ABSTRACT
This study analysed the response capacity of rural farmers to National Fadama Development Programme (NFDP) and National Special Programme for Food Security (NSPFS) in Imo State, Nigeria. The specific objectives were to; categorize and describe response capacity of rural farmers, assess the level of knowledge of rural farmers’ to the rural poverty intervention programmes, determine the relationship between behavioural process and response capacity, determine factors that affect positive response to rural poverty intervention programmes, ascertain the rural farmers’ perception of agricultural extension effectiveness on positive response to rural poverty intervention and identify the perceived constraints to desirable response to poverty intervention programmes in the study area. Data were collected through the use of standardized questionnaire. Descriptive statistics (frequency distribution, mean score and percentages) and inferential statistics (multinomial logit regression, Chi-square and Univariate analyses) were used to analyse the data generated. The mean age was 50.7 years. Majority (57.9%) of the rural households in the study area were male with mean household size of 6 persons. The results further showed that majority (86.5%) of the rural farmers were engaged in crop production. The mean net annual farm income was N97041.63. Majority (90.6%) were members of social organisation especially cooperative societies (65.1%). A total of 97.4 percent had one form of formal education or the other. Extension agents (71.7%) were identified as their major source of agricultural information. The study found that majority (58.3%) of the rural farmers had high level of knowledge about NFDP while only 31.7% had high knowledge level about NSPFS. Majority (64%) of the rural farmers perceived extension service as not effective in activities in rural poverty intervention programme. The study also revealed that behavioural process has a positive and significant effect on response capacity at p0.05 critical level with a regression coefficient of 0.693 and R2 of 0.894. Majority (65.7%) of the rural farmers in the study area fell within the desirable response capacity, which is a sociological prerequisite for participation in rural poverty intervention programme. The multinomial logit regression results revealed that probability of being in the desirable response category increases with net annual income (4.055) and farmers’ self esteem (0.373) while sex (4.645), level of education (9.300), extension effectiveness (38.569), number of information sources (11.772) and distance to LGA headquarters (11.111) each decreases the probability of being in desirable response category to rural poverty intervention relative to the reference category. The constraints militating against positive response to NFDP and NSPFS poverty intervention programmes included institutional bottlenecks of the programmes (M = 3.32), lack of access to credit (3.19), lack of capital (M = 3.00), stringent requirements for qualification to participate in the programmes (M = 3.16), lack of awareness of NSPFS (M = 2.98) and lack of awareness of NFDP (M = 2.56). The study recommends that government should reposition extension service to be effective in services delivery to targeted beneficiaries in future poverty intervention programmes. Also the existing public agricultural extension service, Imo State Agricultural Development Programme (IMADP) should work in synergy with programme-donor agencies in order to carry out good sensitization campaigns at the inception of any rural poverty programme to create awareness and lay the foundation for desirable response required for the programme success.
Keywords: Response capacity, Rural, Poverty, Households and Programmes
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title page
Certification page Dedication page Acknowledgement
Table of contents List of Tables List of Figures Abstract
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the Study
1.2 Statement of the Problem
1.3 Objectives of the Study
1.4 Hypotheses of the Study
1.5 Significance of the Study
1.6 Scope of the Study
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Empirical Literature
2.1.1 Rural Areas of Nigeria
2.1.2 Rural Poverty in Nigeria
2.1.3 Rural Development and Poverty eradication in Nigeria
2.1.4 Approaches to Rural Development
2.1.5 World Bank assisted Rural Development Programmes in Nigeria
2.1.6 FADAMA and Irrigation Farming in Nigeria
2.1.6.1 Structure of NFDP
2.1.6.2 NFDP Operational Framework
2.1.7 National Special Programme on Food Security (NSPFS)
2.1.8 Process of Cooperation in Poverty Intervention Programmes
2.1.9 Targeted Social Groups in Rural Development
2.1.10 Role of Agricultural Extension in Rural Development
2.1.11 Factors influencing Response Capacity and Participation
2.2 Theoretical Framework 2.2.1 Reinforcement Theory
2.2.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour
2.3 Conceptual Framework
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Area of Study
3.2 Population of study
3.3 Sample and Sampling Technique
3.4 Research Instruments
3.5 Standardization of Research Instrument
3.5.1 Estimating validity of Research Instrument
3.5.2 Estimating Reliability of Research Instrument
3.6 Sources of Data Collection
3.7 Measurement of Variables
3.8 Method of Data Analysis
3.9 Test of the Study Hypotheses
CHAPTER FOUR
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Rural Households
4.1.1 Age
4.1.2 Sex
4.1.3 Household size
4.1.4 Marital status
4.1.5 Level of education
4.1.6 Farm experience
4.1.7 Major occupation
4.1.8 Types of farming activities
4.1.9 Net annual farm income
4.1.10 Membership of social organizations
4.1.11 Type of social organizations
4.1.12 Linkage with agricultural institutions
4.1.13 Self Esteem
4.1.14 Distance to the local government headquarters
4.1.15 Behavioural processes
4.2 Sources of Information
4.3 Level of Knowledge of Rural Households to Poverty Intervention
Programmes 99
4.4 Categories of Rural Households’ Response Capacity to Poverty Intervention Programmes
- 4.5 Relationship between Rural Households’ Behavioural Processes and their Response Capacity to Poverty Intervention Programmes
- 4.6 Factors affecting Response Capacity of Rural Households to Poverty Intervention Programmes
- 4.7 Rural Households’ Perception of Agricultural Extension Service’s Effectiveness in facilitating Positive Response to Rural Poverty
Intervention Programmes 110 - 4.8 Constraints militating against Positive Response Rural Poverty Intervention Programmes 112
- 4.9 Hypotheses testing 113
4.9.1 Test of Hypothesis one
4.9.2 Test of Hypothesis two
4.9.3 Test of Hypothesis three
4.9.4 Test of Hypothesis four
5.0 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Summary
5.2 Conclusion
5.3 Recommendations
5.4 Contribution to Knowledge
References Appendix
