An analysis of the adoption of the “system of rice intensification” (SRI): why a homegrown technique has yet to take seed among rice farmers in Madagascar

Figures & data

Table 1. Comparison of SRI recommendations to traditional rice-growing practices observed in study area, with color coding to reflect gender roles (yellow for women’s, blue for men’s) associated with various steps in the Madagascar context (Achandi et al., 2018).

Observed practices

Recommended SRI steps

Transplant older rice seedlings (28 days on averages) Transplant in clumps of 3–4 seedlings Seedlings transplanted densely and ‘scatteredly’ 4. Continuous flooding (CF) of rice paddy^a to ensure water supply and suppress weeds 5. Little to no organic fertilizer added, no chemical fertilizer 6. Control weeds by flooding and infrequent weeding by hand (1–2 times)

Transplant seedlings early at the two-leaf stage (less than 15 days, preferably 7–10 days), with very careful handling Transplant seedlings singly into level, unflooded field Spacing seedlings 25–40 cm apart (along line and in a square grid pattern) Intermittent irrigation or alternative wetting and drying (AWD) of paddy^b Maintain soil fertility by adding organic compost More frequent and earlier weeding (3–4 times), preferably with a sarcleuse

Note. Table adapted from Randriamiharisoa & Uphoff (2004), cited in Perera et al. (2007).

^aDue to lack of irrigation infrastructure, Manombo area rice paddies are often situated in marshy lowlands which may remain flooded throughout the season.

^bIn marshy lowlands, AWD may be limited to deliberate draining of fields only, where possible.

Figure 1. Integrated TPB-TAM framework.

Figure 2. Map of study area. Note: Stars indicate SRI demonstration sites. Blue lines demarcate Manombo Special Reserve. Yellow line is RN12 (paved national road).

Figure 3. Agreement with statements to measure a) Perceived Usefulness (PU) of SRI, b) Perceived Behavior Control (PBC), and c) subjective norms.

Figure 4. Number of farmers (gender-disaggregated) that stated intention to practice in 2021 compared with those that responded affirmatively to practicing SRI in 2022.

Table 2. Percentage of respondents belonging to SRI adopting and non-adopting households in 2022.

Respondent category	Adopt	Non-Adopt	Total
Training registrants	35.4% (n = 57)	64.6% (n = 104)	161
Non-registrants	2.7% (n = 3)	97.3% (n = 110)	113
	60	214	274

Note. Total n = 274.

Figure 5. Percentage of rice fields on which SRI adopters trialed the technique.

Table 3. Summary table of SRI steps implemented among respondents from SRI adopting households.

Steps measured	Percent adopters (n = 60)
Transplant young seedlings (7–10 days)	15.0
Transplant singly	75.0
Weed often	78.3
Use organic compost	85.0
Transplant in a line	95.0
Selection and care of seeds	95.0
Water management	95.0
Soil preparation	96.7

Table 4. Focus group (FG) participant explanations for not implementing particular SRI steps.

Steps least practiced	Exemplar quotes from FGs
Transplanting seedlings singly/early	“If the rice field is too flooded, the small seedling will rot in the water.” “The transplant is too small after eight days. It seems small for us.” “We transplanted by two, not singly, because I worry that one is too risky. It might not survive. If one dies, at least the other one will grow.”
Weeding with a sarcleuse	“It’s a bit difficult to use this machine…if you are not used to use it, it’s difficult to push it if the soil is too hard, so we just weed with hands instead.” “It’s difficult to push, sometimes it is blocked, it does not work properly. If you hire someone to weed with HIH sarcleuse, it does not work well. It is even faster for people to weed with hands instead. “I can use [sarcleuse], but my kids don’t know [how to]. But I cannot work alone on the field. To finish work faster, we did the traditional technique.”
Weeding often	“If you have money, you can hire people to weed it often.”

Figure 6. Median scores on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree) for subjective norm and perceived behavioral control (confidence, tools, knowledge) among adopters before (2021) and after (2022) practicing SRI.

Table 5. Structural equation model results using latent constructs of perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived behavioral control (PBC) as predictors of intention and actual adoption of SRI.

	Standardized Estimate	Standard Error	p-value
Perceived Usefulness (PU) on
Village remoteness	−0.117	0.180	.516
Number of trainings	0.017	0.022	.448
Education	0.066	0.027	.013
HH assets	−0.013	0.027	.642
HH size	−0.033	0.030	.265
Land tenure	0.445	0.233	.056
Subjective norm	0.428	0.100	.000
Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC) on
Village remoteness	0.093	0.175	.594
Number of trainings	0.105	0.020	.000
Education	0.020	0.027	.454
HH assets	0.041	0.026	.113
HH size	−0.027	0.028	.338
Land tenure	0.257	0.222	.247
Subjective norm	0.135	0.095	.157
Intention to practice SRI on
PU	0.126	0.121	.296
PBC	0.669	0.137	.000
Village remoteness	−0.063	0.273	.818
Number of trainings	0.079	0.052	.125
Education	0.021	0.040	.601
HH assets	0.031	0.050	.539
HH size	0.036	0.042	.397
Land tenure	0.450	0.216	.038
Subjective norm	0.089	0.116	.441
Actual adoption of SRI on
PU	0.014	0.100	.885
PBC	0.222	0.101	.028
Village remoteness	0.172	0.181	.341
Number of trainings	0.140	0.025	.000
Education	0.042	0.027	.125
HH assets	0.091	0.027	.001
HH size	−0.053	0.033	.104
Land tenure	−0.455	0.238	.056
Subjective norm	−0.119	0.112	.286

Achandi, E. L., Mujawamariya, G., Agboh-Noameshie, A. R., Gebremariam, S., Rahalivavololona, N., & Rodenburg, J. (2018). Women’s access to agricultural technologies in rice production and processing hubs: A comparative analysis of Ethiopia, Madagascar and Tanzania. Journal of Rural Studies, 60(February), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.03.011

 Google Scholar

Perera, J., Ahamed, A. I., & Simmons, M. (2007). Farmers’ perceptions of the factors that influence the uptake of SRI practices in Sri Lanka. Retrieved from http://sri.ciifad.cornell.edu/countries/srilanka/SLoxfamPercep0207.pdf

 Google Scholar

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