1. CSA Practices

6.1 CSA practices implementation (general)

Household level indicators are calculated based on the responses from the household heads.

Percentage of adopting households corresponding to the number of household (heads) that reported having implement at least one of the CSA practices.

6.1.1 CSA practices implementation (by practice and gender)

Percentage of households (heads), and of female-headed or male-headed households that implement CSA practices

N Fish species composition suitability Rainwater harvest Vegetable tower
Households 149 17% 15% 42%
Male-headed household 139 19% 17% 43%
Female-headed household 10 0% 0% 30%

6.1.2 CSA practices implementation (by community)

Percentage of households (heads) who implement CSA practices across the different CSV communities.

CSV communities N Fish species composition suitability Rainwater harvest Vegetable tower
Babuana 20 5% 15% 60%
Kalibari 22 50% 14% 9%
Krishnanagar 21 0% 29% 52%
Kuraltala 22 9% 0% 36%
Pathuria 22 55% 36% 36%
Santikhali 21 0% 5% 52%
Shabokhali 21 0% 10% 52%

6.2 CSA Adoption drivers (by practice and gender)

Percentage of farmers (male or female) reporting a specific driver or motivation for their household to adopt a CSA practice

This indicator corresponds to the number of farmers that reported a specific adoption driver over the total that responded the motivation question.

CSA Practices N In Response to a Climate Event Learning from Dak Diye Jai / CCAFS To Adapt to Future Climate Shocks
Fish species composition suitability 49 0% 4% 96%
Rainwater harvest 39 3% 8% 90%
Vegetable tower 116 7% 4% 89%

6.2.1 Adoption drivers for Vegetable tower (by gender)

Percentage of farmers (female and male) reporting a specific driver or motivation to adopt a CSA practice, who responded to the question : “What was the main reason for implementing Vegetable tower?”

Gender N In Response to a Climate Event Learning from Dak Diye Jai / CCAFS To Adapt to Future Climate Shocks
Female 57 7% 0% 93%
Male 59 7% 8% 85%

6.2.2 Adoption drivers for Rainwater harvest (by gender)

Percentage of farmers (female and male) reporting a specific driver or motivation to adopt a CSA practice, who responded to the question : “What was the main reason for implementing Rainwater harvest?”

Gender N In Response to a Climate Event Learning from Dak Diye Jai / CCAFS To Adapt to Future Climate Shocks
Female 16 0% 0% 100%
Male 23 4% 13% 83%

6.2.3 Adoption drivers for Fish species composition suitability (by gender)

Percentage of farmers (female and male) reporting a specific driver or motivation to adopt a CSA practice, who responded to the question : “What was the main reason for implementing Fish species composition suitability?”

Gender N Learning from Dak Diye Jai / CCAFS To Adapt to Future Climate Shocks
Female 23 0% 100%
Male 26 8% 92%

6.3 Involvement in CSA implementation (by practice and gender)

Percentage of farmers (male and female) reporting specific levels of involvement in the implementation of the CSA practice, who answered the question: “Where you the person in charge of doing most of the work/activities associated to the implementation of the CSA practice?”

CSA Practices Gender N I did most of the work I equally contributed I hired labor I just helped
Fish species composition suitability Female 23 0% 83% 0% 17%
Male 26 31% 69% 0% 0%
Rainwater harvest Female 16 0% 94% 0% 6%
Male 23 17% 83% 0% 0%
Vegetable tower Female 58 12% 84% 2% 2%
Male 60 3% 92% 2% 3%

6.3.1 Doing most of the CSA implementation

6.3.2 Just helped in the CSA implementation

6.3.3 Hired labor in CSA implementation

6.3.4 Contributed in CSA implementation

6.4 CSA dis-adoption (general)

Percentage of non-adopting households (female and male-headed) that reported having dis-adopted at least one CSA practice before in the household.

6.4.1 CSA dis-adoption (by practice and gender)

Percentage of households (heads), and of female-headed or male-headed households that answered “Yes” to the question; “Was this practice implemented before in your household?”

CSA Practices N Percentage
Fish species composition suitability Households 30 0%
Female-headed household 3 0%
Male-headed household 27 0%
Rainwater harvest Households 67 0%
Female-headed household 5 0%
Male-headed household 62 0%
Vegetable tower Households 53 0%
Female-headed household 5 0%
Male-headed household 48 0%

6.5 CSA dis-adoption drivers (by practice and gender)

Percentage of farmers (male and female) reporting a specific driver or motivation to dis-adopt a CSA practice; who responded to the question: “What was the main reason why your household stopped implementing the practices?”

There were no farmers expressing specific reasons to stop implementing practices

Outcomes of CSA practices

6.6 Effect (perceived) on production (by practice)

Percentage of farmers (female and male) reporting perceived effects of the CSA practice on yield/production, who responded to the question: “What was the effect of the practices on your household production?”

Practices N Cost Increased Decreased Production Increased Production No Effect on Costs
Fish species composition suitability 49 0% 12% 88% 0%
Rainwater harvest 39 92% 0% 0% 8%
Vegetable tower 116 0% 0% 100% 0%

6.6.1 Perceived effect of Vegetable tower on yield/production

Percentage of farmers (female and male) reporting perceived effects of the CSA practice on yield/production, who responded to the question: What was the effect of Vegetable tower on your household production?

Gender N Increased Production
Female 57 100%
Male 59 100%

6.6.2 Perceived effect of Rainwater harvest on yield/production

Percentage of farmers (female and male) reporting perceived effects of the CSA practice on yield/production, who responded to the question: What was the effect of Rainwater harvest on your household production?

Gender N Cost Increased No Effect on Costs
Female 16 94% 6%
Male 23 91% 9%

6.6.3 Perceived effect of Fish species composition suitability on yield/production

Percentage of farmers (female and male) reporting perceived effects of the CSA practice on yield/production, who responded to the question: What was the effect of Fish species composition suitability on your household production?

Gender N Decreased Production Increased Production
Female 23 13% 87%
Male 26 12% 88%

6.7 Use of additional CSA production

Percentage of households (heads) that answered “Yes” to the questions: “Did you in the household sell this additional production?” or “Did you in the household use this additional production for the household consumption?”

CSA Practices N Use Percentage of households
Vegetable tower 62 Sale 8%
62 Consumption 98%
Rainwater harvest 21 Consumption 95%
Fish species composition suitability 23 Sale 83%
23 Consumption 100%

6.8 Perceived CSA effect on income

Percentage of farmers that answered “Yes”to the question:“Compare to before its implementation, has [the CSA practice] generated additional income for the household?”

CSA Practices N Percentage of farmers
Vegetable tower 116 99%
Rainwater harvest 39 85%
Fish species composition suitability 49 98%

6.8.1 Perceived CSA effect on income (by gender)

Percentage of farmers (male and female) implementing CSA that answered “Yes”to the question:“Compare to before its implementation, has [the CSA practice] generated additional income for the household?”

CSA Practices Gender N Percentage of farmers
Vegetable tower Female 57 98%
Male 59 100%
Rainwater harvest Female 16 88%
Male 23 83%
Fish species composition suitability Female 23 100%
Male 26 96%

6.10 Perceived effect of CSA practices on food access and diversity

  • Percentage of farmers, (male and female) implementing CSA practices who answered “Yes” to the question: “Because of the implementation of the practice, did the number of month where you are usually concerned of having enough food for your household decreased (compare to not having it)?”

  • Percentage of farmers, (male and female) implementing CSA practices who answered “Yes” to the question: “Has implementation of the practice allowed for having more variety of products for consumption in your household (compared to not having the practice)?”

Improved food access
Food diversification
CSA Practices N Percentage N Percentage
Fish species composition suitability Farmers 49 96% 49 98%
Female 23 96% 23 100%
Male 26 96% 26 96%
Rainwater harvest Farmers 39 82% 39 56%
Female 16 81% 16 69%
Male 23 83% 23 48%
Vegetable tower Farmers 116 91% 116 97%
Female 57 89% 57 98%
Male 59 92% 59 97%

6.10.1 Perceived effect of CSA practices on food access (by gender)

6.10.2 Perceived effect of CSA practices on food diversity (by gender)

6.11 Perceived effect of CSA practices on climate vulnerability

Percentage of CSA implementing farmers (female and male) that answered Yes to the question: Do you personally think that having the crop rotation effectively allowed your household to be less affected or recover quicker from experienced weather related shocks/events?

CSA Practices N Percentage
Fish species composition suitability Farmers 49 96%
Female 23 100%
Male 26 92%
Rainwater harvest Farmers 39 79%
Female 16 88%
Male 23 74%
Vegetable tower Farmers 116 91%
Female 57 88%
Male 59 93%

6.11.1 Perceived effect of CSA practices on climate vulnerability (by gender)

Percentage of CSA implementing farmers (female and male) who answered “Yes”to the question: Do you personally think that having the CSA practices effectively allowed your household to be less affected or recover quicker from experienced weather related shocks/events?

6.12 CSA effect on Gender dimensions

6.12.1 Perceived CSA effect on labor time

Percentage of CSA implementing farmers (male and female) who answered the question: Because of the CSA practices, did you personally take more, less or the same amount of time in agricultural activities?

CSA Practices N Less time More time Same amount of time
Fish species composition suitability Farmers 49 0% 80% 20%
Female 23 0% 78% 22%
Male 26 0% 81% 19%
Rainwater harvest Farmers 39 3% 56% 41%
Female 16 0% 62% 38%
Male 23 4% 52% 43%
Vegetable tower Farmers 116 0% 97% 3%
Female 57 0% 98% 2%
Male 59 0% 97% 3%

Increasing labor time

No effect on labor time

Decreasing labor time

6.12.3 Decision making on CSA implementation (by practice; gender disaggregated)

Percentage of CSA implementing male and female farmers, who answered the question: “Did you participate in the process of deciding to implement the practices on your farm?”

CSA Practices N Decided alone Did not participate in the decision Was a joint decision
Fish species composition suitability Female 23 4% 17% 78%
Male 26 23% 0% 77%
Rainwater harvest Female 16 12% 6% 81%
Male 23 13% 0% 87%
Vegetable tower Female 58 3% 0% 97%
Male 60 2% 0% 98%

6.12.4 Participation decision making on CSA dis-adoption

Percentage of implementing, male and female farmers, who answered yes to the question: Did you personally decide or participate in the decision to stop implementing the practice?

There were no farmers who participated in the decision to stop implementing practices

6.13 Sources of CSA learning

Percentage of implementing farmers (male and female) who answered the question: How did you personally learn to implement the practice?

CSA Practices N Dak Diye Jai / CCAFS family member or neighbor other institutions or gov. organizations Self-learning Training by technical assistance by other institution
Fish species composition suitability Farmers 49 4% 96% 0% 0% 0%
Female 23 0% 100% 0% 0% 0%
Male 26 8% 92% 0% 0% 0%
Rainwater harvest Farmers 39 10% 64% 8% 3% 15%
Female 16 0% 69% 12% 6% 12%
Male 23 17% 61% 4% 0% 17%
Vegetable tower Farmers 116 6% 94% 0% 0% 0%
Female 57 0% 100% 0% 0% 0%
Male 59 12% 88% 0% 0% 0%

Female sources of CSA knowledge

Male sources of CSA knowledge

6.14 Access to CSA training

Percentage farmers (male and female) who answered “from Training by technical assistance by other institution” or “From CCAFS training / demonstrations”, to the question: “How did you personally learn to implement water terraces?”

CSA Practice N Percentage
Fish species composition suitability Farmers 72 6%
Male 38 11%
Rainwater harvest Farmers 108 14%
Female 49 8%
Male 59 19%
Vegetable tower Farmers 169 4%
Male 85 8%

6.14.1 Access to training in CSA practices (gender)

6.15 CSA awareness

Percentage of farmers (male and female) participating anyhow on a CSA practice related activity (answered “Yes, I did most” or “No, I just helped” to the questions: “Were you the person in charge of doing most of the work/activities associated to CSA practice?”) or not implementing but saying “Yes” to the question: “having heard about [the CSA practice]?”

CSA Practices N Percentage
Fish species composition suitability Farmers 287 36%
Female 146 34%
Male 141 38%
Rainwater harvest Farmers 287 59%
Female 146 57%
Male 141 62%
Vegetable tower Farmers 287 78%
Female 146 78%
Male 141 77%

6.16 CSA interest by non-adopters

Percentage of non CSA implementing farmers (male and female) who answered “Yes”to the question: “Would you like to receive more information on CSA practices?”

CSA Practice N Percentage
Fish species composition suitability Famers 238 86%
Female 123 85%
Male 115 87%
Rainwater harvest Famers 248 91%
Female 130 91%
Male 118 91%
Vegetable tower Famers 169 99%
Female 88 100%
Male 81 98%

6.17 Farer to farmer knowledge dissemination

Percentage of farmers (female and male) who responded “Yes” to the question: “Did you personally teach the practice to someone beyond the household members?”

CSA Practices N Percentage
Fish species composition suitability Farmers 49 69%
Female 23 70%
Male 26 69%
Rainwater harvest Farmers 39 31%
Female 16 19%
Male 23 39%
Vegetable tower Farmers 116 67%
Female 57 63%
Male 59 71%

6.17.1 Dissemination of CSA knowledge from farmer to farmer (by gender)

Percentage of famers (male and female) who answered “Yes” to the question: “Did you personally teach the practice to someone beyond the household members?”

2019-12-04