CHAPTER-II
SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND PSYCHOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF THE SAMPLE
FARMERS
An attempt is
made in
this
chapter
to present the
socio-economic
and
psychographic profile of the farmers who adopted drip irrigation technology which
saves the invaluable natural resources-water in considerable proportions. The said
profile includes

Place

Age

Social status

Size of the farmer

Innovative behaviour

Technology induced

Management orientation

Risk taking behavior

Member of WUA
49
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
Table-2.1
Place
Place
Number of farmers Percent
Chillavaripalli
Mukundapuram
Total
Cumulative
Percent
125
62.5
62.5
75
37.5
100.0
200
100.0
Source: Primary data
Place
140
125
120
100
75
80
Series1
60
40
20
0
Chillavaripalli
Mukundapuram
Table-2.1 refers to the distribution of the sample farmers by their place. It is
observed that 62.5 percent of the sample farmers are drawn Chillavaripalli of
Narapala mandal and 37.5 percent are drawn from Mukundapuram village of
Garladinne mandal of Ananthapur district of Andhra Pradesh.
50
Table-2.2
Age
Age(Years) Number of farmers Percent
Cumulative
Percent
25-35
48
24.0
24.0
35-45
128
64.0
88.0
24
12.0
100.0
200
100.0
Above 45
Total
Source: Primary data
Age
140
120
100
80
Series1
128
60
40
20
0
Series1
48
24
25-35
35-45
Above 45
48
128
24
Table-2.2 refers to the distribution of the sample farmers by their age. It is
observed that 24 percent of the sample farmers are found in the age range of 2535 years, 64 percent in the age range of 35-45 years and 12 percent are in the
age range of above 45 years. Thus, majority of the sample farmers are found to be
relatively young.
51
Table-2.3
Social status
Category
Number of farmers Percent
Cumulative
Percent
OC
119
59.5
59.5
BC
42
21.0
80.5
SC
26
13.0
93.5
ST
13
6.5
100.0
200
100.0
Total
Source: Primary data
Social status
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Series1
OC
BC
SC
ST
119
42
26
13
Table-2.3 refers to the distribution of the sample farmers by their social status. It is
observed that 59.5 percent of the sample farmers are drawn from socially advanced
castes, 21 percent are drawn from backward castes, 13 percent are from scheduled
castes and 6.5 percent are drawn from scheduled tribes. Thus, majority of the
farmers are drawn from socially advanced castes.
52
Table-2.4
Size of the farmer
Size of the farmer
Number of farmers Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Marginal
19
9.5
9.5
Small
28
14.0
23.5
106
53.0
76.5
47
23.5
100.0
200
100.0
Medium
Big
Total
Source: Primary data
Size of the farmer
Marginal, 19
Big, 47
Small, 28
Medium, 106
Table-2.4 refers to the distribution of the sample farmers by their farm size. It is
observed that 9.5 percent of the sample farmers are drawn marginal farmers, 14
percent are small farmers, 53 percent are medium farmers and 23.5 percent are
big farmers. Thus, majority of the farmers are of medium category.
53
Table-2.5
Innovative behaviour
Number of farmers Percent
Level
Low
Cumulative
Percent
26
13.0
13.0
126
63.0
76.0
High
48
24.0
100.0
Total
200
100.0
Moderate
Source: Primary data
Innovative behavior
140
126
120
100
80
60
48
40
20
26
0
Low
Moderate
High
Series1
Table-2.5 refers to the distribution of the sample farmers by their innovative
behaviour. It is observed that 13 percent of the sample farmers are endowed with
low level innovative behaviour, 63 percent with moderate innovative behaviour and
24 percent with high level innovative behaviour.
54
Table-2.6
Technology induced
Number of farmers Percent
Level
Cumulative
Percent
Low
18
9.0
9.0
Moderate
36
18.0
27.0
High
146
73.0
100.0
Total
200
100.0
Source: Primary data
Technology induced
160
146
140
120
100
80
Series1
60
40
20
36
18
0
Low
Moderate
High
Table-2.6 refers to the distribution of the sample farmers by their technology
inducing behaviour. It is observed that 9 percent of the sample farmers are
endowed with low level technology inducing behaviour, 18 percent with moderate
technology inducing behaviour and 73 percent with high level technology inducing
behaviour.
55
Table-2.7
Management orientation
Level
Number of farmers Percent Cumulative Percent
Low
124
62.0
62.0
Moderate
58
29.0
91.0
High
18
9.0
100.0
Total
200
100.0
Source: Primary data
Management orientation
140
120
100
80
60
Series2
124
40
58
20
18
0
Low
Moderate
High
Table-2.7 refers to the distribution of the sample farmers by their management
orientation. It is observed that 62 percent of the sample farmers are endowed with
low level management orientation, 29 percent with moderate management
orientation and 9 percent with high level management orientation.
56
Table-2.8
Risk taking behavior
Number of farmers Percent Cumulative Percent
Level
Low
22
11.0
11.0
132
66.0
77.0
High
46
23.0
100.0
Total
200
100.0
Moderate
Source: Primary data
Risk taking behavior
150
100
Series1
50
0
Series1
Low
Moderate
High
22
132
46
Table-2.8 refers to the distribution of the sample farmers by their risk taking
behaviour. It is observed that 11 percent of the sample farmers are endowed with
low level risk taking behaviour, 66 percent with moderate risk taking behaviour and
23 percent with high level risk taking behaviour.
57
Table-2.9
Member of WUA
Member of WUA
Number of farmers Percent Cumulative Percent
Yes
No
Total
188
94.0
94.0
12
6.0
100.0
200
100.0
Source: Primary data
Member of WUA
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
188
Series1
12
Yes
No
Table-2.9 refers to the distribution of the sample farmers by their membership in
WUA. It is observed that 94 percent of the sample farmers members of water users
association and 6 percent did not take the membership.
58
Thus it is concluded that the sample composition consists of banana growers
(62.5percent) and citrus growers (37.5 percent). Majority of the sample farmers
are relatively young, drawn mostly from socially advanced castes, belonged to
medium farm size, endowed with moderate level innovative behaviour, highly
technology induced, low management orientation, moderately risk taking behaviour
and members of water users associations.
59