
































Microsoft Word - 95-Manuscript-1303-1-11-20210518.docx


Silvert et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 2, Issue 2, 2021 
  agdevresearch.org 

1. Colby J. Silvert, Doctoral Student, University of Florida, 408 Rolfs Hall PO Box 110540, Gainesville, FL 32611, 
colby.silvert@ufl.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2055-7597  

2. John Diaz, Assistant Professor, University of Florida, 408 Rolfs Hall PO Box 110540, Gainesville, FL 32611, 
john.diaz@ufl.edu, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2787-8759 

3. Laura A. Warner, Associate Professor, University of Florida, 408 Rolfs Hall PO Box 110540, Gainesville, FL 32611, 

lsanagorski@ufl.edu, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2784-6666 
4. Willis Ochieng, Doctoral Student, University of Florida, 408 Rolfs Hall PO Box 110540, Gainesville, FL 32611, 

wochieng@ufl.edu, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2456-480X 
1 

 

To Work Alone or With Peers: Examining Smallholder Coffee 
Farmers' Perceptions Influencing Collective Actions 

C. Silvert1, J. Diaz2, L. Warner3
, W. Ochieng4 

 
 

  

Abstract 

This study examines how smallholder coffee farmers’ perceptions may influence their engagement in 
peer mobilization and collective action. Forty smallholder coffee farmers were interviewed in the 
Central Highlands region of Peru using a closed-ended instrument. The sample of smallholder 
farmers was achieved using purposive and snowball sampling methods. Quantitative data on 
farmers’ attitudes and aspirations regarding working with peers, autonomy, and external support as 
well as knowledge, skills, and behaviors pertinent to collective actions were collected and analyzed 
using descriptive and correlational procedures. Key findings indicate farmers perceive a need for 
external support, feel there are benefits of collective actions, and aspire to work with their peers. 
Based on the findings, it is recommended that practitioners and farmer group leaders focus training 
efforts on building smallholders’ knowledge and skills in mobilization, encourage peer 
association/collective action as a source of external support, and target knowledgeable, skilled and 
confident farmers to lead collective actions. This study has implications to bolster support for 
farmer-to-farmer extension and technical assistance systems and inform the identification of leader 
farmers.  
 

Keywords 

association, autonomy, farmer-to-farmer, leader famer, Peru 



Silvert et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.95   2 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement 
 
Smallholder agricultural development is an investment priority for donors and international 
development organizations; yet many smallholder households are still food insecure and below 
the poverty line (Fanzo, 2017; International Fund for Agricultural Development [IFAD], 2016; 
United States Agency for International Development [USAID], 2019, World Bank, 2013).  Several 
studies have indicated that smallholder farmers disproportionately face agricultural constraints 
impeding their emergence from poverty. For instance, smallholders often struggle to market 
produce and achieve commercialization due to unaffordable transaction costs and risks (e.g., 
transportation costs to sell small produce quantities) (Arias et al., 2013; Poulton et al., 2006). 
Productivity is also often diminished because smallholders cannot access key inputs such as 
extension and finance (Agribusiness Commercial Legal and Institutional Reform Diagnostic 
[AgCLIR], 2016; Arias et al., 2013). Talbot (1997) suggested smallholder farmers producing 
global commodity crops, such as the coffee producers in this study, confront an additional 
elevated risk of income loss caused by volatility of the international market. The majority of 
Peru's coffee producers are smallholder farmers who cultivate land plots averaging three 
hectares (7.4 acres) in size (United States Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural 
Service [USDA], 2018). 
 
Association and cooperative organization, in which farmers work together with their peers in a 
formal or semi-formal capacity, may position smallholder farmers to better compete and 
commercialize in the globalized food system. Through the establishment of producer groups or 
cooperatives, smallholders commonly achieve improved negotiating power and economic 
benefits including higher prices (Lowitt et al., 2015; USDA, 2018). In Peru, the most established 
coffee farmer groups have linked farmers with finance and direct-to-consumer markets (USDA, 
2018).  
 
Unfortunately, lack of trust and social cohesion commonly discourages cooperation among 
smallholders (Lowitt et al., 2015). Thus, many smallholder farmers may opt to pursue most of 
their farm and commercialization work alone or as a household. Furthermore, while 
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) often provide important external support to help 
smallholders establish groups (Markelova et al., 2009), NGO support may also lead to over-
dependence inhibiting the sustainability of collective efforts (Bebbington et al., 1996; 
Markelova et al., 2009). Given the nuances and documented advantages of collective actions 
(i.e., peer cooperation and mobilization), there is a need to better understand the potential 
barriers which may influence smallholders' sustainable engagement in collective actions.  
 

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 
 
The conceptual framework guiding this study was structured using modified elements of the 
Bennett's Hierarchy evaluation model (Bennett, 1975). The component of Bennett (1975) 
measuring changes in knowledge, attitudes, skills, and aspirations (KASA) has been adapted for 
this study to frame the examination of farmers' perceptions related to working with peers and 



Silvert et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.95   3 
 

collective actions. The authors concentrated on these areas because researchers have more 
commonly studied assets, technical capacities, and market conditions affecting smallholders' 
mobilization and cooperation behaviors (Barham & Chitemi, 2009; Fischer & Qaim, 2012). Few 
studies, however, were found which directly measured personality and intrinsic factors that 
may influence farmer group mobilization and collective actions.  
 
Fischer and Quaim (2014) explored determinants of member participation in farmer groups by 
comparing economic and asset-based costs and benefits, as well as evaluating individual-level 
trust and attitudes toward collective actions. They did not, however, measure these intrinsic 
variables (trust and attitudes) based on farmers' reported perceptions. Rather, trust and 
attitudes were inferred based on farmers' involvement in outside social groups. The researchers 
claimed, while these variables are important, a limitation in their study was the difficulty in 
measuring trust and attitudes using a structured study (Fischer & Quaim, 2014).  
 
Barham and Chitemi (2009), on the other hand, directly surveyed farmers on perceived trust of 
their farmer group members (using a Likert-type agreement scale) related to money, help in 
times of need, and trust more generally. Their study also explored the farmers' sense of 
altruism. The researchers did not discover significant relationships between trust and altruism 
and commercialization behaviors and outcomes (Barham & Chitemi, 2009). These studies and 
the lack of additional inquiries emphasize the need for more depth and diversity in scholarly 
methods investigating smallholders' intrinsic factors related to engagement in collective 
actions, which the present study aims to address.  
 
This study also examines how farmers' perceptions about external assistance may influence 
issues of over-dependence on outside support. Moreover, the authors of this study could not 
locate previous research exploring how collective actions relate with farmers' attitudes and 
aspirations regarding autonomy in their production and commercialization in contrast with 
receiving external support. It is important to consider that "external support" may commonly 
be conceptualized as outside technical assistance (TA) or finance providers but could also 
constitute farmers working together (i.e., forming a farmer association) who contribute to 
enhanced collective capacity (Silvert, 2020). Furthermore, while reliance on NGOs and other 
external facilitators may lead to over-dependence and discourage sustainable advancement 
(Bebbington et al., 1996; Markelova et al., 2009), collective actions and farmer-to-farmer 
mobilization could be local sources of capacity and self-reliance (Sesonga, 2018; Simpson et al., 
2015). Hence, learning about potential linkages between farmers' perceptions and attitudes on 
outside support and working together with peers could shed new light on barriers to 
sustainable collective actions and commercialization.  
 
As described by the research gaps above, this study applied variables aiming to capture 
farmers' attitudes and aspirations on working with peers, autonomy, and external support. 
These variables were examined within a framework comprised by the KASA constructs by 
Bennett (1975) (see Figure 1). Therefore, an additional variable measured farmers' self-
reported knowledge and skills related to mobilization to appropriately align with Bennett 
(1975) (see Figure 1). Finally, two behavioral variables (farmer-reported frequency of 



Silvert et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.95   4 
 

engagement in learning or extension activities and pooling of production) were also included to 
examine linkages between farmers' aspirations and attitudes and related outcomes.  
 
Figure 1 
 
Conceptual Illustration of Factors Explored for Influencing Farmers' Collective Actions 

 
Note. This figure visualizes the intrinsic factors and knowledge and skills examined in this study 
for impacts on smallholder coffee farmers' engagement in collective actions. Knowledge, skills, 
attitudes, and aspirations modified from Bennett (1975). 
 

Purpose 
 
The purpose of this study was to explore smallholder coffee farmers' perceptions that may 
influence their engagement in mobilization and collective action. To achieve this purpose, two 
specific objectives guided this study: 
1. Describe farmers' engagement with external support including extension, farmer 

association(s) and the private sector. 
2. Explore how farmers' perceptions of autonomy compared to receiving outside assistance 

relate to their perceptions about mobilization and working with peers. 
 

Methods 
 
Data Collection 
We partnered with the Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas and the Shared-X company, 
both located in Peru, to accomplish data collection. Shared-X is known as an agricultural impact 
company, involved in coffee production and marketing, based in Lima, Peru (Shared-X, n.d.). 
Peruvian agribusiness students were trained then administered the questionnaires via 
interviews in Spanish following best practices for cultural sensitivity (Suvedi & Kaplowitz, 2016). 
Data collection efforts were not complicated by the 2020 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) 



Silvert et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.95   5 
 

pandemic as international travel restrictions were not yet implemented at the time of 
fieldwork.  
 
Adult (18+) smallholder coffee farmers in Peru comprised the target population for this study. 
We achieved a sample of 40 smallholder coffee farmer participants (N = 40), residing in three 
central highland communities in the Peruvian Junín and Pasco regions. We employed multi-
stage purposive sampling by working with Shared-X to identify and recruit volunteer coffee 
farmers. Snowball sampling was also used in the field by asking coffee farmers to identify 
additional potential participants to survey. A portion of the farmers in the study had sold or had 
present agreements to sell coffee to Shared-X, while others produced and marketed 
independent of the company. Working together with Shared-X, we aimed to achieve a 
representative, heterogeneous sample, which resulted in 57.5 % men and 42.5 % women 
farmers ranging in age from 20 to over 60 (see Table 1). Fruit or tamales were given afterwards 
to volunteer farmers as tokens of gratitude for their participation.  
 
Instrumentation  
We developed the instrument to measure the variables of interest using primarily closed-ended 
questions and Likert-type scales modeled from previously-introduced knowledge and skills, 
attitudes, and aspirations (KASA) constructs by Bennett (1975). This study's variables were 
extracted (based on their relevance to collective actions and perceptions of autonomy and 
external support) from the questionnaire by (Silvert, 2020) and were treated as individual 
Likert-type items (Clason & Dormody, 1994). We also included two variables measuring 
farmers' frequency of extension and learning, and frequency of pooling production. 
Additionally, farmers reported their demographics, educational level, and recent external and 
technical support (sources within the past one year). 
 
Participants were asked to evaluate their level of agreement with affirmative statements 
related to attitudes, aspirations, and knowledge and skills on collective actions, autonomy, and 
external support using a five-point scale: 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = 
Agree; and 5 = Strongly agree. We also requested farmers self-report about their extension and 
pooling production behaviors using a five-point response scale measuring their frequency 
performing the behaviors: 1 = Never; 2 = Rarely; 3 = Sometimes; 4 = Often; 5 = Always. All data 
in this study were derived from farmers' self-reported interview responses.  
 
Before collecting data in Peru, a seven-member panel of experts reviewed the survey 
instrument for content and face validity. The panel included University of Florida and Peruvian 
extension professionals, survey design specialists, and international development researchers. 
Furthermore, the instrument was translated from English to Spanish and reviewed for cultural 
appropriateness by a team of native Spanish speakers, Peruvian extension professionals, and 
Shared-X employees. While all variables are treated as individual items in this study, the 
majority of the questionnaire's original 21 KASA items comprised an index that was deemed 
reliable using Cronbach's alpha coefficient (α = .721), which is a widely-accepted indicator of 
internal consistency for index-based survey design (Ary et al., 2019).  
 



Silvert et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.95   6 
 

Data Analysis 
We calculated frequencies for data on farmers' demographics and previous external support. 
Then we applied central tendency descriptive procedures (mean and standard deviation) 
followed by correlational analysis, using Spearman's correlation coefficient (rs), to all of the 
individual Likert-type items (KASA and behavior variables) to examine direction and strength of 
association between pairs. Spearman's coefficient is calculated based on ranking the two 
variables (Schober et al., 2018). 
 

Findings 
 
Objective 1: Describe farmers' engagement with external support including extension, farmer 
association(s) and the private sector. 
We documented farmers' formal education and the agriculture-related educational, extension 
and technical assistance sources from which they received outside support in the previous year. 
Only 10% of farmers reported university/tertiary-level schooling while the majority (85%) were 
formally educated until the primary or secondary level (see Table 1). Technical assistance (TA) 
pluralism was lacking for most farmers (TA) in the previous year (see Table 2): 80% of farmers 
reported receiving TA from the private sector, 12.5% of farmers from government sources, and 
12.5% via a farmer association or cooperative. NGOs, donor agencies, and research institutions 
were the least reported external support providers. 
 
Table 1 
 
 Overview of Farmers' Demographics 
Demographic No. (n) % 
Sex   
Male 23 57.5% 
Female  17 42.5% 
Age   
Aged 20 to 30 7 17.5% 
Aged 31 to 45 14 35.0% 
Aged 46 to 60 13 32.5% 
Aged 61 and up 6 15.0% 
Education level  
Primary 11 27.5% 
Secondary 23 57.5% 
Tertiary/university 4 10.0% 
Vocational 1 2.5% 
None 1 2.5% 

Note. N = 40 
 
 



Silvert et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.95   7 
 

Table 2 
 
Farmers' Recent Experience with Technical Assistance and Extension 

External support No. (n) % 
Technical support in previous 1 year  

 

Yes 34 85.0% 
No 6 15.0% 
Provider/sources of support in previous 1 year  

 

NGO or donor 2 5.0% 
Government 5 12.5% 
Private sector or input dealer 32 80.0% 
Farmer association 5 12.5% 
Research institute 1 2.5% 

Note. N = 40 
 
Objective 2: Explore how farmers' perceptions of autonomy compared to receiving outside 
assistance relate to their perceptions about mobilization and working with peers. 
Mean and standard deviation were the measures of central tendency applied to describe each 
the variables related to farmers' perceptions of collective actions, autonomy, external 
assistance, and self-reported knowledge and skills and behavioral frequency. Descriptive data 
could range from 1.00 to 5.00 based on the five-point response scale. Farmers' aspiration to 
learn from other successful farmers was the greatest mean (4.95) among the variables (see 
Table 3). Farmers' knowledge and skills in mobilization of a group of farmers produced a mean 
of 4.25. Farmers' perception that they do not need external support to develop their 
agricultural business resulted in a lower mean (M = 2.20). Similarly, a mean of 2.40 was 
reported for farmers' ability to commercialize using their own resources. The majority of 
variables' standard deviations (SD) ranged from 1.00 to 1.50. However, the two aspiration 
variables (learn from other successful farmers and grow trust with other farmers) had smaller 
standard deviations (.22 and .81, respectively). For the two self-reported farmer behaviors, 
producers reported a higher frequency of engaging in learning and extension activities (M = 
3.95) than they reported for engaging in pooling of production (M = 2.81) (see Table 4). 
 
  



Silvert et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.95   8 
 

Table 3  
 
Farmers' Perceptions and Knowledge and Skills Central Tendency Measures 
 n M SD 
Knowledge and skills: Mobilize a group of farmers 40 4.25 1.15 
Working together with other farmers will help me earn more 40 3.70 1.24 
I can commercialize using own resources 40 2.40 1.39 
I can increase productivity using own resources 40 2.75 1.41 
I don't need external support to develop ag. business 40 2.20 1.20 
I have the power to negotiate for better prices 40 3.38 1.43 
I can earn more money than most other coffee producers 40 3.83 1.15 
I aspire to learn from other successful farmers 40 4.95 .22 
I aspire to work to grow trust with other farmers 40 4.58 .81 
Note. Variables were analyzed as individual Likert-type items using a five-point agreement 
response scale. 
 
Table 4 
 
Farmers' Collective and Extension Behaviors Central Tendency Measures 
 n M SD 
Behavioral frequency: Learning or extension activities 40 3.95 1.20 
Behavioral frequency: Pooling production 36 2.81 1.69 
Note. Variables were analyzed as individual Likert-type items using a five-point behavioral 
frequency response scale. 
 
We applied correlational analysis using Spearman's correlations to examine strength and 
direction of associations between pairs of the knowledge and skills, perceptions, and behavioral 
frequency variables in Tables 3 and 4. The correlations resulting from this analysis (see Table 5) 
ranged from small (< .01) to large (> .50) (Cohen, 1988). Power to negotiate better prices was 
significantly correlated with knowledge and skills to mobilize (rs = .37) and had inverse 
associations with two variables: ability to commercialize using own resources (rs = -.31) and do 
not need external support to develop the agricultural business (rs = -.36). Do not need external 
support to develop the farming business had its strongest inverse correlation with farmers' 
perception that working with other farmers will help them earn more (rs = -.51). Farmers' belief 
that they could earn more money than most other local producers showed positive correlations 
with two other variables: knowledge and skills to mobilize (rs = .38) and power to negotiate 
better prices (rs = .40). On the other hand, the earn more money than most other producers 
variable had an inverse association with perceived ability to increase productivity using own 
resources (rs = -.44).  
 
Finally, there were two significant correlations, both negative, with the two behavior variables. 
Farmers' frequency of engagement in learning and extension associated inversely with do not 
need external support to develop the agricultural business (rs = -.38). Frequency of farmer-



Silvert et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.95   9 
 

reported pooling of production showed an inverse correlation with perceived ability to 
commercialize using own resources (rs = -.40). 
 
Table 5 
 
Correlation Matrix of Farmers' Perceptions of Collective Actions and External Assistance and 
Farmers' Collective and Extension Behaviors 
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 

Knowledge and 
skills: Mobilize a 
group of farmers 

-                     

Working together 
with other farmers 
will help me earn 
more 

.25 -                   

I can commercialize 
using own 
resources 

-.30 -.22 -                 

I can increase 
productivity using 
own resources 

-.28 -.14 .46** -               

I don't need external 
support to develop 
ag. business 

-.09 -.51** .34* .39* -             

I have the power to 
negotiate for 
better prices 

.37* .30 -.31* -.21 -.36* -           

I can earn more 
money than most 
other coffee 
producers 

.38* .17 -0.22 -.44** -.18 .40* -         

I aspire to learn from 
other successful 
farmers 

.12 .01 .01 .06 -.03 -.18 -.13 -       

I aspire to work to 
grow trust with 
other farmers 

.33* .29 .20 -.34* -.33* .18 .46** .08 -     

 Behav. frequency: 
Learning or 
extension activities 

.23 .09 -.21 -.16 -.38* .13 .30 .06 .19 -   

 Behav. frequency: 
Pooling production .05 .26 -.40* -.10 -.02 .07 -.12 -.13 -.14 -.17 - 

Note. N = 36-40. Correlation coefficients are Spearman’s correlations. * significant at p ≤ .05. ** 
significant at p ≤ .001. 



Silvert et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.95   10 
 

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations 
 
Smallholder farmers can achieve numerous economic benefits through collective actions and 
the mobilization of peers (Arias et al., 2013; Campos et al., 2005; USDA, 2018). Three key 
conclusions emerge from this study to understand the intrinsic factors that may influence 
smallholders' collective actions. First, findings suggest smallholder farmers perceive important 
benefits from boosting their knowledge and skills in mobilization. Second, results imply 
smallholders consider collection action with peers an important source of external support, 
which should be distinguished from other types of external support. Finally, the data indicate 
farmers with knowledge and skills and confidence in their abilities aspire to work to build trust 
with their peer farmers. 
 
The correlations between farmers' knowledge and skills to mobilize and their perceived 
negotiating and earning powers suggest farmers believe their positioning to market could be 
enhanced via capacities related to collective actions. Improved marketing opportunities could 
benefit smallholders through increased incomes. Although knowledge and skills may not always 
correspond with behaviors, this conclusion is corroborated by previous research which suggests 
ability to mobilize and pursue collective actions contributes to greater negotiating power and 
returns (Lowitt et al., 2015; USDA, 2018). It should be noted that structural and collective 
considerations, not assessed in this study, may also influence marketing power. For instance, 
the number of peers and their commitment toward mobilization could determine produce 
quantities and impact leverage over marketing opportunities (Campos et al., 2005).  
 
Inverse associations between farmers' aspiration to grow trust with peers and their perceptions 
toward autonomy in their agricultural activities imply farmers' perceived need for external 
support could potentially be fulfilled through collective action. Additionally, analysis of the 
behavioral variables indicates farmers who engage in pooling produce feel they need 
commercialization assistance. These findings are important because research indicates 
assistance from external organizations and actors may negatively decrease self-reliance and 
cause over-dependence (Bebbington et al., 1996; Markelova et al., 2009; Silvert, 2020). 
However, if forms of external assistance are distinguished (e.g., temporary donor projects 
versus a local farmer association), farmers' perceived need for outside support could be 
channeled toward potentially more sustainable, local sources of capacity.    
 
The final conclusion infers the characteristics of smallholder farmers who may lead among 
peers in the pursuit of collective actions. Correlational results suggest farmers who are 
knowledgeable and skilled in mobilization aspire to grow trust with peers. The positive 
association between perceived earning ability and aspiration to build trust also indicates 
farmers' confidence and self-efficacy may be perquisites to collective action. These findings 
could inform the identification of leader farmers to champion mobilization and collective 
actions. Furthermore, this suggests capacity building around collective actions may be an 
important starting point to increase farmers' motivation to pursue working with their peers. 



Silvert et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.95   11 
 

Leader farmer approaches are commonly employed in developing contexts to facilitate peer-to-
peer mobilization and learning (Sesonga, 2018; Simpson et al., 2015).  
This study provided new insights to understand smallholders' perceptions related to collective 
actions. Refinements and expansion of the variables and instrumentation, to potentially 
develop multi-variable constructs, are recommended for future inquiries. This study was limited 
by its relatively small sample size. For future explorations, the power of analyses should be 
increased using a larger sample (Israel, 2009). 
 
Based on this study's findings, we recommend practitioners and farmer group leaders focus 
training efforts on building smallholders' knowledge and skills in mobilization, encourage peer 
association/collective action as a source of external support, and target knowledgeable, skilled 
and confident farmers to lead collective actions. When possible, opportunities should be 
explored for farmers' perceived need for outside assistance to be fulfilled by peer, community-
based groups rather than external organizations' (e.g., NGOs and donor programs). 
Practitioners and farmer leaders can learn from examples of peer-to-peer agricultural extension 
systems, both formal and informal, which have become common in development contexts 
(Simpson et al., 2015). Experiential exchange visits and farmer-led field days are useful 
techniques to demonstrate the operations and benefits of collective actions for interested 
farmers, and research suggests farmers often learn more from fellow farmers than external 
practitioners (Suvedi & Kaplowitz, 2016; Van den Ban & Hawkins, 2002). Finally, training and 
targeting more innovative farmers, such as those with technical knowledge and skills and 
greater self-efficacy, may play a crucial role in farmer-to-farmer systems to set trends for other 
farmers and contribute to disseminating improved behaviors (Rogers, 2003; Simpson et al., 
2015).  
 

Acknowledgements 
 
Support to conduct fieldwork for this study was provided by partners in Peru from the 
Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas and the Shared-X company and especially these 
individuals: Ivan Loyola, Dr. Raul Injoque, Joel Barboza, Rosalina Cuchca, and Jimy Lovato. The 
authors are also thankful to Vanessa Campoverde and Francisco Rivera for their review and 
translation of the survey instrument.  

References 
 
Agribusiness Commercial Legal and Institutional Reform Diagnostic. (2016). Sierra Leone final 
report. International Development Group LLC. 
 
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision 
Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T. 
 
Arias, P., Hallam, D., Krivonos, E., & Morrison, J. (2013). Smallholder integration in changing 
food markets. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 
http://www.fao.org/3/i3292e/i3292e.pdf 



Silvert et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.95   12 
 

 
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Irvine, C. K. S., & Walker, D. (2019). Introduction to research in education 
(10th ed.). Cengage Learning. 
 
Barham, J., & Chitemi, C. (2009). Collective action initiatives to improve marketing 
performance: Lessons from farmer groups in Tanzania. Food Policy, 34(1), 53–59. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2008.10.002 
 
Bebbington, A., Quisbert, J., & Trujillo, G. (1996). Technology and rural development strategies 
in a small farmer organization: Lessons from Bolivia for rural policy and practice. Public 
Administration and Development, 16(3), 195–213. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-
162X(199608)16:3<195::AID-PAD879>3.0.CO;2-2 
 
Bennett, C. (1975). Up the hierarchy. Journal of Extension, 13(2), 7–12. 
https://www.joe.org/joe/1975march/1975-2-a1.pdf 
 
Campos, M., Francis, M., & Merry, F. (2005). Stronger by Association: Improving the 
understanding of how forest-resource based SME associations can benefit the poor. Instituto de 
Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia. https://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/13513IIED.pdf? 
 
Clason, D. L., & Dormody, T. J. (1994). Analyzing data measured by individual Likert-type 
items. Journal of Agricultural Education, 35(4), 31–35. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.1994.04031 
 
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence 
Erlbaum. 
 
Fanzo, J. (2017). From big to small: The significance of smallholder farms in the global food 
system. The Lancet Planetary Health, 1(1), e15–e16. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-
5196(17)30011-6   
 
Fischer, E., & Qaim, M. (2012). Linking smallholders to markets: Determinants and impacts of 
farmer collective action in Kenya. World Development, 40(6), 1255–1268. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2011.11.018 
 
Fischer, E., & Qaim, M. (2014). Smallholder farmers and collective action: What determines the 
intensity of participation?. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 65(3), 683–702. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12060 
 
Frey, B. B. (2016). There's a stat for that! What to do & when to do it. Sage Publications. 
 
International Fund for Agricultural Development. (2016). Rural development report 2016: 
Fostering inclusive rural transformation. 
https://www.ifad.org/documents/38714170/39155702/Rural+development+report+2016.pdf/
347402dd-a37f-41b7-9990-aa745dc113b9 



Silvert et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.95   13 
 

 
Israel, G. D. (2009). Determining sample size. Agricultural Education and Communication, 
Program Evaluation and Sampling. University of Florida Cooperative Extension Electronic Data 
Information Source, PEOD6. 
 
Lowitt, K., Hickey, G. M., Saint Ville, A., Raeburn, K., Thompson-Colón, T., Laszlo, S., & Phillip, L. 
E. (2015). Factors affecting the innovation potential of smallholder farmers in the Caribbean 
community. Regional Environmental Change, 15(7), 1367–1377. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0805-2 
 
Markelova, H., Meinzen-Dick, R., Hellin, J., & Dohrn, S. (2009). Collective action for smallholder 
market access. Food Policy, 34(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2008.10.001 
 
Poulton, C., Kydd, J., & Dorward, A. (2006). Overcoming market constraints on pro-poor 
agricultural growth in Sub-Saharan Africa. Development Policy Review, 24(3), 243–277. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7679.2006.00324.x  
 
Rogers, E. M. 2003. Diffusion of innovations. (5th ed.). Simon and Schuster. 
 
Schober, P., Boer, C., & Schwarte, L. A. (2018). Correlation coefficients: Appropriate use and 
interpretation. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 126(5), 1763–1768. 
https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000002864 
 
Sesonga, J. P. (2018, June 5). Follow the leader. World Food Programme. 
https://insight.wfp.org/follow-the-leader-c34ed51f550 
 
Shared-X. (n.d.). Farm share impact. https://www.shared-x.com/ 
 
Silvert, C. (2020) Building self-reliance: An evaluation framework for smallholder farmers' 
transition to commercialization. [Unpublished master's thesis]. University of Florida 
 
Simpson, B. M., Franzel, S., Degrande, A., Kundhlande, G., & Tsafack, S. (2015). Farmer-to-
farmer extension: Issues in planning and implementation. Modernizing Extension and Advisory 
Services. https://meas.illinois.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/MEAS-TN-Farmer-to-Farmer-
Simpson-et-al-May-2015.pdf 
 
Suvedi, M., & Kaplowitz, M. (2016). What every extension worker should know. Modernizing 
Extension and Advisory Services. https://meas.illinois.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/MEAS-
2016-Extension-Handbook-Suvedi-Kaplowitz-2016_02_15.pdf 
 
Talbot, J. M. (1997). Where does your coffee dollar go?: The division of income and surplus 
along the coffee commodity chain. Studies in Comparative International Development, 32(1), 
56–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02696306 
 



Silvert et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.95   14 
 

United States Agency for International Development. (2019). Agriculture and food security. 
https://www.usaid.gov/what-we-do/agriculture-and-food-security 
 
United States Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Service. (2018). Peru's Coffee 
production continues recovering. 
https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/report/downloadreportbyfilename?filename=Coffee
%20Annual_Lima_Peru_5-9-2018.pdf  
 
Van den Ban, A. W., & Hawkins, H. S. (2002). Agricultural extension (2nd ed.). CBS Publishers 
and Distributors. 
 
World Bank. (2013). Agriculture action plan 2013-2015. 
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/331761468152719470/pdf/779110WP0Ag0Ac0th
an0the0Board0paper.pdf 
 
 
© 2021 by authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of 
the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 
 


