![Sample our Environment & Agriculture journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5934/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Environment-Agriculture.jpg"})
Abstract
To combat food insecurity in Madagascar, organizations have promoted the Système de Riziculture Intensifiée (SRI), or System of Rice Intensification, an agroecological rice-growing technique. However, despite its many benefits, adoption remains low (and disadoption remains high) in Madagascar. To better understand these dynamics, we use data from two surveys of 328 rice farming households in southeastern Madagascar to conduct an analysis of decisions to adopt SRI, as well as look at the differences between adopters and non-adopters. Results show that despite strong intentions to adopt the technique, actual rates of adoption were lower than expected. Indeed, while 89.8% (n = 291) of respondents stated intention to adopt SRI, only 21.6% (n = 60) had trialed it one year later. Results also indicate that exposure to SRI trainings did not have spill-over effects to “untreated” farmers, as nearly all (95%, n = 57) of the farmers adopting SRI had registered for the training, with the majority (89.5%, n = 51) attending some days of training. Reasons given for not adopting SRI included lack of rice seeds deemed suitable by farmers, as well as insufficient labor, time and other resources. Furthermore, using an integrated Theory of Planned Behavior - Technology Acceptance Model framework and structural equation modeling (SEM), we find that perceived behavioral control, training participation and household assets are significant predictors of adoption. This research is important in efforts to better support uptake of improved agricultural practices among food insecure farming populations. It also fills a gap in the literature regarding SRI adoption among lowland coastal farming populations.
Reviewing Editor:
Acknowledgment
We are extremely grateful to the Manombo farmers who participated in this study, as well as to the Health in Harmony team. We would also like to thank Norman Uphoff, Chris Barrett, Mark Freudenberger, Elsie Black, Christof den Biggelaar and Kame Westerman for sharing their insights on SRI adoption in the Malagasy context. Several anonymous reviewers also provided helpful feedback which strengthened the paper.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Data availability statement
The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in Figshare at http://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.23732466
Notes
1 Despite producing nearly 4 million tons of rice in 2015, Madagascar still imported approximately 260,000 tons of rice that same year (FAO CountrySTAT, Citation2021).
2 Teviala is the more specific term for using fire to clear primary forest (Dröge et al., Citation2022).
3 An exception occurred in the mid-1970s when Ratsiraka’s famine alleviation policies legalized tavy for a period of time (Hardenbergh et al., Citation1995; Jones et al., Citation2021).
4 SRI has progressed more into a set of agronomic principles than simply a list of practices (Uphoff, Citation2023), which can be adapted and customized to fit local contexts (Beumer et al., Citation2022; Uphoff et al., Citation2011).
5 SRI has been listed by Project Drawdown as one of nearly 100 solutions to avert climate catastrophe, with predictions that adoption of SRI could reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 2.9 to 4.4 gigatons by 2050 (Hawken, Citation2017).
6 Rice paddies account for an estimated 19% of global methane gas and 11% of global nitrous oxide emissions (Win et al., 2020).
7 As various steps within the SRI package may be adopted, it can be challenging to determine what constitutes an “adopter” (Tezer, Citation2012). In this study, farmers were asked to self-identify as to whether they consider having practiced SRI or not.
8 An estimated 500 hours/hectare additional time required for SRI practices was calculated as part of a project evaluation carried out in Morandava, Madagascar (Rabenandrasana, Citation2002).
9 In some regions of Madagascar, farmers often stay in lasy, or makeshift dwellings closer to fields, during peak labor periods, so distance to rice field may be less of a factor in this context.
10 The Malagasy term for traditional rice growing practices is “fomban-drazana” [ways of the ancestors].
11 For example, in Madagascar, men prepare the rice paddies using zebu (fatty humped cattle) or spades, while women and children are heavily involved in transplanting and harvesting (Achandi et al., Citation2018).
12 There are two subdimensions of subjective norms (SN): injunctive norms (perceptions of “others” approving of behavior) and descriptive norms (perceptions of actions of others) (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2010).
13 The area was hit by two consecutive cyclones in early 2022.
14 When asked the number of training days attended, it became apparent that a portion of respondents (20.1%, n = 40) had signed up for trainings but indicated not actually attending any training days.
15 Seed selection and management, while not unique to SRI (see Uphoff, Citation2023), was included because it comprised a major component of Manombo farmers understanding of SRI and was highly pertinent to focus group discussions.
16 Although they did not consider themselves “adopters,” 101 respondents indicated practicing at least one of the steps in SRI.
17 It is important to note that SRI itself does not require a specific type of seed (Barrett et al., 2021).
18 Since HIH gave out a fast-growing rice variety to SRI trainees, it is understandable that farmers would believe that SRI required a specific type of rice.
19 From a technology “fix” perspective, Jain et al. (Citation2023) suggest that adopting improved varieties of rice is the best strategy for increasing rice production in sub-Saharan Africa, especially drought-tolerant and pest-resistant varieties.
20 Though Noltze et al. (Citation2012) caution against expecting excessive experimentation from farmers.
21 Despite some evidence suggesting that omitting specific core SRI components may affect the accrual of benefits farmers receive (Palanisami et al., Citation2013; Uphoff & Randriamiharisoa, Citation2002), Uphoff (Citation2023) emphasizes that transplanting, for instance, is not mandatory for SRI.