Bonilla-Findji O, Eitzinger A, Andrieu N, Bejarano G, Hossain E, Agarwal T, Bhusal A, Khatri- Cheetri A, Nagpal M, Pudasaini R. 2019. SA 2018 Monitoring Summary -CSA Adoption and perceived effects.
Socio economics
Total Households covered by the Monitoring
Total heads of household 152
Male-headed households Female-headed
households
94% 6%
Average household size
Average of children under 11 years old per household
Average of people between 12 and 17 years old per household
Average of people between 18 and 29 years old per household
Average of people between 30 and 59 years old per household
Average of over 60 years per household
Average household members participating in agricultural activities
Average farm productive area
Main source of household income
Income impact sources
% of de households whose agricultural income was affected by a climate related event
Climate related events that affecetd agricultural incomes Heavy rains 96%
Adoption of CSA practices
Total  #
Total Households Adopting a CSA practice 86
Total male farmers adopting a CSA practice (vs total men) 81
Total female farmers adopting a CSA practice (vs total females) 80
Male-headed households adopting a CSA practice 81
Female-headed households adopting a CSA practice 5
Male and Female-headed households adopting specific CSA practices
Percentage of Male-headed
households  (N =143)
Percentage of Male-
headed households   (N =9)
# of Households
(N=152)
# of Male-headed
households  (N =143)
#  of Male-
headed
households   (N
=9)
Vegetable tower 32% 11% 47 46 1
Fish microhabitat 44% 44% 67 63 4
 Homestead pond 20% 11% 30 29 1
Male or Female adopting specific CSA practices # of Male (N =146) # of female  (N =143)
Vegetable tower 48 46
Fish microhabitat 64 60
 Homestead pond 29 33
Impacts of CSA practices
Perceived effect on production Increase No effect Decrease Can't say (too new) N
Male 100% 0% 0% 0% 48
Female 100% 0% 0% 0% 47
Perceived effect on additional income generation Frequency (%) N
23%
CSA practices addressed in the CSV monitoring
57%
Households (N=152)
Adoption of CSA specific practices
143
 Homestead pond
0.59
1.68
145.01 in decimal
0.47
1.97
On-farm activities  55%  of households and Off-farm activities (general) 45% of households
92% 152
Frequency (%) N
140
57% 152
NFrequency (%)
Vegetable tower
Fish microhabitat
56%
4.9
146
143
31%
Male (N =146)
20%
44%
33%
55%
56%
Female (N =143)
32%
1.11
0.7
9
42%
Practice 1: Vegetable tower
44%
20%
% of households male/female-headed
Barisal
150
1
Bonilla-Findji O, Eitzinger A, Andrieu N, Bejarano G, Hossain E, Agarwal T, Bhusal A, Khatri- Cheetri A, Nagpal M, Pudasaini R. 2019. SA 2018 Monitoring Summary -CSA Adoption and perceived effects.
Male
Female
Perceived effect on improved food security
Male
Female
Perceived effect on increased food diversity
Male
Female
Perceived effect on decreasing climate related vulnerability
Male
Female
Perception on who does most of the work related to the CSA practice implementation Did not participate at all Helped Did most Contributed equally N
Male 0% 0% 6% 94% 48
Female 0% 0% 6% 94% 47
Perceived effect on labour time related to the practice implementation Increased labour time No effect Decreased labour time N
Male 100% 0% 0% 59
Female 100% 0% 0% 21
Perceived effect on participation and access/control over income generated through the practice
Male
Female
Perceived effect on participation in the decision to implement the practice Individual decision Joined decision Not involved in decision N
Male 0% 100% 0% 48
Female 0% 100% 0% 47
Perceived effect on participation in the decision to stop implementing the practice
Male
Female
Perceived effect on production Increase No effect Decrease Can't say (too new) N
Male 100% 0% 0% 0% 59
Female 100% 0% 0% 0% 21
Perceived effect on additional income generation
Male
Female
Perceived effect on improved food security
Male
Female
Perceived effect on increased food diversity
Male
Female
Perceived effect on decreasing climate related vulnerability
Male
Female
Perception on who does most of the work related to the CSA practice implementation Did not participate at all Helped Did most Contributed equally I hired labor N
Male 0% 0% 72% 20% 8% 64
Female 65% 7% 5% 23% 0% 60
Perceived effect on labour time related to the practice implementation Increased labour time No effect Decreased labour time I hired labor N
Male 81% 17% 0% 2% 59
Female 81% 14% 5% 0% 21
Perceived effect on participation and access/control over income generated through the practice
Male
63%
Frequency (%)
100%
Frequency (%)
100%
96% 48
Frequency (%)
100%
100%
48
98% 47
47
48
NFrequency (%)
100%
N
100%
Frequency (%)
NFrequency (%)
98% 48
59
NFrequency (%)
100%
21
59
N
N
21
59
N
59
Frequency (%)
94% 47
N
47
21
48
47
N
59
N
0
0
100%
Frequency (%)
100%
100%
0%
0%
Practice 2:  Fish microhabitat
100%
21
76%
98%
Frequency (%)
95%
2
Bonilla-Findji O, Eitzinger A, Andrieu N, Bejarano G, Hossain E, Agarwal T, Bhusal A, Khatri- Cheetri A, Nagpal M, Pudasaini R. 2019. SA 2018 Monitoring Summary -CSA Adoption and perceived effects.
Female
Perceived effect on participation in the decision to implement the practice Individual decision Joined decision Not involved in decision N
Male 58% 42% 0% 64
Female 2% 37% 62% 60
Perceived effect on participation in the decision to stop implementing the practice
Male
Female
Perceived effect on production Increase No effect Decrease Can't say (too new) N
Male 55% 34% 3% 7% 29
Female 56% 33% 4% 7% 27
Perceived effect on additional income generation
Male
Female
Perceived effect on improved food security
Male
Female
Perceived effect on increased food diversity
Male
Female
Perceived effect on decreasing climate related vulnerability
Male
Female
Perception on who does most of the work related to the CSA practice implementation Did not participate at all Helped Did most Contributed equally N
Male 6% 0% 23% 71% 31
Female 21% 12% 3% 65% 34
Perceived effect on labour time related to the practice implementation Increased labour time No effect Decreased labour time N
Male 62% 24% 14% 29
Female 70% 26% 4% 27
Perceived effect on participation and access/control over income generated through the practice
Male
Female
Perceived effect on participation in the decision to implement the practice Individual decision Joined decision Not involved in decision N
Male 29% 68% 3% 31
Female 3% 68% 29% 34
Perceived effect on participation in the decision to stop implementing the practice
Male
Female
0
0%
Practice 3:  Homestead pond
0%
Frequency (%)
78%
59% 29
27
N
29
27
90%
N
55%
Frequency (%)
Frequency (%)
21
Frequency (%)
48%
59%
52%
N
95%
100%
Frequency (%)
0%
0%
N
0
0
18
19
70%
0
N
27
55% 29
Frequency (%) N
29
27
Frequency (%) N
3
Bonilla-Findji O, Eitzinger A, Andrieu N, Bejarano G, Hossain E, Agarwal T, Bhusal A, Khatri- Cheetri A, Nagpal M, Pudasaini R. 2019. SA 2018 Monitoring Summary -CSA Adoption and perceived effects.
Socio economics
Total Households covered by the Monitoring
Total heads of household 148
Male-headed households Female-headed
households
93% 7%
Average household size
Average of children under 11 years old per household
Average of people between 12 and 17 years old per household
Average of people between 18 and 29 years old per household
Average of people between 30 and 59 years old per household
Average of over 60 years per household
Average household members participating in agricultural activities
Average farm productive area
Main source of household income
Income impact sources
% of de households whose agricultural income was affected by a climate related event
Climate related events that affecetd agricultural incomes Mucha lluvia 80%
Adoption of CSA practices
# of households
Total Households Adopting a CSA practice 81
Total male farmers adopting a CSA practice (vs total men) 77
Total female farmers adopting a CSA practice (vs total females) 76
Male-headed households adopting a CSA practice 78
Female-headed households adopting a CSA practice 3
Male and Female-headed households adopting specific CSA practices Percentage of Male-headedhouseholds  (N =138)
Percentage of Male-headed
households   (N =10) # of households (N=148)
# of Male-headed
households  (N =138)
# of Male-
headed
households   (N
=10)
Vegetable tower 43% 30% 63 60 3
Rainwater harvest 16% 0% 22 22 0
Fish species composition suitability 19% 0% 26 26 0
Male or Female adopting specific CSA practices # of Male (N =141) # of  Female (N =146)
Vegetable tower 60 59
Rainwater harvest 23 16
Fish species composition suitability 26 22
Impacts of CSA practices
Perceived effect on production Increase No effect Decrease Can't say (too new) N
Male 100% 0% 0% 0% 59
Female 100% 0% 0% 0% 57
Perceived effect on additional income generation
Male
Female
Male (N =141)
43%
18%
15%
14892%
18%
Fish species composition suitability
134
15%
N
30%
Households (N=148)
40%
Frequency (%)
On-farm activities 76% and Off-farm activities (general) 24% of households
% of households male/female-headed
Khulna
147
Rainwater harvest
Vegetable tower
CSA practices addressed in the CSV monitoring
52%
55%
N
55% 148
Frequency (%)
10
138
Adoption of CSA specific practices
57%
Female (N =146)
0.8
Practice 1: Vegetable tower
11%16%
42%
146
141
0.63
5.1
107.12  in decimal
1.75
0.66
2.09
1
Frequency (%) N
100%
5796%
59
4
Bonilla-Findji O, Eitzinger A, Andrieu N, Bejarano G, Hossain E, Agarwal T, Bhusal A, Khatri- Cheetri A, Nagpal M, Pudasaini R. 2019. SA 2018 Monitoring Summary -CSA Adoption and perceived effects.
Perceived effect on improved food security
Male
Female
Perceived effect on increased food diversity
Male
Female
Perceived effect on decreasing climate related vulnerability
Male
Female
Perception on who does most of the work related to the CSA practice implementation Did not participate at all Helped Did most Hired labor Contributed equally N
Male 0% 3% 3% 2% 92% 60
Female 0% 2% 12% 2% 84% 58
Perceived effect on labour time related to the practice implementation Increased labour time No effect Decreased labour time Hired labor N
Male 97% 3% 0% 0% 59
Female 98% 2% 0% 0% 57
Perceived effect on participation and access/control over income generated through the practice
Male
Female
Perceived effect on participation in the decision to implement the practice
Individual decision Joined decision Not involved in decision N
Male 2% 98% 0% 60
Female 3% 97% 0% 58
Perceived effect on participation in the decision to stop implementing the practice
Male
Female
Perceived effect on production Increase No effect Decrease Can't say (too new) N
Male 91% 9% 0% 0% 23
Female 94% 6% 0% 0% 16
Perceived effect on additional income generation
Male
Female
Perceived effect on improved food security
Male
Female
Perceived effect on increased food diversity
Male
Female
Perceived effect on decreasing climate related vulnerability
Male
Female
Perception on who does most of the work related to the CSA practice implementation Did not participate at all Helped Did most Contributed equally Hired labor N
Male 0% 0% 17% 83% 0% 23
Female 0% 6% 0% 94% 0% 16
Perceived effect on labour time related to the practice implementation
Increased labour time No effect Decreased labour time Hired labor N
Male 52% 43% 4% 0% 23
Female 63% 38% 0% 0% 16
Perceived effect on participation and access/control over income generated through the practice
Male
Female
Perceived effect on participation in the decision to implement the practice Individual decision Joined decision Not involved in decision N
Male 13% 87% 0% 23
Female 13% 81% 6% 16
Perceived effect on participation in the decision to stop implementing the practice
Male
Female
23
81% 16
48%
Frequency (%) N
Frequency (%)
100%
0%
Frequency (%)
97% 59
Frequency (%) N
5992%
5796%
0
N
23
Frequency (%)
88% 16
23
88%
74%
83%
78%
Frequency (%)
Practice 2:  Fish microhabitat
NFrequency (%)
NFrequency (%)
0
0
23
16
0
0%
0%
59
N
100%
Frequency (%)
95%
57
84%
16
N
N
19
14
69%
Frequency (%)
100%
0%
92% 59
NFrequency (%)
57
N
88%
N
57
5
Bonilla-Findji O, Eitzinger A, Andrieu N, Bejarano G, Hossain E, Agarwal T, Bhusal A, Khatri- Cheetri A, Nagpal M, Pudasaini R. 2019. SA 2018 Monitoring Summary -CSA Adoption and perceived effects.
Perceived effect on production Increase No effect Decrease Can't say (too new) N
Male 88% 0% 12% 0% 26
Female 87% 0% 13% 0% 23
Perceived effect on additional income generation
Male
Female
Perceived effect on improved food security
Male
Female
Perceived effect on increased food diversity
Male
Female
Perceived effect on decreasing climate related vulnerability
Male
Female
Perception on who does most of the work related to the CSA practice implementation
Did not participate at all Helped Did most Hired labor Contributed equally N
Male 0% 0% 31% 0% 69% 26
Female 0% 17% 0% 0% 83% 23
Perceived effect on labour time related to the practice implementation Increased labour time No effect Decreased labour time N
Male 81% 19% 0% 26
Female 78% 22% 0% 23
Perceived effect on participation and access/control over income generated through the practice
Male
Female
Perceived effect on participation in the decision to implement the practice Individual decision Joined decision Not involved in decision N
Male 23% 77% 0% 26
Female 4% 78% 17% 23
Perceived effect on participation in the decision to stop implementing the practice
Male
Female
Frequency (%)
2391%
96%
Frequency (%)
Practice 3:  Homestead pond
Frequency (%) N
Frequency (%)
0%
0%
Frequency (%) N
2396%
0
N
25100%
0
Frequency (%) N
2692%
96%
91%
92%
23
N
26
23
N
26
26
23
96%
96%
6
Bonilla-Findji O, Eitzinger A, Andrieu N, Bejarano G, Hossain E, Agarwal T, Bhusal A, Khatri- Cheetri A, Nagpal M, Pudasaini R. 2019. SA 2018 Monitoring Summary -CSA Adoption and perceived effects.
Socio economics
Total Households covered by the Monitoring
Total heads of household 138
Male-headed households Female-headed
households
74% 26%
Average household size
Average of children under 11 years old per household
Average of people between 12 and 17 years old per household
Average of people between 18 and 29 years old per household
Average of people between 30 and 59 years old per household
Average of over 60 years per household
Average household members participating in agricultural activities
Average farm productive area
Main source of household income
Income impact sources
% of de households whose agricultural income was affected by a climate related event
Heat waves 0%
Droughts 55%
Irregular rains 58%
Low temperatures 45%
Adoption of CSA practices
# of Households
Total Households Adopting a CSA practice 103
Total male farmers adopting a CSA practice (vs total men) 85
Total female farmers adopting a CSA practice (vs total females) 94
Male-headed households adopting a CSA practice 74
Female-headed households adopting a CSA practice 29
Male and Female-headed households adopting specific CSA practices
Percentage of Male-
headed households  (N
=101)
Percentage of Female-headed
households (N =35) # of Households (N=136)
# of Male-headed
households  (N
=101)
# of Female-
headed
households (N
=35)
Cattle shed and manure improvement 25% 14% 30 25 5
 Improved maize seeds (high yielding) 48% 47% 64 48 17
Improved rice seeds (high yielding + drought tolerance) 31% 19% 38 31 7
Minimum or Zero Tillage 5% 6% 7 5 2
System of Rice Intensification (SRI) 5% 0% 5 5 0
Solar-based irrigation + vegetable production 28% 28% 38 28 10
Male or Female adopting specific CSA practices # of Male  (N =118) # of  Female (N
=132)
Cattle shed and manure improvement 26 28
 Improved maize seeds (high yielding) 59 61
Improved rice seeds (high yielding + drought tolerance) 35 33
Minimum or Zero Tillage 5 7
System of Rice Intensification (SRI) 5 4
Solar-based irrigation + vegetable production 30 33
Nawalparasi
143
5.3
% of households male/female-headed
2.53
2.09
2
138
N
Remittance or External aid 73% of households
1.51
14.04 in kattha
25%
4%
4%
30%
50%
3%
25%
5%
1.03
4%
28%
5%
22%
28%
Male  (N =118)
46%
21%
25%
Female (N =132)
47%
22%
120
132
73%
71%
102
71%
81%
Households (N=136)
Adoption of CSA specific practices
36
31
31
31
75% 138
Minimum or Zero Tillage
System of Rice Intensification (SRI)
Improved maize seeds (high yielding)
Improved rice seeds (high yielding + drought tolerance)
31
Climate related events that affecetd agricultural incomes
CSA practices addressed in the CSV monitoring
2.66
NFrequency  (%)
Solar-based irrigation + vegetable production
Cattle shed and manure improvement
Frequency  (%)
23%
7
Bonilla-Findji O, Eitzinger A, Andrieu N, Bejarano G, Hossain E, Agarwal T, Bhusal A, Khatri- Cheetri A, Nagpal M, Pudasaini R. 2019. SA 2018 Monitoring Summary -CSA Adoption and perceived effects.
Impacts of CSA practices
Perceived effect on production Increase No effect Decrease Can't say (too new) N
Male 48% 44% 0% 8% 25
Female 61% 36% 0% 4% 28
Perceived effect on additional income generation
Male
Female
Perceived effect on improved food security
Male
Female
Perceived effect on increased food diversity
Male
Female
Perceived effect on decreasing climate related vulnerability
Male
Female
Perception on who does most of the work related to the CSA practice implementation Did not participate at all Helped Did most Contributed equally N
Male 4% 15% 15% 65% 26
Female 0% 7% 11% 82% 28
Perceived effect on labour time related to the practice implementation Increased labour time No effect Decreased labour time N
Male 0% 0% 100% 25
Female 0% 7% 93% 28
Perceived effect on participation and access/control over income generated through the practice
Male
Female
Perceived effect on participation in the decision to implement the practice Individual decision Joined decision Not involved in decision N
Male 15% 85% 0% 26
Female 0% 96% 4% 28
Perceived effect on participation in the decision to stop implementing the practice
Male
Female
Perceived effect on production Increase No effect Decrease Can't say (too new) N
Male 97% 0% 0% 3% 58
Female 93% 3% 2% 2% 61
Perceived effect on additional income generation
Male
Female
Perceived effect on improved food security
Male
Female
Perceived effect on increased food diversity
Male
Female
Perceived effect on decreasing climate related vulnerability
Male
Female
Perception on who does most of the work related to the CSA practice implementation Did not participate at all Helped Did most Contributed equally N
Male 2% 14% 15% 69% 59
Female 0% 5% 23% 72% 61
Perceived effect on labour time related to the practice implementation
Increased labour time No effect Decreased labour time N
Male 40% 46% 14% 58
Female 56% 36% 8% 61
Perceived effect on participation and access/control over income generated through the practice
Male
Female
Perceived effect on participation in the decision to implement the practice Individual decision Joined decision Not involved in decision N
Male 20% 80% 0% 59
Female 10% 80% 10% 61
100%
100%
Frequency  (%)
92%
46%
93%
Practice 2:  Improved maize seeds (high yielding)
Frequency  (%)
52%
53%
Frequency  (%)
Frequency  (%)
13
18
28
5
N
61
58
N
28
N
80%
100%
43%
26%
Frequency  (%)
6
N
Frequency  (%) N
58
61
N
31
3288%
97%
61
58
36%
62%
56%
48%
Frequency  (%)
61
58
N
25
Frequency  (%)
Frequency  (%)
Frequency  (%)
25
N
2552%
Practice 1: Cattle shed and manure improvement
Frequency  (%) N
52%
64%
N
28
48%
43% 28
25
N
8
Bonilla-Findji O, Eitzinger A, Andrieu N, Bejarano G, Hossain E, Agarwal T, Bhusal A, Khatri- Cheetri A, Nagpal M, Pudasaini R. 2019. SA 2018 Monitoring Summary -CSA Adoption and perceived effects.
Perceived effect on participation in the decision to stop implementing the practice
Male
Female
Perceived effect on production Increase No effect Decrease Can't say (too new) N
Male 71% 18% 6% 6%                                                 34
Female 70% 24% 6% 0%                                                 33
Perceived effect on additional income generation
Male
Female
Perceived effect on improved food security
Male
Female
Perceived effect on increased food diversity
Male
Female
Perceived effect on decreasing climate related vulnerability
Male
Female
Perception on who does most of the work related to the CSA practice implementation Did not participate at all Helped Did most Contributed equally N
Male 6% 19% 6% 69% 36
Female 0% 3% 18% 79% 33
Perceived effect on labour time related to the practice implementation Increased labour time No effect Decreased labour time N
Male 3% 82% 15% 34
Female 3% 91% 6% 33
Perceived effect on participation and access/control over income generated through the practice
Male
Female
Perceived effect on participation in the decision to implement the practice Individual decision Joined decision Not involved in decision N
Male 19% 69% 11% 36
Female 18% 76% 6% 33
Perceived effect on participation in the decision to stop implementing the practice
Male
Female
Practice 4: Minimum or Zero Tillage
Perceived effect on production Increase No effect Decrease Can't say (too new) N
Male 40% 40% 0% 20% 5
Female 71% 14% 0% 14% 7
Perceived effect on additional income generation
Male
Female
Perceived effect on improved food security
Male
Female
Perceived effect on increased food diversity
Male
Female
Perceived effect on decreasing climate related vulnerability
Male
Female
Perception on who does most of the work related to the CSA practice implementation Did not participate at all Helped Did most Contributed equally N
Male 0% 0% 20% 80% 5
Female 0% 0% 14% 86% 7
Perceived effect on labour time related to the practice implementation Increased labour time No effect Decreased labour time N
Male 0% 20% 80% 5
Female 14% 14% 71% 7
Perceived effect on participation and access/control over income generated through the practice
Male
Female
Frequency  (%)
Practice 3:  Improved rice seeds (high yielding + drought tolerance)
N
NFrequency  (%)
96%
22
24
91%
N
33
34
33
34
Frequency  (%)
52%
Frequency  (%)
59%
48%
41%
39%
Frequency  (%)
34
N
74%
N
62%
Frequency  (%) N
Frequency  (%)
N
5
Frequency  (%)
N
7
100% 14
34
33
64% 33
7
N
100%
96%
Frecuency (%)
5
N
5
7
13
80%
Frequency  (%)
43%
89%
43%
60%
43%
80%
Frequency  (%)
N
27
27
3
3
N
33%
100%
Frequency  (%)
7
560%
57%
9
Bonilla-Findji O, Eitzinger A, Andrieu N, Bejarano G, Hossain E, Agarwal T, Bhusal A, Khatri- Cheetri A, Nagpal M, Pudasaini R. 2019. SA 2018 Monitoring Summary -CSA Adoption and perceived effects.
Perceived effect on participation in the decision to implement the practice Individual decision Joined decision Not involved in decision N
Male 20% 80% 0% 5
Female 0% 86% 14% 7
Perceived effect on participation in the decision to stop implementing the practice
Male
Female
Perceived effect on production Increase No effect Decrease Can't say (too new) N
Male 100% 0% 0% 0% 5
Female 100% 0% 0% 0% 4
Perceived effect on additional income generation
Male
Female
Perceived effect on improved food security
Male
Female
Perceived effect on increased food diversity
Male
Female
Perceived effect on decreasing climate related vulnerability
Male
Female
Perception on who does most of the work related to the CSA practice implementation Did not participate at all Helped Did most Contributed equally N
Male 0% 0% 60% 40% 5
Female 0% 50% 0% 50% 4
Perceived effect on labour time related to the practice implementation Increased labour time No effect Decreased labour time N
Male 80% 20% 0% 5
Female 75% 25% 0% 4
Perceived effect on participation and access/control over income generated through the practice
Male
Female
Perceived effect on participation in the decision to implement the practice Individual decision Joined decision Not involved in decision N
Male 60% 40% 0% 5
Female 0% 75% 25% 4
Perceived effect on participation in the decision to stop implementing the practice
Male
Female
Perceived effect on production Increase No effect Decrease Can't say (too new) N
Male 97% 0% 3% 0% 32
Female 97% 0% 3% 0% 29
Perceived effect on additional income generation
Male
Female
Perceived effect on improved food security
Male
Female
Perceived effect on increased food diversity
Male
Female
Perceived effect on decreasing climate related vulnerability
Male
Female
Perception on who does most of the work related to the CSA practice implementation Did not participate at all Helped Did most Contributed equally N
Male 0% 22% 38% 41% 32
Female 12% 12% 24% 52% 33
Perceived effect on labour time related to the practice implementation Increased labour time No effect Decreased labour time N
Male 0% 3% 97% 32
Female 3% 17% 79% 29
Practice 5: System of Rice Intensification (SRI)
9
11
100%
91%
NFrequency  (%)
Frequency  (%)
100%
50%
Frequency  (%)
40%
450%
5
N
N
5
NFrequency  (%)
Frequency  (%)
29
29
94%
4
4
N
5
Frequency  (%)
5
50%
80%
4
100%
100%
50%
100%
N
93%
100%
Frequency  (%)
Frequency  (%)
83%
N
16
Frequency  (%)
14
N
32
N
32
N
Practice 6: Solar-based irrigation + vegetable production
66%
81%
75%
29
32
N
29
32
88%
97%
Frequency  (%)
2
2
91%
Frequency  (%)
10
Bonilla-Findji O, Eitzinger A, Andrieu N, Bejarano G, Hossain E, Agarwal T, Bhusal A, Khatri- Cheetri A, Nagpal M, Pudasaini R. 2019. SA 2018 Monitoring Summary -CSA Adoption and perceived effects.
Perceived effect on participation and access/control over income generated through the practice
Male
Female
Perceived effect on participation in the decision to implement the practice Individual decision Joined decision Not involved in decision N
Male 19% 81% 0% 32
Female 6% 88% 6% 33
Perceived effect on participation in the decision to stop implementing the practice
Male
Female
Frequency  (%)
0%
0% 0
0
N
92% 24
Frequency  (%)
96%
N
26
11