• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Acknowledgement
 Table of Contents
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Literature review
 Methods and procedures
 Findings
 Summary, conclusions, and...
 Linear program
 Questionairre
 Household output tables
 Reference
 Biographical sketch






Group Title: Evaluation of a crop diversification project for low resource hillside farmers in the Dominican Republic
Title: An Evaluation of a crop diversification project for low resource hillside farmers in the Dominican Republic
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00055222/00001
 Material Information
Title: An Evaluation of a crop diversification project for low resource hillside farmers in the Dominican Republic
Physical Description: vi, 184 leaves : ill. ; 29 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Pomeroy, Carlton S ( Dissertant )
Osborne, Edward W. ( Thesis advisor )
Baker, Matt ( Reviewer )
Hildebrand, Peter ( Reviewer )
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2000
Copyright Date: 2000
 Subjects
Subjects / Keywords: Agricultural Education and Communication thesis, M.S   ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Agricultural Education and Communication -- UF   ( lcsh )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
poetry   ( marcgt )
Spatial Coverage: Dominican Republic
 Notes
Abstract: The goal of the study was to determine the farmers’ perceptions of the impact of the Crop Diversification Program in achieving its goals of a) food security, b) stability in family income, and c) preservation and improvement of the soils and forest cover in the south central portion of the Dominican Republic. Nearly all the members of the sample participated in the program. Overall the reaction to the project was very positive, with the large majority rating the project as very good. The means from the first three crops—passion fruit (3.86), plantains (3.77)—indicated that the respondents definitely felt that they were able o produce the crops. Acacia had a mean of 2.47, showing that the respondents felt that they could probably produce the crop. All tree species had lower scores. About one-third adopted no crops, about one-third adopted between one and two crops, and 10% adopted between five and six crops. There was a low positive correlation between self-perceived capacity to produce most food crops and rate of adoption. For the forest crops only self-perceived capacity to grow caliandra was slightly related to overall rate of adoption. Many of the participants that did not adopt the crops lacked plants and money. Adoption of tree species was also hurt y the lack of plants, money, and a variety of other issues, such as inability to cut trees, lack of a market, and so on. There was also a large portion of participants that stated that they lacked the necessary space and time needed to adopt more crops. Households with many young children were more stressed and less likely to use the program. This was related to both the cash needs and limited labor supply in these households. The female-headed households were determined to be the most stressed and least likely to benefit from the crop diversification program. Those with few children or no children utilized the project on a limited basis but had limited labor to implement the crops (one and two). About one-half of the respondents reported that they had increased food, with plantains, passion fruit, name, mapuey, and citrus having the most impact. Nearly one-third expressed that the economic benefits from the program allowed for the coverage of food. Around 30% felt that plantains, passion fruit, and name gave them increased income or decreased costs. The tree species without fruit were found to have almost no impact on income or productions costs because of their limited adoption. Some 74.4% demonstrated knowledge of how to use soil conservation techniques. One 1.1% used slash and burn agriculture, a much better percentage than before the crop diversification project.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2000.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (leaves 178-183).
Statement of Responsibility: by Carlton S. Pomeroy.
General Note: Printout.
General Note: Vita.
Funding: Electronic resources created as part of a prototype UF Institutional Repository and Faculty Papers project by the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00055222
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida
Resource Identifier: aleph - 002640933
oclc - 45638262
notis - ANA7765

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page i
    Acknowledgement
        Page ii
    Table of Contents
        Page iii
        Page iv
    Abstract
        Page v
        Page vi
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Justification
            Page 1
            Page 2
            Page 3
            Page 4
            Page 5
            Page 6
            Page 7
            Page 8
        Problem statement
            Page 9
        Significance of study
            Page 10
        Purpose and objectives
            Page 11
        Definitions
            Page 12
            Page 13
            Page 14
        Limitations of the study
            Page 15
        Assumptions
            Page 16
    Literature review
        Page 17
        Participatory rural appraisal
            Page 18
            Page 19
        Farming systems research and extension
            Page 20
        Conceptual model
            Page 21
            Page 22
            Page 23
        Peasant agriculture
            Page 24
            Page 25
        Agro-forestry
            Page 26
            Page 27
        Adoption of innovations
            Page 28
            Page 29
            Page 30
            Page 31
            Page 32
            Page 33
        Top model
            Page 34
            Page 35
            Page 36
    Methods and procedures
        Page 37
        Research design
            Page 37
            Page 38
        Variables
            Page 39
        Population
            Page 40
        Instrumentation
            Page 40
            Page 41
        Collection of data
            Page 42
        Data Analysis
            Page 42
    Findings
        Page 43-44
        Objective one
            Page 43-44
            Page 45
            Page 46
        Objective two
            Page 47
            Page 48
            Page 49
            Page 50
            Page 51
        Objective three
            Page 52
        Objective four
            Page 53
            Page 54
            Page 55
            Page 56
            Page 57
        Objective five - Objective six
            Page 58
        Objective seven
            Page 59
            Page 60
            Page 61
            Page 62
        Objective eight
            Page 63
        Objective nine
            Page 64
            Page 65
            Page 66
            Page 67
            Page 68
            Page 69
            Page 70
            Page 71
            Page 72
            Page 73
            Page 74
            Page 75
            Page 76
            Page 77
            Page 78
            Page 79
            Page 80
            Page 81
            Page 82
        Objective 10 - Objective 11
            Page 83
            Page 84
            Page 85
            Page 86
        Objective 12
            Page 87
            Page 88
        Objective 13
            Page 89
            Page 90
    Summary, conclusions, and recommendations
        Page 91
        Problem statement
            Page 92
        Purpose of the study
            Page 92
            Page 93
        Research design
            Page 94
        The sample
            Page 94
        Summary of findings
            Page 95
            Page 96
            Page 97
            Page 98
            Page 99
        Conclusions
            Page 100
        Implecations for practice
            Page 101
            Page 102
            Page 103
            Page 104
            Page 105
        Implications for knowledge
            Page 106
            Page 107
            Page 108
        Recommendations for practice
            Page 109
            Page 110
        Recommendations for research
            Page 111
    Linear program
        Page 112
        Page 113
        Page 114
        Page 115
        Page 116
        Page 117
        Page 118
        Page 119
        Page 120
        Page 121
        Page 122
        Page 123
        Page 124
        Page 125
        Page 126
        Page 127
        Page 128
        Page 129
        Page 130
        Page 131
        Page 132
        Page 133
        Page 134
        Page 135
        Page 136
        Page 137
        Page 138
        Page 139
        Page 140
        Page 141
        Page 142
    Questionairre
        Page 143
        Page 144
        Page 145
        Page 146
        Page 147
        Page 148
        Page 149
        Page 150
        Page 151
        Page 152
    Household output tables
        Page 153
        Page 154
        Page 155
        Page 156
        Page 157
        Page 158
        Page 159
        Page 160
        Page 161
        Page 162
        Page 163
        Page 164
        Page 165
        Page 166
        Page 167
        Page 168
        Page 169
        Page 170
        Page 171
        Page 172
        Page 173
        Page 174
        Page 175
        Page 176
        Page 177
    Reference
        Page 178
        Page 179
        Page 180
        Page 181
        Page 182
        Page 183
    Biographical sketch
        Page 184
University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - Version 2.9.9 - mvs