Access Agriculture Survey Analysis 2026
Backed by 1,353 participants, the report reveals how peer-led video training drives climate resilience, boosts youth agribusiness, and empowers women.
S U R V E Y R E P O R T · 2 0 2 6Access Agriculture Survey Analysis 2026A mixed-methods evaluation of platform reach, adoption, and inclusionA U T H O R SMichael Chen Rasmus Gilljam Karin Larsson Jakob Lindencrona Agnes SvenssonDate Respondents Countries Methods2026-06-04 1,353 analysed 80+ Mixed-methodsLinnaeus University — Peace and Development ProgrammeBachelor’s Thesis · Vaxjö, SwedenAccess Agriculture Survey Analysis 2026Table of ContentsS E C T I O N S 1 – 4 S E C T I O N S 5 – 9Acknowledgements 3 5. Access Agriculture’s Contribution 21 to Global Development GoalsSummary 3 6. Recommendations 221. Background 4 6.1 Strengthen Direct Communication 22Channels with Farmers2. Methodology 5 6.2 Support Users in Overcoming Structural 23Barriers to Adoption 2.1 Survey Design & Limitations 5 6.3 Addressing the Language Gap 242.2 Data Collection & Analysis 6 6.4 Improve Marketing and Visibility of the 252.3 Access Agriculture’s Theory of Change 6 Platform6.5 Deepen Investment in Youth 26 2.4 Software 7 Entrepreneurship2.5 Qualitative Interviews 7 6.6 Expand Digital Access for Women 283. Survey & Interview Results 8 7. Conclusion 293.1 Respondent Data 8 8. References 303.2 Practice Adoption 99. Appendices 31 3.3 Comprehension of Video Material 103.4 Livelihood and Productivity Outcomes 103.5 Gender Inclusion 123.6 Youth Engagement 133.7 Professional Reach 143.8 Language Gaps 153.9 Impact Analysis 164. Bivariate Analysis 18The Link Between Women’s Participation, 18Influence, and Resilience2Access Agriculture Survey Analysis 2026AcknowledgementsFirstly, the team wishes to express its sincere gratitude to supervisor Heiko Fritz for his invaluable support and encouragement throughout this project. We would also like to extend a special thanks to Paul Van Mele and his colleagues from Access Agriculture for their collaboration.SummaryThis report was written by second-year Bachelor’s students on the Peace and Development programme at Linnaeus University in Vaxjö, Sweden. Using a mixed-methods approach that combines quantitative survey data and qualitative interviews, we evaluate the global operations of Access Agriculture (AA) to assess its impact. Although another team designed the survey questions, our group managed the distribution, analysis, and trend assessment.The evaluation reveals a highly efficient platform, with a strong intermediary-led network that achieves strong video comprehension and widespread initial practice adoption. However, deep and sustained integration is frequently constrained by structural barriers. Furthermore, the data highlights that inclusion may be operating as a structural driver. When women actively participate and lead local knowledge sharing, they gain measurable influence over household agricultural decisions. At the same time, sustained engagement with youth correlates strongly with both agribusiness enterprise development and heightened perceived community resilience.The dual purpose of this evaluation is to help AA learn from and improve its platform operations and designs, while simultaneously demonstrating the value of its work to existing and potential funders. Based on these findings, the report concludes with targeted, evidence-based recommendations for future operations, advising AA to establish direct-to-farmer communication feedback loops, form strategic regional partnerships with input suppliers to alleviate material bottlenecks, and expand targeted digital literacy and localisation initiatives to dismantle remaining gender and language barriers.3Access Agriculture Survey Analysis 2026SECTION 1BackgroundAccess Agriculture (AA) is a non-governmental organisation (NGO) founded in 2012 by two companies, Agro-Insight and Countrywise Communication, to promote resilient food systems for both people and the planet. The organisation was established to improve access to agricultural knowledge by sharing training videos with smallholder farmers in developing countries. This makes the information more accessible and easier to understand.This initiative was supported by findings from a 2011 online survey organised by several organisations, which revealed that many farmers prefer learning through videos in their own language. The survey aimed to better understand how farmers prefer to receive and engage with information. One of its most important findings showed that farmers are willing to pay for such content when it provides clear benefits to their agricultural practices and livelihoods. This makes the information more accessible and easier to under‐ stand.Building on these insights, AA focuses on delivering locally relevant, practical knowledge to support sustainable farming and rural development. By focusing on solutions that are affordable and adaptable to local conditions, AA ensures that its content is not only informative but also actionable. Over the years, the organisation has expanded its reach and impact. Today, the NGO has a video library of around 6,500 videos with over 110 languages available for people to watch. The videos are distributed through multiple1 channels, including websites and mobile apps.This report primarily analyses findings from the current AA survey and also refers to the 2021 AA online survey for comparison. The earlier survey provides useful context on user engagement, dissemination practices, and community outreach across different countries and agriculture settings, allowing similarities, changes, and continuing patterns to be considered alongside the current findings. For the 2021 survey,2 2,976 respondents were analysed, compared with this survey, where 1,353 respondents were analysed.1. Access Agriculture, “Our Story,” accessed April 20, 2026. https://www.accessagriculture.org/our-story.2. Bentley, Jeffery, Paul Van Mele, Flora Chadare, and Mahesh Chander, On-line Survey of Users of Access Agriculture Videos and Platform 2021 (Access Agriculture, 2021).4Access Agriculture Survey Analysis 2026SECTION 2MethodologyThis report utilised a mixed-methods approach, combining survey data and interviews, aimed at bringing clarity and evidence to the impact that AA has had in the Global South. By combining quantitative data and qualitative interviews, the study moves beyond statistical numbers to gain a layered understanding that connects the what with the why.In order to incentivise people to participate in the survey, AA had organised so that the respondents who completed the survey would partake in a draw. In total, three winners would receive a smartphone each.2.1 Survey Design & LimitationsThe 2026 AA survey comprised 43 questions and was available digitally via the SurveyMonkey platform.The questionnaire was structured to capture respondent demographics and institutional affiliations (Q1– Q3), platform usage patterns and frequency (Q4–Q11), training and outreach activities (Q11–Q15), per‐ ceived training effectiveness (Q16–Q18), livelihood and productivity outcomes (Q19–Q23), community level impact (Q24), youth engagement (Q25–Q29), knowledge dissemination and peer-to-peer learning (Q30– Q32), practice adoption depth and barriers (Q33–Q36), gender inclusion (Q38–Q41), and willingness to participate in follow-up research (Q42–Q43).A total of 1,430 individuals initiated the survey; 77 respondents were excluded because SurveyMonkey flagged them as poor-quality responses. SurveyMonkey categorises poor responses by measuring four cri‐ teria (straight-lining, speeding, gibberish and profanity). The final number who completed the first question was 1,353, and the response rate varied, showing a declining pattern throughout the survey as later questions on adoption and gender generated approximately 800–850 responses.Further limitations can be found throughout the survey and its data. First, the survey is self-selected and primarily marketed to known platform users, customers, and partners, creating a likely bias in reported outcomes. Second, the farmer sample, which is one of the main targets of the platform, is a relatively small pool of participants, only amounting to 12,56% of respondents. This means that the large majority of responses to questions concerning practice adoption, livelihood outcomes, resilience etc. were provided by intermediaries rather than farmers. This means that responses may reflect observed or perceived outcomes rather than lived experiences, and may systematically overestimate positive impact due to both selfselection bias and the professional investment intermediaries may have in reporting favourable results. The findings should consequently be read with this representational balance in mind. This also highlights an issue of AA’s lack of direct reach to farmers, which will be discussed later in the report.The survey also involved a measuring system called the Likert scale. A Likert scale is a common method for measuring attitudes and opinions through multiple indicators. It can consist of 5-, 7-, or 9-point response options, where participants rate their level of agreement with statements, often ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. The scale is usually an odd-number scale, indicating a middle option for respondents to stay neutral. Since the participants must choose from predefined options, the scale may5Access Agriculture Survey Analysis 2026limit their ability to express their own thoughts freely. In addition, the results can be affected by response tendencies, such as participants choosing the middle option too often or selecting answers they believe are3 the most socially acceptable rather than their true opinion.While AA’s reach is global in principle, the survey respondents were heavily concentrated in Sub-Saharan Africa, suggesting that the platform’s most frequent users are located in that region.2.2 Data Collection & AnalysisQuantitative data were collected via a multilingual survey in English, French, and Spanish over one month, starting April 17, 2026. The survey was hosted on SurveyMonkey, with responses from all three languages consolidated into a single dataset.2.3 Access Agriculture’s Theory of ChangeAA is an organisation committed to environmental and human integrity and resilience. Its ‘Theory of Change’ aims to bridge the educational gap for smallholder farmers and rural youth, often facing digital exclusion, lack of infrastructure, and top-down extension models.The model is backed by extensive research indicating that localised, peer-led, and linguistically accessible video training drives adoption of sustainable practices. The conceptual impact of the framework centres on a shift in mindset and identity within agricultural communities. It moves away from passive, top-down instruction toward experiential, peer-led learning, thereby reframing farmers and youth as essential knowledge holders rather than mere recipients. The initiative drives significant capacity building by enhancing the human and organisational resources necessary for long-term sustainability. Ultimately, AA seeks to build an inclusive educational ecosystem that empowers rural communities and fosters food sovereignty and resilience.Access Agriculture Strategy: A Holistic Digital Learning EcosystemThe two main pillars behind the approach are supported by six elements to spread agricultural knowledge.3. Surveymonkey, “Advantages and Disadvantages of Likert Scale,” accessed May 12, 2026. https://uk.surveymonkey.com/mp/likert-scale-proscons/6Access Agriculture Survey Analysis 2026Pillar A: Capacity strengthening of local Pillar B: Technology-enhanced delivery farmers systemsLocal Content Creation Multilingual PlatformTraining local farmers to produce high-quality, region‐ Hosting over 6,500 videos in 110+ languages, using ally relevant videos in local languages. voice-over instead of subtitles to ensure accessibility for low-literacy populations. Youth Entrepreneurs for Rural Access (ERA)Equipping youth with training, mentorship, and tools to EcoAgtube serve as agricultural educators and change-makers in An open social media platform for sharing userremote areas, leading rural transformation and innova‐ generated agroecological content. tion. Mobile AppFacilitating offline, self-paced learning.Digital Classroom SystemsSolar-powered projectors for group learning in off-grid, remote areas.2.4 SoftwareThe survey was published and distributed via SurveyMonkey, a web-based platform for managing question‐ naires. Once the data had been collected, it was processed and analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics, a statistical software program commonly used for handling quantitative data. The analysis in SPSS identifies patterns, trends and insights within the responses, which contributed to understanding the findings. In addition, AI tools, specifically Claude AI and ChatGPT were used in the creation of charts, images and refining text as well as design implementations for the final report.2.5 Qualitative InterviewsThe survey data results were complemented by qualitative interviews in order to understand the specific dynamics and human impact behind the data. In the final section of the survey (Q42), respondents were asked if they were willing to participate in a follow-up interview, providing contact details, and 752 individuals (89,31%) selected that they were. In total, 85 persons were invited via email, out of which 12 interviews took place. All the direct references to interviews (e.g. farmer 1, farmer 2, etc.) in the report come from the qualitative follow-up interviews conducted by the group.This report uses Bryman’s sequential sampling approach, where the sample develops throughout the re‐ search process rather than being fully decided at the beginning. Participants for the qualitative interviews were selected based on their relevance to the research question and how they answered the survey, and the sample evolved as the study progressed. In contrast to a fixed sampling strategy, where participants are determined early on and remain unchanged, the sequential approach is more suitable for qualitative4 research because it allows the researcher to adapt the sampling process as new insights emerge.4. Bryman, Alan, Social Research Methods, 4th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 564–588.7Access Agriculture Survey Analysis 2026SECTION 3Survey & Interview Results3.1 Respondent Data3.1.1 Occupational CategoriesAs shown in Graph 1, the distribution of occupations reflects AA’s platform design as a professional resource that predominantly in‐ termediates the user to train farmers, rather than a direct-to-farmer channel. Respondents selecting “Other” most commonly identified as students or trainees, but answers also included categories such as consultants, farmers, business and management professionals, agricultural specialists, researchers and lecturers, journalists, and government staff, indicating that while the occupational categories captured most respondents, some overlap and gaps remained in the classification scheme.3.1.2 Farmers: A Beneficiary with Low SurveyRepresentationFarmers are the most consistently identified beneficiary of AA resources. 74,04% of respondents report that farmers were the primary group they reached using AA materials in the preceding twelve months (Q15), and 60,87% identify farmer training and extension as their main use of the platform (Q5). Despite this, farmers account for only 12,56% of survey respondents. This is a paradox that reflects the platform’s underlying structure. AA operates in large parts as a professionally mediated network in which agricultural advisors, NGO staff, and educators serve as intermediaries between the content and the end users (farmers). Therefore, it is likely that most farmers who have had contact with the platform and its material have not done so directly, but through intermediaries, and therefore are not likely recipients of the invites to participate in the online survey, resulting in the low outcome of farmer respondents. One of the farmers, from Kenya, reflects on this dynamic, as he argues that the platform should “bring farmers closer” and enable farmers to “interact with each other”, suggesting a desire for more5 direct participation and exchange among farmers themselves (Farmer 1). Another farmer adds that “These programs are always coming to the developed cities. Then those in the rural areas don’t get access to it.6 And they are the people doing the real farming” (Farmer 2).3.1.3 Geographical DataRespondents are covering more than 80 countries in total. African countries account for the majority of respondents (86.8%).5. Interview with Farmer 1, conducted by author, May 12, 2026; see Appendix A for full transcript.6. Interview with Farmer 2, conducted by author, May 13, 2026; see Appendix A for full transcript.8Access Agriculture Survey Analysis 20263.2 Practice AdoptionQuestions 33–36 examine the extent to which training translates into practice changes. Q33 asked whether participants had adopted practices promoted in AA videos: 49,17% reported ‘many’ practices adopted, and 37,26% reported ‘some’. These two combined yield a result of 86,43%. Only 1,77% reported no adoption, and 7,19% ‘very few’, indicating that meaningful adoption and practice changes occur in the vast majority of cases.The most commonly reported adopted practice categories (Q34) were crop production practices, soil fertility and composting, but the scale and sustainability of adoption vary considerably. Q35 (n = 838) reveals that the largest shares of adoption occur at the trial (30,31%) and partial stages (33,29%), with only 22,32% reaching substantial adoption across the farm or enterprise, and 9,55% achieving full or routine integration.This distribution pattern in adoption practices is linked to the barriers to adoption (Q36, n = 839), where users could select up to three answers. The most common selections were: lack of inputs (63,05%), cost constraints (49,7%), climate-related problems (39,57%), and insufficient institutional support (33,13%).These findings reveal that the principal constraints to adoption are structural and material rather than informational. Farmers who want to apply what they have learned from the platform’s resources are often prevented not by lack of knowledge, but rather limited by other constraints.These barriers to adoption may carry implications for the AA strategy. While educational interventions and resources are significantly motivating farmers to try new practices and drive interest, structures and systemic constraints such as supply chains, credit access, and climate-related issues may limit the platform’s ability to achieve large-scale behavioural change and sustained adoption.9Access Agriculture Survey Analysis 20263.3 Comprehension of Video MaterialFacilitators were asked to estimate the proportion of training participants who demonstrated understanding of the main video messages after training (Q17, n = 986). 36,51% report that almost all participants understood the content, and 38,44% report more than half. Together, it shows that 74,95% of the facilitators observe majority comprehension. Only 4,56% report that almost none understood the material. This com‐ prehension profile is notably strong for a multimedia adult learning intervention delivered in diverse linguistic and educational contexts.3.4 Livelihood and Productivity OutcomesQ19–23 focuses on livelihood outcomes and is separated by 5 key dimensions: Farm Productivity, Reduced Production Costs, Farm / Enterprise Income, Food & Nutrition, and Resilience. A substantial majority reported positive outcomes across all five livelihood dimensions following the adoption of practices promoted through AA resources. The findings indicate a consistent impact, with resilience emerging as the strongest positive outcome. Positive responses are defined as the top two response tiers in each scale: “A lot” + “Some” (Q19, Q20); “Many” + “Some” (Q21); “Yes, clearly” + “Yes, somewhat” (Q22, Q23). This conservative definition excludes respondents who selected “A little” or “Very little”.10Access Agriculture Survey Analysis 2026The table below shows the percentage of respondents reporting positive outcomes for each dimension across the ten most-represented countries. Colour coding for the two tables below indicates performance tiers: Dark green ≥ 90%, mid-green ≥ 80%, amber ≥ 65%, and red < 65%. The tables are sorted by the average score, with the highest average score on top.These outcome rates also vary across the various occupational categories as shown in the table below.Advisory service providers, NGO staff, entrepreneurs, and farmers consistently report the highest rates, while researchers score more conservative numbers.11Access Agriculture Survey Analysis 20263.5 Gender InclusionThe survey findings show that women actively participated in AA training and learning activities across many contexts. Most respondents in Q38 described women’s participation in screenings and training as moderate, high, or very high, suggesting that women are not simply being reached indirectly, but are increasingly present within agricultural learning spaces themselves. At the same time, the data suggests that women’s involvement often went beyond attendance alone. A large majority of respondents observed women taking active roles in sharing knowledge, explaining practices to others, and demonstrating tech‐ niques within their communities. This points to women not only receiving information, but also becoming visible participants in local knowledge exchange and peer-to-peer learning processes.The findings also indicate that engagement with AA resources may have contributed to shifts in women’s influence within farming and household decision-making. Further, Q40 highlights that more than 80% of respondents felt that women who engaged with the resources gained at least some greater influence over farming decisions or household production choices. While these perceptions do not necessarily capture the full complexity of empowerment, they do suggest that access to information and participation in training can strengthen women’s involvement in agricultural activities.At the same time, the survey highlights that significant barriers to women’s fuller participation remain.Respondents identified domestic responsibilities, limited access to phones or digital devices, time con‐ straints, and restricted control over land or income as among the biggest challenges affecting women’s involvement. These findings suggest that the issue is not a lack of interest or willingness to engage, but rather the wider social and economic conditions that shape access to resources, time, mobility, and technology. The data, therefore, presents a mixed but important picture. AA appears to be creating mean‐ ingful opportunities for women’s participation and knowledge-sharing. At the same time, broader structural inequalities continue to limit how fully women are able to benefit from and lead within agriculture learning systems.The survey findings are broadly consistent with patterns already visible in the 2021 AA survey, where respondents frequently described sharing videos with women’s groups, community organisations, and local training programmes. The earlier report also highlighted examples of women engaging with agricultural knowledge through community screenings and local-language video dissemination. Compared to the report12Access Agriculture Survey Analysis 2026from 2021, the current survey provides stronger evidence not only of women’s participation but also of women taking active roles in knowledge sharing and influencing farming decisions within their households and communities. This suggests that women’s inclusion within AA learning networks may be becoming7 more visible and more participatory over time.In certain areas, and especially home gardening, reports highlight that participation in programs draws almost entirely women. Across an NGO’s work in offering knowledge and practice in home gardening, op‐ portunities are offered equally to women and men, though a majority of participants have been women,8 reflecting the gender division of agricultural labour. (NGO Worker 1)“It’s roughly about 100% women (…) They play a major role in the household, and in our community, most of the women are really the ones doing the hard labor in farming and agriculture. The men are present, but usually only on the first part of the process.”9 — NGO Worker 13.6 Youth EngagementThe survey findings indicate a strong presence of youth reach and participation within AA activities. Starting with Q5, where 481 out of 1,334 responses (36,06%) reported using AA resources mainly for youth training or entrepreneurship support, being the third largest category of resource use. This suggests that youth engagement is not a marginal component of the platform’s activities. Rather, one of its central areas of outreach and dissemination.7. Access Agriculture, On-line Survey of Users of Access Agriculture Videos and Platform 2021.8. Interview with NGO Worker 1, conducted by author, May 14, 2026; see Appendix A for full transcript.9. Interview with NGO Worker 1, conducted by author, May 14, 2026; see Appendix A for full transcript.13Access Agriculture Survey Analysis 2026Additionally, the findings also point to the scale of youth outreach achieved through AA resources. In Q14, respondents estimated that approximately 230,136 persons aged 18 to 35 had been reached through train‐ ing, screenings, and dissemination activities. This highlights the important role the platform appears to play in connecting younger audiences to agricultural learning, skills development, and livelihood-related informa‐ tion.The survey findings also indicate a strong presence of youth engagement during AA-based training. In Q25, out of 891 total responses, 37,6% described youth participation as moderate, while 36,6% reported high levels of youth presence during activities. Together, these findings suggest that young people are not only being reached through the resources, but are also actively present within learning spaces and community dissemination activities.In question 26, respondents were asked about the different ways youth participation materialised in practice. The answers were more diversified, with most of the youth being training participants, followed by being users of videos, and starting agribusiness activities as the third most common answer. Respondents also frequently associated the resources with youth involvement in agribusiness and income-generating activities, suggesting that the platform may support not only knowledge acquisition, but also entrepreneurial interest and livelihood opportunities among young people. Overall, the findings indicate that AA resources are being used in ways that encourage youth participation across learning, knowledge-sharing, and agricultural enterprise development.3.7 Professional Reach through Training Sessions, Classes, or ScreeningsBased on the reported entries in Q12, where respondents were asked: “Approximately how many people participated in these sessions in total during the last 12 months?” Respondents categorised their reach into specific volume ranges spanning from zero up to over 10,000 farmers. Among the 928 respondents, a total of 461,318 people were approximately reached through training sessions, classes, or screenings over the past year. This yields an average of 497 persons reached per respondent, highlighting the substantial14Access Agriculture Survey Analysis 2026multiplier effect of AA’s professional network and underscoring the high operational efficiency of utilising institutional intermediaries. However, it is important to note that these responses are self-reported data while it also sums up the total numbers of all respondents regardless of their occupational category.3.8 Language GapsOne of the main challenges identified through the interviews was the issue of language accessibility and its impact on farmers’ ability to benefit fully from AA’s content. While participants consistently acknowledged the value of the videos and the important role they play in addressing information gaps within rural communities, several interviewees emphasised that language barriers continue to limit accessibility and un‐ derstanding.A recurring concern was the lack of content in local languages. One researcher explained that although AA already provides videos in many languages globally, farmers in countries like Nigeria still struggle to10 understand the information, only from videos (Researcher 1). Similarly, one Entrepreneur also noted that many farmers in their community face difficulties understanding videos translated from English or other11 languages (Entrepreneur 1).10. Interview with Researcher 1, conducted by author, May 13, 2026; see Appendix A for full transcript.11. Interview with Entrepreneur 1, conducted by author, May 12, 2026; see Appendix A for full transcript.15Access Agriculture Survey Analysis 2026(…) Because for us, like me and my community, we are lacking information (…) I just want to continue with the good work. And also, if you can produce these videos in our local languages, that can be better because there’s a language barrier in terms of translating in English and other languages, so that would be great.12 — Entrepreneur 1The interviews also highlighted that translation quality is just as important as translation ability. Advisory13 Service person 2 explained that many of the farmers they work with speak the local language of their country, yet most videos are presented in English or translated in ways that are not always clear.They described some translations as sounding broken, making it difficult for farmers to fully understand the message being communicated.Beyond language itself, participants also pointed to wider accessibility challenges linked to technology and14 infrastructure. Lecturer 1 explains that while some videos are available in their local language, many rural communities still struggle to access the content due to high illiteracy levels, limited internet access and low digital literacy. They noted that many farmers require support in understanding how to access and down‐ load the videos, while the cost of mobile data further limits engagement. Their comments suggest that improving accessibility is not only about language adaptation but also about ensuring that farmers have the practical means to access the information being provided.3.9 Impact AnalysisThe respondent data provided important insights into how AA functions in practice and who is most actively engaged on the platform. Although farmers are the primary target group for many training activities, they accounted for only 12,56% of survey respondents (as shown in Q1). A much larger share of respondents came from intermediary or support roles, including agricultural advisory providers, NGO staff, educators, entrepreneurs and researchers. This suggests that AA operates largely through a decentralised network of facilitators, trainers, and organisations who adapt and share resources within farming communities rather than through direct farmer engagement alone.This interpretation is supported by the findings that farmers were still identified as the main beneficiaries reached through training and screenings, with 74,04% (shown in Q15) of respondents reporting that they worked directly with farmers. The contrast between the relatively low proportion of farmers responding to the survey and the high proportion of farmers being reached shows the important role played by middlemen in extending the platform’s impact. In many cases, these actors appear to function as knowledge boosters, using AA materials in training, demonstrations, screenings, and group learning activities that reach wider farming communities.12. Interview with Entrepreneur 1, conducted by author, May 12, 2026; see Appendix A for full transcript.13. Interview with Advisory Service Person 2, conducted by author, May 15, 2026; see Appendix A for full transcript.14. Interview with Lecturer 1, conducted by author, May 18, 2026; see Appendix A for full transcript.16Access Agriculture Survey Analysis 2026At the same time, the respondent profile also points to possible representation gaps within the survey itself.Because many responses are based on the observation of trainers, extension workers, and institutional actors, the findings may reflect intermediary perspectives more strongly than the direct experiences of farmers. This may especially affect the visibility of groups who are less likely to participate in online or institutionally distributed surveys, including smallholder farmers in remote areas, women with limited digital access, or lower literacy users. The survey, therefore, provides strong evidence of outreach and dissemina‐ tion capacity, while also suggesting the need for more direct farmer-centred feedback mechanisms for future evaluations.The findings from this survey also reinforce the trends identified in the 2021 report, which documented extensive community-level dissemination through farmer groups, local radio, extension services and village screenings. The 2021 report described users sharing videos with thousands of farmers through both formal programmes and informal peer-to-peer networks, demonstrating the importance of local facilitators and community-based learning systems. The 2026 survey builds on this picture by showing continued evidence of knowledge sharing, practice adoption, and perceived improvements in productivity, income, resilience, and food security. Together, the two surveys suggest that AA has developed a sustained and expanding15 dissemination model that combines digital tools with local social networks and farmer-to-farmer learning.15. Access Agriculture, On-line Survey of Users of Access Agriculture Videos and Platform 2021.17Access Agriculture Survey Analysis 2026SECTION 4Bivariate AnalysisTo deepen the understanding of how AA’s resources influence women. A set of bivariate analyses was conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics. The analysis examined relationships between selected variables that emerged as particularly significant throughout the survey findings. Depending on the measurement level of the variables, Spearman’s rank-order correlation was applied.Spearman’s rank order correlation is a non-parametric measure of association between two ordinal or continuous variables. Rather than using raw scores, it converts observations into ranks and assesses how16 consistently one variable increases as the other does.The Link Between Women’s Participation, Influence, and ResilienceA Spearman correlation analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between women’s participation in training and screenings (Q38) and perceived resilience outcomes (Q23). The analysis identified a statist‐ ically positive relationship between the two variables (rho = +0,248 < 0,001, n = 761).This means that higher reported women’s participation was associated with stronger reported resilience outcomes. Although the relationship is modest in strength, it is statistically significant and therefore suggests a meaningful pattern in the survey data. In other words, respondents who described women’s par‐ ticipation as higher tended, on average, to report stronger perceived resilience outcomes from AA re‐ sources. As shown in Graph 10, the share of respondents reporting any improvement in resilience rose steadily across participation levels, from 70,5% where women’s participation was very low to 99,1% where it was very high.This finding should be interpreted carefully. A positive correlation does not establish that women’s participation causes stronger resilience. The relationship may instead reflect a shared context: settings that successfully engage women may also be those with stronger facilitation, more cohesive groups, or more committed local organisations, all of which could independently support resilience. The two may also reinforce one another, with engaged communities both involving women more and building resilience more effectively.16. Bryman, Social Research Methods, Chapter 15.18Access Agriculture Survey Analysis 2026The 3.5 section on Gender Inclusion showed that women are increasingly present within AA learning spaces and often take active roles in knowledge sharing, peer-to-peer learning, and community dissemina‐ tion. Respondents also frequently observed women contributing to farming decisions and household agri‐ cultural practices after engaging with the resources. However, Section 3.5 simultaneously demonstrated that women continue to face substantial structural barriers that limit their ability to fully benefit from participation. These include restricted access to land, lower control over income, unequal access to technology, and disproportionate burden of unpaid domestic labour.A second correlation reinforces this pattern from a different angle. An analysis of the relationship between women’s active roles in sharing and demonstrating practices (Q39) and the influence they gained in farming and household decisions (Q40) found a moderate, statistically positive relationship (rho = +0,497, p < 0,001, n = 742). As shown in Graph 11 below, the effect is pronounced; among women who often took active roles, 96,4% gained some influence in decision-making, and 73,1% gained influence strongly, compared with just 50% and 13% respectively among those who participated only rarely.19Access Agriculture Survey Analysis 2026These two findings point to a cumulative pathway, i.e. deeper participation is associated with stronger resilience outcomes, and the women who engage most actively are also those most likely to gain influence over the decisions that shape those outcomes.20Access Agriculture Survey Analysis 2026SECTION 5Access Agriculture’s Contribution to Global Development GoalsThis analysis suggests that AA’s impact extends beyond agricultural training alone to support several development objectives reflected in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). While the organisation focuses primarily on sharing agricultural knowledge, the outcomes identified throughout this report indicate that its activities contribute to food security, poverty reduction, gender equality, youth employment, and climate resilience.The strongest alignment is with SDG 2: Zero Hunger, which seeks to end hunger, improve nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture. Survey data consistently shows that adopting practices from AA resources leads to positive outcomes: 80,6% of respondents reported increased farm productivity, 84% saw improved food and nutrition security, and 88,9% experienced greater resilience. The findings suggest that access to practical, locally relevant agricultural knowledge can contribute to strengthening food systems and improving agricultural livelihoods. Furthermore, high levels of reported practice adoption further demon‐ strate that educational interventions effectively support sustainable agricultural development when farmers17 and intermediaries are provided with accessible learning resources.Beyond food security, the findings suggest that AA also contributes to development in gender equality. The survey results show that women are not only participating in training activities but are increasingly taking active roles in knowledge sharing and agricultural decision-making. Furthermore, higher levels of women’s participation were associated with stronger reported resilience outcomes, while women who actively shared knowledge were substantially more likely to gain influence over farming and household decisions. These findings align with the objectives of SDG 5: Gender Equality, suggesting that access to agricultural know‐18 ledge may strengthen women’s participation and agency within rural communities.Finally, resilience emerged as one of the strongest positive outcomes reported in the survey. Given the growing impact of climate-related challenges on agricultural communities, the promotion of locally adapted and sustainable farming practices can also be understood as contributing to SDG 13: Climate Action. By strengthening the capacity of farmers and communities to adapt to environmental and economic chal‐ lenges, AA’s work extends beyond knowledge dissemination and contributes to long-term community resili‐19 ence.17. United Nations, Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, A/RES/70/1 (New York: United Nations, 2015).18. United Nations, Transforming Our World.19. United Nations, Transforming Our World.21Access Agriculture Survey Analysis 2026SECTION 6RecommendationsBased on the survey and interview findings, this report puts forward six recommendations to strengthen AA’s operations and deepen its impact. Each recommendation is grounded in evidence presented in Sec‐ tions 3 and 4 and aims to build upon already existing strengths while addressing the structural and contextual barriers identified by both respondents and us.RECOMMENDATION 6.1Strengthen Direct Communication Channels with FarmersThe survey revealed a clear paradox (explained in section 3.1.2) in AA’s reach: while 74,04% of respondents identified farmers as the primary beneficiaries of the platform’s material, farmers themselves accounted for only 12,56% of survey respondents. This indicates that AA predomin‐ antly reaches farmers through intermediaries, rather than engaging with farmers directly. As one Kenyan farmer expressed his wish for the platform to bring farmers closer by enabling them to interact with each other, this recommendation will address his wants and likely many others as well.To address this, AA should consider developing more direct engagement mechanisms with endusers. This could include establishing farmer-to-farmer feedback loops within the mobile app, creating moderated regional discussion spaces where farmers can share their experiences with adopted practices, and developing simplified communication tools designed for users with limited connectivity.Future evaluation cycles should also include farmer-focused feedback mechanisms, moving away from online-based surveys only. For example, AA could organise facilitator-led group surveys or similar to ensure that the voices of the primary beneficiaries are not lost or filtered through intermediary voices.22Access Agriculture Survey Analysis 2026RECOMMENDATION 6.2Support Users in Overcoming Structural Barriers to AdoptionThe findings on practice adoption (section 3.2) demonstrate that AA’s resources successfully motivate farmers to trial new practices, with 86,43% of respondents reporting various levels of adoption. However, it is important to not these variations as only 9,55% reach full or routine integration of practices. The barriers identified in Q36, lack of inputs (63,05%), cost constraints (49,7%), climate-related problems (39,57%), and insufficient institutional support (33,13%) are predominantly structural and material rather than informational. Therefore, AA can not resolve these structural barriers alone, but it can act as a connector between farmers and other stakehold‐ ers that provide the resources that the farmers may need. The organisation may consider estab‐ lishing partnerships with input suppliers, financial institutions, and government extension services in priority regions. This would open up the possibility of pairing the knowledge delivered through videos with concrete pathways towards the various inputs, governmental support and credits avail‐ able.23Access Agriculture Survey Analysis 2026RECOMMENDATION 6.3Addressing the Language GapAlthough AA’s multilingual platform (covering more than 110 languages) is one of its defining strengths, follow-up interviews indicated that gaps remain (expanded in section 3.8). Several interviewees mentioned that videos in their specific local language were not available, limiting accessibility for the very low-literacy population that the voice-over approach is designed to serve.Some intermediaries explained that they spend much of their time translating and explaining what is being said, rather than teaching and discussing the various topics. Furthermore, one researcher suggested that producing videos in local languages would allow farmers to engage with the materi‐ al more independently and apply the farming techniques more effectively in practice (Researcher20 1). Similarly, although some respondents found videos in related local languages relatively easy to follow, they stressed the importance of producing content in the languages most familiar to local farming communities and ensuring that translations are clear and culturally understandable21 (Advisory Service Person 1).This was also reflected in interviews with partner organisations working directly with indigenous and rural communities. One respondent explained that communities felt “more connected” to the material when videos were dubbed into their local dialect and that it became “much easier for them22 to really comprehend, understand, and learn from it” (NGO Worker 1 ). At the same time , the re‐ spondent emphasised that many videos still lacked translation into local dialects and argued that stronger localisation and community involvement in video production would improve understanding and engagement further.To address this issue, AA should continue expanding its localisation efforts beyond broad language coverage and focus more strongly on region-specific adaptation. One possible strategy would be to establish partnerships with local schools, universities, and language institutions that could assist with transcription, translation, and voice-over work in local languages and dialects. Such collabora‐ tions could provide students with practical experience while simultaneously helping AA expand its localisation efforts in a cost-effective and community-based manner.In addition, involving local communities, youth groups, and farmer organisations in the translation and adaptation process could ensure that terminology, cultural references, and farming examples are more relevant and understandable within specific regional contexts. This recommendation also connects closely to AA’s Theory of Change, which emphasises localised, linguistically accessible, and peer-led learning as central to strengthening knowledge-sharing and long-term adoption of sustainable agricultural practices. By improving language accessibility and local ownership of educational content, AA could further strengthen farmers’ ability to engage independently with the material and apply knowledge more effectively within their own communities.20. Interview with Researcher 1, conducted by author, May 13, 2026; see Appendix A for full transcript.21. Interview with Advisory Service Person 1, conducted by author, May 13, 2026; see Appendix A for full transcript.22. Interview with NGO Worker 1, conducted by author, May 14, 2026; see Appendix A for full transcript.24Access Agriculture Survey Analysis 2026RECOMMENDATION 6.4Improve Marketing and Visibility of the PlatformWhile AA maintains a strong platform, its search engine visibility remains inconsistent across various regions. For example, one researcher explained how the platform rarely appeared in Google searches for key terms such as “agriculture videos” or “organic agriculture”, despite the relevance and quality of its content.“When you search for organic agriculture videos through Google, many of the very good Access Agriculture videos don’t appear, but many other YouTube videos do (…) Unless you visit the website directly, they are not appearing.”23 — Researcher 2To further investigate this issue, VPN-based searches were conducted from different regions. The results showed that AA had strong visibility in countries such as Kenya, while in India, for example, the platform appeared much lower in search rankings. This supports the interviewee’s observation and suggests that the issue is regional rather than global.Based on these findings, one recommendation is to strengthen its digital marketing strategy and improve its search optimisation (SEO) efforts in regions where visibility is weaker. As highlighted by the researcher, Google heavily favours YouTube videos in search results. Rather than competing against this trend, AA could benefit from leveraging it more effectively and strategically. Maintaining the existing official YouTube Channel more efficiently could increase visibility in both YouTube and Google searches while also directing viewers back to the main AA Platform for broader access to its video library.In addition, AA should expand the promotion of its platform and its video content across social media platforms. A stronger and more consistent presence on platforms such as YouTube, Face‐ book, LinkedIn, and Instagram could help increase awareness, improve discoverability, and reach new audiences in regions where organic search visibility is currently limited.23. Interview with Researcher 2, conducted by author, May 14, 2026; see Appendix A for full transcript.25Access Agriculture Survey Analysis 2026RECOMMENDATION 6.5Deepen Investment in Youth EntrepreneurshipThe findings indicate that AA is already contributing significantly to youth engagement in agriculture through training, video dissemination, and entrepreneurship-oriented learning activities. However, the results also suggest that sustaining and expanding this engagement will require stronger support mechanisms to address the practical and structural barriers young people face.A key recommendation is to strengthen the link between agricultural learning and practical applica‐ tion. While the survey findings demonstrate high levels of youth participation and engagement,24 Advisory Service Person 1 revealed that many young people struggle to translate knowledge into sustained agricultural activities due to limited access to capital, tools, and other resources.25 Second, Advisory Service Person 2 explained that although youth are increasingly interested in agriculture, many lack the financial support needed to start farming activities. The respondent further observed that young boys participating in school gardening activities were already produ‐ cing tree seedlings and vegetables with the intention of generating future income.“So, as I mentioned earlier, if there will be a way they can sponsor or support regarding the basic tools of agriculture, so that when we get into the real practical session, we will find it easier to conduct it with them.”26 — Advisory Service Person 2These examples suggest that video-based learning is most impactful when combined with oppor‐ tunities for practical application. AA could therefore consider strengthening partnerships that provide starter inputs, practical demonstration opportunities, or connections to local financing initiatives for youth.The findings also show the importance of introducing agricultural learning at an early stage.27 Advisory service person 1 noted that young people exposed to agriculture during childhood or adolescence often develop a stronger long-term interest in and confidence in the sector. This observation aligns with existing research showing that exposure to agricultural studies and activities at the school level can positively influence youth participation in agripreneurship and agricultural careers. Expanding collaborations with schools, vocational centres, youth clubs, and community organisations could therefore strengthen long-term youth engagement while helping28 position agriculture as a viable livelihood pathway.24. Interview with Advisory Service Person 1, conducted by author, May 13, 2026; see Appendix A for full transcript.25. Interview with Advisory Service Person 2, conducted by author, May 15, 2026; see Appendix A for full transcript.26. Interview with Advisory Service Person 2, conducted by author, May 15, 2026; see Appendix A for full transcript.27. Interview with Advisory Service Person 1, conducted by author, May 13, 2026; see Appendix A for full transcript.28. Geza, Wendy, et al., “Youth Participation in Agriculture: A Scoping Review,” Sustainability 13, no. 16 (2021): 9120. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su13169120.26Access Agriculture Survey Analysis 2026Another recommendation is to continue strengthening practical, employability-oriented training29 approaches. Advisory service person 2 also emphasised the value of hands-on learning oppor‐ tunities and practical skill development in helping young people access employment in agriculture.This aligns with broader findings in the literature, which identify limited access to employable skills, training, finance, extension services, and agricultural resources as major barriers to youth particip‐ ation in agriculture. Strengthening partnerships with vocational institutions, local organisations, and development actors could therefore improve opportunities for practical demonstrations,30 mentorship, internships, and value-chain training activities.Finally, the findings demonstrate that youth engagement is strongest when learning takes place within supportive community environments. Young people were not only participating individually through video use, but also collectively through trainings, school gardens, and community dissem‐ ination activities. Research highlights that supportive environments, mentorship, networking oppor‐ tunities, and stronger connections to value chain actors are important for sustaining youth particip‐ ation in agriculture. Strengthening community-based learning spaces through local facilitators, peer networks, and collaborative learning activities may therefore further enhance youth confidence,31 participation, and long-term involvement in agriculture.29. Interview with Advisory Service Person 2, conducted by author, May 15, 2026; see Appendix A for full transcript.30. Geza et al., “Youth Participation in Agriculture,” 9120.31. Geza et al., “Youth Participation in Agriculture,” 9120.27Access Agriculture Survey Analysis 2026RECOMMENDATION 6.6Expand Digital Access for WomenThe findings from both the survey and the interviews show that women are already engaged with AA’s learning activities and play an important role in agricultural knowledge-sharing within their communities, but still face structural barriers that limit fuller participation. While women are actively involved in training, screenings, and community learning processes, unequal access to phones, digital devices, internet access, time, and financial resources continues to affect how independently and consistently they can engage with digital agricultural content.Interview respondents also highlighted that women’s participation is often limited by broader32 economic inequalities. Researcher 1 explained that many lack independent access to mobile phones, internet data, and financial resources, making it difficult for them to participate consistently in digital learning activities.To address these challenges, we recommend investing in initiatives that make digital learning more accessible and inclusive for women. This may include supporting shared or community-based access to smartphones and tablets, expanding offline learning options, and increasing the dissem‐ ination of local-language video content through women’s groups, cooperatives, and community or‐ ganisations. Strengthening women-focused digital literacy initiatives could also help increase confidence and independence in using mobile technologies and online agricultural platforms.Expanding digital access is particularly important because women already play a central role in agricultural production, household food systems, and local knowledge exchange. Improving access to digital learning resources, therefore, has the potential not only to increase participation in training but also to strengthen women’s ability to apply, share, and communicate agricultural knowledge within their households and communities.By reducing technological and structural barriers, AA can further support women not only as learners but also as active contributors and decision makers within rural agricultural systems. This recommendation also aligns closely with AA’s Theory of Change, which emphasises locally access‐ ible, peer-led, and technology-supported learning systems as central to strengthening resilience and agricultural knowledge-sharing. Expanding women’s digital access would therefore not only improve participation in educational activities but also strengthen women’s ability to act as facilitators, knowledge holders, and active contributors within community-based learning networks.32. Interview with Researcher 1, conducted by author, May 13, 2026; see Appendix A for full transcript.28Access Agriculture Survey Analysis 2026SECTION 7ConclusionThis report has examined the operations and impact of AA through a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative survey data from 1,353 respondents across more than 80 countries with qualitative insights drawn from 12 follow-up interviews. Together, the findings present a nuanced picture of an organisation that is well-regarded and that has built a substantial and expanding global reach, while also facing structural challenges that limit the depth of its impact among the communities it most seeks to serve.The findings further demonstrate that AA has developed an effective platform that reaches millions of people across the globe every year through a decentralised network of intermediaries that adapt and share AA resources within both farming communities and in teaching practices. This model is efficient, yet produces a structural paradox. As farmers are the primary beneficiaries of AA resources, they only accounted for 12,56% of survey respondents. This highlights that direct experiences of smallholder farmers are underrepresented in how the organisation currently measures and understands its own reach and im‐ pact.The survey revealed widespread adoption of the practices, with a mere 1.77% of respondents reporting no adoption at all. However, it is important to note that most adoption remained at trial or moderate usage stage (63,6%). The main barriers to adoption were recognised as: lack of inputs (63,05%) and capital (49,7%), confirming that the main obstacles farmers face are structural and material rather than informa‐ tional. This suggests that AA’s educational resources are succeeding in motivating farmers, but that knowledge alone is not sufficient to drive sustained behavioural change without broader systemic support.The bivariate analyses presented in section 4.1 reveals that higher levels of women’s participation in training were found to correlate positively with stronger perceived resilience outcomes, and women who took active roles in knowledge sharing were substantially more likely to gain influence over farming and household decisions.Language emerged as a recurring challenge. Despite AA’s multilingual platform covering more than 110 languages, interviews revealed that gaps in local dialect and languages continue to limit how farmers can engage with the materials.Interviews further highlighted that platform visibility remains inconsistent across key regions, and our brief tests supported this somewhat. Visibility and search performances were regionally problematic, rather than global, and suggests further work is needed to overcome these issues.Overall, the evidence points to an organisation with a strong and quickly expanding presence, with a committed network of farmers and intermediaries. The recommendations that we provided are intended to build upon these strengths while addressing the structural, linguistic, and representational barriers that currently limit the full realisation of AA’s potential.29Access Agriculture Survey Analysis 2026SECTION 8ReferencesAccess Agriculture. “Our Story.” Accessed April 20, 2026. https://www.accessagriculture.org/our-story.Bentley, Jeffery, Paul Van Mele, Flora Chadare, and Mahesh Chandler. On-line Survey of Users of Access Agriculture Videos and Platform 2021. Access Agriculture, 2021.Bryman, Alan. Social Research Methods. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.Geza, Wendy, Mjabuliseni Ngidi, Temitope Ojo, Adetoso Adebiyi Adetoro, Rob Slotow, and Tafadzwanashe Mabhaudhi.“Youth Participation in Agriculture: A Scoping Review.” Sustainability 13, no. 16 (2021): 9120. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su13169120.SurveyMonkey. “Advantages and Disadvantages of Likert Scale.” Accessed May 12, 2026. https://uk.surveymon‐ key.com/mp/likert-scale-pros-cons/.United Nations. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/RES/70/1. New York: United Nations, 2015. https://sdgs.un.org/sites/default/files/2020-09/SDG%20Re‐ source%20Document_Targets%20Overview.pdf.30Access Agriculture Survey Analysis 2026SECTION 9AppendicesAppendix A: Interview transcripts (available on request)31