduct a multiple cases study to this depth,
given the time and resources that were available.
The case was selected because this was a drought prone area and cassava promotion
was taking place at that time. The livelihood of the people in this area was also
agriculture dependant. In addition, the researcher was also familiar with the local
language. The case revealed many factors that were not indicated in the secondary
documents that were gathered.
Some problems occurred during the data collection, including the fact that the farmers
were busy in their fields and it was difficult for the researcher to find the farmers at
home in order to schedule an appointment for the interviews. The number of non-
adopters contacted was more than those who had adopted because it was difficult to
find farmers who had adopted cassava since they were few in number.
The use of semi-structured interviews allowed for a guided conversation between the
farmer and the researcher. These semi-structured interviews were supported by field
observations and documents and this allowed the researcher to triangulate the data and
collect additional useful information. The use of multiple sources of data was
important for triangulation, because the researcher only spent a limited time in the
field and she did not have the opportunity to revisit the field sites in order to verify the
findings.
The use of tape recorders was very important to this study, due to the quantity of data
involved and the informal nature of the interview process. It would have been difficult
118
to capture the data only through the use of field notes. Some key informants were,
however, not comfortable with the use of a tape recorder. The researcher reassured the
key informants about the confidentiality of the interviews and she also attempted to
develop a rapport with the participants, in order to gain their confidence and trust.
The purposive and snow-ball sampling method was important in helping the
researcher to access farmers who had (and those who had not) adopted cassava. The
use of a qualitative data analysis procedure was helpful in identifying categories and
important relationships. It provided for a rigorous and systematic analysis of the data.
All the tapes were repeatedly listened to, in order to provide an accurate summary of
the data.
7.4 Further Research
There is a need to further investigate the factors affecting cassava adoption in the
southern province of Zambia. This study was limited to the Mazabuka district and a
relatively small population. Expanding the number of districts and size of samples
within each district, would be extremely helpful in confirming the results presented in
this research.
Further research into the livelihoods of farmers is needed, since this may help in
finding various ways of addressing food security, other than solely concentrating on
agriculture. Further research into the adopters of cassava technology is also important,
in order to understand their reasons for doing so.
119
Chapter 8: References
REFERENCES
Abadi Ghadim A K, Pannell D J, & Burton M P. (2005). Risk, uncertainty and

learning in adoption of a crop innovation. Agricultural Economics 33, 1–9.
Abara, I., & Singh, S. (1993). Ethics and Biases in Technology Adoption: The Small-
Farm Argument. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 43, 289-289.
Adams, M. (2003). Land tenure policy and practice in Zambia: issues relating to the
development of the agricultural sector. Draft document for DFID, Lusaka
Zambia.
Adesina, A., & Baidu-Forson, J. (1995). Farmers perceptions and adoption of new
agricultural technology:evidence from analysi in Burkina Faso and Guinea
West Africa.
Adesina, A., Mbila, D., Nkamleu, G. B., & Endamana, D. (2000). Econometric
analysis of the determinants of adoption of alley farming by farmers in the
forest zone of southwest Cameroon. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment,
80(3), 255-265.
Adesina, A. A., & Zinnah, M. (1993). Technology characteristics, farmers’
perceptions and adoption decisions: A Tobit model application in Sierra
Leone. Agricultural Economics 9: 297–311.
Agbamu, J. (2005). Problems and prospects of agricultural extension service in
developing countries. Agric. Ext. Nigeria, 159-164.
Agwu, A., & Anyaeche, C. (2007). Adoption of improved cassava varieties in six
rural communities in Anambra State, Nigeria. African Journal of
Biotechnology, 6(2), 089-098.
Ahmed, M., A Salih, & Sanders, J. (1992). "The Impact of Hageen-Dura I in
Sudan."Paper presented at The Symposium on the Impact of Technology on
Agricultural Transformation in Africa, Oct. 14-16, 1992, Washington, D.C
Ahmed, R., & Hossain, M. (1990). Developmental impact of rural infrastructure in

Bangladesh Research Report No. 83. Washington, DC.: Intl Food Policy
Research Inst.
120
Anderson, J., & Feder, G. (2003). Rural extension services: World Bank, Agriculture
and Rural Development Department and Development Research Group, Rural
Development.
Anderson, J., & Feder, G. (2004). Agricultural extension: good intentions and hard
realities. The World Bank Research Observer, 19(1), 41.
Annor, S., & Kusi, C. (2008). Factors influencing the adoption of grasscutter
production in the Brong Ahafo region of Ghana. Livestock Research for Rural
Development, 20(9).
Axinn, G. H. (1991). Potential Contribution of FSRE to Institutional Development.
Asian Farming Systems Association, 1, 69 -78.
Azilah, M. E. (2007). Adoption of cassava technology for sustainable livelihoods : a
thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Applied Science in Rural Development at Massey University, New
Zealand
Baidu-Forson, J. (1999). Factors influencing adoption of land-enhancing technology
in the Sahel: lessons from a case study in Niger. Agricultural Economics,
20(3), 231-239.
Baltissen, G., Wabwile, E., Kooijman, M., & Defoer, T. (2000). ‘Facilitating Learning
Processes in Agricultural Extension: Lessons from Western Kenya’, Managing
Africa’s Soils, Working Paper No. 20, International Institute for Environment
and Development, London.
Barratt, N., Chitundu, D., Dover, O., Elsinga, J., Eriksson, S., Guma, L., . . . Locke, F.
(2006). Cassava as drought insurance: Food security implications of cassava
trials in Central Zambia. Agrekon, 45(1), 106-123.
Bass, F. (1969). “A new product growth model for consumer durables”. Management
Science., 15 215-227.
Batz, F., Peters, K., & Janssen, W. (1999). The influence of technology characteristics
on the rate and speed of adoption. Agricultural Economics, 21(2), 121-130.
Belay, K., & Abebaw, D. (2004). Challenges facing agricultural extension agents: A
case study from south-western Ethiopia. African Development Review, 16(1),
139-168.
Binswanger, H., & Pingali, P. (1988). Technological Priorities for Farming in Sub-
Saharan Africa. The World Bank Research Observer, 81-98.
121
Binswanger, H. P. (1989). The policy response of agriculture. Proceedings of the

World Bank Annual Conference on Development. World Bank. Washington
D.C.
Birkhaeuser, D., Evenson, R., & Feder, G. (1991). The economic impact of
agricultural extension: A review. Economic Development and Cultural
Change, 607-650.
Birner, R., & Anderson, J. (2007). How to make agricultural extension demand-
driven?: The case of India's agricultural extension policy. IFPRI discussion
papers.
Blanckenburg, P. (1982). The training and visit system in agricultural extension. A
review of first experiences. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture,
21(1), 6-25.
Boahene, K., Snijders, T., & Folmer, H. (1999). An Integrated Socioeconomic
Analysis of Innovation Adoption The Case of Hybrid Cocoa in Ghana.
Journal of Policy Modeling, 21(2), 167-184.
Bonabana-Wabbi, J. (2002). Assessing factors affecting adoption of agricultural
technologies: The case of integrated pest management (IPM) in Kumi district,
Eastern Uganda. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Botha, C., & Stevens, J. (2003). The need for changes in veld management
technology generation and dissemination. South African Journal of
Agricultural Extension, 28, 108.
Boyd, B. (2003). Competencies for leaders of volunteers during the next decade: A
national delphi study. Journal of Agricultural Education, 44(4), 47-56.
Brandner, L., & Straus, M. (1959). Congruence versus Profitability in the Diffusion of
Hybrid Sorghum. Rural Sociology, 24, 381-383.
Brelsford, W. V. (Ed.). (1960). Handbook to the Federation of Rhodesia and
Nyasaland. Published for the Federal Information Department. London,
United Kingdom: Cassell and Company Ltd.
Brush, S., & Taylor Mauricio, R. (1992). Technology adoption and biological
diversity in Andean potato agriculture. Journal of Development Economics,
39(2), 365-387.
Bryman, A. (2001). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
122
Bussolo, M., Godart, O., Lay, J., & Thiele, R. (2007). The impact of coffee price
changes on rural households in Uganda. Agricultural Economics, 37(2-3),
293-303.
Caswell, M., Fuglie, K., Ingram, C., Jans, S., & Kascak, C. (2001). Adoption of
agricultural production practices: lessons learned from the US Department of
Agriculture Area Studies Project. Agricultural Economics Reports.
Caviglia, J., & Kahn, J. (2001). Diffusion of Sustainable Agriculture in the Brazilian
Tropical Rain Forest: A Discrete Choice Analysis*. Economic Development
and Cultural Change, 49(2), 311-333.
Central Statistical Office (CSO). (2003). Agriculture Analytical Report. Lusaka,
Zambia: Republic of Zambia.
Chieochan, O., Lindley, D., & Dunn, T. (2000). Factors affecting the use of
Information technology in Thai agricultural cooperatives: a work in progress.
The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 2(0).
Chitundu, D., & Soenarjo, R. (1997). Cassava Field Production Guide. Mansa:
Luapula Livelihood and Food Security Programme: Seed Multiplication
Component.
Chitundu, M., Droppelmann, K., & Haggblade, S. (2006). A Value Chain Task Force
Approach for Managing Private-Public Partnerships: Zamiba’s Task Force on
Acceleration of Cassava Utilization. International Development Collaborative
Working Papers.
Chizuni, J. (1994). Food policies and food security in Zambia. Nordic Journal of
African Studies, 3(1), 46-52.
Clarke, L. J., & Friedrich, T. (2000). Increasing food production and protecting
resources: the role of agricultural engineers. agricultural Engineering Branch,
agricultural support ASytstems Division. Food and Agriculture Organisation:
Rome.
Colonial Report. (1951). Colonial Reports Northern Rhodesia: Lusaka, Northern
Rhodesia: The Government Printer.
Colonial Report. (1946). Colonial Reports Northern Rhodesia: Lusaka, Northern
Rhodesia: The Government Printer.
Cornejo J, & McBride W. (2002). Adoption of bioengineered crops, Agricultural
Economics Report n˚ 810, Washington DC, USA. Development and Cultural
Change, 34: 351.
123
Cramb, R. A., & Nelson, R. A. (1998). Investigating constraints to the adoption of

recommended soil conservation technology in the Philippines. In F.W.T.
Penning de Vries, F. Agus, and J. Kerr (eds). Soil Erosion at Multiple Scales.
CAB International, Wallingford, UK. p. 99 -120.
Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
traditions: Sage Publications, Inc.
CSO. (2000). Government of the Republic of Zambia . Main Zambia Census Report.
Vol 10.
CSO. ( 2008). Government of Zambia:The Monthly. Volume 64, Lusaka, Zambia.
Dadi, L., Burton, M., & Ozanne, A. (2004). Duration analysis of technological
adoption in Ethiopian agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 55(3),
613-631.
Daku, L. (2002). Assessing farm-level and aggregate economic impacts of olive
integrated pest management programs in Albania. PhD. Dissertation. Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University.
De Janvry, A. (1973). A socioeconomic model of induced innovations for Argentine
agricultural development. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), 410-
435.
Deji, O. (2005). Membership of Co-Operative Societies and Adoption Behavior of
Women Farmers: Implication for Rural Development. J. Soc. Sci, 10(2), 145-
147.
Devereux, S. (1993). Goats before ploughs: dilemmas of household response
sequencing during food shortages. In: Institute for Development Studies
Bulletin 24, Institute for Development Studies, Brighton, UK.
Devereux, S. (1999). Making less last longer: Informal safety nets in Malawi. In:
Institute for Development Discussion Paper 373, Institute for Development
Studies, Brighton, UK.
Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative data analysis: A user-friendly guide for social scientists:
Routledge.
Dorward, A., Kydd, J., Morrison, J., & Urey, I. (2004). A policy agenda for pro-poor
agricultural growth. World Development, 32(1), 73-89.
Doss, C., Mwangi, W., Verkuijl, H., & De Groote, H. (2003). Adoption of maize and
wheat technologies in East Africa: Synthesis of findings of 22 case studies.
CIMMYT (International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center), Mexico.
124
Doss, C. R., & Morris, M. L. (2001). How does gender affect the adoption of
agricultural innovations? The case of improved maize technology in Ghana.
Agricultural Economics, 25, 27-39.
Drechsel, P., Olaleye, A., Adeoti, A., Thiombiano, L., Barry, B., & Vohland, K.
(2005). Adoption driver and constraints of resource conservation technologies
in sub-saharan Africa. Berlin: FAO, IWMI, Humbold Universitaet.
Eade, D., & Williams, S. (1995). The Oxfam handbook of Development and Relief
(Vol. 2). Great Britain: Oxfarm.
Ebukiba, E. (2010). Economic analysis of cassava production (farming) in Akwa
Ibom State. Agriculture and Biology Journal of North America.
Ehui, S. K., Lynam, J., & Okike, I. (2004). Adapting social science to the changing
focus of international agricultural research. Proceedings of a Rockefeller
Foundation. ILCA social science research fellows workshop held at ILCA,
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 14-18 November 1994. ILCA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
El-Osta, H., & Morehart, M. (1999). Technology adoption decisions in dairy
production and the role of herd expansion. Agricultural and Resource
Economics Review, 28(1).
Eze, C., Ibekwe, U., Onoh, P., & Nwajiuba, C. (2008). Determinants Of Adoption Of
Improved Cassava Production Technologies Among Farmers In Enugu State
Of Nigeria. Global Approaches to Extension Practice: A Journal of
Agricultural Extension, 2(1).
FAO. (1978–81). Report on the Agro-ecological Zones Project. Vol. 1. Methodology
and results for Africa. World Soil Resources Report 48/1, Food and
Agriculture Organization, Rome.
FAO. (2000). Handbook for defining and setting up a food security information and
early warning system. Food and agricultural Organisation: Rome. .
FAO. (2002). Zambia food balance sheet. Rome: FAOSTAT: Food and Agriculture
Organisation
Feder G, & Umali DL. (1990). The Adoption of Agricultural Innovations. A Review
of Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 43, 215-239.
Feder, G., Just, R., & Zilberman, D. (1985). Adoption of agricultural innovations in
developing countries: A survey. Economic Development and Cultural Change,
33(2), 255-298.
125
Feder, G., Lau, L., & Slade, R. (1987). Does agricultural extension pay? The training
and visit system in northwest India. American Journal of Agricultural
Economics, 69(3), 677-686.
Feder, G., & O'Mara, G. (1981). Farm size and the diffusion of green revolution
technology. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 30(1), 59-76.
Feder, G., & Slade, R. (1984). The acquisition of information and the adoption of new
technology. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66(3), 312-320.
Feder, G., & Slade, R. H. (1993). "Institutional Reform in India: The Case of
Agricultural Extension." The Economics of Rural Organizations., 530-542.
Feder, G., & Umali, D. (1993). The adoption of agricultural innovations: a review.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 43(3-4), 215-239.
Fernandez-Cornejo, J. (1996). The microeconomic impact of IPM adoption: theory
and application. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 25(2).
Fernandez-Cornejo, J., Beach, E., & Huang, W. (1994). The adoption of IPM
techniques by vegetable growers in Florida, Michigan and Texas. Journal of
Agricultural and Applied Economics, 26, 158-158.
Fernandez-Cornejo, J., & McBride, W. (2002). Adoption of bioengineered crops
(agricultural economic report 810). Washington, DC: United States
Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service.
Foddy W. (1996). Constructive questions for interviews and Questionnaires: Theory
and Practice in Social Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Franzel, S. (1999). Socioeconomic factors affecting the adoption potential of
improved tree fallows in Africa. Agroforestry Systems, 47(1), 305-321.
Gabre-Madhin, E., & Haggblade, S. (2001). Successes in African agriculture: results
of an expert survey. International Food Policy Research Institute. Washington
DC.
Geroski, P. (2000). Models of technology diffusion. Research Policy, 29(4-5), 603-
625.
Ghadim, A., Pannell, D., & Burton, M. (2005). Risk, uncertainty, and learning in
adoption of a crop innovation. Agricultural Economics, 33(1), 1-9.
Gibbs, M., Lindner, R., & Fischer, A. (1987). The discovery of innovations by
farmers. Journal of the Australian Institute of Agricultural Science, 53, 254-
261.
126
Gilbert, R. A., Sakala, W. D., & Benson, T. D. (2002). "Gender Analysis of a

Nationwide Cropping System Trial Survey in Malawi." African Studies
Quarterly 6, no.1.
Gladwin, C., Thomson, A. M., Peterson, J. S., & Anderson, A. S. (2001). Addressing
food security in Africa via multiple livelihood strategies of women farmers.
Food Policy, 26(2), 177-207.
Gladwin, C. H. (1980). A theory of real-life choice: Applications to agricultural
decisions, in P. Barlett (ed.), Agricultural decision making, Anthropological
contributions to rural development, pp. 45-86. Orlando: Academic Press.
Gladwin, H., & Murtaugh, M. (1980). The attentive-preattentive distinction in
agricultural decision making, in P. Barlett (ed.), Agricultural decision making,
Anthropological contributions to rural development, pp. 115-136. Orlando: .
Godoy, R., O'Neill, K., McSweeney, K., Wilkie, D., Flores, V., Bravo, D., . . . Cubas,
A. (2000). Human capital, wealth, property rights, and the adoption of new
farm technologies: The Tawahka Indians of Honduras. Human Organization,
59(2), 222-233.
Gong, H., & Beck, R. (1992). Factors Affecting the Adoption of Bovine Somatotropin
by Kentucky Dairy Farmers: This report is a contribution to the North Central
Region Dairy Marketing Research Project NC-198, “Analyses of Selected
Economic Factors Affecting the Long Run Viability of the Northern Dairy
Industry.”.
Goodman, L. (1961). Snowball sampling. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics,
32(1), 148-170.
Gottret, M., Henry, G., & Duque, M. (1993). Going beyond dichotomous adoption:
the case of cassava technology on the Atlantic Coast of Colombia. Working
Document (CIAT).
Govereh, J. (2007). Trends in Smallholder Production in Zambia. Food Security
Project Working Paper. Lusaka: Michigan State University.
Govereh, J., Jayne, T., & Chapoto, A. (2008). Assessment of alternative maize trade
and market policy interventions in Zambia. International Development
Collaborative Working Papers. Retrieved 13/5/2010,
fromhttp://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/midcwp/54492.html.
127
Govereh, J., Jayne, T., Nijhoff, J., Shawa, J., Haantuba, H., Belemu, A., Banda, A.
(2002). Developments in fertilizer marketing in Zambia: Commercial trading,
government programs and the smallholder farmer International Development
Collaborative Policy Briefs:Retreived 25/5/2010, from
http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/agsmidcpb/54604.htm
Guerin, L., & Guerin, T. (1994). Constraints to the adoption of innovations in

agricultural research and environmental management: a review. Australian
Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 34(4), 549-572.
Haggblade, S. (2004). Building on successes in African agriculture: IFPRI Retrieved
5/5/2010, from http://www.ifpri.org/publication/building-successes-african-
agriculture.
Haggblade, S., & Nyembe, M. (2007). Commercial dynamics in Zambia’s cassava
value chain : Cassava Transformation in Southern Africa (CATISA). Food
Security Research Project Working Paper.
Haggblade, S., & Nyembe, M. (2008). Commercial dynamics in Zambia’s cassava
value chain. Food Security Research Project Working Paper, 32. Retrieved on
2/2/2010, from http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/handle/54491.
Haggblade, S., & Zulu, B. ( 2003.). “The Recent Cassava Surge in Zambia and
Malawi.” Conference Paper No.9 Paper presented at the InWent, IFPRI,
NEPAD, CTAconference on “Successes in African Agriculture” Pretoria.
Hagmann, J., Chuma, E., Murwira, K., & Connolly, E. (1999). Putting Process into
Practice: Operationalizing Participatory Extension’,Agricultural Research and
Extension Network Paper No. 94, Overseas Development Institute, London.
Hahn, S. (1989). An overview of traditional processing and utilization of cassava in
Africa. Outlook on Agriculture, 18(3): 110-118.
Hantuba, M. (2002). Agricultural in Zambia, A reality and the way forward,
Economic association of Zambia.
Harper, J., Rister, M., Mjelde, J., Drees, B., & Way, M. (1990). Factors influencing
the adoption of insect management technology. American Journal of
Agricultural Economics, 72(4), 997-1005.
Hartley, J. (2004). Case study research. Essential guide to qualitative methods in
organizational research, 323-333.
Hassinger E. (1959). "Stages in the Adoption process". Rural sociology, 24, 52-53.
128
Helms GL, Bailey D, & Glover TF. (1987). Government programs and adoption of
conservation tillage practices on nonirrigated wheat farms. American Journal
of Agricultural Economics 69, 786–795.
Henry, G., & Gottre, M. (1995). Cassava technology adoption: constraints and
opportunities. Cassava Breeding. Agronomy Research and Technology
Transfer in Asia, 410.
Hichaambwa, M. (2005). Commercialization of Cassava for Increased Food Security;
Indicative trends and patterns towards commercialization. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Lusaka, Zambia.
Hiebert LD. (1974). Risk Learning and the adoption of fertiliser responsive seed
varieties. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 56, 764-768.
Honlonkou, A. N. (2004). Modelling adoption of natural resource management
technologies: The case of fallow systems. Environment and Development
Economics. 9 289–314.
Horne P, & Stür W. (1998). Participatory Approaches to Agricultural Technology
Development in Sloping Lands. Retrieved 1/2/2011 from
http://www.agnet.org/library/eb/462/.
Howard, J., & Mungoma, C. (1996). Zambia's stop-and-go revolution: the impact of
policies and organizations on the development and spread of maize
technology. Food Security III Papers.
IITA. (1990a). Cassava in Tropical Africa. A reference manual. Ibadan, Nigeria:
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture.
IITA. (1990b). Cassava in Tropical Africa: A reference manual. International Institute
of Tropical Agriculture. Ibadan, Nigeria.
Ison, R., & Russell, D. (2000). Agricultural extension and rural development:
breaking out of traditions: Cambridge University Press.
JAICAF. (2008). "The Maize in Zambia and Malawi":Japan Association for
International Collaboration of Agriculture and Forestry. Tokyo: Sozosha,
Ltd.
Janssen, W., & Wheatley, C. (1985). Urban cassava markets:: The impact of fresh
root storage. Food Policy, 10(3), 265-277.
Jayne, T., Govereh, J., Chilonda, P., Mason, N., Chapoto, A., & Haantuba, H. (2007).
Trends in agricultural and rural development indicators in Zambia. Food
Security Country Working Papers.
129
Jayne, T., Govereh, J., Mwanaumo, A., Nyoro, J., & Chapoto, A. (2002). False
promise or false premise? The experience of food and input market reform in
Eastern and Southern Africa. World Development, 30(11), 1967-1985.
Jeon, Y. W., & Halos, L. (1991). Performance of IITA-developed cassava postharvest
technologies. Paper-American Society of Agricultural Engineers (USA).
Jeon, Y. W., & Halos, L. (1992). Pilot testing of improved cassava processing
technologies in Nigeria: A case study. Scott, Gregory J.; Wiersema, Siert;
Ferguson, Princess I.(eds.). Product development for root and tuber crops.
Jimenez, E. (1995). Human and physical infrastructure: Public investment and pricing
policies in developing countries. Handbook of development economics, 3,
2773-2843.
Johnson, M., & Masters, W. (2004). Complementarity and sequencing of innovations:
new varieties and mechanized processing for cassava in West Africa.
Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 13(1), 19-31.
Jones, W. O. (1959). Manioc in Africa (Vol. ). California, USA: Stanford University
Press.
Juma, M., Nyangena, W., & Yesuf, M. (2009). Production Risk and Farm Technology
Adoption in Rain-fed Semi-Arid Lands of Kenya: Kenya Institute for Public
Policy Research and Analysis.
Just, R. E., Zilberman, D., & Rauser, G. C. (1980). “A Putty-Clay Approach to the
Distributional Effects of New Technology Under Risk.” In Operations
Research in Agriculture and Water Resources, edited by D. Yaron and C.
Tapiero. New York: North Holland Publishing Company.
Kaimovitz, D. (1991). The Evolution of Links between Research and Extension in
Developing Countries, In W.M. Rivera and D.J. Gustafson (eds.), Agricultural
Extension: Worldwide Institutional Innovation and Forces for Change,
Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 101-12.
Kambikambi, T. (2004). CROPWAT exercise report for Zambia. project report.
retrieved 3/4/2010 from: www.ceepa.co.za/docs/CDPNo39.pdf
Kang, B., & Akinnifesi, F. (2000). Agroforestry as alternative land-use production
systems for the tropics: Natural Resource Forum 24:137-151.
Karki, L., & Bauer, S. (2004). Technology adoption and household food security:
Analyzing factors determining technology adoption and impact of project
intervention by small holder peasant in Nepal.
130
Kassa, B. (1999). Constraints to effective extension work in Ethiopia : the insider’

view, Alemaya University of Agriculture Dire Dava, Alemaya, Ethiopia. Rural
and Tropag.
Kassie, M., Zikhali, P., Manjur, K., & Edwards, S. (2009). Adoption of Organic
Farming Technologies: Evidence from Semi-Arid Regions of Ethiopia.
Working Papers in Economics.
Kaura, M. S. (1967). A scale to measures farmer's attitude towards Artificial
Insemination M.Sc, Punjab Agriculture University, Hassir.
Kebede, Y., Gunjal, K., & Coffin, G. (1990). Adoption of new technologies in
Ethiopian agriculture: The case of Tegulet-Bulga district Shoa province.
Kennedy, E. T., & Bouis, H. E. (1993). Linkages between agriculture and nutrition:
implications for policy and research: Intl Food Policy Research Inst.
Ker, A. (1995). Farming systems of the African savanna: a continent in crisis: Idrc.
Khanna, M. (2001). Sequential adoption of site-specific technologies and its
implications for nitrogen productivity: A double selectivity model. American
Journal of Agricultural Economics, 83(1), 35-51.
Khush, G. (1999). Green revolution: preparing for the 21st century. Genome, 42, 646-
655.
Kidd, A., Lamers, J., Ficarelli, P., & Hoffmann, V. (2000). Privatising agricultural
extension: caveat emptor. Journal of Rural Studies, 16(1), 95-102.
Kinnucan, H., Hatch, U., Molnar, J., & Venkateswaran, M. (1990). Scale neutrality of
bovine somatotropin: ex ante evidence from the Southeast. Southern Journal
of Agricultural Economics, 22(2), 1–12.
Kohli, D., & Singh, N. (1997). The green revolution in Punjab, India: The economics
of technical change. Technical report. Conference on Agriculture of the
Punjab at the Southern Asian Institute, Columbia University.
Krishna, V., & Qaim, M. (2007). Estimating the adoption of Bt eggplant in India:
Who Benefits from public–private partnership? Food Policy, 32(5-6), 523-
543.
Kristjanson, P., Place, F., Franzel, S., & Thornton, P. K. (2002). Assessing research
impact on poverty: the importance of farmers' perspectives. Agricultural
Systems, 72(1), 73-92.
131
Kuntashula, E., Ajayi, O. C., Phiri, D., Mafongoya, P., & Franzel, S. (2002). Factors
influencing farmers’ decision to plant improved fallows: A study of four
villages in Eastern Province of Zambia. In: Kwesiga F., Ayuk E. and Agumya
A. (eds), Proceedings of the 14th Southern African Regional Review and
Planning Workshop, 3–7 September 2001, Harare, Zimbabwe, ICRAF
Regional Office, Harare, Zimbabwe, pp. 104–110.
Langmead & Baker Ltd. (2003). Cassava - A Market Research Study: Prepared for
the Smallholder Enterprise and Marketing Programme (SHEMP), Zambia.
Langyintuo, A., & Mungoma, C. (2008). The effect of household wealth on the
adoption of improved maize varieties in Zambia. Food Policy, 33(6), 550-559.
Latham. (1997). Human nutrition in the developing world. Food and Agriculture
Organisation: Rome.
Legard, R., Keegan, J., & Ward, K. (2003). In-depth interviews. Qualitative research
practice: A guide for social sciences students and researchers, 138-169.
Leta, R., Murray-Prior, R., & Rola-Rubzen, M. (2004). Factors constraining
extension workers effectiveness in improving horticultural production: a case
study from West Timor Indonesia.
Lubwama, F. (1999). Socio-economic and gender issues affecting the adoption of
conservation tillage practices. Conservation Tillage with animal traction. A
resource book of Animal tarction Net work for Eastern and Southern Africa
(ATNESA). Harare, Zimbabwe. 173pp.
Lungu, J. (2003). Animal Genetic Resources Policy Issues in Zambia. Paper presented
at the Strengthening Capacity for Developing Policies Affecting Genetic
Resources: Rome, Italy.
Luswishi Small Scale Farmers. (1997). 'Letter to the Editor' In the Zambian Farmer,
July/August 1997. 2:6, p14.
MACO. (2007). Mazabuka District Agricultural Report, Ministry of Agricultural and
Cooperatives.
MAFF. (2000a). Agricultural Statistics Bulletin. Early Warning Unit, Ministry of
Agricultural Food and Fisheries, Zambia.
MAFF. (2000b). Impact assessment of root and tuber research in Northern Zambia.
Soils and Crops Research Branch, Farming Systems and Social Sciences
Division. Chilanga, Zambia: Mt Makulu Central Research Station.
Mahajan, V., Muller, E., & Wind, Y. (2000). New Product Diffusion Models.
132
Manig, W. (1992). Development and transfer of appropriate technologies for peasant

farmers in developing countries: Analysis of linkages between FSR and T and
V system organizations. Agricultural Systems, 38(2), 209-219.
Mansfield C. (1966). Industrial Research and Technological Innovations. New York:
Norton.
Marra M, Pannell DJ, & Abadi Ghadim A. (2003). The economics of risk, uncertainty
and learning in the adoption of new agricultural technologies: where are we on
the learning curve? Agricultural Systems 75, 215–234.
Marsh, S., Pannell, D., & Lindner, R. (2000). The impact of agricultural extension on
adoption and diffusion of lupins as a new crop in Western Australia.
Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 40(4), 571-584.
Matthews-Njoku, E., & Asiabaka, C. (2004). Relationship between farmers'
knowledge about improved cassava production technologies and adoption.
Journal of Agriculture and Social Research (JASR), 3(2), 12.
Maxwell, S., & Frankenburger, T. (1992). Household Food Security: Concepts,
Indicators, Measurements, UNICEF/IFAD, New York/Rome.
Mazvimavi, K., & Twomlow, S. (2009). Socioeconomic and institutional factors
influencing adoption of conservation farming by vulnerable households in
Zimbabwe. Agricultural Systems.
McNamara, K., Wetzstein, M., & Douce, G. (1991). Factors affecting peanut producer
adoption of integrated pest management. Review of Agricultural Economics,
13(1), 129.
Mendola, M. (2007). Agricultural technology adoption and poverty reduction: A
propensity-score matching analysis for rural Bangladesh. Food Policy, 32(3),
372-393.
Met. ( 2002). Zambia Meteorological Department.. Climate Summaries for
Mazabuka, Zambia.
Minten, B., & Barrett, C. (2008). Agricultural technology, productivity, and poverty
in Madagascar. World Development, 36(5), 797-822.
Miracle, M. (1966). Maize in tropical Africa: University of Wisconsin Press,
Madison.
Miranowski JA, Hrubovak J, & Sutton J. (1991). The effects of commodity programs
on resource use. In ‘Commodity and resource policies in agricultural systems’.
(Eds N Bockstael, R Just) pp. 275–292. (Springer-Verlag: New York, NY).
133
Moser, C., & Barrett, C. (2003). The Complex Dynamics of Smallholder Technology
Adoption: The Case of SRI in Madagascar.
MUHEC. (2005). Code of Ethical Conduct for Research, Teaching and Evaluations
Involving Human Patrtcipants. Retrieved 30 March, 2010, from
http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/research/research-ethics/human-
ethics/code/code.cfm.
Mureithi, J., & Anderson, J. R. (2002). Farmer-Extension-Research Interfaces.
Chapter 11 of Rockefeller Foundation/KARI book on Agricultural Research in
Kenya, Nairobi, in process.
Murray, M., & Mwengwe, E. (2005). Food security and markets in Zambia.
Humantarian Exchange Magazine.
Muyanga, M., & Jayne, T. (2006). Agricultural extension in Kenya: practice and
policy lessons. International Development Collaborative Working Papers.
Mwangi, J. (1998). The role of extension in the transfer and adoption of agricultural
technologies. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education,
3-68.
Ndiyoi, M., Simwambana, M. S. C., Chiona, M., & Ndhlovu, M. (2007). Food Crop
Diversification Support Project for Enhancement of Food Security in Zambia
(FoDiS).
Negash, R. (2007). Determinants of adoption of improved haricot bean production
package in Alaba special Woreda, Southern Ethiopia. M Sc, Haramaya
University.
Nkonya, E., Schroeder, T., & Norman, D. (1997). Factors affecting adoption of
improved maize seed and fertiliser in northern Tanzania. Journal of
Agricultural Economics, 48(1-3), 1-12.
Ntege-Nanyeenya, W., Mugisa-Mutetikka, M., Mwangi, W., & Verkuijl, H. (1997).
An assessment of factors affecting adoption of maize production technologies
in Iganga District, Uganda: Cimmyt.
Nweke, F. (1988). Cassava production prospects in Africa. Ibadan: Iita.
Nweke, F. I. (1994). Processing potentials for cassava production growth in Africa.
COSCA Working Paper No. 11 Collaborative Study of Cassava in Africa,
IITA, Ibadan, Nigeria.
134
Nzomoi, J., Byaruhanga, J., Maritim, H., & Omboto, P. (2007). Determinants of
technology adoption in the production of horticultural export produce in
Kenya. African Journal of Business Management, 1(5), 129-135.
Oben, D., & Menz, K. (1981). Prospects for low cyanide cassava in Nigeria. Food
Policy, 6(3), 197-200.
Odoemenem, I., & Obinne, C. (2010). Assessing the factors influencing the utilization
of improved cereal crop production technologies by small-scale farmers in
Nigeria. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 3(1), 180-183.
Ogunlana, E. (2004). The technology adoption behavior of women farmers: The case
of alley farming in Nigeria. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 19(1),
57-65.
Öhlmér, B., Olson, K., & Brehmer, B. (1998). Understanding farmers' decision
making processes and improving managerial assistance. Agricultural
Economics, 18(3), 273-290.
Okuthe, I., Ngesa, F., & Ochola, W. (2007). Socio-economic determinants of adoption
of improved sorghum varieties and technologies among smallholder farmers in
Western Kenya.
Omobolanle, O. (2007). Socio-economic conditions of peasant farmers: the case of
agricultural technologies’ sustainability in southwest Nigeria. African Journal
of Agricultural Research, 2(9), 441-446.
Omonona, B., Oni, O., & Uwagboe, A. (2006). Adoption of improved cassava
varieties and its welfare impact on rural farming households in Edo State,
Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural & Food Information, 7(1), 39-55.
Orr, A., & Orr, S. (2002). Agriculture and micro enterprise in Malawi's rural south.
London, UK.: Overseas development institute (ODI). Agricultural research &
extension network (AgREN)
Ouédraogo, E., Mando, A., & Zombré, N. (2001). Use of compost to improve soil
properties and crop productivity under low input agricultural system in West
Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 84(3), 259-266.
Pannell, D. (2001). Explaining non-adoption of practices to prevent dryland salinity
in Western Australia: Implications for policy. In ‘Land degradation’. (Ed. A
Conacher) pp. 335–346. (Kluwer:Dordrecht).
Pannell, D., Marshall, G., Barr, N., Curtis, A., Vanclay, F., & Wilkinson, R. (2006).
Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural
135
landholders. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 46(11), 1407-

1424.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.): Sage
Publications, Inc.
Peters, P. (1992). Monitoring the Effects of Grain Market Liberalization on the
Income, Food Security and Nutrition of Rural Households in Zomba South,
Malawi. Harvard Institute for International Development, Cambridge, MA.
Peterson, W. (1997). The context of extension in Agricultural and Rural
Development: In Improving Agricultural extension: In B. E. Swanson, R.P.
Bentz & A.J. Sofranko (Eds), Improving Agriculture Extension: A reference
Manual: (3 ed). Rome: FAO.
Polson, R., & Spencer, D. (1991). The technology adoption process in subsistence
agriculture: The case of cassava in Southwestern Nigeria. Agricultural
Systems, 36(1), 65-78.
Pretty, J. N. (1995). Regenerating agriculture: Policies and practice for sustainability
and self reliance. London: Earthscan.
Prudencio, Y., & Al-Hassan, R. (1994). The food security stabilization roles of
cassava in Africa. Food Policy, 19, 57-57.
Punch, K. (2005). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative
approaches: Sage Publications Ltd.
Purcell, D. L., & Anderson, J. R. (1997). Agricultural Extension and Research:
Achievements and Problems in National Systems, A World Bank Operations
Evaluation Study, World Bank, Washington, DC.
Rahim M.Sail, Shah, R. B., Kobat, R. S., Ibrahim, A. G., Muhammad, A. F.,
Munammad, M., . . . Ha ji Wan Saleh, W. M. (1990 ). Smallholeders Practices
Constraints and Needs to Appropriate Technology Generation, Development
and Adoption. The Care of Rubber Smallholders in Peninsular Malaysia.
Rubber Research Institute of Malaysia And University Pertaninan Malaysia.
Rahm, M., & Huffman, W. (1984). The adoption of reduced tillage: the role of human
capital and other variables. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,
66(4), 405-413.
Ritchie, J., & Lewis, J. (2003). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social
science students and researchers: Sage Publications Ltd.
136
Rivera, W. (1997). Agricultural extension into the next decade. The Journal of
Agricultural Education and Extension, 4(1), 29-38.
Rivera, W. (2001). Agricultural and Rural Extension Worldwide: Options for
Institutional Reform in the Developing Countries, FAO, Rome.
Rivera, W. M., & Qamar, M. (2003). Agricultural extension, rural development and
the food security challenge: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations Rome.
Rodriguez, J., Molnar, J., Fazio, R., Sydnor, E., & Lowe, M. (2008). Barriers to
adoption of sustainable agriculture practices: change agent perspectives.
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 24(01), 60-71.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4 th ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5 ed.). New York: Free Press.
Rousseau, D., & Fried, Y. (2001). Location, location, location: Contextualizing
organizational research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(1), 1-13.
Ruane, J. (2004). Essentials of research methods: a guide to social science research.
Maiden, USA: Blackwell publishings.
Ryan, B., & Gross, N. C. (1943). The diffusion of hybrid seed corn in two Iowa
communities. Rural Sociology, 8, 15-24.
Saasa, O. (2003). Macro Study-Agricultural Intensification in Zambia: The Role of
Policies and Policy Processes. Lusaka, Zambia, Institute of Economic and
Social Research, University of Zambia.
Sahn, D. (1989). 1 A Conceptual Framework for Examining the Seasonal Aspects of
Household Food Security. Seasonal variability in Third World agriculture: the
consequences for food security, 1.
Saka, J., Mhone, A., Mkambira, J., Brimer, L., Bokanga, M., Mahungu, N., . . .
Rosling, H. (1998). Correlation between cyanogenic glucoside content and
taste of fresh cassava roots. Tropical Agriculture 75(1-2), 169-173.
Sanginga, P., Adesina, A. A., Manyong, V. M., Otite, O., & Dashiell, K. E. (2007).
“Social impact of soybean in Nigeria’s southern Guinea savanna.”IITA:
Ibadan, Nigeria.
Scheyvens, R., & Storey, D. (2003). Development fieldwork: a practical guide: Sage
Pubns Ltd.
Schultz, T. (1975). “The Value of the Ability to Deal with Disequilibria.” Journal of
Economic Literature Journal of Economic Literature, 13, 827-846.
137
Seshamani, V. (1998). The impact of market liberalisation on food security in

Zambia. Food Policy, 23(6), 539-551.
Shampine, A. (1998). Compensating for information externalities in technology
diffusion models. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 80(2), 337.
Sheba, M. (1997). Using the library for problem solving in African agriculture.
Information development, 13(3), 132-134.
Simutowe, F., & Zeller, M. (2006). The impact of access to credit on the adoption of
hybrid maize in Malawi: an empirical test of an agricultural household model
under credit market failure. Munich Personal RePec Archive (MPRA) Paper
No. 45. September
Simwambana, M. (2005). Study on Cassava Promotion in Zambia. Study prepared for
the Task Force on Accelerated Cassava Utilisation. Lusaka:
AgriculturalConsultative Forum and Agricultural Support Project.
Simwambana, M., Chiona, M., Chalwe, A., & Mutuna, S. (2004). Basic Cultural
Practices of Cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) Crop Production in Zambia.
Solwezi: Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives.
Sitko, N. (2008). Maize, food insecurity, and the field of performance in southern
Zambia. Agriculture and human values, 25(1), 3-11.
Sodiya, C., Lawal-Adebowale, O., & Fabusoro, E. (2007). Effect of Private and
Public Extension Services on Adoption of Promoted Cassava-Based
Technologies in Ogun State, Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural & Food
Information, 8(1), 35-47.
Spence, W. R. (1994). Innovation. the communication of change in ideas, practices
and products (1 ed.). Great Britain: Alden Press, Oxford.
Staal, S., Delgado, C., & Nicholson, C. (1997). Smallholder dairying under
transactions costs in East Africa. World Development, 25(5), 779-794.
Steinerb, T., Scheggc, R., & Murphy, J. (2005). Investigating Domain Name Diffusion
across Swiss Accommodation Enterprises.
Stout, B. Handbook of energy for world agriculture Essex: Elsevier Science
Publishers Ltd.
Sturm, L., & Smith, F. (1993). Bolivian farmers and alternative crops: Some insights
into innovation adoption* 1. Journal of Rural Studies, 9(2), 141-151.
138
Swanson, B., & Samy, M. (2002). Developing an extension partnership among public,
private, and nongovernmental organizations. Journal of International
Agriculture and Extension Education, 9(1), 5-10.
Teklewold, H., Dadi, L., Yami, A., & Dana, N. (2006). Determinants of adoption of
poultry technology: a double-hurdle approach. Livestock Research for Rural
Development, 18(3), 2006.
Tellis, W. (1997). Introduction to case study. The qualitative report, 3(2), 1-11.
Tesfaye, B. (2003). Understanding Farmers: Explaining Soil and Water Conservation
in Konso, Wolaita and Wello, Ethiopia. Tropical Resources Management
Papers No.41.Wageningen University: The Netherlands.
Thapa, S. (2009). “Gender differentials in agricultural productivity: evidence from
Nepalese household data.” University of Trento, Department of Economics
working paper: Trento, Italy
Thomas, R. (2003). Blending qualitative & quantitative research methods in theses
and dissertations: Corwin Pr.
Tiruneh, A. (2001). Gender differentials in agricultural production and decision-
making among smallholders in Ada, Lume, and Gimbichu Woredas of the
Central Highlands of Ethiopia: Cimmyt.
Tjornhom, J. (1995). Assessment of policies and socio-economic factors affecting
pesticide use in the Philippines. MS. thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University.
Tschirley, D., Abdula, D., & Weber, M. T. (2006). “Toward Improved Maize
Marketing and Trade Policies to Promote Household Food Security in Central
and Southern Mozambique.” Research Report No. 60E, Ministry of
Agriculture Directorate of Economics, Republic of Mozambique.
Udoh, E. J., & Kormawa, P. M. (2009). Determinants for cassava production
expansion in the semi-arid zone of West Africa. Environment, Development
and Sustainability, 11(2), 345-357.
Udoh, J. E., & Omonona, T. B. (2008). Improved Rice Variety Adoption and its
Welfare Impact on Rural Farming Households in Akwa Ibom State of Nigeria.
Journal of New Seeds, 9(2), 156-173.
Umali-Deininger, D., & Schwartz, L. (1994). Public and private agricultural
extension: beyond traditional frontiers: World Bank Publications.
United Nations. (2010). Technology and Innovation Report: Enhacing food security in
Africa through science, technology and innovation.
139
USAID. (2008). The Salvation Army/Zambia Chikankata Child Survival Project:

Third annual/midterm evaluation report.
Van den Ban, A. W., & Hawkins, H. S. (1996). Agricultural Extension (2 ed.).
Oxford: Blackwell Science Ltd.
Waller, B., Hoy, W. C., Henderson, J., Stinner, B., & Welty, C. (1998). Matching
innovations with potential users, a case study of potato IPM practices.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 70(2-3), 203-215.
Wenham, J. (1995). Post-harvest deterioration of cassava: A biotechnology
perspective: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Wiggins, S. (2000). Interpreting changes from the 1970s to the 1990s in African
agriculture through village studies. World Development, 28(4), 631-662.
Williams, J. (2008). Adoption of conservation agriculture in Malawi. Masters project
submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of
Environmental Management degree in the Nicholas School of the Environment
of Duke University.
Woods, A. (Ed.). (1990). The Dynamics of Agricultural Policy and Reform in Zambia.
. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
Wu, J., & Babcock, B. (1998). The choice of tillage, rotation, and soil testing
practices: economic and environmental implications. American Journal of
Yaron, D., Dinar, A., & Voet, H. (1992). Innovations on family farms: the Nazareth
region in Israel. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 74(2), 361-370.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research (3 ed. Vol. 5). London, New Delhi: Sage
Publications Ltd.
Zeller, M., Diagne, A., & Mataya, C. (1998). Market access by smallholder farmers in
Malawi: Implications for technology adoption, agricultural productivity and
crop income. Agricultural Economics, 19(1-2), 219-229.
Zepeda, L. (1990). Adoption of Captial Versus Management Intensive Technologies.
Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne
d'agroeconomie, 38(3), 457-469.
Zulu, B., Nijhoff, J., Jayne, T., & Negassa, A. (2000). Is the Glas Half-Empty or Half
Full? An Analysis of Agricultural Production Trends in Zambia. International
Development Collaborative Working Papers.
140
Appendices
Appendix 1 Interview Guide
Interview guide for farmer participants

Personal data
 Name
 Age
 Education
 Size of the farm
 Size of household
 Land ownership
Farming systems of the farmers

 Crops grown
 Livestock kept
 Other income generating activities
Factors affecting adoption with regards to:

 Information sources
 Accessibility of planting material
 Availability
 Distance to marketing centres
 Membership of cooperatives
Post harvest handling

 Home consumption
 Processing
 marketing
Adopters of cassava
Factors that have led to adoption
Non- adopters
Factors that led to non-adoption
141
Appendices
Interview Guide for Key Informants
Ministry of Agriculture Officers and Extension workers

Personal information
 Education
 History and involvement in cassava program
 Role in the community
 Extension approach
Factors influencing their effectiveness

 Resources available (transport, accommodation, training)
 Frequency of meeting with farmers
 Distance to farmers
 Number of farmers covered
Factors affecting adoption from perspectives of key informants

 Reasons they think farmers have adopted cassava
 Reasons they think farmers have not adopted cassava
NGOs
 The role of the NGO in the community
 How long they have been promoting cassava
 Reasons they think farmers have adopted cassava
 Reasons they think farmers have not adopted cassava
142
Appendices
Appendix 2 Ethics Approval Letter
143

Factor Affecting Agriculture

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Factor Affecting Agriculture

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Factor Affecting Agriculture

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Copyright is owned by the Author of the thesis.

Permission is given for

A thesis prepared in partial fulfilment of the requirements

My deepest thanks also go to all my family particularly my father Mr Lazarus Phiri

Table 6.1 Farmer and farm characteristics ................................................................. 92

Zambian agriculture, as defined by the Ministry of Agriculture Food and Fisheries,

Figure 1.2 Zambia’s Agro Ecological Zones

Agricultural extensification entails an increase in food production by households

Post-harvest handling of produce is important in achieving food security, since it

Agriculture extension is being used to enhance the improvement of food security in

and engine-powered equipment, implements and farm machinery and irrigation

Post-harvest technologies are important in achieving food security (United Nations,

Rogers (1995) used the word technology and innovation synonymously. An

Cassava agricultural production activities are said to be labour intensive (Ebukiba,

The adoption process

Rogers (1995) classified members of a population, in relation to their rate of adoption

Figure 2.1 Rogers adoption/ innovation curve

Critics of this model state that it is an overly simplified representation of a complex

There is no clear distinguishing feature between elements within each category. In

Categorisation of factors is usually undertaken to suit the current technology being

Relative advantage can be affected, positively or negatively, by government policies

Compatibility is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being consistent

Complexity is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as difficult to

Trialability is the degree to which an innovation may be experimented with, on a

highlighted in the literature reviewed. The adoption literature focuses on individual

Income level of farmers

In addition to internal factors, external factors are also important in influencing

In some studies, however, membership of organisations has been found not to be a

Availability and access to inputs

farmer’s own or borrowed capital. The adoption of a technology, which requires a

Distance to output markets also affects the adoption of agriculture technology.

Access to Processing equipment

to improved cassava processing equipment. A study by Johnson and Masters (2004)

Another external factor which is important in influencing the adoption of technologies

Government policies, which have had a negative impact on the adoption of

A study by FAO (2001) on the economics of conservation agriculture, in Sub-Saharan

Communication and role of extension personnel

Attributes of extension personnel

Constraints faced by the extension system

Communication infrastructure can impose additional constraints for extension

Extension personnel are often hindered by a lack of financial resources (Birkhaeuser,

A lack of supportive government policies also hinders the effectiveness of public

A lack of government support, commitment and or conflicting policy measures, is

Participatory technology development incorporates the criteria farmers use for

Farmers’ technology adoption decisions, however, are influenced by a number of

Table 3.1 Conditions for selecting appropriate research strategy.

Strategy Form of Research Requires Control of Focuses on

The researcher also interviewed two Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives

The researcher also used observations as a means of collecting data. Field

Figure 3.1The data analysis Spiral (Dey, 1993:53; Creswell, 1998:143)

- It takes too long for it to mature as compared to maize

- It is difficult to grow it, termites attack it in early establishment

- There is no processing equipment for cassava

- It is destroyed by livestock such as goats and cattle

- My land is too small to grow cassava

Inductive categories Participant responses

These factors were categorised as infrastructure; the characteristics of the technology;

The cassava is first peeled using knives (Figure 4.2).

Figure 4. 2: Fresh cassava roots and peeling