Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 13 No. sp1 (2026): Recent Advances in Agriculture

Impact assessment of mobile agri support services on farmers’ aspirations in aspirational districts of India: A difference-in-differences approach

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.13520
Submitted
3 January 2026
Published
13-04-2026

Abstract

The present study assesses the impact of Mobile Agri Support Services (MASS), a digital–physical agricultural extension initiative conceptualised and implemented by the Extension Education Institute (EEI), Professor Jayashankar Telangana Agricultural University (PJTAU), in collaboration with Evergreen Energy Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., on farmers’ aspirations in three selected aspirational districts of Telangana. The MASS is a unique 'phygital' (physical + digital) platform tested for a period of one year (2nd June 2023 to 31st July, 2024) aimed at addressing critical gaps in agricultural extension by delivering real-time, hyperlocal and technology-enabled agricultural services. The study adopts an experimental research design involving 600 beneficiary farmers (experimental group) and 400 non-beneficiary farmers (control group) across 6 villages from each mandal. Employing the difference-in-difference (DID) technique, the study measures pre- and post-intervention changes in technological, economic, environmental and social aspirations of farmers. Data collection was conducted through structured interviews and analysed using statistical tools like frequency, percentage, arithmetic mean and Z-tests. A DID approach was employed to estimate the causal effect of the intervention on technological, economic, environmental and social aspirations. The results indicate a substantial positive shift in the aspirations of beneficiary farmers following the intervention. In the sample area, aspirations towards technological change increased from 19.52 to 48.41 units, reflecting a significant gain of 28.89 units, while no change was observed in the non-sample area (14.54 units before and after). Similarly, economic aspirations rose from 5.73 to 16.96 units in the sample area, showing an improvement of 9.85 units compared to a marginal increase in the non-sample area (5.53 to 6.64 units). Aspirations related to environmental change exhibited a marked rise from 15.65 to 94.45 units, indicating a substantial enhancement of 70.93 units relative to the non-sample area (8.20 to 16.16 units). Additionally, another dimension showed an increase from 11.65 to 35.20 units in the sample area, with a corresponding gain of 21.55 units, compared to only a slight change in the non-sample area (11.43 to 13.43 units). In contrast, non-beneficiary farmers in control areas exhibited static or marginal changes. Thus the MASS initiative demonstrated its potential in enhancing farmers' aspirations and capacities towards sustainable agricultural development, especially in backward regions, suggesting its scalability and relevance in similar agrarian contexts. The findings indicate significant post-intervention improvements among beneficiary farmers across all aspiration dimensions, while no meaningful changes were observed in control areas.

References

  1. 1. Babu SC, Joshi PK, Dey R. Agricultural extension reforms in South Asia: status, challenges and policy options. New Delhi: Academic Foundation; 2020.
  2. 2. Mittal S, Mehar M. Socio-economic factors affecting adoption of ICT by farmers in India. J Agric Educ Ext. 2016;22(2):199–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2014.997255
  3. 3. Lybbert TJ, Wydick B. Hope as aspirations and pathways. World Dev. 2018;105:256–72.
  4. 4. Reddy BM, Devi GR, Rao CAR. Promoting climate resilient agriculture in India. Indian J Agric Econ. 2019;74(3):328–39.
  5. 5. Saravanan R. Mobile phone applications for agricultural extension in India. Vancouver: Commonwealth of Learning; 2010.
  6. 6. Tiwari PC, Joshi B, Bisht DS. Farmers’ perception of climate change. Environ Dev. 2020;33:100487.
  7. 7. Davis K, Babu SC, Ragasa C. Agricultural extension systems: global status and performance. Washington DC: IFPRI; 2020. https://doi.org/10.2499/9780896293762
  8. 8. Rivera WM, Sulaiman VR. Extension: object of reform, engine for innovation. Outlook Agric. 2009;38(3):267–73. https://doi.org/10.5367/000000009789396810
  9. 9. Anderson JR. Agricultural extension: good intentions and hard realities. World Bank Res Obs. 2008;23(1):43–60.
  10. 10. Fabregas R, Kremer M, Schilbach F. Realizing the potential of digital development. Science. 2019;366(6471). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aay3038
  11. 11. Aker JC, Ghosh I, Burrell J. ICT for agriculture. Agric Econ. 2016;47(S1):35–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12301
  12. 12. Cole SA, Fernando AN. The value of advice: evidence from mobile-based extension. Harvard Bus Sch Work Pap. 2016.
  13. 13. Jack BK. Market inefficiencies and technology adoption. Annu Rev Resour Econ. 2013;5:185–204.
  14. 14. Pingali P, Aiyar A, Abraham M, Rahman A. Transforming food systems for a rising India. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan; 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14409-8
  15. 15. Spielman DJ, Davis K. Innovation systems inquiry. J Agric Educ Ext. 2016;22(2):105–21.
  16. 16. World Bank. Agricultural innovation systems: investment sourcebook. Washington DC: World Bank; 2012.
  17. 17. FAO. The state of food and agriculture 2022. Rome: FAO; 2022.
  18. 18. NSSO. Situation assessment of agricultural households in India. New Delhi: Government of India; 2019.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.