From targeting to tailoring : baskets of options for legume cultivation among African smallholders
From targeting to tailoring : baskets of options for legume cultivation among African smallholders
复制标题
从瞄准到定制：非洲小农豆类种植的一揽子选择
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2018
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
E. Ronner
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
E. Ronner
本论文的目的是通过豆类为撒哈拉以南非洲不同类型的小农确定可持续集约化农业的利基市场。审议了两种豆类技术：尼日利亚的大豆和乌干达的攀缘豆。我们应用了从农业系统分析中选择的方法，包括农场类型学，农场试验，参与式方法和事前影响评估。在尼日利亚的大豆田间试验中，我们观察到谷物产量和对处理的反应存在很大的变异性。对技术在农场上的表现的评估对于估计技术对个体农民的效益没有什么价值。尽管我们解释了观察到的大豆产量变异的合理百分比，但利用这些信息来预测技术性能或将技术针对新的农民群体的潜力仍然有限。然而，即使我们了解豆类技术在哪里最有效，这也不一定会导致采用这些技术。在乌干达，在改进攀缘豆生产做法的共同设计（即与农民、研究人员和其他利益攸关方共同开发技术）中采用的示范方法表明，农民在评价豆类技术时使用的标准范围比产量更广。共同设计过程产生了一篮子攀缘豆种植选择，其中包括具有不同生产目标、资源限制和不同农业生态的农民的替代选择。通过与一小部分用户进行密集互动而制定的备选方案，可作为一个起点，通过应用作为研究一部分而制定的“按背景选择”矩阵，扩大到新的区域。对农民在多个季节在自己的田地上使用和适应共同设计的备选办法的监测表明，绝大多数农民没有使用能够获得最大产量的各种做法的组合，而是采用了攀缘豆技术。同样，我们观察到农民田间谷物产量和农民使用实践的变化。此外，我们发现，不同年份的做法是不一致的，这使得制定关于技术对不同类型农民的适用性的建议变得复杂。对种植攀缘豆的农场一级影响的事先评估表明，虽然攀缘豆提高了粮食自给自足和收入，但往往需要增加投资，而且总是比目前的农场配置需要更多的劳动力。结合与农民的讨论，这些研究结果提高了我们对采用攀爬豆的农场机会和限制的理解，并有助于解释为什么某些在田间水平上看起来很明显的选择，在农场水平上可能会有不同的结果。在整个论文工作中，我面临着产量和实践使用的变化性，以及解释关系的不一致性。这就使得确定关于技术是否适合不同类型农民的建议变得复杂。根据当地条件制定的一揽子备选办法被认为比针对预先确定的农场类型的狭义技术更有用。只有区域一级的建议领域才被认为对技术目标具有预测价值。虽然在技术开发中纳入用户的观点导致根据当地条件制定了相关的一揽子备选方案，但我们承认，在详细程度与为获得这些观点所投入的时间之间存在权衡。将农民对示范试验的评价纳入技术重新设计，以及他们对在自己的田地上测试技术的反馈，被认为是这项研究的两个组成部分，比较容易应用于其他大规模研究促进发展项目。我发现只有有限的选择来提高豆类技术对贫困农民的好处。因此，农业创新需要与体制创新齐头并进，才能真正影响到贫穷农民的生计。
The aim of this thesis was to identify niches for sustainable intensification of agriculture through legumes for different types of smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa. Two legume technologies were considered: soybeans in Nigeria and climbing beans in Uganda. We applied a selection of methods from farming systems analysis, including farm typologies, on-farm try-outs, participatory methods and an ex-ante impact assessment. In on-farm try-outs of soybean in Nigeria we observed a strong variability in grain yield and response to treatments. Averages of on-farm performance of technologies were of little value to estimate the benefits of a technology for individual farmers. Although we explained a reasonable percentage of the observed variability in soybean yield, the potential to use this information to predict the performance of technologies or to target technologies to a new group of farmers remained limited. Yet, even if we understand where legume technologies work best, this does not necessarily lead to adoption of these technologies. Participatory methods applied in the co-design (i.e. technology development with farmers, researchers and other stakeholders) of improved climbing bean production practices in Uganda showed that farmers use a wider range of criteria for the evaluation of legume technologies than yield only. The co-design process resulted in a basket of options for climbing bean cultivation that included alternative options for farmers with varying production objectives, resource constraints and in different agro-ecologies. The options developed through intensive interactions with a small group of users could be used as a starting point for out-scaling to new regions through the application of an ‘option-by-context’ matrix developed as part of the study. Monitoring of farmers’ use and adaptation of the co-designed options on their own fields over multiple seasons revealed that the large majority of farmers did not use the combination of practices that would lead to the largest yield, but adapted the climbing bean technology. Again, we observed variability in grain yields on farmers’ fields and in farmers’ use of practices. Further, we found that the use of practices was inconsistent between years, which complicated the formulation of recommendations about the suitability of technologies for different types of farmers. An ex-ante assessment of the farm-level effects of climbing bean cultivation demonstrated that although climbing beans improved food self-sufficiency and income, they often required increased investment and always demanded more labour than current farm configurations. Combined with a discussion with farmers, these findings improved our understanding of farm-level opportunities and constraints for the adoption of climbing beans and helped to explain why certain choices that seem obvious at field level, may work out differently at the farm level. Throughout this thesis work I was confronted with variability in yields and use of practices, and with inconsistencies in explanatory relationships. This complicated the identification of recommendations about the suitability of technologies for different types of farmers. A basket of options, tailored to local conditions, was judged to be more useful than narrowly specified technologies for pre-defined farm types. Only recommendation domains at the regional level were considered to have predictive value for targeting of technologies. Although the inclusion of users’ perspectives in technology development resulted in the development of relevant baskets of options tailored to local conditions, we acknowledge the trade-offs between the level of detail and the time invested in obtaining these perspectives. The incorporation of farmers’ evaluations of demonstration trials in technology re-design, as well as their feedback on the testing of technologies on their own field were considered two components of this study that are relatively easy to apply in other large-scale research-for-development projects. I found only limited options to improve the benefits of legume technologies for poorer farmers. Agricultural innovations therefore need to go hand in hand with institutional innovation to truly impact the livelihoods of poor farmers.