Next Article in Journal
Influence of Radioactive Sludge Content on Vitrification of High-Level Liquid Waste
Previous Article in Journal
Determination of Viscoelastic and Physicochemical Interactions of Dextran Type Exopolysaccharides (EPS) with Different Starch Samples
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 6
10.3390/su15064935
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Borich’s Needs Model Analysis of Smallholder Farmers’ Competence in Irrigation Water Management: Case Study of Nkomazi Local Municipality, Mpumalanga Province in South Africa

by
Mfanufikile Mabuza
* and
Jorine T. Ndoro
School of Agriculture, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Sciences, University of Mpumalanga, Cnr R40 and D725 Roads, Mbombela 1200, South Africa
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(6), 4935; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15064935
Submission received: 2 January 2023 / Revised: 7 March 2023 / Accepted: 8 March 2023 / Published: 10 March 2023
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Irrigated agriculture enables production intensification and crop diversification to improve food security. However, increasing irrigation water stress and inadequate competence of smallholder farmers in irrigation water management have the potential to exacerbate food insecurity. Therefore, this study seeks to determine smallholder farmers’ competency needs in irrigation water management practices (IWMP). A convenience sampling method was employed to obtain a sample population of n= 250. Descriptive statistics were employed to describe smallholder farmers’ demographic characteristics. Borich’s Needs Assessment Model (BNAM) was utilised to analyse smallholder farmers’ competency needs. Results revealed that smallholder farmers perceived weed control (M = 4.90) and understanding the consequences of over- and under-irrigation (M = 4.48) as highly important practices. Results also revealed that smallholder farmers were only highly competent in weed control (M = 4.59). Moreover, results revealed that the top two most important competency needs for smallholder farmers are knowledge of drought-tolerant cultivars (MWDS = 6.83) and irrigation scheduling (MWDS = 5.05). From the survey findings, smallholder farmers’ competency in IWMP is insufficient. It is recommended that the government, policymakers, and agricultural support services embark on sustainable agricultural development planning issues and develop a relevant training programme that is informed by smallholder farmers’ competency needs.

1. Introduction

Agriculture is the main driver of food, employment opportunities, and household income in rural areas [1]. Agriculture has the potential to alleviate poverty while maintaining the ecosystem on which all people depend to improve living standards [2]. Smallholder farmers play a major economic role and support rural households by ensuring food availability. The second goal of the United Nations 2030 agenda on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is to “end hunger, achieve food security and improve nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture“ [3]. Smallholder farmers need to become competent in agronomic management practices in order to manage resources, improve performance and increase productivity. Ref. [4] defines competence as a series of desirable attributes that include abilities or capabilities such as knowledge of appropriate sorts, skills, problem solving, analysis, communication, and appropriate attitudes to satisfactorily perform a task. Competencies involve clusters of abilities, expertise, skills, and behaviours needed to succeed [5]. Improving the competence of smallholder farmers can promote sharing of knowledge with other farmers, thereby improving the skills of their workforce. Therefore, smallholder farmers need to be trained according to their hierarchy of competency needs to sustainably guarantee food security [6,7].
Smallholder farmers rely mainly on crop cultivation and animal husbandry as their main livelihood strategies [8]. Increasing water stress necessitates that smallholder farmers use irrigation water more competently to maximise yields [9]. Innovative knowledge and skills need to be disseminated to smallholder farmers to improve their competence in accomplishing sustainable agriculture. Improving sustainable agriculture depends on strong development and enhancing smallholder farmers’ competency levels. Smallholder farmers’ competence levels are the foremost means to mitigate the impacts of climate change on agricultural production. South Africa is a water-scarce country with an approximately 464 mm average annual rainfall [10], and irrigated agriculture is the largest user of water, estimated to be between 51% and 63% of the total water available [11]. Stress on irrigation water as a result of climate change has major production constraints for smallholder farmers. Thus, it is imperative to identify and assess smallholder farmers’ competency needs on irrigation water management practices so as to draft a relevant training curriculum [5,12].
Relevant knowledge dissemination on irrigation water management practices has the potential to improve smallholder farmers’ competence to enhance decision-making on irrigation water conservation. Ref. [13] indicated that an efficient and effective irrigation-based water use and management system is one of the main strategies for ending hunger in Africa by 2025. Incompetent smallholder farmers are greatly affected by climate change and face the challenge of coping with water scarcity, which exacerbates food insecurity, leading to hunger. Ref. [14] highlighted that irrigation water consumption has dropped from 80% to almost 50% in recent years. Ref. [15] further stated that South Africa’s smallholder irrigation schemes are inefficient, unable to sustainably upsurge agricultural production and improve rural livelihoods. Irrigation schemes include multiple smallholder farmers’ agricultural projects that rely on shared, decentralised systems to obtain irrigation water, and in some cases, from a shared water source [16]. Ref. [17] concluded that smallholder community irrigation schemes in Africa have proved to be highly unsustainable and face critical water management challenges. Smallholder farmers in irrigated agriculture experience more water losses owing to a lack of knowledge on irrigation scheduling, understanding of crop water requirement balance, utilisation of inappropriate irrigation methods, and how to operate and manage the systems [18,19,20,21,22].
Low literacy levels and the complexity of innovative irrigation systems have led smallholder farmers to continue using low-tech irrigation methods, resulting in inefficient management of irrigation water [16,21]. Low-tech irrigation methods involve the use of watering cans, buckets, and a hosepipe. According to [17], smallholder farmers’ training in irrigation water management has been inadequate and not conducted with serious consideration. Similarly, Ref. [23] stated that smallholder farmers’ competence level in irrigation water management practices is inadequate, making it challenging to achieve the 2030 SDGs. This is consistent with the findings of [24] that few agricultural advisory services provide training for smallholder farmers on irrigation water management. Scant literature exists on smallholder farmers’ competency needs in irrigation water management practices in the Nkomazi local municipality, Mpumalanga Province in South Africa. Most researchers who studied South African smallholder farmers’ training needs focused mainly on livestock training needs, land preparation training needs, pest and diseases management training needs, soil health and fertility management training needs, and horticulture training needs [25,26,27,28,29].
The South African Department of Agriculture has approved numerous agricultural support service organisations to help provide advice and train smallholder farmers on modern agricultural initiatives [30]. However, Ref. [17] stated that smallholder farmers lack competence in sustainable irrigation water management practices and adaptation of irrigation water conservation strategies. The inadequate information on smallholder farmers’ competency needs on IWMP and increasing irrigation water scarcity led to this study to determine smallholder farmers’ competency needs on irrigation water management practices in the Nkomazi local municipality. The findings are expected to provide modest but appropriate information that can give adequate insight to government, non-government development stakeholders, and policymakers on strategies to initiate and enhance smallholder farmers’ irrigation water management practices and production output; and ensure results that address the felt competency needs of smallholder farmers. Improving smallholder farmers’ competence may help to achieve the SDGs, increase productivity, increase incomes and consumption, and enhance food security. The main objective of this study is to determine smallholder farmers’ competency needs on 20 irrigation water management practices. The specific objectives of this study were to
  • Determine smallholder farmers’ perceived level of importance on 20 irrigation water management practices;
  • Determine smallholder farmers’ perceived level of competence on 20 irrigation water management practices;
  • Determine and rank smallholder farmers perceived competency needs on 20 irrigation water management practices.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Agricultural Support Services and Training Interventions

According to [31], the introduction of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) laid a significant foundation for agricultural extension support services for smallholder farmers globally. Government and NGOs provide smallholder farmers with capital-enhancing inputs such as skill sets and knowledge to help them sustainably improve productivity, thus leading to the achievement of multiple SDGs. Nonetheless, according to the observations of [28], smallholder farmers receive the least training support. Ref. [28] further emphasises that farmers are trained or supported mainly on production procedures, neglecting farm management practices. Public extension services, in particular, face challenges such as having to facilitate land reforms, secure financial support and create sufficient initiatives aimed at developing smallholder farmers [32]. The provision of public extension services has failed to increase agricultural productivity and income [32]. It has been criticised for using outdated approaches that fail to meet smallholder farmers’ needs in many developing countries, including South Africa [32]. Ref. [33] stated that for South Africa to achieve sustainable food security, agricultural support services must be well linked to all agricultural-related institutions and relevant research information, which is appropriately obtained from smallholder farmers’ felt needs. Thus, agricultural support services must meet the competency/training needs of smallholder farmers so to disseminate relevant information, skills, and knowledge.

2.2. Smallholder Farmers Training Needs Assessment

Assessment of smallholder farmers’ training needs is a step that is often missed in the process of developing training activities. According to [34], training needs assessment is the process of determining if there are training gaps and, if so, what knowledge and skills are needed to fill those discrepancies. It determines the levels of the current situation and whether smallholder farmers are proficient enough to achieve sustainable agriculture to end hunger. Training needs assessment is essential to select, interpret, describe, design, analyse, prioritise, and use the information to advance smallholder farmers’ learning to improve production output [7]. It is the foundation of all training activities, which may include all agricultural management practices. Smallholder farmers’ training needs result from underdeveloped skills, insufficient knowledge, or wrong work attitudes [7]. Assessing the perceived knowledge and skill gaps can help in identifying areas for improvement to overcome constraints hindering smallholder farmers from attaining sustainable agriculture. In Ref. [35], results revealed that farmers’ professional competence is linked, for better or worse, with training needs.
Ref. [36] stated that smallholder farmers’ training needs assessment has the potential to provide vibrant guiding principles regarding which skill and knowledge deficiencies need to be improved to upsurge yields while conserving production resources. An accurate training needs assessment can provide information to agricultural support programmes, contributing to the overall training strategy and knowledge to be disseminated. The information may include urgent training areas to improve the competence of smallholder farmers. Smallholder farmers’ training needs assessment and analysis must be carried out before training activities are structured since it underwrites the success of those activities.
Smallholder farmers face new water challenges owing to rapid population growth, pollution, climate change, and increased competition between water sectors [13]. Ref. [37] discussed that the shortage of irrigation water had become a restraint in achieving food security in all areas. Globally, it is estimated that agricultural food production and other agronomic products use approximately 70% of the freshwater withdrawn from rivers and groundwater [38]. Training on water accountability and water management practices for agriculture to meet these challenges remains a top priority as this can improve agricultural production and promote economic development [21,39,40]. Study findings by [24] revealed inadequate competence levels among smallholder farmers on irrigation water management practices. Moreover, Ref. [41] indicated that smallholder farmers in irrigation schemes face many agricultural production constraints to improve yields. The various crops they produce require different management skills. The study results by [23] revealed that the majority of smallholder farmers in South Africa have inadequate knowledge of sustainable agricultural productivity. Therefore, it is vital to determine competency needs assessment to understand knowledge and skills discrepancies among smallholder farmers’ irrigation water management practices.

2.3. The Borich Needs Assessment Model

The BNAM is a research tool designed to enable the collection of data that can be weighted and hierarchically ranked in order of training needs [42]. Smallholder farmers are linked to a practical decision framework to improve training programmes by self-assessing educational gaps between their felt needs against the changing environment and the available modern agricultural information and technologies. The model measures different types of discrepancies [43] by comparing different levels of capabilities, such as smallholder farmers’ perceived training needs, competency knowledge, ability to perform proficiently, and ability to produce sustainable competence. After assessing these proficiency dimensions, it becomes possible to analyse three types of discrepancies: knowledge discrepancies, gender discrepancies, and result discrepancies [43]. Ref. [44] opined that the model provides a strategy and a survey instrument that allows researchers to collect, weigh, and prioritise data hierarchically. Agricultural support services can amass relevant information that can help to draft a comprehensive set of learning objectives, content, materials, and methods. Smallholder farmers are associated with a practical decision-making framework, and determining training needs can be used to improve training programme curricula [44,45]. The model mainly uses a Likert-type scale questionnaire, which comprises a list of competencies ranking smallholder farmers’ perceived capabilities and importance for each competency [43].
The BNAM was adopted because it best suits the holistic framework of this study. It has often been utilised productively by researchers in the assessment, analysis, and evaluation of training and competency needs [44,46,47,48,49,50,51]. Ref. [52] successfully used the BNAM to identify teaching competencies in the agricultural and life sciences faculty at the University of Florida. Ref. [42] excellently employed the BNAM to assess South Carolina teachers’ in-service training needs of experienced agriculture teachers at the different stages of their teaching careers. Ref. [53] fruitfully utilised the BNAM in identifying the perceived level of importance and perceived competency levels of the in-service training needs of entry-level teachers. Ref. [53] used two sets of questionnaires; firstly, respondents were asked to rate each skill according to its perceived level of importance. The second questionnaire requested respondents to measure competence and express the need for each competency statement.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Study Area

This study was conducted in Nkomazi local municipality, geographically located in the east of the Ehlanzeni District between the north of Eswatini and the east of Mozambique. Two provincial highways, R570 and R571, connect it with Eswatini and Mozambique. The railway line and national highway (N4) form the Maputo Corridor [54]. The northern part is surrounded by the southeastern part of the Sabi River. According to [54], the city’s geographic area covers approximately 478,754 ha, and according to [55], the municipal population is 410,907, of which 1.6% are white people and 97.7% are black people. In addition, 47.7% of the population are men, and 52.3% are women [54]. The main economic sectors in the area include agriculture, mining, and tourism, mostly originating from the towns of Komatipoort, Marloth, Kamhlushwa, and Malalane [55]. The climatic conditions in the municipality are generally temperate and warm, with much more rain in summer than in winter. The average mean annual rainfall for the municipality varies between almost 750 mm and 860 mm, with averages varying from 450 mm to 550 mm. The Nkomazi topographical structure is characterised by steep slopes and mountainous areas, mostly found in the western part and along the eastern margin of the municipality [54]. The Lebombo Plains are found in the vicinity of the Komati River and the Lebombo Mountains in the east of the municipality, characterised by flat to rolling landscapes. Flat areas are positioned in the central part between the Komati River and the mountainous western areas, becoming steeper in the south towards the Eswatini border [54].
The pre-eminently flat areas, loamy soils, the rainy seasons between October and March, and the perennial and dominant Komati and Crocodile Rivers promote agricultural practices within the area, where approximately 12,680 farmers practise subsistence agriculture [54]. According to [54], 75.3% of the municipal area is dominated by medium potential agricultural soils and only 15.3% by very low potential soils. In Nkomazi local municipality, smallholder farmers grow diverse crops, including vegetables, cotton, maize, grains, and sugarcane. Sugarcane farming is estimated to be practised by approximately 1243 smallholder growers across 37 irrigated farming projects [56,57], and there are about 1107 vegetable farmers. Figure 1 below shows the location of Nkomazi local municipality.

3.2. Research Design and Target Population

A quantitative research design [58] was used in this study. Integrating the quantitative methods involves philosophical assumptions and theoretical frameworks [58]. Quantitative data involve data values in the form of counts or numbers, where each data set has a unique value associated with it [59]. The target population of this survey was smallholder farmers growing vegetables and sugarcane, as they utilise multiple irrigation systems and a large volume of water for irrigation. It is estimated that about 1243 smallholders practise sugarcane cultivation in 37 irrigated agricultural projects [56,57], and there are about 1107 vegetable farmers, making a total of 2350.

3.3. Sampling Method and Sampling Size

A convenience sampling [60] method was employed in the study area. This method relies on collecting data from the population willing to participate in a research study without any parameters or selection criteria [60]. The specific study communities for this research included Jepees, Schoemansdal, Langloope, Mzinti, Mbuzini, Skhwahlane, Stenbork, Tonga, Hoyi, Magogeni, and Naas, with an emphasis on smallholder farmers with irrigation schemes. Slovin’s formula [61] was used to determine the sample sizes. The formula is applicable when estimating a population proportion and when the confidence coefficient is 95% [62]. The sample size used in this study was determined based on the cost of data collection and sufficient statistical power. A sample size with a confidence level of 95% and a margin error of 5% was utilised. A sample population of 250 smallholder farmers was used in this study.

3.4. Data Analysis

Structured questionnaire [63] was used for data collection. The questionnaire was divided into sections based on the research objectives, and contained smallholder farmers’ demographic characteristics, 20 irrigation water management practices, and agricultural support training provisions on irrigation water management practices. Before the initial data collection process, the questionnaire was pre-tested to evaluate and improve the quality and effectiveness of primary research. To determine the reliability of the questionnaire, the mean of all possible split-half coefficients was measured using Cronbach’s alpha (α) from twenty smallholder farmers. The questionnaire showed an acceptable alpha coefficient, α = 0.856 for importance and α = 0.879 for competence. Tolerable alpha value estimates must range from 0.7 to 0.8; above 0.9 reflects an excellent consistency [64].
Smallholder farmers were asked to assess their perceived level of importance and perceived level of competence in 20 practices of irrigation water management. The 20 competency items were extracted from a range of literature, among others, as follows: training material for extension advisors in irrigation water management [22], irrigation practice and water management [65], Borich needs model analysis of extension agents’ competence on climate-smart agricultural initiatives in South West Nigeria [66] and training needs; analysis of women in irrigation farming in the North West Province [26], sustainable water management in agriculture under climate change [67], participatory operation and maintenance of irrigation schemes [20,68], and the principles and practice of irrigation water management [69].
Smallholder farmers’ perceived level of competence was measured on a five-point semantic differential Likert-type scale [70], ranging from 1 = very incompetent, 2 = least incompetent, 3 = undecided, 4 = competent, to 5 = highly competent. Smallholder farmers’ assessment of perceived level of importance was also measured on a five-point semantic differential Likert-type scale with response options ranging from 1 = not important, 2 = least important, 3 = undecided, 4 = important, to 5 = highly important. Data were analysed on SPSS Version 27. Descriptive statistics were employed to describe smallholder farmers’ demographic characteristics. Smallholder farmers’ competency needs in irrigation water management were determined using Borich’s Needs Assessment Model [43].
A discrepancy score (DS) [43,66] was calculated to obtain the difference between the importance rating and the competency rating of each competency. A weighted discrepancy score (WDS) [43] was calculated to assess and rank the competency needs of smallholder farmers. A mean weighted discrepancy score (MWDS) [43] was calculated to describe the overall ranking of each of the training areas. The competencies with the highest scores were those with the highest need and priority for training. The MWDS was calculated for each of the competencies using the following calculations:
  • The difference between the importance rating and the competency rating of each competency of the irrigation water management practice was calculated for each respondent to generate the discrepancy score (DS) = importance rating minus the ability competence rating;
  • The DS was then multiplied by the mean importance rating to generate the weighted discrepancy score (WDS) of each competency for the respondents;
  • The sum of the weighted discrepancy scores divided by the number of observations was then used to compute the MWDS for each competency.
The model is shown as follows:
MWDS =   ( I i t h − C i t h ) × x I N
where I = importance rating for each task, C = competency rating for each task, x ¯ mean of importance rating, and N = number of observations. The higher the MWDS, the greater the lack of smallholder farmers’ competency in irrigation water management [29,71].

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Smallholder Farmers’ Education Level (n = 250)

Smallholder farmers’ responses on education were categorised into seven groups, indicating the level of education of farmers from no school to tertiary level, as shown in Table 1. Results revealed that 62 participants had attained secondary education, accounting for 24.8% of the total participants. Of the total number of smallholder farmers who participated, 54 (21.6%) did not attend school and had no education at all. There were 48 (19.2%) participants who matriculated and 45 (18.0%) participants who had attained primary education. Table 1 further shows that 20 participants had achieved agricultural certificates, accounting for 8.0% of the total participants. There were 14 (5.6%) smallholder farmers who had a diploma, and only 7 participants had attained a degree, accounting for 2.8% of the total population. From Table 1, 64.4% represents a cumulative percentage that includes no school (21.6%) plus primary (18%) plus secondary (24.8%).
Table 1 reveals that smallholder farmers have a low level of education. This implies that there is a potential for inadequate competence in irrigation water management practices among smallholder farmers. Additionally, low levels of education may suggest that there is inefficient water use among smallholder farmers. Education level has a direct impact on smallholder farmers’ decision-making process. The findings of this study concur with [72,73,74] that smallholder farmers have a low level of education. Among other socio-economic factors, a low level of education inhibits the adoption of innovative agronomic practices. This has been demonstrated to seriously restrain the dissemination of innovative technologies for sustainable agriculture [74]. Technological and human capital advancements require a certain level of knowledge. Smallholder farmers’ lack of education poses serious barriers to accessing useful institutions that disseminate information, knowledge, and skills. Thus, smallholder farmers struggle to meet quality standards set by fresh food markets and food processors [74,75].
Competency needs assessment, appropriate training, and after-care training are the best mechanisms to improve smallholder farmers’ competency levels. Enhancing smallholder farmers’ education level is beneficial in improving their competence level. Education is an important human capital for smallholder farmers and society. Training and the acquisition of innovative knowledge, technologies, and skills promote socio-economic development. Smallholder farmers can acquire a comprehensive understanding of irrigation water management principles, introducing them to various innovative irrigation systems that can be selected, which gives them an understanding of the layout and operation of an irrigation system and how to set benchmarks for efficient irrigation water management on the farm [22]. Improving the level of education of smallholder farmers and societies is considered essential as it has the potential to advance smallholder farmers’ decision making on irrigation water management.

4.2. Smallholder Farmers’ Irrigation Methods (n = 250)

The results in Table 1 reveal that 89 smallholder farmers irrigate their crops using a furrow method, accounting for 35.6% of the total participants. Drip irrigation is the second most popular method, used by 66 smallholder farmers, accounting for 26.4% of the total number of participants. Moreover, results show that the sprinkler irrigation method is used by 50 smallholder farmers, who account for 20.0% of the total participants. Table 1 also reveals that 41 (16.4%) smallholder farmers use low-tech irrigation methods such as watering cans, buckets, and a hosepipe. None of the respondents use a centre-pivot system.
Most smallholder farmers use a furrow irrigation method. Table 1 results signify that, among other factors, the choice of an irrigation method used by smallholder farmers may be consistent with their education level. Smallholder farmers’ competency level and the complexity of innovative irrigation systems impact the choice of an irrigation method. The study findings concur with [22,24,76] whose results reveal that most smallholder farmers use the furrow irrigation method. Short furrow irrigation is an indigenous irrigation system and is used predominantly by numerous smallholder farmers in South Africa [22]. This implies that cultural practices, beliefs, norms, and experience have an influence on the choice of an irrigation method. The observations of Refs. [37,77] revealed that indigenous knowledge is mostly held by the elderly and the uneducated. Furrow irrigation is where most irrigation water is lost because it is difficult to schedule, resulting in poor flow management of mainly surface runoff [21,22,24,78]. Smallholder farmers mainly use it because it is cheap and easy to use.
Further, this study found that the drip irrigation system is the second most used method. This signifies that smallholder farmers are gradually adopting innovative irrigation methods, suggesting that continuous enhancement of smallholder farmers’ competency level has the potential to improve the adoption of agronomic innovative practices. Among other constraints, adoption may be influenced by the cost of the systems and skills and knowledge levels. The findings of this study concur with the observation of [79] that smallholder farmers are gradually adopting the drip irrigation method, but are currently influenced by some factors, such as clogging of emitters, cost of pipelines, and shortage of water. In Ref. [57], survey results revealed that 48.8% of small-scale sugarcane farmers in the Nkomazi Municipality use the drip irrigation method—the best path to saving water and doubling irrigation productivity on irrigation schemes as a water-smart agricultural strategy [80,81].
Table 1 shows that 41 (16.4%) smallholder farmers use low-tech irrigation methods. The cumulative percentage indicates that 53.6% of smallholder farmers use low-tech irrigation methods. This may signify that smallholder farmers’ competency level in irrigation and application efficiency is inadequate. The results of this study concur with [24,82], who observed that low-cost irrigation methods are widely used by smallholder farmers for vegetable production. Low-tech systems are difficult to schedule, resulting in over- and/or under-irrigation. Ref. [41] observed that smallholder farmers need great support as they lack efficient irrigation systems and scheduling instruments. Moreover, the issue of smallholder farmers’ agricultural land ownership in South Africa may adversely affect the choice of an irrigation method. Lack of land ownership and insecure land rights may prevent smallholder farmers from making the necessary investments that would enhance agronomic management practices and economic value [83]. The results of the study by [84] revealed that only 7.6% of irrigated land in the North West Province in South Africa is privately owned, and 92.4% of the land is owned by the chief. The lack of smallholder farmers’ access to agricultural land has limited their access to credit, which impacts smallholder farmers to invest in innovative agricultural initiatives. The study results of [85] revealed that Iran’s agricultural production from 1981 to 2013 increased owing to improved farming practices and increased access to water through infrastructure and economic development. This implies that improving smallholder farmers’ access to water, agricultural land, and improved infrastructure, training programs, and policies has the potential to upsurge agricultural production.

4.3. Smallholder Farmers' Perceived Level of Importance on 20 Competences (n = 250)

Smallholder farmers were asked to self-assess and rate their perceived level of importance on 20 irrigation water management practices using the following mean scale: not important (M = 1.0–1.49), Least important (M = 1.5–2.49), undecided (M = 2.5–3.49), important (M = 3.5–4.49), and highly important (M = 4.5–5.0). Table 2 shows that smallholder farmers perceived weed control (M = 4.90) and understanding the consequences of over- and under-irrigation (M = 4.48) as highly important competencies. Irrigation scheduling (M = 4.44), maintenance of irrigation system (M = 4.36), managing of irrigation system (M = 4.30), drought-tolerant cultivars (M = 4.27), soil, water, and plant relationships (M = 4.27), crop coefficient (M = 4.24), application efficiency (M = 4.19), irrigation efficiency (M = 4.16), soil moisture conservation techniques (M = 3.60), evaluation of irrigation systems (M = 3.56) and rainwater harvesting (M = 3.47) were perceived as important competencies for irrigation water management practices. Table 2 also reveals that smallholder farmers perceived overhead sprinkler irrigation (M = 2.46), the centre-pivot irrigation system (M = 2.08), and the micro-sprinkler irrigation system (M = 1.88) as the least important competencies. The rest of the practices were perceived as undecided.
Table 2 reveals that smallholder farmers attach high importance to weed control and understanding the consequences of over- and under-irrigation. This explains that smallholder farmers are aware of the great impact these initiatives have on producing good-quality crops. Numerous smallholder farmers control weeds manually. The results of this study are inconsistent with the findings of [86], whose results revealed that smallholder farmers perceived soil and water conservation, integrated pest management, and integrated disease management as very important practices. Moreover, the results concur with the findings of [5] that pre- and post-planting, women smallholder farmers perceived the appropriate application of herbicides and fungicides as one of the most important practices because weeds compete with crops for water, sunlight, and nutrients, and they harbour pests and diseases [87]. Ref. [88] found that water loss caused by weeds remains a major constraint to increased productivity and crop production worldwide.
In this study, smallholder farmers perceived 11 practices as important competencies for irrigation water management practices. These results may explain why smallholder farmers in the Nkomazi local municipality lack awareness and knowledge of the importance of irrigation water management. This is further explained by results shown in Table 1 which reveal that most 89 (35.6%) smallholder farmers use a furrow irrigation method. Furrow irrigation often leads to over-irrigation [78]. This ultimately explains the need to train smallholder farmers on irrigation scheduling, maintenance of irrigation systems, managing of irrigation systems, soil, water, and plant relationships, crop coefficient, application efficiency, irrigation efficiency, soil moisture conservation techniques, and evaluation of irrigation systems.
Additionally, in this study, smallholder farmers further perceive overhead sprinkler irrigation (M = 2.46), centre-pivot irrigation system (M = 2.08), and micro-sprinkler irrigation system (M = 1.88) as the least important competencies. This may reveal that these systems are complex for smallholder farmers to operate, and require smallholder farmers to be highly competent in operating and managing irrigation systems. In addition, smallholder farmers may consider these systems to be the least important because they are expensive. Thus, the competency level, complexity, and cost of an irrigation system influence smallholder farmers’ perceptions of the importance of irrigation methods.

4.4. Smallholder Farmers Perceived Level of Competence on 20 Competences (n = 250)

As shown in Table 2, a mean scale was used to determine smallholder farmers’ perceived level of competence on 20 irrigation water management practices. Table 2 shows that smallholder farmers perceived weed control to be highly competent (M = 4.59), and they perceived the need for competence in understanding the consequences of over- and under-irrigation (M = 3.72), maintenance of irrigation system (M = 3.63), and managing of irrigation systems (M = 3.61). Smallholder farmers were undecided in eight competency areas and least competent in seven competency areas. However, they felt very incompetent on a centre-pivot irrigation system (M = 1.34).
The highly competent level of weed control may be explained by the reason that numerous smallholder farmers depend on manual weed control [89]. Manual weed control is a very effective and cheap method of weed control, although it is time-consuming. It does not require much extensive knowledge [89]. However, the results disagree with the findings of [26] that reveal that under pre- and post-planting, women smallholder farmers perceived the appropriate application of herbicides and fungicides as moderately important. This explains why smallholder farmers are not highly competent in chemical weed control. Chemical weed control requires more knowledge of the calibration of herbicides. Additionally, the allocated costs of herbicides influence smallholder farmers to control weeds manually.
The results of the study by [90] reveal that there is inadequate knowledge of the strategies to save water resources and sustain irrigation systems, which therefore concurs with the findings of this study that smallholder farmers do not have a very high level of competence in maintenance and management of irrigation systems. This implies that smallholder farmers face constraints such as frequent blockages/clogging of water emitters, which causes malfunctioning and additional maintenance costs, especially with drip irrigation systems.
The findings of this study disagree with [26], whose results reveal that female farmers engaged in irrigated agriculture perceived themselves to be very competent in irrigation scheduling and irrigation frequency. This may be explained by the results shown in Table 1, which show that most smallholder farmers use a furrow irrigation method. This suggests that lack of access to effective irrigation systems, such as drip systems, hinders smallholder farmers’ competency in irrigation scheduling, resulting in more water loss. Similarly, Refs. [20,21,22] stated that smallholder farmers’ irrigated agriculture experiences more water losses due to a lack of knowledge on irrigation scheduling, utilisation of inappropriate irrigation methods, and how to operate and manage the systems.
In this study, smallholder farmers perceived themselves to be least competent in micro-sprinkler irrigation systems (M = 1.55), calibration of irrigation instruments (M = 1.80), calculations of on-farm water use efficiencies (M = 1.85), overhead sprinkler irrigation (M = 1.88), irrigation operational cost (M = 2.17), drip irrigation system (M = 2.24), and evaluation of irrigation system (M = 2.36). These results may explain why few smallholder farmers use modern irrigation systems for water management, in that only 66 (26.4%) out of the total participants use the drip irrigation method. This implies that there is a potential for greater water loss among smallholder farmers due to a lack of knowledge, skills, and effective irrigation systems. Additionally, the results explain that smallholder farmers are highly competent in practices they perceive to be highly important. The results agree with the observations of [22] that agricultural extension officers provide minimal training to smallholder farmers on irrigation water management practices. This explains why smallholder farmers are least competent in key areas of irrigation water management practices. Smallholder farmers must be urgently trained in competency areas to advance their proficiency in irrigation water management practices.

4.5. Competency Needs of Smallholder Farmers on Irrigation Water Management Practices

Borich’s procedure considers both the perceived knowledge of smallholder farmers and their perceptions of the importance of irrigation water management practices. Smallholder farmers’ perceived importance and competence levels were then ranked using the calculated mean weighted discrepancy score (MWDS), as shown in Table 2. The higher the MWDS, the greater the competency needed [43] for smallholder farmers in irrigation water management practices. The MWDS shows the competency needs of smallholder farmers to manage irrigation water sustainably. Based on the MWDS ranking, results show that the urgent areas where smallholder farmers need more competencies were drought-tolerant cultivars (MWDS = 6.83), irrigation scheduling (MWDS = 5.05), application efficiency (MWDS = 4.83), irrigation efficiency (MWDS = 4.61), soil, water and plant relationships (MWDS = 4.60), evaluation of irrigation systems (MWDS = 4.24), crop coefficient (MWDS = 4.14), and the drip irrigation system (MWDS = 4.02). Competencies with the lowest MWDS were also identified, including the micro-sprinkler irrigation system (MWDS = 0.62), overhead sprinkler irrigation (MWDS = 1.45), and centre-pivot irrigation system (MWDS = 1.55).
The results shown in Table 2 reveal a need for more competence in practices that smallholder farmers perceived as important with an ‘undecided’ competency level. Moreover, the results explain that the smallholder farmers with the least competency level mostly perceived the most important practices with the highest priority for the need for training. The higher the priority, the more the farmers need knowledge and skills in the practice. This implies that smallholder farmers prioritised training on drought-tolerant cultivars followed by irrigation scheduling and application efficiency. The results are consistent with the findings of [91] that integrating drought, heat, and combined drought and heat tolerance cultivars with reference to maize varieties had clear advantages under current and future weather conditions. Drought-tolerant cultivars have the potential to increase production [91].
The results of this study differ from that of the findings of [26], which revealed that irrigation scheduling is the fourth in-service training area (fourth priority training need) for women in irrigation farming. This may explain that, among other factors, environmental aspects vary from region to region. The results presented in Table 1 show that most of the smallholder farmers use furrow and low-tech irrigation methods, and this is consistent with Table 2 that smallholder farmers need more competence in irrigation scheduling. In concurrence with the findings of [92], results revealed that smallholder farmers sought maximum training in integrated farming systems, integrated pest and disease management, and soil and water conservation technologies. Similarly, the results of this study are consistent with the findings of [86] that 20 (100%) farmers perceived training in irrigation water management as very important. This reveals that to achieve the objective of sustainable irrigation water management, training of smallholder farmers should be within their main priority competency areas, starting from the selection of drought resistance cultivars, irrigation scheduling, and application efficiency.
Innovative irrigation water management practices and agricultural extension services are expected to enhance smallholder farmers to better adapt to increasing irrigation water stress. However, smallholder farmers were not so competent in some of the related and vital irrigation water management practices. This results in inefficient water use by smallholder farmers. There is a need to improve agricultural extension training interventions in order to improve smallholder farmers’ competency level in irrigation water management initiatives in the area. The human capital theory is centred on education and economic sectors, and asserts that the higher the education, the higher the economic return to society [26]. Smallholder farmers’ competence enhancement would generally improve the process of sustainable agricultural expansion to improve the quality of life and the economic well-being of society while preserving resources. This emphasises the need to strengthen agricultural extension systems to train smallholder farmers through both conventional (i.e., demonstration fields, economic training, and organizational training) and non-conventional (ICT, video, and mobile phone) methods [93] to enhance smallholder farmers’ competence level. Strengthening innovative irrigation water management initiatives and human resources of extension agents to promote efficient water use among smallholder farmers is imperative. This has the potential to improve smallholder farmers’ adoption decision-making process.

5. Conclusions

The study results reveal that the irrigation water management competency needs of smallholder farmers in the Nkomazi local municipality are generally high. Smallholder farmers self-evaluated their competence in most areas of irrigation water management practices as fairly low. Smallholder farmers’ competency in irrigation water management practices is deficient. The importance of advancing smallholder farmers’ competency in most irrigation water management practices is high. Most smallholder farmers use a furrow irrigation method, and this is where more water losses occur because it is difficult to schedule, resulting in surface runoff. The findings signify that there is a need to train smallholder farmers in most practices in irrigation water management so as to enhance their competency level and improve decision making. The competency needs are generally important and call for appropriate knowledge dissemination and demonstrations in most irrigation water management practices to improve irrigation water use efficiency. In all the 20 irrigation water management practices, a training curriculum has to prioritise training smallholder farmers on drought-tolerant cultivars, followed by knowledge about irrigation scheduling, application efficiency, irrigation efficiency, and knowledge of soil, water, and plant relationships.
It is recommended that the government, policymakers, and agricultural support services should embark on sustainable agricultural development planning issues and develop a relevant training programme that is informed by smallholder farmers’ competency needs. Involving smallholder farmers in planning issues may help agricultural support services to disseminate information, knowledge, and skills that are relevant to their felt competency needs. Additionally, agricultural support services need to support smallholder farmers with effective irrigation systems for successful irrigation water management. The detailed examination of the smallholder farmers’ training needs can help provide effective, relevant information that can give adequate insight to government and non-government development stakeholders on strategies to embark upon projects to enhance smallholder farmers’ irrigation water management practices and production output, ensuring results that address the needs of smallholder farmers.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.M. and J.T.N.; data collection and analysis, M.M.; M.M. wrote the first draft; supervision, J.T.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The research was funded by the Water Research Commission, South Africa; grant reference: C2020/2021-00222.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethics approval was granted by the University of Mpumalanga, Mbombela, South Africa.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

All data have been included in the manuscript.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Water Research Commission, South Africa, for funding the study. A special thanks to smallholder farmers from the Nkomazi local municipality for their participation in this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Norton, G.W.; Alwang, J.; Masters, W.A. Economics of Agricultural Development: World Food Systems and Resource Use, 4th ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2021; pp. 1–474. [Google Scholar]
  2. Pawlak, K.; Kołodziejczak, M. The role of agriculture in ensuring food security in developing countries: Considerations in the context of the problem of sustainable food production. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Cepal, N.U. The 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals: An Opportunity for Latin America and the Caribbean; United Nations: Santiago, Chile, 2018; pp. 5–59. [Google Scholar]
  4. Hager, P.; Gonczi, A. What is competence? Med. Teach. 1996, 18, 15–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Tshwene, C.; Oladele, O.I.; Ijatuyi, E.J. Analysis of competency among women in irrigation farming in the North West province, South Africa: A Borich needs model approach. Agro-Knowl. J. 2020, 21, 117–128. [Google Scholar]
  6. Mdemu, M.; Kissoly, L.; Bjornlund, H.; Kimaro, E.; Christen, E.W.; Van Rooyen, A.; Stirzaker, R.; Ramshaw, P. The role of soil water monitoring tools and agricultural innovation platforms in improving food security and income of farmers in smallholder irrigation schemes in Tanzania. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 2020, 36, S48–S170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Tselaesele, N.M.; Bagwasi, N.; Lepetu, J.; Bahta, S.; Oladele, I.O. Training needs assessment for transformation of smallholder livestock farming in Botswana. S. Afr. J. Agric. Ext. 2018, 46, 92–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Kuivanena, K.S.; Alvarez, S.; Michalschecka, M.; Adjei-Nsiahb, S.; Descheemaeker, K.; Mellon-Bedi, S.; Groot, J.C.J. Characterising the diversity of smallholder farming systems and their constraints and opportunities for innovation: A case study from the Northern Region, Ghana. NJAS Wagening. J. Life Sci. 2016, 78, 153–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hamdy, A.; Ragab, R.; Scarascia-Mugnozza, E. Coping with water scarcity, water saving and increasing water productivity. Irrig. Drain. 2003, 52, 3–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. South African Weather Service. Annual State of the Climate Summary for South Africa; South African Weather Service: Pretoria, South Africa, 2019; pp. 1–26. [Google Scholar]
  11. Van Niekerk, A.; Jarmain, C.; Goudriaan, G.; Muller, S.; Ferreira, F.; Munch, Z.; Pauw, T.; Stephenson, G.; Gibson, L. An Earth Observation Approach towards Mapping Irrigated Area and Quantifying Water Use by Irrigated Crops in South Africa; Report No TT 745/17; Water Research Commission: Pretoria, South Africa, 2018; pp. 1–190. [Google Scholar]
  12. Cousins, B. Smallholder irrigation schemes, agrarian reform and “accumulation from above and from below” in South Africa. J. Agrar. Chang. 2013, 13, 116–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Denison, J. Framework for Irrigation Development and Agricultural Water Management in Africa, African Union, Ethiopia. 2020, pp. 1–44. Available online: https://policycommons.net/artifacts/2179457/framework-for-irrigation-development-and-agricultural-water-management-in-africa/2935434/ (accessed on 9 November 2021).
  14. Fanadzo, M.; Chiduza, C.; Mnkeni, P.N.S. Overview of smallholder irrigation schemes in South Africa: Relationship between farmer crop management practices and performance. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2010, 525, 3514–3523. [Google Scholar]
  15. Fanadzo, M. Revitalisation of smallholder irrigation schemes for poverty alleviation and household food security in South Africa: A review. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2012, 7, 1956–1969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Van Averbeke, W.; Denison, J.; Mnkeni, P.N.S. Smallholder irrigation schemes in South Africa: A review of knowledge generated by the Water Research Commission. Water SA 2011, 37, 797–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Mutambara, S.; Darkoh, M.B.K.; Atlhopheng, J.R. A comparative review of water management sustainability challenges in smallholder irrigation schemes in Africa and Asia. Agric. Water Manag. 2016, 171, 63–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Collett, K.; Gale, C. Training for Rural Development: Agricultural and Enterprise Skills for Women Smallholders; City & Guilds Centre for Skills Development West Smithfield: London, UK, 2009; pp. 24–30. [Google Scholar]
  19. Dossah, B.O.; Bashir, D.; Ndahi, A.K.; Ahmed, S.D. Training Needs for Successful Development of Irrigation Scheme, towards the Millennium Development Goals. In Proceedings of the 29th WEDC International Conference, Abuja, Nigeria, 22–26 September 2003; pp. 181–184. [Google Scholar]
  20. Mati, B.M. Participatory Operation and Maintenance of Irrigation Schemes. In Training Manual 10, Nile Basin Initiative (NBI), Nile Equatorial Lakes Subsidiary Action Programme (NELSAP); Regional Agricultural and Trade Programme (RATP): Bujumbura, Burundi, 2012; pp. 1–40. [Google Scholar]
  21. Mnkeni, P.N.S.; Chiduza, C.; Modi, A.T.; Stevens, J.B.; Monde, N.; Van der Stoep, I.; Dladla, R. Best Management Practices for Smallholder Farming on Two Irrigation Schemes in the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal through Participatory Adaptive Research; Report No. TT 478/10; Water Research Commission: Pretoria, South Africa, 2010; pp. 1–358. [Google Scholar]
  22. Stevens, J.B.; Van Heerden, P.S.; Buys, F.; Laker, M.C. Training Material for Extension Advisors in Irrigation Water Management; Water Research Commission Report No. TT 539/12; Water Research Commission: Pretoria, South Africa, 2012; pp. 1–137. [Google Scholar]
  23. Myeni, L.; Moeletsi, M.; Thavhana, M.; Randela, M.; Mokoena, L. Barriers affecting sustainable agricultural productivity of smallholder farmers in the Eastern Free State of South Africa. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Etissa, E.; Dechassa, N.; Alamirew, T.; Alemayehu, Y.; Desalegne, L. Irrigation water management practices in smallholder vegetable crops production: The case of the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Sci. Technol. Arts Res. J. 2014, 3, 74–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Maponya, P.; Vente, S.L.; Du Plooy, C.P.; Modise, S.D.; Van Den Heever, E. Training challenges faced by smallholder farmers: A case of Mopani District, Limpopo Province in South Africa. J. Hum. Ecol. 2016, 56, 272–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Tshwene, S.C. Training Needs Analysis of Women in Irrigation Farming in the North West Province, South Africa. Doctoral Dissertation, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  27. Banda, J.W.; Kazembe, J.A. Livestock Sector Training Needs Assessment Report for Southern Africa; ILRI Publication Unit: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2008; pp. 1–28. [Google Scholar]
  28. Aliber, M.; Hall, R. Support for smallholder farmers in South Africa: Challenges of scale and strategy. Dev. S. Afr. 2012, 29, 548–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Oladele, I. Borich Needs Model Analysis of professional competence among extension officers in North West Province, South Africa. J. Agric. Food Inf. 2015, 16, 151–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Shabangu, R.R. Effect of Masibuyele Emasimini Agricultural Programme on Food Security at New Forest Irrigation Scheme in Bushbuckridge Municipality of Ehlanzeni District in Mpumalanga Province. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Limpopo, Limpopo, South Africa, 2015; pp. 1–122. [Google Scholar]
  31. Prokopy, L.; Bartels, W.; Burniske, G.; Power, R. Agricultural Extension and Climate Change Communication. Oxf. Res. Encycl. Clim. Sci. 2017. Available online: https://oxfordre.com/climatescience/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228620-e-429 (accessed on 26 November 2022).
  32. Baiyegunhi, L.J.S.; Majokweni, Z.P.; Ferrer, S.R.D. Impact of outsourced agricultural extension program on smallholder farmers’ net farm income in Msinga, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Technol. Soc. 2019, 57, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Raidimi, E.N.; Kabiti, H.M. A review of the role of agricultural extension and training in achieving sustainable food security: A case of South Africa. S. Afr. J. Agric. Ext. 2019, 47, 120–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Goli, I.; Azadi, H.; Miceikiene, A.; Tanaskovik, V.; Stamenkovska, I.J.; Kurban, A.; Viira, A.H. Training needs assessment: The case of female rice farmers in Northern Iran. Agriculture 2022, 12, 390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Sadighi, H.; Roosta, K. Assessing farmers’ sustainable agricultural practice needs: The case of corn growers in Fars, Iran. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2002, 4, 103–110. [Google Scholar]
  36. Ferreira, R.R.; Abbad, G. Training needs assessment: Where we are and where we should go. BAR-Braz. Adm. Rev. 2013, 10, 77–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Reinders, F.B.; Van der Stoep, I.; Backeberg, G.R. Improved efficiency of irrigation water use: A South African framework. Irrig. Drain. 2013, 62, 262–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. FAO. The State of the World’s Land and Water Resources for Food and Agriculture—Managing Systems at Risk; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome and Earthscan: London, UK, 2011; pp. 1–285. [Google Scholar]
  39. Nazari, B.; Liaghat, A.; Akbaric, M.R.; Keshavarzd, M. Irrigation water management in Iran: Implications for water use efficiency improvement. Agric. Water Manag. 2018, 208, 7–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Tong, Q.; Swallow, B.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, J. The roles of risk aversion and climate-smart agriculture in climate risk management: Evidence from rice production in the Jiangshan Plain, China. Clim. Risk Manag. 2019, 26, 100199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Fanadzo, M.; Ncube, B. Challenges and opportunities for revitalising smallholder irrigation schemes in South Africa. Water South Afr. 2018, 44, 436–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Layfield, K.D.; Dobbins, T.R. An Assessment of South Carolina Agriculture Teachers’ in-Service Needs and Perceived Competencies. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual National Agricultural Education Research Conferences, San Diego, CA, USA, 6 December 2000; pp. 572–584. [Google Scholar]
  43. Borich, G.D. A ‘Needs Assessment Model for conducting follow-up studies’. J. Teach. Educ. 1980, XXI, 39–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Alibaygi, A.; Zarafshani, K. Training needs of Iranian extension agents about sustainability: The use of Borich’s need assessment model. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2008, 3, 681–687. [Google Scholar]
  45. Garton, B.L.; Chung, N. An assessment of the in-service needs of beginning teachers of agriculture using two assessment models. J. Agric. Educ. 1997, 38, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Harder, A.; Ganpat, W.; Moore, A.; Strong, R.; Lindner, J.R. An assessment of extension officers’ self-perceived programming competencies in selected Caribbean countries. J. Int. Agric. Ext. Educ. 2013, 20, 33–46. [Google Scholar]
  47. Barrick, K.; Samy, M.M.; Roberts, T.G.; Thoron, A.C.; Easterly, R.G. Assessment of Egyptian agricultural technical school instructors’ ability to implement experiential learning activities. J. Agric. Educ. 2011, 52, 6–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lopokoiyit, M.; Onyango, C.; Kibett, J.K. Extension management competency needs of agricultural extension agents in Kenya. Mediterr. J. Soc. Sci. 2013, 4, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Mudukuti, A.E.; Miller, L. Factors related to Zimbabwe women’s educational needs in agriculture. J. Int. Agric. Ext. Educ. 2002, 9, 47–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Perez-Dlamini, M.; Mbingo, S.; Dlamini, B. Innovations needed in the Swaziland secondary school’s agriculture curriculum. J. Int. Agric. Ext. Educ. 2003, 10, 37–45. [Google Scholar]
  51. Hossein, A.; Alibaygi, A.; Ghasemi, J.; Ghambarali, R. Training needs assessment of fish farmers in Dalaho township in Kermanshah province Agahi. Int. J. Agric. Res. Rev. 2012, 2, 991–997. [Google Scholar]
  52. Harder, A.; Roberts, G.T.; Stedman, N.L.P.; Thoron, A. An Analysis of the teaching competencies of agricultural and life sciences faculty. NACTA J. 2009, 53, 49–55. [Google Scholar]
  53. Edwards, M.C.; Briers, G.E. Assessing the in-service needs of entry-phase agriculture teachers in Texas: A discrepancy model versus direct assessment. J. Agric. Educ. 1999, 40, 40–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Nkomazi Municipality IDP. Nkomazi Local Municipality Draft Integrated Development Plan (2017–2021). Available online: https://www.cogta.gov.za/cgta_2016/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Nkomazi-Municipality.pdf (accessed on 2 September 2021).
  55. Municipalities of South Africa: Geography, History & Economy. 2021. Available online: https://municipalities.co.za/overview/1144/nkomazi-local-municipality (accessed on 26 October 2021).
  56. James, P.; Woodhouse, P. Crisis and differentiation among small-scale sugar cane growers in Nkomazi, South Africa. J. S. Afr. Stud. 2017, 43, 535–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Metiso, H.; Tsvakirai, C.Z. Factors affecting small-scale sugarcane production in Nkomazi local municipality in Mpumalanga province, South Africa. S. Afr. J. Agric. Ext. 2019, 47, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Creswell, J.W.; Creswell, J.D. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 5th ed.; SAGE: New York, NY, USA; London, UK, 2017; pp. 1–267. [Google Scholar]
  59. O’Connor, H.; Gibson, N. A guide to qualitative data analysis, Pimatiziwin. A J. Aborig. Indig. Community Health 2003, 1, 62–90. [Google Scholar]
  60. Edgar, T.; Manz, D. Research methods for cyber security. In Syngress; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 3–393. [Google Scholar]
  61. Singh, A.S.; Masuku, M.B. Sampling techniques & determination of sample size in applied statistics research: An overview. Int. J. Econ. Commer. Manag. 2014, 2, 1–22. [Google Scholar]
  62. Tejada, J.J.; Punzalan, J.R.B. On the misuse of Slovin’s formula. Philipp. Stat. 2012, 61, 129–136. [Google Scholar]
  63. Rashidi, M.N.; Begum, R.A.; Mokhtar, M.; Pereira, J.J. The conduct of structured interviews as research implementation method. J. Adv. Res. Des. 2014, 1, 28–34. [Google Scholar]
  64. Mohajan, H.K. Two criteria for good measurements in research: Validity and Reliability. Ann. Spiru Haret Univ. Econ. Ser. 2017, 17, 59–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Doneen, L.D.; Westcot, D.W. Irrigation Practice and Water Management; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 1984; pp. 59–63. [Google Scholar]
  66. Olorunfemi, T.O.; Olorunfemi, O.D.; Oladele, O.I. Borich needs model analysis of extension agents’ competence on climate smart agricultural initiatives in South West Nigeria. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 2020, 26, 59–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Chartzoulakis, K.; Bertaki, M. Sustainable water management in agriculture under climate change. Agric. Agric. Sci. Procedia 2015, 4, 88–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Mati, B.M. Participatory Operation and Maintenance of Irrigation Schemes. In Training Manual 07, Nile Basin Initiative (NBI), Nile Equatorial Lakes Subsidiary Action Programme (NELSAP); Regional Agricultural and Trade Programme (RATP): Bujumbura, Burundi, 2011; pp. 1–85. [Google Scholar]
  69. Majumdar, D.K. Irrigation Water Management: Principles and Practice; PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd.: New Delhi, India, 2001; pp. 1–432. [Google Scholar]
  70. Chen, W.; Kang, Z.; Fang, X.; Li, J. Design a semantic scale for passenger perceived quality surveys of urban rail transit: Within attribute’s service condition and rider’s experience. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Elhamoly, A.I.; Koledoye, M.A.; Kamel, G.F. Assessment of training needs for Egyptian extension specialists (smss) in organic farming field: Use of the Borich Needs Model. J. Agric. Food Inf. 2014, 15, 180–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Alwarritzia, W.; Nansekib, T.; Chomei, Y. Analysis of the factors influencing the technical efficiency among oil palm smallholder farmers in Indonesia. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2014, 28, 630–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Diederen, P.; Van Meijl, H.; Wolters, A.; Bijak, K. Innovation adoption in agriculture: Innovators, early adopters and laggards. Cah. D’economie Sociol. Rural. 2003, 67, 29–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Okpachu, A.S.; Okpachu, O.G.; Obijesi, I.K. The impact of education on agricultural productivity of small-scale rural female maize farmers in Potiskum Local Government, Yobe State: A panacea for rural economic development in Nigeria. Int. J. Res. Agric. Food Sci. 2014, 2, 2–33. [Google Scholar]
  75. DCED. A Framework for the Development of Smallholder Farmers through Cooperatives Development; Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries: Pretoria, South Africa, 2012; pp. 1–8.
  76. Bos, M.G.; Kselik, R.A.L.; Allen, R.G.; Molden, D.J. Water Requirements for Irrigation and the Environment; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2009; p. 173. [Google Scholar]
  77. Apraku, A.; Morton, J.F.; Gyampoh, B.A. Climate change and small-scale agriculture in Africa: Does indigenous knowledge matter? Insights from Kenya and South Africa. Sci. Afr. 2021, 12, e00821. [Google Scholar]
  78. Holzapfel, E.A.; Leiva, C.; Marino, M.A.; Paredes, J.; Arumí, J.L.; Billi, M. Furrow irrigation management and design criteria using efficiency parameters and simulation models. Chil. J. Agric. Res. 2010, 70, 287–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Chiwa, M.; Mukumbi, K. Analysis of uptake of drip irrigation by smallholder farmers in Zimbabwe: Case study of Mutare District. RUFORUM Work. Doc. Ser. 2018, 17, 697–703. [Google Scholar]
  80. Narayanamoorthy, A.; Devika, N.; Bhattarai, M. More crop and profit per drop of water: Drip irrigation for empowering distressed small farmers. IIM Kozhikode Soc. Manag. Rev. 2016, 5, 83–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Upadhyay, B.; Samad, M.; Giordano, M. Livelihoods and Gender Roles in Drip-Irrigation Technology: A Case of Nepal. Working Paper 87, Sri Lanka, International Water Management Institute. Available online: http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/Publications/Working_Papers/working/WOR87.pdf (accessed on 18 July 2021).
  82. Smith, M.; Munoz, G.; Sanz Alvarez, J. Irrigation Techniques for Small-Scale Farmers: Key Practices for DRR Implementers. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3765e.pdf (accessed on 27 October 2021).
  83. Leavens, K.; Gugerty, M.K.; Anderson, L. Gender and Agriculture in Tanzania; University of Washington: Seattle, DC, USA, 2011; pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  84. Balarane, A.; Oladele, O.I. The impact of irrigation farming on livelihood strategies among smallholder farmers in the North West Province, South Africa. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2014, 185, 223–234. [Google Scholar]
  85. Maghrebi, M.; Noori, R.; Bhattarai, R.; Mundher Yaseen, Z.; Tang, Q.; Al-Ansari, N.; Danandeh Mehr, A.; Karbassi, A.; Omidvar, J.; Farnoush, H.; et al. Iran’s agriculture in the Anthropocene. Earth’s Future 2020, 8, e2020EF001547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Rahman, M.S.; Khatun, M.; Rahman, M.L.; Haque, S.R. Assessment of training needs on crop production for farmers in some selected areas of Bangladesh. Bangladesh J. Agric. Res. 2018, 43, 669–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Zhu, J.; Wangb, J.; DiTommasoc, A.; Zhangd, C.; Zhenga, G.; Lianga, W.; Islamb, F.; Yangb, C.; Chena, X.; Zhou, W. Weed research status, challenges, and opportunities in China. Crop Prot. 2020, 134, 104449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Abouziena, H.F.; El-Saeid, H.M.; Amin, A.B.A. Water loss by weeds: A review. Int. J. Chem-Techol. Res. 2015, 7, 323–336. [Google Scholar]
  89. Lee, N.; Thierfelder, C. Weed control under conservation agriculture in dryland smallholder farming systems of Southern Africa. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2017, 37, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Nigussie, E.; Olwalb, T.; Musumbac, G.; Tegegned, T.; Lemmae, A.; Mekuriaf, F. IoT-based irrigation management for smallholder farmers in rural Sub-Saharan Africa. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2020, 177, 86–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Tesfaye, K.; Krusemanb, G.; Cairnsc, J.E.; Zaman-Allahc, M.; Wegarya, D.; Zaidid, P.H.; Bootee, K.J.; Rahutb, D.; Erenstein, O. Potential benefits of drought and heat tolerance for adapting maize to climate change in tropical environments. Climate Risk Manag. 2018, 19, 106–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Sajeev, M.V.; Singha, A.K. Capacity building through KVKs: Training Needs Analysis of farmers of Arunachal Pradesh. Indian Res. J. Ext. Educ. 2010, 10, 83–90. [Google Scholar]
  93. Dhehibi, B.; Rudiger, U.; Moyo, H.P.; Dhraief, M.Z. Agricultural technology transfer preferences of smallholder farmers in Tunisia’s arid regions. Sustainability 2020, 12, 421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Sustainability 15 04935 g001 550
Figure 1. Nkomazi local municipality; Source [56].
Figure 1. Nkomazi local municipality; Source [56].
Sustainability 15 04935 g001
Table
Table 1. Smallholder farmers’ demographic characteristics (n = 250).
Table 1. Smallholder farmers’ demographic characteristics (n = 250).
FrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative Percent
Education levelNo school5421.621.621.6
Primary4518.018.039.6
Secondary6224.824.864.4
Matriculated4819.219.283.6
Agriculture certificate208.08.091.6
Diploma145.65.697.2
Degree72.82.8100.0
Total250100.0100.0
Irrigation methodsFlood41.61.61.6
Sprinkler5020.020.021.6
Drip6626.426.448.0
Furrow8935.635.683.6
Centre pivot0000
Other4116.416.4100.0
Total250100.0100.0
Table
Table 2. Smallholder farmers perceived competency needs on irrigation water management practices (n = 250).
Table 2. Smallholder farmers perceived competency needs on irrigation water management practices (n = 250).
Irrigation Water Management PracticesPerceived ImportancePerceived CompetenceCompetency Needs
Mean(SD)Mean(SD)MWDSRanks
Drought tolerant cultivars4.27(0.96)2.67(1.38)6.831st
Irrigation scheduling4.44(0.73)3.29(1.26)5.052nd
Application efficiency4.19(0.98)3.04(1.19)4.833rd
Irrigation efficiency4.16(0.93)3.06(1.20)4.614th
Soil, water, and plant relationships4.27(0.83)3.19(1.27)4.605th
Evaluation of irrigation systems3.56(1.43)2.36(1.42)4.246th
Crop coefficient4.24(0.87)3.27(1.27)4.147th
Drip irrigation system3.42(1.82)2.24(1.47)4.028th
Calculations of on-farm water use
efficiencies		3.10(1.51)1.85(1.13)3.889th
Soil moisture conservation techniques3.60(1.32)2.62(1.37)3.5310th
Understanding the consequences of over- and under-irrigation4.48(0.74)3.72(1.13)3.4211th
Calibration of irrigation instruments2.94(1.51)1.80(1.07)3.3512th
Maintenance of irrigation system4.36(0.94)3.63(1.12)3.1713th
Rainwater harvesting3.47(1.69)2.60(1.43)3.0114th
Managing of irrigation system4.30(0.92)3.61(1.09)2.9915th
Irrigation operational costs3.131.462.17(1.28)2.9916th
Weed control4.90(0.38)4.59(0.75)2.5517th
Centre-pivot irrigation system2.08(1.49)1.34(0.83)1.5518th
Overhead sprinkler irrigation2.46(1.50)1.88(1.16)1.4519th
Micro sprinkler irrigation system1.88(1.20)1.55(0.93)0.6220th
Note: MWDS: mean weighted discrepancy scores.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mabuza, M.; Ndoro, J.T. Borich’s Needs Model Analysis of Smallholder Farmers’ Competence in Irrigation Water Management: Case Study of Nkomazi Local Municipality, Mpumalanga Province in South Africa. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4935. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15064935

AMA Style

Mabuza M, Ndoro JT. Borich’s Needs Model Analysis of Smallholder Farmers’ Competence in Irrigation Water Management: Case Study of Nkomazi Local Municipality, Mpumalanga Province in South Africa. Sustainability. 2023; 15(6):4935. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15064935

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mabuza, Mfanufikile, and Jorine T. Ndoro. 2023. "Borich’s Needs Model Analysis of Smallholder Farmers’ Competence in Irrigation Water Management: Case Study of Nkomazi Local Municipality, Mpumalanga Province in South Africa" Sustainability 15, no. 6: 4935. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15064935

APA Style

Mabuza, M., & Ndoro, J. T. (2023). Borich’s Needs Model Analysis of Smallholder Farmers’ Competence in Irrigation Water Management: Case Study of Nkomazi Local Municipality, Mpumalanga Province in South Africa. Sustainability, 15(6), 4935. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15064935

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop