CONTEXT

Typologies are widely used to tailor management practices to structural farm households, and to identify recommendation domains. However, it has often been shown that the recommendations are not followed by farmers, especially in the agricultural context of sub-Saharan Africa.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to identify links between a typology based on the structure of farm households and a typology based on farmers' management practices adopted by farmers in the Sudano-Sahelian zone of Burkina Faso.

METHODS

We co-developed socio-economic and technical survey with agronomists and socio-economists and collected data on 291 smallholder farming households. We used principal component analysis, followed by hierarchical clustering to build two typologies: a farm household typology and a farm management typology and analyzed the link between the two.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Our typologies distinguished 4 types of farm households and 3 types of farm management. Although we expected to find a dominant farm management type for each type of farm household, we show that the use of the typology is not sufficient to disentangle the intra-diversity of farm household types, as, except for large-scale cotton producers, of whom 94% fall in the mineral input user category, all the farmers do not use the same set of management practices. For instance, 29.5% of medium-scale cotton-based farm types do not match the “mineral input users” type, but are characterized by their use of mulch and cereal-legume crop rotation. Based on our empirical data, we show that promoting a basket of options (a set of management practices) based on a typology of farm household structure may not always be appropriate. Moving from theory (i.e. use of typology to define ‘best fit’) to practice (i.e. collecting data on actual agricultural practices), we show that using a combined typology approach will reveal matches and mismatches when practices are tailored to a given farm type.

SIGNIFICANCE

In addition to using a farm household typology to tailor practices, we also define a limited set of locally relevant variables that are representative of the diversity of farmers' practices.

中文翻译：

---

根据苏丹-萨赫勒布基纳法索小农家庭的结构调整管理实践：来自当前实践的证据

语境

类型学被广泛​​用于为结构性农户量身定制管理实践，并确定推荐领域。然而，经常表明农民没有遵循这些建议，特别是在撒哈拉以南非洲的农业背景下。

客观的

我们旨在确定基于农户结构的类型学与基于布基纳法索苏丹-萨赫勒地区农民采用的农民管理实践的类型学之间的联系。

方法

我们与农学家和社会经济学家共同开展了社会经济和技术调查，并收集了 291 个小农户的数据。我们使用主成分分析，然后进行层次聚类来构建两种类型：农户类型和农场管理类型，并分析两者之间的联系。

结果和结论

我们的类型区分了 4 种农户类型和 3 种农场管理类型。尽管我们希望为每种类型的农户找到一种占主导地位的农场管理类型，但我们表明，使用该类型学不足以解开农户类型的内部多样性，因为除了大型棉花生产商之外，其中 94% 属于矿物投入用户类别，所有农民不使用相同的一套管理方法。例如，29.5% 的中型棉花农场类型与“矿物投入用户”类型不匹配，但其特点是使用覆盖物和谷类作物轮作。根据我们的经验数据，我们表明，基于农户结构类型推广一篮子选项（一套管理实践）可能并不总是合适的。从理论出发（即

意义

除了使用农户类型来定制实践之外，我们还定义了一组有限的本地相关变量，这些变量代表了农民实践的多样性。