Table 6 Farmers’ perceptions about government input support on Aus rice production (% of farmers).
Statements | Farmers’ categories | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Supported (n = 60) | Non-supported (n = 60) | |||||
Agree | Neutral | Disagree | Agree | Neutral | Disagree | |
Diversified food production is increased | 58.3 | 11.7 | 30.0 | 40.0 | 35.0 | 25.0 |
Nutritional security of the family members is assured | 48.3 | 30.0 | 21.7 | 53.3 | 20.0 | 26.7 |
Farmers income can be increased | 85.0 | 5.0 | 10.0 | 80.0 | 6.7 | 13.3 |
Farmers may not be helped through this programme in short duration | 28.3 | 16.7 | 55.0 | 36.7 | 23.3 | 40.0 |
Poor landless farmers can get support from the government | 75.0 | 3.3 | 21.7 | 81.7 | 10.0 | 8.3 |
Farmers can get quality seed from the government | 45.0 | 18.3 | 36.7 | 51.7 | 28.3 | 20.0 |
Support given by the government is not necessary to be paid back | 90.0 | 6.7 | 3.3 | 83.3 | 10.0 | 6.7 |
Political affiliation is required to get input support from the government | 70.0 | 21.7 | 8.3 | 86.7 | 8.3 | 5.0 |
Income generation from non-farming activities is not included in the approach | 48.3 | 26.7 | 25.0 | 48.3 | 20.0 | 31.7 |
Field level government and non-government organizations motivate the famers to adopt the programme | 33.3 | 20.0 | 46.7 | 36.7 | 28.3 | 35.0 |