Process evaluation of the LDS initiative finds it enhances collaboration and evidence use in agriculture, indicating areas for growth.
Purpose Agricultural development initiatives increasingly prioritize delivering research and innovations to farmers, yet the mechanisms linking research, extension, and policy remain underdeveloped in much of the Global South. This study utilizes a process evaluation approach to evaluate the implementation of the Landscape Diagnostic Survey (LDS) in India.Approach The study employs qualitative interviews with institutional leaders and field teams to analyse how the LDS shaped cross-institutional collaboration, implementation practices, and policy engagement. Using a modified Theory of Change framework as a guide, we evaluate the intended and unintended processes from the LDS implementation effort.Findings Findings demonstrate that while the LDS strengthened stakeholders’ digital capacities and initiated evidence-informed policymaking, challenges persist in institutionalization, technical support, and maintaining continuous policy dialogue. Additionally, limited human capacity and the length of surveys were some identified challenges from this effort that could be addressed via experiential training.Practical implications The study demonstrates that the LDS initiative extends beyond gathering field data, and offers valuable insights for building adaptive, evidence-driven agricultural extension systems capable of addressing farmer needs.Theoretical implications The process evaluation illustrates how integrating agricultural extension and statistical systems can operationalize a data-driven extension model to advance theory on research–extension–policy linkages. It emphasizes the role of feedback loops and institutional learning within a Theory of Change framework.Originality/Value The study offers a replicable model for other developing countries, demonstrating how data collection initiatives can be integrated with research and extension programs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Samaddar et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: