الفهرس 
الباب الاوليوجد فقط 14 صفحة متاحة للعرض العام
 |  | from | 196 |  |  |
| | | from | 196 | | |
المستخلص
”SUMMARY”
The achievement of the fair and permanent development
is the greatest challenge that faces the society and the essential
task for development is making the changes that will enable the
individuals of society to make use of their capabilities and
improve their economical, social and cultural levels.
Because of the importance of the agricultural sector in
development, many institution are envolved in developing the
agriculture and the sector, of which the agricultural extension is
one of the most important organizations that contributes in
developing agriculture and improving the settingsor the rural
individuals.
Hence, that the agricultural extension depends on making
people participation in projects and agricultural extension
programs for making behavioral changes in their knowledge
skills and Attudes.
The effective and the well-built extension woke depends
on two main categories in Diffusing it’s recommendations
among farmers and for achieving it’s goals, the first category is
the professional leaders for their career and their knowledge of
the agricultural policy and the possibilities and the funds. The
other category is, the rural local leaders, that their contribution
presents the utmost necessity, for their influence on individuals
in the local society, their ability to help the farmers to identify
their goals, help them to achieve it, to improve their relationship
with the extension staff, contribute in diffussing their modern
ideas and persuade them of their importance.
==================81/A4114,4RY
Because of the difficulty facing the agricultural extension
agents to contact all the farmers directly and influencing on
them and because of the limited number of the agricultural
extension agents in a village, there must be a recourse of the
local rural leaders to help in planning and applying the extension
programs to lit their needs and (heir real problems.
Because of the importance oldie rural local leaders’ role
in achieving the extension activites through the tasks in which
the extension stall involved. so (heir contribution in the
extension activities is considered one of the important means
which enhance the effectiveness of the extension work, leaders
contribution in these activities depends on mane, variables
which differs according to the recognition of the society and all
these variables may affect the conributyion of those local leaders
in the agricultural extension activities.
Hence, this Study was conducted to identify the extent of
rural local leaders contribution and to identify the variables that
affect the degree of their contribution to he considered by the
extension staff to enhance it’s effectiveness. To achieve this goal
the following objective were formulated :
1- Identify the Agric. Exten. Activities that rural local leaders
participate in Qalyoubia Governorate.
Identify the degree of participation of RI.I. in Fxlcn.
Activities in Qalyoubia (iovernoratc.
3- Identify some of participation motives that drive RI, I to
participate in Fxlen. activities.
4- Define the relationship between RIA, participation degree
and each of independent variables: age. number of school
years, children’s education, farm holding contacting changes
IAn L1R I’
agent, family members contribution in farm works formal
social participation, exposure to mass media, fatalism,
attitude towards Agric. innovations, cosmopolitanness,
formal leadership, opinion leadership, satisfaction about
Exten. work, farm animal holding, exposure to information
sources, professional and eduction ampitious level, having a
side-job with agriculture, standard of living, frequent visits to
agriculture service centers, years of experience in agriculture
and non-formal societal participation.
5- Identify barriers that blocks the participation of RI.I, in
extension activities in Qalyoubia Governorate.
6- Identify RLL’s suggestions to enhance their participation in
extension activities in Qalyoubia Governorate.
This study was conducted in Qalyoubia Governorate, by
selecting three distrects which are Toukh, Benha and Shebeen
El-Kanater six villages were selected which have agricultural
co-operative in each district of the three selected centres. These
villages were:
Moshtohor, Aldeer, Meetkenana, Dandana, Elgemal
hamlet, Alhessa, from toukh district. and Farcees hamlet,
Sandanhour, Alshomout, Meetassem, Meetalattar & Marsafa
from Benha district. and shebeen hamlet, El shoubak hamlet,
Alhrahz, Alkalzarn, Tohotya, Algaafra from Shebeen Alkanater
district.
A random sample was selected presenting 39.2% of the
total number of the rural local leaders in each district. The
sample amounted to 235 local leaders in the under studied area.
Data was collected during January, February and March,
2001 by personal interviews using a pre-tested aquestionair.
=================SIIMMARY
After frequencies, percentages arithmetic means and ”Chi
square test” were used to analyses the data statistically.
The result of the study revealed that:
1- The main extension activities in which the local extension
leaders contribute in, according to its average degree are:
being in contact with a large number of farmers, submit the
problems that face the farmers to the agricultural extension
agent. asttending the extension meetings, persuading the
farmers to participate in the extension programs, partcipate in
diffusing modem information and contribution in applying •
the extensive programs. Visiting other fields beside the
interviewee’s being acquainted with the topics of the
extension magazine, holding on demonstration field of the
interviewee obtaining extension brochures participate in
organizing extension meetings and in planning extension •
programs.
2- The rate of RLL with low participation level reached 65.11
%, and 22.55 % ofRLL was in the medium level of
prticipation on while 12.34 % onit of the respondents were in
the high level of participation.
3- High and medium participating RLL were located in the age
category (45 to < 60 years) rating to 28.18%, 13.63%
respectively, while lowparticipating RLL were in the ,age
cate gory (60-years) rating to 79.12 %.
- High and medium level participating RLL were located in the
education category ( 13 years) rating to 21.69% and
39.760C. while most low participating RLL were in ( 7 to <
13 years) of education rating to 77.01% of respondents.
r-urvoi i i - n n ••’==============SUMMARY
4
-------------------pl=111111.1.10_111111.111------
All respondents were located in the children education
category « 18 degree) .
- all RLL were located in form holding category « Ifaddan).
- Low participating RLL were in the change agent contacts «
4 degrees) rating to 91.54%, medium participating RLL were
in the (4 to < 7 degree) rating 46.15%, while high
participating RLL were in (7 - degree) in a rate of 42.50% of
the respondents.
- All respondents were having (5-9 degrees) family. members.
_Low and medium participating RLL were in the formal
participation category « 16 degree), while high participating
RLL were in (16-30 degree) category).
_Low and medium participating RLL were exposing to mass
media in the category « 26 degree) while the high
participating RLL were in the (26 to < 47 degree).
_Low participating RLL were in the fatalism category (21 to
< 26 degree), while medium and high participating RLL were
in (26 - degree) .
_Low participating RLL were in the non- formal leadership,
while medium and high participating RLL were in the formal
leadership category.
_Low participating RLL were in the opinion leadership,
category « 20 degree) while medium and high participating
RLL were in the (20 to 36 degree) category.
_ All RLL were located in the category (15 (jdegree) of
respondent’s satisfaction of extension activities.
- All respondents were in the category ( < LE 13000) of farm
animal holding.
_________________ SUMMARy
5
Low participating RIA., were exposing to the resources of
agricultural information (:s 38 degree). while medium and
high participating RLI,were in (38 to 68 degree) category.
- All respondents of RLL were in the « 5 degree) of the
degree of children professional and education ambition
category).
Low participating RI,I, were not having any side-work
beside agriculture. while medium and high participating RLL
were having governmental job beside agriculture.
All RI,I, were having a slandered of living category (22-
degree).
- All RI,I, were visiting Agricultural service centers in a
frequencyal « 27 degree).
- Lowparticipating R1,1, had years of experience (49 -years)
in agriculture, while medium and high participating, RLL
were having (32 to < 49) years.
- All R1,I, were in the non-formal social participation category
< 29 degree).
- There were significant relationships at 0.01 level between
RLL,participation in extension activities and each of :
Respondent age, years of formal education, children’s education.
farm holding, change agent contact, social formal participation
degree exposure to mass media, fatalizm attitude towards
agricultural innovations, cosmopolitainness. fbrmalleadership.
opinion leadership, satisfaction degree about extension service.
farm animal holding, exposure to agricultural information
sources, professional and educational ambition degree, having a
side work beside agriculture, standered of living, frequent visits
to agric. service centers and experience years in agriculture there
6
were significant relationships at 0.05 level between R1, 1,
participation in extension activities and lamily members
participation in farm works.
4- Highly socially motivated RLL rated to 59.15% and
moderalty socially motivated were 20%. while the poorly
motivated were 20.85%.
Social motives that drive RLL to participate in Extension
activities ranked according to its importance were: respondent
willingness to increase his experience and agriculture
knowledge. willingness to upgrade his status in village.
willingness to apply innovations, willingness to help others.
helping respondent to identify the community problems, gain
peoples admiration, identily new projects in the village, help
gaining new friends and desire to feel others gratitude.
5- The main constraints encounter RI,I. were: uncertainty of
recommendations returns, non participation in ruiners needs
assessment. inconvenient timing chosen by change agent to
contact them, change agent disregards RI A.problems, slow
contactsbetweenthe changeagentand his superiorsto 11111111
Mi., demands, change agent is not concerned with their
capabilities when asking them to diffuse the
recommendations, recommendations arc not easy to apply.
there is no suitable place to meet RI A.. with the change agent
recommendations are always not clear l’armers distrust RI.I.
as source of inrormation. change agent do not speak RI A fs
accent. and the change agent know nothing about RI,I,
til ’1/.1/.1/ }.
6- The main suggestions of RLLwere: apply the recommended
practices in front of RLL, convince extension workers of the
importance of RLL, solve RLL problems, inform RLL about
meetings dates in advance, relay more on youth in extension
activities, clarify the role of RLL in participation, inform
RLL about new projects, increase the number of extension
workers in the village, moral and material appreciation fOr
RLL,clarify the new practices for RLL,systematic
monitoring for demo fields by extension workers, more
suitable recommendations copping with farmers needs,
clarify the aim of recommendations to RLL, provide coops
with input supplies and the extension agent should be
available in his office in the coop.
Applicable results of the study can be summarized as
follows:
1-More concentration should be given to inform RLL about the
new recommendations giving them enough notice.
2- Develop a system of incentives for RLL to increase theirmotivation
a system of incentive for RLL to increase their
motivation and coinpetition,
3- Consider the independent variables by extension program
developers while aiming to discover RLL
4- Extension programs should be group oriented, i.e. RLL
participation with professional leaders should be the core of
planning, implementing and evaluating the program.
5- Meetings should he held for RI.,I, 10 develop their skills and
not to deal with them as regulations carriers. RLLproblems
. should be discussed and solved or train them to solve it.
--------------------,Vllil IA 1/11?)’
8
6- Extension workers should be more aware of the importance
of RLL and their abilities to influence their peer farmers.
7- Studies might be concerned in future to investigate
independent variables not taken in this study and might have
significant relation to participation in extension
activities under Egyptian varied conditions.
================ SUMMAR y
9