Transfer of Knowledge on Agroforestry Management Practices: the Structure of Farmer Advice Networks

By M. Isaac, B. Erickson, S. Quashie-Sam, V. Timmer. 2007

200 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Access to knowledge on farm management practices is essential for the maintenance of productive agroforestry systems. Farmers who lack the means to acquire farming knowledge from formal sources often rely on information within their informal social networks. However, little research has explored the explicit structure of farmer communication patterns. We examined advice network structures by using farmer attributes, i.e., kin relationships, community involvement, and imitation, to characterize structural positions and investigated the consequences of such structure on farming practices in cocoa agroforestry systems in Ghana, West Africa. Furthermore, we used a multicommunity approach; we constructed networks for four communities to increase replication and enhance the generality of our conclusions. A high density of advice ties occurred among a small group of farmers, indicating a core- periphery structure. Settler farmers composed 73% of core position members, suggesting that social proximity did not control the formation of informal advice structures. Because core farmers were highly participative in community activities, the promotion of community involvement may facilitate the movement of knowledge and social exchange to strengthen informal networks. Farmers in both core and peripheral structural positions indicated that they observed fellow farmers and subsequently adopted their practices. Of highly sought farmers, 84% used external information, predominately from government institutions, thus functioning as bridging links between formal and informal networks. Both external and farmer-derived sources of knowledge of agroforestry practices were transferred through informal advice networks, providing available information throughout the farming community, as well as a foundation for community-based adaptive management.

Subfields: General Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Global and Planetary Change, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2f1e6b552f5e36b431bb142539f032551ea9d607

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Agricultural and Biological Sciences

1. K. Vance‐Borland
2. Ö. Bodin
3. June Holley
4. Kasper Kok
5. F. Hermans

In Global and Planetary Change

1. Ö. Bodin
2. K. Vance‐Borland
3. June Holley
4. B. Crona
5. Frances Westley
6. M. Moore
7. Kasper Kok
8. F. Hermans

In Strategy and Management

1. K. Vance‐Borland
2. Pieter J. Beers
3. Ö. Bodin
4. June Holley
5. M. Stuiver
6. Kasper Kok
7. F. Hermans
8. B. Crona

Citations in the corpus

• The Impact of Information Provision on Agglomeration Bonus Performance: An Experimental Study on Local Networks (2014, unknown): “These ties facilitate the generation and flow of information that is conducive to cooperation with respect to (local) biodiversity and natural resources management (Pretty and Ward 2001; Pretty and Smith 2004; Schusler and Decker 2003; Isaac et al. 2007).”
• Conservation stakeholder network mapping, analysis, and weaving (2011, methodology): “SNA has been used in a wide variety of contexts (Borgatti et al. 2009), and has begun to be used in natural resources management studies (Schneider et al. 2003; Bodin et al. 2006; Crona & Bodin 2006; Isaac et al. 2007; Ernstson et al. 2008; McAllister et al. 2008; Ramirez-Sanchez & Pinkerton 2009).”
• Research, part of a Special Feature on Resilience Through Multi-scalar Collaboration Surmountable Chasms: Networks and Social Innovation for Resilient Systems (2011, background): “Core and periphery networks have also been found to work similarly (e.g., Bodin and Crona 2009, Isaac et al. 2007).”
• The distribution of roles and functions for upscaling and outscaling innovations in agricultural innovation systems (2013, background): “So far network studies in agriculture have been extensively used to explain the transfer of technology and the adoption of a new technology by farmers as a function of the position a farmer has within the social network (Carruthers and Vanclay, 2012; Conley and Udry, 2001; Isaac et al., 2007).”
• The role of social networks in natural resource governance: What relational patterns make a difference? (2009, background): “…that by doing this, i.e. analyzing which attributes are shared by central actors, better understanding of factors affecting resource governance issues in small-scale fisheries and agroforestry, such as knowledge generation and transfer, can be achieved (Isaac et al., 2007; Bodin and Crona, 2008).”