Community-based Farmer Field Schools for Climate Resilience Evaluation

Thesis Abstract

Climate variability and increasing weather extremes pose significant threats to smallholder agriculture, undermining food security and livelihoods in rural farming communities. In response, this study evaluates the effectiveness of Community-based Farmer Field Schools (FFS) as a mechanism to enhance climate resilience among smallholder farmers through participatory learning, practical experimentation, and localized knowledge integration. The aim is to assess how FFS influence adaptive capacity, risk perception, and agricultural outcomes under variable climatic conditions. Specific objectives are (1) to determine changes in farmers’ climate risk awareness and decision-making processes resulting from FFS participation; (2) to measure incremental improvements in farm productivity, input-use efficiency, and income stability associated with FFS engagement; (3) to identify enabling factors and barriers to the adoption and scaling of FFS-based practices; (4) to evaluate the social learning dynamics and networks fostered by FFS in transmitting climate-resilient innovations; and (5) to develop a policy-relevant framework for integrating FFS into district-level climate adaptation programs. The study adopts a mixed-methods, quasi-experimental design, anchored in the diffusion of innovations and experiential learning theories, with the concept of social learning as a unifying lens. The population comprises smallholder farmers in two agro-ecological zones facing contrasting climate risks. A purposive sample of 40 villages is selected, with 20 villages implementing FFS (treatment) and 20 non-FFS villages (control). Within each village, 25 farming households are randomly sampled, yielding 1,000 respondents (500 treatment, 500 control). Data collection employs a multi-instrument approach structured household surveys to capture socio-economic characteristics, climate risk perception scales, and production indicators; semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions to explore learning processes, trust networks, and perceived impacts; and participatory observation during FFS sessions to document curriculum delivery and farmer interactions. Secondary data include district meteorological records and agricultural extension reports. Instrument validity is established through expert review and pilot testing, with reliability assessed via Cronbach’s alpha for scales and inter-rater reliability for qualitative coding. Quantitative analysis employs difference-in-differences (DiD) with propensity score matching to estimate causal effects of FFS participation on outcomes, supported by multilevel mixed-effects regression to account for clustering at village and household levels. Mediation analysis tests whether changes in knowledge and social networks mediate the effect of FFS on adaptation outcomes and productivity. Qualitative data undergo thematic analysis, enhanced by grounded theory coding to elucidate the mechanisms of collective learning, trust-building, and norm change. A conceptual framework integrates experiential learning cycles, social learning theory, and diffusion of innovations to interpret findings and guide interpretation of pragmatic results. Expected findings include (i) statistically significant increases in climate risk awareness, adaptive decision-making, and adoption of climate-smart practices among FFS participants compared to controls; (ii) measurable improvements in crop yields, input-use efficiency, and year-to-year income stability in FFS villages, with effect sizes varying by ecological zone and initial capacity; (iii) stronger local innovation diffusion and peer-to-peer knowledge exchange within FFS networks; and (iv) identification of institutional and internal factors—facilitating training quality, gender-inclusive participation, and sustained facilitation—that amplify or constrain program impact. The study anticipates heterogeneous effects, with higher gains in zones exhibiting moderate risk exposure and robust extension support. The contribution to knowledge lies in empirically validating the design, implementation, and evaluation of community-based FFS as a scalable adaptation strategy, detailing the pathways through which FFS fosters climate resilience, and providing a transferable analytical framework that links learning processes to measurable agricultural and livelihood outcomes. Policy-relevant recommendations include investing in standardized FFS curricula with climate modules, strengthening facilitators’ capacity for participatory methods, enabling feminist and inclusive participation, and integrating FFS with early warning systems and credit access mechanisms to sustain adaptive practices. The conclusion emphasizes that well-implemented FFS can meaningfully bolster climate resilience among smallholders, but success hinges on contextualized curricula, quality facilitation, and coherent alignment with existing extension services.