University of Puerto Rico
Mayagüez Campus
Agricultural Extensión Service
Project of Sustainable Agriculture of
Selected Crops (Plantain)
José M. Huerta, Ph.D. project evaluator
December 2001
Project of Sustainable Agriculture of Selected Crops (plantain)
José M. Huerta, Ph.D. evaluation Specialist, Agricultural Extension Service
Project Evaluation
The main goal of the project was to make available a manual on sustainable
agriculture for the commodity of coffee, adapted for the local conditions in
Puerto Rico. The manual was compiled with the collaboration of researchers,
extensionists, environmentalists and farmers. Inputs from the mentioned
groups were considered for the elaboration of the manual. Once the manual
was completed, it was distributed to the interested parties.
Evaluation Methodology
Putting together a guideline of sustainable agriculture in plantain was not
enough. Furthermore, it was necessary to evaluate the manual under the
following evaluation questions:
1. How useful is the manual for the target clientele?
2. What are the recommendations to improve the manual?
3. How the perceptions of the different groups differ?
The manual was sent in advance so the intended clientele could have a chance
to read it. On December 11, 2001 the target group was invited to attend an
evaluation session, which was held at the Gurabo Agricultural Experimental
Station . A total of 17 people attended the activity. The group was comprised
of extensionists, researchers, farmers and one environmentalist.
All
participants have read the manual prior to the meeting. Thus, in order to
evaluate the compiled manual, it was necessary to read the manual before
answering the questions contained in the survey. The participants were
extensionists in areas where plantain was a major commodity, plantain’s
farmers and researchers in the same commodity area. Additionally, two
representatives from the State Natural Resources office attended the activity as
environmentalist. The evaluation strategy was a direct administration. Thus,
17 questionnaires were received from the participants. The majority of the
participants were Extensionists and farmers with a total of seven and six
participants respectively. Extensionists and Environmentalist were the
minority with two participants per group. Due to the proximity of the
2
deadline, a follow up to the people who were not present that day was
discarded. After the completion of the instrument, the evaluator and the
project Director had a group dynamic with the participants. The opinions
expressed were used to reinforce the qualitative data of the evaluation.
An evaluation instrument was developed to reflect the evaluation questions.
Ten Likert scale items were included to evaluate the usefulness of the manual.
In addition, 3 open ended questions were incorporated:
1. What I like best about the manual is:
2. What I like least about the manual is:
3. Suggestions I have for improving the manual include:
In addition, two demographic questions were included, pertaining to the target
group participants belong and their major agricultural enterprise.
Results
In order to better interpret the quantitative data contained in the five point
Likert scale, the following guide was developed prior to the survey.
Tabla 1.
Parameters for the interpretation of results
____________________
1.00-1.500- Very poor
1.51-2.50- Poor
2.51-3.50- Average
3.51-4.50- Good
4.51-5.0- Excellent
___________________
3
Table 2: Usefulness of the Manual
_______________________________________________________________
Mean
SD
Organization of the manual
4.87
0.35
Promotion of sustainability
4.73
0.52
Usefulness of the information
4.70
0.84
Understanding of the information
4.67
0.55
Your grading of the manual
4.67
0.55
Contribution to the knowledge of new concepts
4.37
0.56
Contribution to adopt recommended practices
4.37
0.56
Application to the local conditions
4.33
0.96
Easiness of implementing the recommendations
4.23
0.68
Opportunity of contributing to the manual
3.80
1.45
Total
4.47
0.43
_____________________________________________________________
1.00-1.500- Very poor
1.51-2.51- Poor
2.51-3.51- Average
3.51-4.50- Good
4.51-6.0- Excellent
_______________________________________________________________
Table 3: Average by Group
_______________________________________________________________
N
Mean
SD
Farmers
14
4.29
0.54
Extensionists
14
4.65
0.20
Researchers
2
4.55
0.35
_______________________________________________________________
Table 2 presents the mean for the usefulness of the manual according the
agronomists and farmers participating in the study. The following items were
perceived as excellents:
organization of the manual, promotion of
sustainability, usefulness of the information, understanding of the information
and grading of the manual. The following items were visualized as good by
the respondents: Contribution to the knowledge of new concepts, contribution
to adopt recommended practices, application to the local conditions and
4
easiness of implementing the recommendations. The only average perception
in the document was the “opportunity of contributing to the manual”.The
overall mean was 4.47, which fall in the borderline between good and
excellent.
Table 3 indicates the average obtained by group of respondents regarding their
perception toward the usefulness of the manual. Extensionists and researchers
show an excellent perception, with a mean of 4.65 and 4.55 than farmers,
which is better than the good perception obtained by farmers (mean= 4.29).
However, none of the group obtained a statistically significant different
perception. It is also important to clarify than there were only two researchers
among the participants.
Open Ended Questions
1. What I like best about the manual is:
Easy to follow, practical information, clear content and very well organized,
broad information, general and specific information, establish the importance
of the sustainable coffee, usefulness of the information, incorporates concepts
of conservation, an excellent reference, the language utilized is easy to
understand, offers good recommendations, it is very useful locally, it contains
all the necessary data for the coffee growers and agronomists as well, includes
for the first time information on sustainability for the coffee grower, the area
of the agronomic concepts was very comprehensive.
2. What I like least about the manual is:
The presentation is poor. The cover is not going to last very much. The
vocabulary is not very easy to follow. The illustrations are very poor. There
is a lack of soil analysis for a fertilization program. It is also missing the
name of benefictial insects in the coffee plantain. It is necessary to define
some terms so it can be easily understood by farmers. The manual do not
encourage to follow sustainable practices.
3. Suggestions I have for improving the manual include:
Using a better material, periodical updates and revisions, to print the
information in the Internet, to eliminate “El Mundo Nuevo” as the most used
variety, to have copies available for farmers, minor revisions to the vocabulary
in order to make it accessible to all people, better colors and illustrations, to
5
compile information from farmers and other collaborators, it is necessary to
establish the most common problems of the coffee growers by locality.
Additional Discussion
In reference to the claim for a better presentation and illustration of the
Manual, the project Director said that they are going to use a better material
and will print color illustrations for the final copy. One complain, although it
had nothing to do with the information in the manual was the lack of
incentives to promote sustainable agricultural practices in the local
Department of Agriculture. Thus, it is necessary to influence the public policy
in this regard. The information compiled need to be discussed with those who
teach the formal course of coffee at the College Faculty. The manual, more
than a recipe book, provide alternatives to farmers and teach them to make
decisions, which is exactly what it does. The manual is flexible enough to
reflect the differences in the coffee area. The use of chemical applications
must be kept only as a last resource.
Conclusions:
The manual was perceived by the respondents as a very useful reference, very
practical, with excellent references, it offers good recommendation applicable
to our local conditions, easy to understand and very well organized. The
manual was also visualized as a tool that promotes sustainability. On the other
hand, participants feel they did not contribute enough to the guide, some
concepts need to be clarified; so all farmers can understand it. There is also
room for improvement in the presentation and the illustrations of the manual.
Recommendations
To improve the presentation and the illustration of the manual. Distribute the
information to all stakeholders in the coffee enterprise. The manual must also
be included in the Extension´ Web Site, so more people can benefit from it.
The manual should have periodical updates and revisions in order to reflect
the new knowledge and experiences in sustainable practices. In the Web page
a forum can be incorporate for farmers, agronomist, students,
environmentalists and the general public to express ideas, experiences and
concerns regarding sustainable agricultural practices in coffee.
6
7