Gender disparities in agricultural extension among smallholders in Western Uganda

Midamba, Dick Chune; Ouko, Kevin Okoth Article Gender disparities in agricultural extension among smallholders in Western Uganda Cogent Economics & Finance Provided in Cooperation with: Taylor & Francis Group Suggested Citation: Midamba, Dick Chune; Ouko, Kevin Okoth (2024) : Gender disparities in agricultural extension among smallholders in Western Uganda, Cogent Economics & Finance, ISSN 2332-2039, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, Vol. 12, Iss. 1, pp. 1-18, https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2024.2391938 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/321573 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Cogent Economics & Finance ISSN: 2332-2039 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/oaef20 Gender disparities in agricultural extension among smallholders inWestern Uganda Dick Chune Midamba & Kevin Okoth Ouko To cite this article: Dick Chune Midamba & Kevin Okoth Ouko (2024) Gender disparities in agricultural extension among smallholders inWestern Uganda, Cogent Economics & Finance, 12:1, 2391938, DOI: 10.1080/23322039.2024.2391938 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2024.2391938 © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group View supplementary material Published online: 20 Aug 2024. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 1514 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 4 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oaef20 GENERAL & APPLIED ECONOMICS | RESEARCH ARTICLE Gender disparities in agricultural extension among smallholders in Western Uganda Dick Chune Midamba a and Kevin Okoth Ouko b a Department of Rural Development and Agribusiness, Gulu University, Gulu, Uganda; b Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness Management, School of Agriculture and Food Sciences, Jaramogi Oginga Odinga University of Science and Technology, Bondo, Kenya ABSTRACT In this study, we aimed to assess gender disparities in access to agricultural extension services and the determinants of access to extension among male and female-headed households in Western Uganda. A cross-sectional survey was conducted to extract primary data from 200 farmers using a semi-structured questionnaire. The collected data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Binary Logit model. Our findings revealed that majority of the male-headed households had access to extension compared to their female-headed household counterparts. This was also evident in the sources of agricultural extension. The socio-demographic characteristics of farmers also indicated that male-headed households were better off in many areas, for example, male-headed households boasted 498.83 kg/ha maize productivity, while households headed by females produced 405.36 kg/ha, indicating a 94 kg/ha yield gap. Similarly, adoption of agricultural practices was high among the male-headed households than their fellow female-headed counterparts. Finally, the estimates from the Binary Logit revealed that male-headed households’access to extension was influenced by age, education, farm size, crop diversity, and group membership. The predictor variables that significantly influenced female-headed households’access to extension include age, education, experience, household size, farm size, distance to extension, crop diversity, non-farm income, and credit access. The study concluded that there are gender disparities in agricultural extension as evident in the access to, sources and determinants of access to agricultural extension. To bridge the gender gap, the study advocates for more training and extension services to female-headed households regarding access to and sources of extension services. IMPACT STATEMENT Extension service provision is one of the pillars of agricultural productivity among the smallholder farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa. The role of agricultural extension services involves linking farmers and the governments. Through extension services, smallholder farmers are able to acquire modern agricultural techniques that increases farm productivity. With increased farm productivity, farmers are able to come out of the catastrophic levels of food insecurity. Female headed households normally report less productivity of major crops, leading to food insecurity amongst them. This research work contributes to the global discussions on access to extension among the male and female headed households. The study presents results on the state of access to agricultural extension services as well as the determinants of access to extension among the male and female headed households. Our findings and recommendations can be adopted by relevant authorities to increase access to extension, leading to higher crop productivity among female headed households. In the long run, there will be a decline in food insecurity as a result of the increased crop productivity among the female headed households. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 4 April 2024 Revised 3 July 2024 Accepted 6 August 2024 KEYWORDS Gender disparity; Extension; Productivity; Western Uganda; Gender analysis SUBJECTS Development Studies; Rural Development; Gender & Development; Sociology; Gender Studies - Soc Sci; Sociology & Social Policy CONTACT Dick Chune Midamba [email protected] Department of Rural Development and Agribusiness, Gulu University, Gulu, Uganda Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2024.2391938. ß2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent. COGENT ECONOMICS & FINANCE 2024, VOL. 12, NO. 1, 2391938 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2024.2391938 Introduction It is estimated that more than 60% of the Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) population depends directly or indirectly on agriculture as a source of their livelihood (FAO, 2018a,2018b; World Bank, 2015). The agricultural sector performs more than just food production but also contributes significantly to the achievement of the first two global Sustainable Development Goals [No Poverty and Zero Hunger] (Langyintuo, 2020; World Bank, 2022). Population growth in SSA has attracted much attention, which has also been aligned to agricultural productivity. The majority of SSA countries need to produce almost three times their current production to meet the increasing food requirements (FAO, 2022; Mango et al., 2018; WFP, 2023). Strikingly, the food required to feed hungry and growing populations is mainly sourced from agricultural activities. Therefore, the agricultural sector requires intensive policies to achieve optimal productivity. To achieve the desired household food production, agricultural productivity requires modern farm production skills on modern agriculture (Porter et al., 2015; Sanogo et al., 2023). These may include the adoption of modern agricultural technologies, pest and disease management, climate change mitigation strategies, agricultural marketing, post-harvest loss management, and input combinations to attain farm efficiency, among others (Feyisa, 2020; Sanogo et al., 2023). However, such skills are better disseminated through extension services. Through extension agents, the governments of SSA can train smallholder farmers on agricultural productivity, offer them input subsidies, and pass on any agricultural information and advisory services, among other services (Asante et al., 2024). Thus, extension agents play key roles by acting as intermediaries between smallholder farmers and SSA governments (Abdallah & AbdulRahaman, 2016; Abdullahi et al., 2021; Atukunda et al., 2022). Similarly, farmers who actively participate in extension programs are far better off than their counterparts without access to extension services in terms of farm productivity (Biswas et al., 2021). Evidently, there has been a gender biasness in access to extension services and participation in extension programs among Sub-Saharan African households. The majority of the studies conducted in SSA have reported skewed participation in and access to extension programs among male and femaleheaded households. For instance, Ragasa et al. (2013) reported that female-headed households are less likely to access extension services in Ethiopia, contributing to low agricultural productivity among such vulnerable households. In the same country, Neway and Zegeye (2022) noted that the adoption of agricultural technology was low among female-headed households compared to their fellow male-headed counterparts, which was attributed to the low participation in extension programmes among femaleheaded households. Masanja et al. (2023) also reported skewed access to extension services among farmers in Tanzania. They specifically observed a higher rate of access to extension among male-headed households than female-headed households. This was also evident in agricultural productivity, food insecurity, and poverty levels among the two gender groups. A policy brief published by UN-Women (2018a, 2018b) indicated gender gaps in agricultural productivity, as male-headed households are far better in terms of farm productivity than their female-headed counterparts. This was attributed to low access to agricultural services, such as extension, inputs, market information, seeds, and fertilizer-improved varieties, among others. These results are similar to those reported in a study conducted in Ethiopia by Gebre et al. (2021), which showed that male-headed maize productivity was 44.3% higher than that of their female counterparts. Similarly, high rates of poverty, food insecurity, and malnutrition have been more evident among female-headed households than among households headed by males in many countries in sub-Saharan Africa (FAO, 2010; World Bank Group, 2018). However, according to the gender equality theory, male and female-headed households should be given equal chances of access to extension, agricultural productivity, access to productive resources, farm inputs, advisory services, among others (Unicef, 2017). This implies that male and female headed households should equally and actively participate in agricultural production without any biasness of any kind. When male and female headed households are given equal opportunities, their productivity and extension gap will be reduced, enabling equal agricultural productivity among them (Kabeer, 2003) and (UN-Women, 2015). Increasing farm productivity, food security, and poverty alleviation among vulnerable female-headed households requires studies that present empirical results on the state of gender issues in access to agricultural extension services among households. However, the majority of studies have been conducted 2 D. C. MIDAMBA AND K. O. OUKO on gender and adoption of technologies (Gebre et al., 2019; Obisesan, 2014), gender and farm productivity (Gebre et al., 2021), and gender disparities in credit access (Hewa-Wellalage et al., 2020), with little work on gender issues in agricultural extension. Gender disparities in access to and determinants of agricultural extension do not seem to be well documented, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa. In addition, the little work done on gender disparity in extension access has also presented varied results, which calls for more empirical studies on gender and agricultural extension. Thus, this study aimed to assess gender differences in agricultural extension among smallholders in Uganda. Specifically, this study aimed to assess gender disparity in access to and sources of extension. The study also aim to assess the determinants of access to extension among male and female-headed households in Western Uganda. It is to our strong conviction that the findings and recommendations from this study will guide policy makers and users on how to improve agricultural extension access and participation among female-headed households. This would reduce poverty, food insecurity and malnutrition among the female headed households. In the long run, farmers’living standards and social welfare will be improved for a better living. Research objectives The general objective of this study was to assess gender disparities in agricultural extension among smallholder farmers in Western Uganda. The study is supported by the following specific research objectives. a. To assess gender disparity in access to and sources of agricultural extension b. To assess the determinants of access to agricultural extension among the male and female headed households Literature review The theories of gender disparity African Union, AU (2019) and Kabeer (2003), define gender as ‘the socially and culturally constructed differences between men and women, boys and girls, which give them unequal value, opportunities and life chances’. There are four major theories that explain gender differences among the farmers. These include socio-cultural theory, selectivity hypothesis theory, evolutionary theory and the hormone-brain theory. According to the socio-cultural theory, gender differences is attributed to the social, cultural, psychological, among other environmental factors. It further explains that cultural influences and physical differences between gender are the main determinants of gender disparity in the today’s community (Meyers-Levy & Loken, 2015). Men are muscular and energetic than women, thus attracting division of roles in the society. This leads to men having roles different from women. On the other hand, women’s child bearing ability, speed, among others make them attracted to the household work. Thus, men do the hard work including land preparation, decision making, and production while women may help in weeding but make less decisions on the crop types, and have less access to agricultural services. The selectivity hypothesis theory attributes gender disparity to the fact that male and female poses different strategies and have different ways of processing information. The selectivity hypothesis further explains that females are likely to detect, elaborate more extensively, and use relatively less accessible and more distally relevant information when forming assessments than their fellow male counterparts, leading to gender disparity. On the other hand, males tend to process data selectively than females (Meyer & Levy, 1989). This can result into difference in access to and participation in agricultural extension services among the males and females. The evolutionary theory of gender disparity is based on the effects of human biology such as the evolved mechanisms that humans developed to adaptively address environmental challenges faced by their ancestors. The central premise is that natural selection spawned a human. This leads to different actions and behaviors among the males and females in a given society (Boyer & Barrett, 2015). Hormone-brain theory argues that gender difference arise from the pre-neo, and COGENT ECONOMICS & FINANCE 3 postnatal exposure to gonadal hormones, resulting into the brain development permanently and thus the propensities people display. This makes males and females behave differently (Hines et al., 2002). However, this study is underpinned by the socio-cultural theory of gender differences in the society. From this theory, it is evident that as a result of the cultural and physical differences, male and females tend to have different paths, leading to different resources bases. In the end, there is difference in agricultural productivity since land rights, and access to agricultural services such as extension, input use, among others tend to vary across different socio-cultural settings. It has been reported that males or male headed households tend to be better off in terms of agricultural extension and productivity (Ragasa et al., 2013), agricultural resources (Joseph et al., 2021), adoption of agricultural technologies (Gebre et al., 2019) and (Ndeke et al., 2021), adoption of crop diversification (Ge et al., 2023), livelihood assets (Musa et al., 2024), among others. Studies on gender issues in agriculture Wealth of literature exist on gender issues in agriculture. Many studies have outlined gender issues in food security, adoption of agricultural technologies, access to credit, access to resources, access to farm inputs, access to family land, among others. Joseph et al. (2021) conducted a study in Western Kenya to determine gender gaps in access to productive resources among smallholders. Their findings reported gender gaps in access to farm production resources, such as land, farm inputs, and adoption of agricultural technologies, among others. According to their findings, women were less likely to access productive farm resources than their male counterparts. As such, they recommended the prioritization of female farmers to access such resources in order to improve their productivity. Using Binary logistic model, Neway and Zegeye (2022) analyzed gender differences in technology adoption among 796 farmers in Ethiopia. From their findings, male-headed households had an adoption rate of 87.3%, while the adoption rate of female-headed households was 61.2%. This indicates a 26.1% difference in adoption rates between the two groups. It was evident that male-headed households are much better off in accessing agricultural technologies than their female counterparts. Their results further showed that the adoption of agricultural technologies was influenced gender among other variables. Male household heads had a 12.3% higher probability of adopting agricultural technologies than their female-headed counterparts. Other studies with similar results on gender disparities in technology adoption include Ge et al. (2023), Gebre et al. (2019), Neway and Zegeye (2022), and Obisesan (2014). Atube et al. (2021) assessed gender responsiveness in the adoption of climate change adaptation strategies in Northern Uganda using a Binary Logit Model. Their study recorded a large gender disparity in the adoption of climate change adaptation strategies. They observed that households headed by males depicted a 0.78 times higher likelihood of adopting climate change adaption strategies than their fellow female-headed households. They also noted that in terms of use of pesticides, male-headed households depicted a 0.66 times higher probability than their fellow female households. Farm productivity depends largely on access to agricultural credit. Smallholder farmers who are financially constrained may not achieve optimal agricultural productivity. This is as a result of the untimely access to and inadequate purchase of farm inputs and farm machinery, resulting in delayed production. Maleheaded households have been reported to have higher credit access than households headed by females. In Kenya, Johnen and Mußhoff (2023) observed skewed access to credit across gender. Male-headed households were reported to have higher access to credit than their fellow female-headed households. A study conducted in Tanzania, Nigeria, and Uganda on gender disparity in agricultural productivity revealed that female-headed households still lag behind in crop productivity (Mukasa et al., 2015). Maleheaded households produce much better results than households headed by females. In the three countries, there was less access to land and labor among female-headed households, contributing to low farm productivity. The findings of Mukasa et al. (2015) illustrated that there was a 18.6%, 27.4%, and 30.6% less land productivity among female headed households in Nigeria, Tanzania and Uganda, respectively. Over the past decades, females have suffered from many social discriminations. First, African tradition did not recognize female’s to own land rights. African households allocate their lands to the male gender, while females are left with little acreages (FAO, 2018b; UN-Women, 2018a;2018b). As such, femaleheaded households with limited land are vulnerable to low farm productivity. To produce continuously, 4 D. C. MIDAMBA AND K. O. OUKO they tend to lease land to feed their families. It has also been noted that women were denied education opportunities in Africa (Riegle-Crumb, 2019). They were regarded as lesser humans, leading to many social predicaments among the female gender. Similarly, access to labor, farm inputs, and government services seems to be low among the female gender than their male counterparts. Many African households are characterized by poverty, malnutrition, and food insecurity (FAO, 2005; IFRC, 2021). In SSA, the majority of farming households live below the poverty line, living less than a dollar daily. However, the female gender seems to be highly poor and food insecure compared to their male counterparts (Stephens, 1991). Reports released by the World Bank Group (2018) on the state of poverty across gender indicate that there are higher poverty rates among female-headed households than among households headed by males. Notably, UNPD (2012) also agrees that female-headed households are more severely poverty-stricken than households headed by males. There is a wealth of research on gender disparity in agriculture, as discussed above (summarized in Table 1). These include gender issues in the adoption of technologies, poverty, food insecurity, finances, group formation and activity, and agricultural productivity. However, gender disparity in extension services has not been adequately and well-studied, especially in SSA. There is a dearth of literature on the determinants of access to agricultural extension among male and female-headed households in SSA. Moreover, the limited work done on gender and extension also tends to produce varied results, which may not be universally accepted for policy implementation globally. For instance, a study by Ragasa et al. (2012) showed access to extension among the male headed households was influenced by age, education, farm size and livestock unit, while female headed households’access to extension was influenced by farm size, livestock unit and proportion of male members. In contrary, a study conducted in Ethiopia by Haile (2016) showed that participation in extension services among women farmers was influenced by market access, marital status, and farmers’age. Thus, gender issues in agricultural extensions should therefore be adequately studied in every region in order to adequately inform region based policy makers and users. Thus, our study aims to determine gender disparity in access to and sources of extension, and assess the determinants of access to extension among female and male-headed households in Uganda. The results from the study will guide the governments of SSA on how to increase access to agricultural extension among both male and female headed households. This will in turn increase food security and reduce poverty among SSA households, especially the vulnerable female headed households. Materials and methods Study locale We purposively selected Western Uganda for this study. Specifically, Kiryandongo district was selected for data collection (Figure 1). Smallholder farmers in Kiryandongo were selected to participate in the Table 1. Summarized literature on gender issues in agriculture. Author Country Methods Major findings Ragasa et al. (2013) Ethiopia OLS Female headed households are less likely to access to extension services Masanja et al. (2023) Tanzania Binary logit Male farmers are less likely to access extension services Midamba et al. (2022) Uganda Binary logit Male farmers have higher probability of accessing extension services Atsbeha and Gebre (2021) Ethiopia Binary logit Women headed households are less likely to access extension services Nagar et al. (2021) India Binary Logit Male headed households have higher access to extension than female UN-Women (2018b) Africa Review Women have less land rights Women have lower chances of growing high value crops FAO (2018a,2018b) Africa Discussion Women own relatively small portions of land than male FAO (2010) Africa Policy brief Male headed households are more food secure than female headed households World Bank Group (2018) Global Economic HH Consumption Classification Female headed households are more poor than male headed households Olajumoke et al. (2021) Nigeria Factorial analysis No significant difference in access to farm inputs among the male and female gender COGENT ECONOMICS & FINANCE 5 study. Both large and small scale farmers were selected to participate in the study, without any biasness on the level of production. Kiryandongo is bordered by the Nwoya, Oyam, Apac, and Masindi Districts. The coordinates of the district are 02 00 N, 32 18E. The district covers a total area of 3621 Km 2 , which is mainly used for agricultural activities. The population comprises of approximately 380,000 people. The sustainable weather and climate in Kiryandongo attracted several households to farming as a source of livelihood. The district receives an average of 292 mm rain days per year. Women engage in several economic activities that provide livelihoods for their families in this district. It is evident that women are active not only in agricultural activities but also in other economic ventures. Agricultural activities that have attracted women in this region include crop (maize, tobacco, beans, cassava, vegetables, among others) and livestock production. Despite women’s active participation in economic activities in Kiryandongo, Abigaba (2015) observed a gender imbalance in terms of access to productive resources. They reported that women are always left behind in terms of access to agricultural services, resources, and land rights. As such, several projects have been implemented by the Kiryandongo district leadership, aiming to empower women to undertake economic activities. For example, there are business skills trainings, including agribusiness and farm management training, which target female entrepreneurs. Thus, this region becomes the target area, especially for gender disparity studies. Data sources, sampling and sample size Convenience sampling technique was used to collect data from the farmers. Convenience sampling was selected because it is cheap and easier to use (Manikas et al., 2023; Ruzzante & Bilton, 2021). It has been widely used and proven to be one of the best sampling methods which reduces non-response rate in agricultural studies (Al-Jabri & Sohail, 2012; Joseph et al., 2021; Ruzzante et al., 2021; Shahnaz Mahdzan, 2013). Farmers were sampled based on their availability during the study. Similarly, those who were available and consented to participate in the study were randomly selected. The study employed a semi-structured questionnaire (Appendix 1) to collect data from farmers. Open Data Kit (ODK) was specifically used by experienced and trained research assistants to collect data from the farmers. The enumerators who understood the local languages assisted farmers who faced challenges in reading and writing (Acholi, Langi, and Swahili) in the study area. The sample size was determined using a formula by Figure 1. Study locale. 6 D. C. MIDAMBA AND K. O. OUKO Cochran (1963). We began data collection in Kiryandongo sub-county and then summarized in Kigumba sub-county. The data collection process took three weeks, starting from 3 rd to 24 th September, 2021. Data were then downloaded from the ODK server, cleaned, and analyzed using an econometric model. n¼Z2Pð1−PÞ e2 n¼1:96 1:96 0:85 ð1−0:85Þ 0:0025 n¼200 Where Pis the proportion of farmers’population, which is 0.85 (UBOS, 2018a), nis the number of sampled farmers, and Zis the 95% confidence interval. Ethical clearance and consent seeking After developing the data collection tool, we sought ethical clearance from the Gulu University Research Ethics Committee (GUREC). We were then given the opportunity to defend our work before the committee. After successfully defending and submitting all the required documents, our study was approved by the Gulu University Research Ethics Committee (GUREC) under Approval Number: GUREC-084-20. Similarly, the Chief Administrative Officer of Kiryandongo District wrote an introductory letter that allowed us to collect data from the farmers with the help of the District production officer. Similarly, we also sought voluntary written consent from the farmers. The farmers voluntarily consented to participate without coercion. All ethical considerations were followed during the study period. Written informed consent was obtained for participation in the study. At the time of the study, there was Covid -19 outbreak. To avoid the spread of the Covid –19 pandemic during the study, we developed Covid -19 prevention measures, which were also approved by GUREC. Econometric analysis Gender was coded as an independent categorical variable, where males were coded as 1 (male), 0 (otherwise), and female. As such, there were columns for both male-headed households (1-male-headed households, 0-otherwise) and female-headed households (1-female-headed HH, 0otherwise). Factors affecting access to extension services among male and female-headed households were independently determined using a Binary Logistic Model (BLM). The BLM has been widely applied in agricultural research to assess the influence of socio-economic factors on binary independent variables. BLM was therefore selected because the dependent variable in this study was binary, also called dichotomous. Authors such as Atube et al. (2021) adopted BLM to estimate the determinants of CSA adoption in Northern Uganda; Alemu (2021) explored BLM to assess how socio-economic factors influence participation in trainings in Ethiopia; In Rwanda, Nahayo et al. (2017) determined drivers of smallholders’participation in crop intensification; Okeyo et al. (2020) assessed how socio-economic factors influence sorghum production in Kenya; Using BLM, Masanja et al. (2023) studied the drivers of access to extension in Tanzania. BLM is specified below. Equation 1 represents the probability of access to extension, Equation 2 represents the probability of no access to extension, and Equation 3 represents the binary logistic Equation, which is a combination of Equation 1 and 2. Pr Y¼1 ðÞ ¼; Xk k¼1bkXk hi 1 Pr Y¼0 ðÞ ¼1−;Xk k¼1bkXk hi 2 ln Pi 1−Pi  ¼xibþei3 where Pi is the probability of accessing extension services while 1 −Pi on the other hand is the probability of no access to extension, bis the coefficient to be estimated, and eiis the error term. Xiis the explanatory variable in Table 2. COGENT ECONOMICS & FINANCE 7 Extension agents should extend their extension services to older farmers. This includes both maleand female-headed households and train them. Distance to the extension centers had a negative and significant influence on access to extension among female-headed households. Thus, extension agents should reach female-headed households located far away from the extension centers. Similarly, the government should set up more extension centers to support female-headed households. Credit access had a positive influence on access to extension services among female-headed households. Extension agents should train female-headed households on how to access credit from financial institutions with low interest rates. There was low productivity, which was attributed to the low use of hybrid seeds and fertilizers among female-headed households. Extension agents should train such households in crop productivity through the adoption of agricultural technologies. Male headed households should continue joining and participating in farmer groups, as they increase their probability of accessing extension services. Areas for further studies Gender issues in agricultural extension is a significant study that provides policies for upholding food security among the female headed households. From past research reports, female headed households tend to be highly vulnerable to food insecurity as a result of low farm productivity, which is also attributed to poor access to extension. While our study focused on one district, we recommend further studies on gender disparity in agricultural extension in other regions of Uganda. Such studies should include the constraints limiting access to extension among the female headed households. This would provide complete results and policy implications on access to extension among the female-headed households. Authors’contribution This study was conducted by two authors: Dick Chune Midamba and Kevin Okoth Ouko. The two authors participated in the conception and design, analysis and interpretation of the data, drafting of the paper, revising it critically for intellectual content, and final approval of the version to be published. All authors agree to be accountable for all the aspects of this study. Disclosure statement No potential competing interest was reported by the authors. Funding No funding was received. About the authors Dick Midamba holds a Bsc. in Agricultural Economics from Laikipia University, Kenya and an Msc. in Agri-Enterprises Development from Gulu University, Uganda. Midamba is currently a PhD Candidate at Maseno University, where he studies hi Doctorate degree in Agricultural Economics. Midambas’research intererest include Food systems, Food security, Farm efficiency and productivity, Sustainable agriculture and Rural development. Dr. Kevin Okoth Ouko is a Post Doctoral Research Fellow at African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS). He holds a PhD in Food Security and Sustainable Agriculture from Jaramogi Oginga Odinga University of Science and Technology, Kenya and an MSc in Agricultural and Applied Economics from Egerton University, Kenya/University of Pretoria, South Africa. ORCID Dick Chune Midamba http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4467-419X Kevin Okoth Ouko http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9894-5042 14 D. C. MIDAMBA AND K. O. OUKO Data availability statement The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author [Dick Chune Midamba, [email protected]] upon reasonable request. References Abdallah, A.-H., & Abdul-Rahaman, A. (2016). Determinants of access to agricultural extension services: Evidence from smallholder rural women in Northern Ghana. Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics & Sociology, 9(3), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.9734/AJAEES/2016/23478 Abdullahi, M. Y., Abu, I. A., Danwanka, H. A., Oladimeji, Y. U., & Abdulrahman, S. (2021 Socio-economic Factors Influencing the Training Need among Extension Personnel in Agricultural Development Programmes (ADPs) of Kaduna and [Paper presentation]. Roceeding of the 31st Annual Conference of Farm Management Association of Nigeria, Bauchi 2017,October 2017. Abigaba, J. (2015). Examining effect of gender inequalities in community development; a case study of kiryandongo hospital, kiryandongo district, western uganda. Kampala International University. Abro, A. A. (2017). Crop diversification towards high value crops and its determinants in Pakistan: An empirical analysis. International Journal of Business Management and Economic Research,3(3), 1–200. http://prr.hec.gov.pk/jspui/ handle/123456789/9298 Adekunle, A. (2018). Effect of membership of group-farming cooperatives on farmers food production and poverty status in Nigeria. 30th International Conference of Agricultural Economists,1–19. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/ record/277420 Al-Jabri, b M., & Sohail, M. S. (2012). Mobile banking adoption: Application of diffusion of innovation theory. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research,13(4), 379–391. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258515458%0AMobile Alemu, A. (2021). Determinants of participation in farmers training centre based extension training in Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Extension,25(2), 86–95. https://doi.org/10.4314/jae.v25i2.8 Arslan, A., McCarthy, N., Lipper, L., Asfaw, S., & Cattaneo, A. (2014). Adoption and intensity of adoption of conservation farming practices in Zambia. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment,187,72–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. agee.2013.08.017 Asante, B. O., Prah, S., Addai, K. N., Anang, B., & Ng’ombe, J. N. (2024). Agricultural services and rural household welfare: empirical evidence from Ghana. International Journal of Social Economics,2(4), 305–315. https://doi.org/10. 1108/IJSE-11-2022-0745 Atsbeha, A. T., & Gebre, G. G. (2021). Factors affecting women access to agricultural extension services: evidence from poultry producer women’s in northwestern Tigray, Ethiopia. Cogent Social Sciences,7(1), 1–11. https://doi. org/10.1080/23311886.2021.1975413 Atube, F., Malinga, G. M., Nyeko, M., Okello, D. M., Alarakol, S. P., & Okello-Uma, I. (2021). Determinants of smallholder farmers’adaptation strategies to the effects of climate change: Evidence from northern Uganda. Agriculture & Food Security,10(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-020-00279-1 Atukunda, G., Atekyereza, P., Walakira, J., & State, A. E. (2022). Increasing Farmers’Access to Aquaculture Extension Services: Lessons from Central and Northern Uganda. Uganda Journal of Agricultural Sciences,20(2), 49–68. https:// doi.org/10.4314/ujas.v20i2.5 AU. (2019). Ten Quick Facts about the African Union Gender Parity Project 2025. African Union.https://au.int/sites/ default/files/documents/38583-doc-ten_quick_facts_on_au_gender_parity_project.pdf Biswas, B., Mallick, B., Roy, A., & Sultana, Z. (2021). Impact of agriculture extension services on technical efficiency of rural paddy farmers in southwest Bangladesh. Environmental Challenges,5(April), 100261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. envc.2021.100261 Boyer, P., & Barrett, H. C. (2015). Conceptual foundations of evolutionary psychology. In The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology,https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470939376.ch3 Charness, G., & Rustichini, A. (2011). Gender differences in cooperation with group membership. Games and Economic Behavior,72(1), 77–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2010.07.006 Cochran, W. G. (1963). Sampling Techniques. (2nd Ed) John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Danso-Abbeam, G., Ehiakpor, D. S., & Aidoo, R. (2018). Agricultural extension and its effects on farm productivity and income: Insight from Northern Ghana. Agriculture & Food Security,7(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-0180225-x Enoch Kwame T-A, Fred A, Prince A, Akua Yeboah O-O, Ernest Laryea O, Stephen P, John-Eudes A. B, & Prince A. (2023). Demand for and intensity of use of extension services among cocoa farmers in Ghana: The heckpoisson approach. International Journal of Humanities Education and Social Sciences,3(3), 1165–1179. https://doi.org/10. 55227/ijhess.v3i3.767 Eticha, D. (2021). Analysis of Stallholder Farmers’participation in agricultural extension services in Yayo and Hurumu Districts of Oromia, South-West Ethiopia. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development,12(21), 10–21. https:// doi.org/10.7176/JESD/12-21-02 COGENT ECONOMICS & FINANCE 15 FAO. (2005). The state of food insecurity in the world: Eradicating world hunger - Key to achieving the Millennium Development Goals. In Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.https://www.fao.org/agrifood-economics/publications/detail/en/c/122053/ FAO. (2010). Integrating gender issues in food security, agriculture and rural development. FAO. (2018a). National gender profile of agriculture and rural livelihoods - Uganda. Country Gender Assessment Series, Kampala. In Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (Vol. 11). FAO. (2018b). The gender gap in land rights. Social Policies and Rural Institutions Division (ESP),4.http://www.fao. org/3/I8796EN/i8796en.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0owWkHXsrPeaEzNPlniyffHqW2G0gK4VgRXJqp2MA6NlUbwTDgsdEVzqc FAO. (2022). Impact of the Ukraine-Russia conflict on global food security and related matters under the mandate of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. March, VII–VIII. https://doi.org/10.1355/ 9789815011111-002 Farha, L. (2000). Women’s Rights to Land, Property and Housing. Forced Migration Review,7,23–26. Feyisa, B. W. (2020). Determinants of agricultural technology adoption in Ethiopia: A meta-analysis. Cogent Food & Agriculture,6(1), 1855817. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2020.1855817 FOWODE. (2012). Gender Policy Brief for Uganda’s Agriculture Sector.https://landwise-production.s3.amazonaws.com/ 2022/03/FOWODE_GenderPolicy_Brief_for_ugandas_Agriculture_sector_2012.pdf Gatheru, M., Njarui, D. M. G., Gichangi, E. M., Ndubi, J. M., Murage, A. W., & Gichangi, A. W. (2021). Status and factors influencing access of extension and advisory services on forage production in Kenya. Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics & Sociology,39(3), 99–113. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajaees/2021/v39i330550 Ge, Y., Fan, L., Li, Y., Guo, J., & Niu, H. (2023). Gender differences in smallholder farmers’adoption of crop diversification: Evidence from Shaanxi Plain, China. Climate Risk Management,39(March 2022), 100482. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.crm.2023.100482 Gebre, G. G., Isoda, H., Rahut, D. B., Amekawa, Y., & Nomura, H. (2019). Gender differences in the adoption of agricultural technology: The case of improved maize varieties in southern Ethiopia. Women’s Studies International Forum, 76, 102264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2019.102264 Gebre, G. G., Isoda, H., Rahut, D. B., Amekawa, Y., & Nomura, H. (2021). Gender differences in agricultural productivity: Evidence from maize farm households in southern Ethiopia. GeoJournal,86(2), 843–864. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10708-019-10098-y Giovarelli, R., Wamalwa, B., & Hannay, L. (2013). Land tenure, property rights, and gender challenges and approaches for strengthening women’s land tenure and property rights. USAID Issue Brief,1–15. https://www.land-links.org/ wp-content/uploads/2016/09/USAID_Land_Tenure_Gender_Brief_061214-1.pdf Haile, D. F. (2016). Factors affecting women farmers’participation in agricultural extension services for improving the production in rural district of Dendi West Shoa Zone, Ethiopia. International Journal of Home Science Extension & Communication Management,3(2), 59–71. https://doi.org/10.15740/HAS/IJHSECM/3.2/59-71 Hashemi, A., Si Na, K., Noori, A. Q., & Orfan, S. N. (2022). Gender differences on the acceptance and barriers of ICT use in English language learning: Students’perspectives. Cogent Arts & Humanities,9(1), 2085381. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/23311983.2022.2085381 Hewa-Wellalage, N., Boubaker, S., Hunjra, A. I., & Verhoeven, P. (2020). The gender gap in access to finance : Evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic. Finance Research Letters,46 (January), 102329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl. 2021.102329 Hines, M., Golombok, S., Rust, J., Johnston, K. J., & Golding, J, (2002). Testosterone during pregnancy and gender role behavior of preschool children: A longitudinal, population study. Child Development,73(6), 1678–1687. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00498 Hufnagel, J., Reckling, M., & Ewert, F. (2020). Diverse approaches to crop diversification in agricultural research. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development,40(2), 14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-020-00617-4 IFRC. (2021). Food insecurity and Hunger in Africa. Jack, C., Adenuga, A. H., Ashfield, A., & Wallace, M. (2020). Investigating the drivers of farmers’engagement in a participatory extension programme: The case of Northern Ireland business development groups. Sustainability , 12(11), 4510. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114510 Johnen, C., & Mußhoff, O. (2023). Digital credit and the gender gap in financial inclusion: Empirical evidence from Kenya. Journal of International Development,35(2), 272–295. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.3687 Joseph, O. A., Richard, M. S. M., & Nancy, O. O. (2021). Gender disparity in cassava farmers access to agricultural productive resources in Rongo Sub County, Migori County, Kenya. African Journal of Agricultural Research,17(9), 1161–1171. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR2021.15624 Kabeer, N. (2003). Gender equality, poverty eradication and the millennium development goals : Promoting women ’s capabilities and participation. Gender and Development,13,1–26. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid= rep1&type=pdf&doi=3139976b5b95dd4f20f23e21ce956ffc256891d6 Kadzere, C. T. (2016). The crucial role of agricultural development in economic growth and industrialization of Africa and the call for integrated services delivery. RUFORUM Working Document Series. 14(14), 177–183. http://repository. ruforum.org 16 D. C. MIDAMBA AND K. O. OUKO Keba, A., & Kedir, M. (2020). Review on agricultural extension impacts on food crop diversity and the livelihood of farmers in Ethiopia. Journal of Poverty, Investment and Development,55,21–25. https://www.iiste.org/Journals/ index.php/JPID/article/viewFile/53727/55519. Langyintuo, A. (2020). The role of smallholder farms in food and nutrition security. In The Role of Smallholder Farms in Food and Nutrition Security. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42148-9 Louis Kasekende, B. (2016). Agricultural Financing in Uganda. Bank of Uganda,August,1–8. https://www.bis.org/ review/r161020b.pdf Makate, C., Makate, M., Mutenje, M., Mango, N., & Siziba, S. (2019). Synergistic impacts of agricultural credit and extension on adoption of climate-smart agricultural technologies in southern Africa. Environmental Development, 32(September), 100458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2019.100458 Mango, N., Makate, C., Mapemba, L., & Sopo, M. (2018). The role of crop diversification in improving household food security in central Malawi. Agriculture & Food Security,7(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-018-0160-x Manikas, I., Ali, B. M., & Sundarakani, B. (2023). A systematic literature review of indicators measuring food security. Agriculture & Food Security,12(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-023-00415-7 Maru, B., Maryo, M., & Kassa, G. (2022). Socioeconomic determinants of crop diversity in Bule Hora Woreda, Southern Ethiopia. Heliyon,8(5), e09489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09489 Masanja, I., Shausi, G. L., & Kalungwizi, V. J. (2023). Factors influencing rural farmers’access to agricultural extension services provided by private organizations in Kibondo District, Tanzania. European Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences,5(5), 115–122. https://doi.org/10.24018/ejfood.2023.5.5.722 Mekuria, W., & Mekonnen, K. (2018). Determinants of crop-livestock diversification in the mixed farming systems: Evidence from central highlands of Ethiopia. Agriculture & Food Security,7(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s40066-018-0212-2 Meyer, & Levy, J. (1989). Gender differences in information processing: A selectivity interpretation. In cognitive and affective responses to advertising. Journal of Marketing Research,April, 219–260. http://www.jstor.org/stable/ 3172728 Meyers-Levy, J., & Loken, B. (2015). Revisiting gender differences: What we know and what lies ahead. Journal of Consumer Psychology,25(1), 129–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2014.06.003 Midamba, D. C., Muteti, F. N., Mpofu, T. P., Ouko, K. O., Kwesiga, M., Ouya, F. O., & Chepkoech, B. (2022). Socio –economic factors influencing access to agricultural extension services among smallholder farmers in Western Uganda. Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics & Sociology,40(10), 998–1008. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajaees/2022/ v40i1031172 Moahid, M., Khan, G. D., Yoshida, Y., Joshi, N. P., & Maharjan, K. L. (2021). Agricultural credit and extension services: Does their synergy augment farmers’economic outcomes? Sustainability,13(7), 3758. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su13073758 Mukasa, A. N., Salami, A. O., Kayizzi-Mugerwa, S., & John, C. (2015). Gender productivity differentials among smallholder farmers in Africa : A cross-country comparison. African Development Research Group Working Paper Series, 231(231), 45. www.afdb.org/%0Ahttps://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Publications/WPS_No_ 231_Gender_productivity_differentials_among_smallholder_farmers_in_Africa__A_cross-country_comparison.pdf Musa, F. B., Katundu, M. C., Lewis, L. A., & Munthali, A. (2024). Gender and livelihood assets: Assessing climate change resilience in Phalombe district –Malawi. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators,22(January), 100347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2024.100347 Nagar, A., Nauriyal, D. K., & Singh, S. (2021). Determinants of farmers’access to extension services and adoption of technical inputs: Evidence from India. Universal Journal of Agricultural Research,9(4), 127–137. https://doi.org/10. 13189/ujar.2021.090404 Nahayo, A., Omondi, M. O., Zhang, X. h., Li, L. q., Pan, G. x., & Joseph, S. (2017). Factors influencing farmers’participation in crop intensification program in Rwanda. Journal of Integrative Agriculture,16(6), 1406–1416. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/S2095-3119(16)61555-1 Ndeke, A. M., Mugwe, J. N., Mogaka, H., Nyabuga, G., Kiboi, M., Ngetich, F., Mucheru-Muna, M., Sijali, I., & Mugendi, D. (2021). Gender-specific determinants of Zai technology use intensity for improved soil water management in the drylands of Upper Eastern Kenya. Heliyon,7(6), e07217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07217 Neway, M. M., & Zegeye, M. B. (2022). Gender differences in the adoption of agricultural technology in North Shewa Zone, Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia. Cogent Social Sciences,8(1), 2069209. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886. 2022.2069209 Obisesan, A. (2014). Gender differences in technology adoption and welfare impact among nigerian farming households. IDEAS Working Paper Series from RePEc; St. Louis,58920,1–22. https://search-proquest-com.kuleuven. ezproxy.kuleuven.be/docview/1700391295?rfr_id=info%3Axri/sid%3Aprimo Okeyo, S. O., Ndirangu, S. N., Isaboke, H. N., Njeru, L. K., & Omenda, J. A. (2020). Analysis of the determinants of farmer participation in sorghum farming among small-scale farmers in Siaya County, Kenya. Scientific African,10, e00559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2020.e00559 Olajumoke, A. A., Ajah, J., & Idu, E. E. (2021). Analysis of gender access to farm inputs among small scale crop farmers in the north central zone of Nigeria. Direct Research Journal of Agriculture and Food Science,5(5), 375–380. https://doi.org/10.26765/DRJAFS76957399. COGENT ECONOMICS & FINANCE 17 Omotesho, K. (2016). Determinants of level of participation of farmers in group activities in Kwara S. Journal of Agricultural Faculty of Gaziosmanpasa University,33(2016-3), 21–21. https://doi.org/10.13002/jafag887 Porter, J. R., Xie, L., Challinor, A. J., Cochrane, K., Howden, S. M., Iqbal, M. M., Lobell, D. B., Travasso, M. I., Aggarwal, P., Hakala, K., & Jordan, J. (2015). Food security and food production systems. Climate Change 2014 Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects, 485–534. https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9781107415379.012 Ragasa, C., Berhane, G., Tadesse, F., & Taffesse, A. S. (2012). Gender Differences in Access to Extension Services and Agricultural Productivity.Ethiopia Strategy Support Program II Working Paper,49, 1–15. Ragasa, C., Berhane, G., Tadesse, F., & Taffesse, A. S. (2013). Gender differences in access to extension services and agricultural productivity. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension,19(5), 437–468. https://doi.org/10. 1080/1389224X.2013.817343 Riegle-Crumb, C. (2019). Gender inequality in education. Education and Society,41–53. https://doi.org/10.2307/j. ctvpb3wn0.7 Ruzzante, S., & Bilton, A. (2021). Adoption of agricultural technologies in the developing world: A meta-analysis dataset of the empirical literature. Data in Brief,38, 107384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2021.107384 Ruzzante, S., Labarta, R., & Bilton, A. (2021). Adoption of agricultural technology in the developing world: A metaanalysis of the empirical literature. World Development,146, 105599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021. 105599 Saleem, M. A. (2008). Sources and uses of agricultural credit by farmers in Dera Ismail Khan (District) Khyber Pakhtonkhawa Pakistan. European Journal of Business and Management,3(3), 111–122. Sanogo, K., Tour e, I., Arinloye, D. D. A. A., Dossou-Yovo, E. R., & Bayala, J. (2023). Factors affecting the adoption of climate-smart agriculture technologies in rice farming systems in Mali, West Africa. Smart Agricultural Technology,5, 100283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atech.2023.100283 Shahnaz Mahdzan, N. (2013). The impact of financial literacy on individual saving: An exploratory study in the Malaysian context corporate fraud view project Islamic values and individuals asset allocation and liability management view project. Transformations in Business & Economics,12(1), 41–55. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275056695 Stephens, A. (1991). Poverty and gender issues. In Asia-Pacific Journal of Rural Development,1(1), 62–74. https://doi. org/10.1177/1018529119910104 Sumo, T. V., Ritho, C., & Irungu, P. (2022). Effect of farmer socio-economic characteristics on extension services demand and its intensity of use in post-conflict Liberia. Heliyon,8(12), e12268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon. 2022.e12268 UBOS. (2018a). Uganda Bureau of Statistics.345 The 2018 Statistical report. UBOS. (2018b). Uganda National Household Survey Report 2016/2017. 2018, 3. http://www.ubos.org UBOS. (2020). Uganda bureau of statistics 2020 statistical abstract. Ubos.https://www.ubos.org/wp-content/uploads/ publications/11_2020STATISTICAL__ABSTRACT_2020.pdf UN-Women. (2015). Gender Equality and Human Rights (Discussion Paper for the Progres of the World’s Women 20152016) (Issue 4). http://www.unwomen.org/-/media/headquarters/attachments/sections/library/publications/2015/ goldblatt-fin.pdf?la=en&vs=1627 UN-Women. (2018a). The-gender-gap-in-agricultural-productivity-in-sub-Saharan-Africa-en. 11. www.unwomen.org UN-Women. (2018b). The role of rural women’s land rights and land tenure security in reaching the SDGs.March,1–8. https://docs.euromedwomen.foundation/files/ermwf-documents/8116_4.203.improvingaccesstowomen’slandrightsdataforpolicydecisions.pdf Unicef. (2017). Gender equality: Glossary of terms and concepts. In The Qur)an, Morality and Critical Reason.https:// doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004171039.i-588.59 UNPD. (2012). Gender and Poverty. WFP. (2023). Food security and nutrition in the world. The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology,10(9), 622. https://doi. org/10.1016/S2213-8587(22)00220-0 World Bank. (2015). Climate-smart Agriculture in developing countries. In Climate-Smart Agriculture in Kenya.https:// climateknowledgeportal.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/2019-06/CSA KENYA NOV 18 2015.pdf World Bank. (2022). Climate-Smart Agriculture in Uganda. CSA Country Profiles for Africa Series. World Bank Group. (2018). gender differences in poverty and household composition through the life-cycle: A global perspective. Gender Differences in Poverty and Household Composition through the Life-Cycle: A Global Perspective, March 2018.https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-8360 Wossen, T., Abdoulaye, T., Alene, A., Haile, M. G., Feleke, S., Olanrewaju, A., & Manyong, V. (2017). Impacts of extension access and cooperative membership on technology adoption and household welfare. Journal of Rural Studies, 54, 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.06.022 18 D. C. MIDAMBA AND K. O. OUKO