South Pacific Studies Vol.42, No.1, 2 2021-2022

Communication Process for Partnership Tree Farmingin Markham Valley of Papua New Guinea
Riwasino John1*, Yarapea Apoi2 and Henson Michael3

1,3: PNG Biomass Limited. P.O. Box 173, Lae, Morobe Province,
Papua New Guinea.
2: The University of Papua New Guinea
School of Humanities and Social studies,
P.O. BOX 320, University, 134, National Capital District, Papua New Guinea*Corresponding author: Email: jkriwasino@gmail.com

Abstract
Tree farming is necessary for forestry industry that use wood chips to fuel a biomass power
plant and contribute towards climate change resilience through carbon sequestration process fromplanted trees. The research paper discusses communication process for partnership tree farming
and further identifies factors affecting communication process in Markham Valley of Papua New
Guinea. The research involves both qualitative and quantitative data collection methods. The primarydata were collected from the landowners and the main data collection instrument were interview
and survey questionnaire. The research randomly selected and interviewed 10% of 150 household
units as sample size from the project impact communities of Markham Valley in order to represent
the whole population. The field data were processed, analysised and interpreted using Ms excel,
Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software and NVIVO for quotes or narratives from thelandowners.
The research identified infrastructure, socioeconomic and extension service problems as
main factor affecting communication processes for tree farming efforts. According to Problem
Identification Index (PII), highest ranked problem affecting communication process for partnershipproject development were; lack of electricity (168) and funding (158), followed by training needs andawareness (155) and then lack of visit by transfer agent problem (154).
On the basis of the findings, this research paper recommends the use of appropriate
communication language during communication process. Furthermore, the research recommends forthe change of overall message packaging approach to make it more appropriate for the socioculturalcontext when communicating for partnership tree farming.
Key words:

communication process, community development initiatives, furest industory, partnershiptree farming, sociocultural context――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
Received: 6 October, 2021
Accepted: 4 January, 2022

32

South Pacific Studies Vol.42, No.1, 2 2021-2022

Introduction
Communication plays an important role for forestry and agricultural development.
Communication is a link between the resource, resource owners and the developer. The
effective communication brings about positive social change through dialogue, interaction
and collective action (Figueroa et al. 2002, Obregon and Casanova 2019, Servaes 2008).
According to Agunga and Manda (2014), interaction amongst different stakeholders andcollective action influence participation, integration and capacity building. This interaction
between resource owners, developers and other stakeholders for resource development
promotes adoption of new ideas, innovations and technology transfer.
Agroforestry and tree farming practices have been integral parts of livelihood strategies
in rural communities of Papua New Guinea. According to Roshetko (2013), small
holders’ agroforestry systems enhance rural livelihoods. The author further added that thesmallholder investment in trees is one component of their overall land use and livelihood
improvement approach. The Aciar Report (2014) points out that integration of highly
valued tree species in agroforestry systems enhances landowner livelihoods in the ruralcommunities of Papua New Guinea. The integrated practice of tree and food crop farming
systems have been a motivating factor as a result of income derived from the trees. Althoughtimber trees do also have potential to earn money for the tree planted, little effort has been
directed toward this activity. One of the factors that affected agroforestry and tree farming
efforts was the lack of communication between the tree farmers and developer.
Tree farming is the partnership project between a developer (PNG Biomass) and thelandowners of Markham Valley in Morobe Province, Papua New Guinea. The partnershipproject involves PNG Biomass as a developer who provides technical expertise including
financial capacity, whereas the landowners provide land resources and labor strength forfarm development. However, the communication for tree farming efforts had been affected
and influenced by various factors.
The research intended to investigate and identify factors affecting communication
process for partnership tree farming project development in Markham Valley. The
significance of the research was to identify appropriate communication strategies foradvocating and disseminating information about tree farming effort in Markham Valley.
The finding from the research shall provide data base about trend of communication issues
in Markham Valley and other parts of Papua New Guinea for the researcher, agribusinessentrepreneurs, government agencies and any other interested parties in the field ofcommunication for partnership project development.

Riwasino et al.: Communication Process for Partnership Tree Farming in Markham Valley of Papua New Guinea

33

The research site and methodology
The research site
The research was conducted at rural communities of Markham Valley in Morobe
Province, Papua New Guinea. The primary field data were collected from PNG Biomass
project impact communities of Markham Valley (Fig. 1).

Fig.1 Map shows the PNG Biomass project site and study area in Markham Valley of Morobe
Province, Papua New Guinea. Source: PNG Biomass project site profile Map, (DECEMBER 2021)

34

South Pacific Studies Vol.42, No.1, 2 2021-2022

Markham Valley is located in a strategic location where future commercial farming
activities is conceivable due to fertile land and proximity to coast as Lae is the mainindustrial hub and shipping port for New Guinea main land and Papua New Guinea.
The research methodology
The research methodology comprise of research design, theoretical concept andconceptual framework, and research method which describe data collectiion appraoch.
Research Design
The research involves cross-sectional research design that provides data base fordrawing the conclusion to the research problem. The cross-sectional design aims at findingout the prevalence of a phenomenon, situation, problem, attitude or issue by taking a crosssection of a population once to give an overall picture (Levin 2006).
The sampling strategy in this research was random purposeful sampling technique
whereby selected each and individual sample size in an identified population of interest(Kulshreshtha 2013, Suri 2011).
The research was aim to sample the rural population of Markham Valley whoparticipated in the partnership tree farming project development. The central focus of theresearch was to determine different factors affecting communication process.
Theoretical concept and conceptual framework
The attribute theory in communication explains about measure of communication
performance and effectiveness of the communication outcome which is deemed to be
influenced by the human behaviour competencies (skills) input in the communication
process. The theory assertion that attribution provides direction and prediction for theprocess, action and outcome to become effective in communication during communication
process (Delgreco et al. 2021, Kwofie et al. 2014). Fulcrum attribution theory forcommunication competency (Fig. 2) emphasis about how attributional factors andskills influence and impact the communication competency and overall communication
performance (Kwofie et al. 2014).
In similar context, the conceptual framework of communication process for partnershipproject development was developed by synthesis, both attribute theory in communication

Fig.2 Attribution Theory for Communication Competency. Source: KwofieWet al. (2014)

Riwasino et al.: Communication Process for Partnership Tree Farming in Markham Valley of Papua New Guinea

35

Fig.3 Conceptual Framework of communication process for the partnership project development.

and Fulcrum attribution theory for communication competency. The conceptual framework(Fig. 3) presents communication process for partnership project development whereby itprovides strategies towards mitigating and overcoming factors affecting communication
process. The framework identifies factors affecting communication process, use ofcommunication campaign to influence behavior and decision making process of theland owners and other stakeholders who involved in the tree farming partnership project
development. The outcome of communication process is the improve understanding of tree
farming about the importance and benefits and then participation in the partnership project
development.
The research method
The research methods were interviews and survey questionnaires. The interview
involves both formal and informal approaches. The main aim of interviews was to obtained
the interviewees’ stories, views and opinions about factors affecting communication
processes for partnership tree farming project development in Markham Valley. The survey
questionnaire was another research method for collecting field data from project impact
communities. The nature of inquiry for using a survey questionnaire involved both closed
and open-end questions. The open-ended questions were classified into categories in which
the researcher read through whereby each respondent’s answers and then “coded” it bydeciding whether to go into one or another category. In this research, for example, one
open-ended question was, “Do socioeconomic factors affect communication process?” If
the respondent answered ‘yes’, he or she was required to give a reason. “If yes, how does
it affects communication process and the development of tree farming?” (Appx. 1). In thesense, coding actually measured the un-measureable and counted the uncounted in which it
converted the qualitative answers to a quantitative measure. Both closed and open-end items
were analysised and interpreted in which it provided the data base for identifying the factors

36South Pacific Studies Vol.42, No.1, 2 2021-2022

affecting communication processes for partnership project development of tree farming inMarkham Valley.
The research randomly selected and interviewed 10% of 150 household unit as sample
size from the PNG Biomass project impact communities of Markham Valley in order torepresent the whole population. The purpose of 10% sampling strategy was to collected thevaluable information with minimum cost so that the findings represent the whole population.
Data Analysis
The research employed mixed data analysis techniques to reduce field data toa manageable size. According to Driscoll et al. (2007:27), mixed data analysis is aprocess whereby “qualitative data provide an in-depth understanding of survey responses,
and statistical analysis that can provide detailed assessment of patterns of responses.”
Onwuegbuzie and Teddie (2003) describe six steps for mixed data analyses: data reduction,
data display, data transformation, data consolidation, data comparison and data integration.
This research applied the six steps of mixed data analyses whereby the transformed data
were consolidated using a formulated formula known as Problem Identification Index (PII).
The data were consolidated and analysed using the formulae below to determine thefactors affecting the communication process.
[(NP x 0) + (LP x 1) + (MP + 2)]
x 100
Total number of sample (TNS)
Weight:
NP= 0
LP = 1
MP = 2NO Problem (NP); Little Problem (LP); More Problem (MP)Problem Identification Index (PII)=

The respondents were asked about the level of problems concerning the factors
affecting communication processes by choosing one of the three options: (i) no problem (0),(ii) little problem (1), (iii) more problem (2). The figures in the brackets were the weights
assigned to each level. The Problem Identification Index (PII) with the highest value was
ranked as first; next highest as second and so on in a descending order to the lowest.
The field data collected through interview and survey questionnaires were analysised,processed and interpreted using spread sheets on MS Excel and MS Word as well as
Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software and NVIVO for quotes or narratives
from the landowners. The coding system was applied in which it converted qualitative
answers to quantitative measurements. The field data were interpreted through computing
process that provides finding to the research.

Results and discussion
The research provides findings and discussed the factors affecting communication
processes for partnership tree farming project development in Markham Valley.

Riwasino et al.: Communication Process for Partnership Tree Farming in Markham Valley of Papua New Guinea

37

Factors affecting communication processes for partnership project development
The research was based on personal, socio-cultural, socio-economic, infrastructure andextension services problems that affects communication processes for partnership project
development of tree farming in Markham Valley of Morobe Province, Papua New Guinea.
Personal problems
The two main personal problems that the research investigated were lack of educationand literacy, and then language barriers. Table 1 presents personal problem affecting
communication processes for partnership project development. The finding shows that lackof education and literacy ranked first and scored highest with 138 on Problem Identification
Index (PII). This was due to the fact that low literacy and education level contributed
towards the landowners lack of understanding. In other words, most landowners were foundto be illiterate and the message about importance of tree farming was not clear to them forbetter understanding and participation in the communication process of tree farming. Canoand Bankston (1992) point out that lack of education and literacy limit the understandingof people and further contributes towards non-participation of people in forestry activity.
Another reason for the landowners not willing to participate in communication fortree farming was due to fear over social change from the development projects, particularly
the introduction of technology (new ways of farming system) and innovation in farming
practices. For example, the landowners of the Markham Valley assumed and fearedthat innovation might influence and affect their social and cultural norms. Further, thelandowners assumed that innovations might affect the old practices of agricultural farming
system and reduce income levels. Lunenburg (2010) emphasizes that individual person
may come up with different perceptive, knowledge, belief and opinion toward development
project. These fears and presumption about negative impact of tree farming initiative anddevelopment can be reduced by educating the landowners through awareness and training
programs. According to Crowley et al. (2017), farmers training must base on farmers need
and abilities and also on improving effective communication.
The language barrier ranked second and scored 119 on problem identification index(Table 1). This result shows that language barrier affects communication process for
Table 1. Personal problems affecting communication processes.
No Problems

Lack of educationand literacy

30

77

47

138

1

Language barriers

51

51

52

119

2

Problem Identification Index (PII)=
Weight:

NP= 0

Less Problems More Problems

Problem Identification
Index (PII)
Rank

Personal Problems[(NP x 0) + (LP x 1) + (MP + 2)]
Total number of sample (TNS)
LP = 1

MP = 2

No Problem (NP); Less Problem (LP); More Problem (MP)

x 100

38

South Pacific Studies Vol.42, No.1, 2 2021-2022

partnership project development. The language barrier was found between national andlocal language, how information about importance of tree farming can be transmitted in
the local context for the local people to understand, accept and adopt the innovation infarming. As Harzing and Feely (2008) point out, communication fluency is essential
during the communication process. In other words, the use of appropriate words,
language and dialogue during the conversation and interaction with the landowners isvital to avoid misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the message. In most cases, theculturally acceptable language and dialogue is essential to avoid miss-understanding andmisconception about intended message during the communication process for tree farming.
The research through informal interview further reveals that individual persons in thecommunity have their own personnel perspectives and perceptions about understanding andinterpretation of the development projects, and also issues that affect their daily needs andchallenges. There may be positive response from the landowners when the message aboutdevelopment project feeds their needs and aspirations that address their current problems
and challenges. According to Van Ruler (2018), communication as two-way process;with receiver and sender perspective. In other words, the message about tree farming fromthe sender (developer), must be conveyed through common dialogue or language which
the receiver (landowners) shall clearly understand and interpret. Bessette (2006) further
added that the success of participatory development communication is influenced byinformation and persuasive approach that facilitate exchange between different stakeholders.
The information transmitted by developer (PNG Biomass) to the audience (landowners)
must contain messages that emphasise ways to improve current problems and challenges.
The approach may influence the landowners’ mind-sets to make informed decisions overthe use and management of their land resource. Kasser (2009) stress that psychologicalsustainability can be achieved by satisfying individual needs, addressing their personal
wellbeing challenges and enhancing ecological sustainability through sustainable practiceof farming entrepreneur. Japan International Co-operation Agency (2009) further
emphasizes that leaning to improve skills and knowledge about agricultural innovation canbe influenced and motivated by applying innovation to their own situation or current trendof living.
Socio-cultural problems
The socio-cultural problems were tradition and custom, gender inequality and rural
power structure as shown on Table 2. The findings show that tradition and custom scoredhighest, followed by gender inequality and then rural power structure. The tradition andcustom was ranked first with the score of 132 on Problem Identification Index (PII).
This result indicates that tradition and custom affects communication process, because it
influences the land use decision-making process for tree farming. Study by Lee (2003:10)
about communication barriers in Health Care stated that “self-centeredness, individual
motivation for improvement, and life-style change conflict with the traditional importanceof family over self.” In other words, the dissemination of information about tree farming
opportunities in Markham Valley must consider cultural aspects of the society.

Riwasino et al.: Communication Process for Partnership Tree Farming in Markham Valley of Papua New Guinea

39

Table 2. Sociocultural problems affecting communication processes.
Sociocultural Problems

No Problems Less Problems More Problems

Problem Identification
Rank
Index (PII)

Tradition & custom

40

64

52

132

1

Gender inequality

38

72

42

127

2

Rural power structure

51

52

10

65

3

Problem Identification Index (PII)=
Weight:

NP= 0[(NP x 0) + (LP x 1) + (MP + 2)]
Total number of sample (TNS)
LP = 1x 100

MP = 2

No Problem (NP); Less Problem (LP); More Problem (MP)The second ranked socio-cultural problem that affect communication process was
gender inequality with score of 127 on problem identification index (Table 2). This findingshows that decision making power and participation of vulnerable people in the society
particularly women were found to be very limited due to traditions and customs norms of
the society in Markham Valley. The cultural barrier and limitation for women to participate
in decision making affects communication process for tree faming. The informal interview
with Ken Kamap of Mangiang village in Markham Valley also reveals that next of kin
through blood line had authority over the ownership and the use of resources whereas
other external family members such as nephews, tambu’s (brother-in-law or sister-in-law)and cousins do not have rights and decision-making powers about use and benefit of land
resources. Lunenburg (2010) and Khan et al. (2012) point out that cultural heritage, biases
and prejudices may contribute towards communication problems.
The rural political structure was third, final and the least sociocultural problem thatscored 65 on problem identification index. This result indicates that rural political structure
do not have any influence over communication process for tree farming, since mostdecisions about the use of land were made through collective views by the clan members inan organized meeting. The Aciar Report (2014:22) stress that “use of particular parts ofthe group’s resource endowment may circulate amongst group members over subsequent
cropping cycles.”Socio-economic problems
In this research, socio-economic indicators were both social and economic conditions
that affect communication process of partnership project development. The research
investigated three main socio-economic problems which were lack of funding, participationand collaboration. Table 3 represents the socioeconomic problem affecting communication
process for partnership tree farming business. Finding indicates that the highly rated socioeconomic problem was the lack of funding, followed by the lack of participation and thencollaboration. The lack of funding was scored highest and rank first with 158 on Problem
Identification Index (PII). This result shows that the main socio-economic problem wasfunding, in terms of monetary, material and equipment to supports on-going communication

40

South Pacific Studies Vol.42, No.1, 2 2021-2022

Table 3. Socio-economic problems affecting communication processes.
Socioeconomic Problems No Problems Less Problems More Problems

Problem Identification
Rank
Index (PII)

Lacking of funding

18

63

73

158

1

Lacking of participation

47

73

34

118

2

Lack of collaboration

47

67

29

105

3

Problem Identification Index (PII)=
Weight:

NP= 0[(NP x 0) + (LP x 1) + (MP + 2)]
Total number of sample (TNS)
LP = 1x 100

MP = 2

No Problem (NP); Less Problem (LP); More Problem (MP)process for tree farming. The money was found to be a source of transaction between
people and access to modern communication facilities and services. The landowners’
needed funding (money) in order to access communication systems and also purchasecommunication equipment such as mobile phones to communicate and access services.
Abah and Petja (2015) point out that two of the socioeconomic challenges for agriculturalextension development are inadequate access to credit and farm input.
The next socio-economic problem was lack of participation in which ranked second
with score of 118 on problem identification index (Table 3). The result indicates that lackof participation caused communication barrier for tree farming effort, because there wasno teamwork established amongst the clan members and family units due to fear anduncertainty over the development of the project. Furthermore, most landowners lacked
understanding about the importance and the benefits of tree farming. Koczberski andCurry (2005) elaborate that change of livelihood is determined by new policies andanalytical approaches towards management and use of resource. In other words, proper
communication strategies must facilitate the interaction between the developer (PNG
Biomass) and the people (the landowner) in order to achieve the diffusion of innovations
and the adoption of tree farming practices.
The research reveals that lack of collaboration was the least socioeconomic problem
with scoring of 105 on problem identification index (Table 3), because the developer (PNG
Biomass) collaborate and consistently improve relation with landowners for tree farming
effort.
Infrastructure problem
The research investigated the infrastructure problems which were electricity,communication medium, transportation, roads and bridges as shown on Table 4. The
finding shows that electricity was the most common infrastructure limitation followed bycommunication medium and transportation problems. The lack of electricity ranked firstand scored highest with 168 on the problem identification index since most landowners
agreed that electricity as the basic household need and livelihood improvement services in
the community. Cook et al. (2007) stated that rural electrifying is linked to development

Riwasino et al.: Communication Process for Partnership Tree Farming in Markham Valley of Papua New Guinea

41

Table 4. Infrastructure problems affecting communication processes.
Infrastructure Problems

No Problems Less Problems More Problems

Problem Identification
Rank
Index (PII)

Electricity

21

16

117

168

1

Communication medium

48

82

24

113

2

Transportation

87

49

18

72

3

Road network

105

27

22

56

4

Problem Identification Index (PII)=
Weight:

NP= 0[(NP x 0) + (LP x 1) + (MP + 2)]
Total number of sample (TNS)
LP = 1x 100

MP = 2

No Problem (NP); Less Problem (LP); More Problem (MP)prosperity in terms of energy uses and poverty reductions. The research also revealed thatmost household unit were found to be off-grid the main power transmission line from PNG
Power Limited, (the power provider for Papua New Guinea) in Markham Valley. Those
populations lived along the grid-line were unable to be connected and access power due tothe cost involved in connection and purchase of electrical equipment.
Communication medium was the second ranked infrastructure problem with score of
113 on problem identification index. This was because most landowners do not own andused communication mediums such as television, radio and mobile phones due to highcost involved in the purchase and the use of communication medium. Another reason was
due to the unavailability of services in the community. The research also found that mostlandowner were unfamiliar with the use of mediums as they were uneducated and illiterate(Table 1), and further unable to read and understand the medium.
The transportation systems and road network scored 72 and 65 on problem
identification index and they were the least infrastructure problem affecting communication
process for partnership project development. The finding shows that there was no significant
difference observed between lack of transportation system and road network as both scoredbelow 100 on the problem identification index (Table 4). Both transportation system androad network were classified as least problem due to the fact that most feeder roads network
in Markham Valley is being connected and it have very good road condition. Due toimproved road condition, transport system is being effective with local people ventured into
trucking business that readily available for transportation services. Further, the road network
connected with main Highlands highway of Papua New Papua that makes more efficient foraccess to transportation and other services in Markham Valley.
Apart from the lack of electricity supply to the households, informal interview foundthat most landowners and rural people in Markham Valley do not access to water supply,
health services and public facilities. This shows that landowners lack basic infrastructuredevelopments and services. According to Vanclay (2004) and Japan International Cooperation Agency (2009), adoption occurs when landowners clearly understand new ideas
to help them achieve their personnel goals. In other words, landowners can only participate

42South Pacific Studies Vol.42, No.1, 2 2021-2022

Table 5.
Extension Service Problems No Problems Less Problems More Problems

Problem Identification
Rank
Index (PII)

Lack of awareness & training

15

86

53

155

1

Lack of visit by transfer agent

15

92

47

154

2

Lack of field trials

25

96

32

138

3

Problem Identification Index (PII)=
Weight:

NP= 0[(NP x 0) + (LP x 1) + (MP + 2)]
Total number of sample (TNS)
LP = 1x 100

MP = 2

No Problem (NP); Less Problem (LP); More Problem (MP)in development project that is beneficial and contribute towards improving their livelihood.
It is therefore important for the developer (PNG Biomass) to identify problems that affectindividual livelihoods and then design development projects which would suit their dailyneeds so that traditional landowners would readily accept new ideas and provide their land
for farm development.
Extension services problems
Table 5 presents different extension service problems that affect communication
processes for partnership project development. The three main extension service problems
investigated were the lack of awareness and training, transfer agent visits, and then fieldtrials. The result shows that lack of awareness and training scored highest with 155 followed
by lack of visit by transfer agent with 154 and then lack of field trial with 138 on problem
identification index (PII). These results indicate that there was no significant difference
observed between all three extension service problems; as most landowners recommended
for all extension services to be provided to their respective communities for facilitating
tree-farming project. These findings affirm that the landowners wanted developer (PNG
Biomass) to provide awareness and training programs about the importance of tree-farming
and its benefits. The landowner also wanted vital information about land-use plan must
publicized to them in order to make informed decisions about the use and managementof the land. According to Black (2014) and Zahran et al. (2020), agricultural educationand extension systems lacks innovation and training needs. Suvedi et al. (2017) added thatongoing efforts in extension education is critical in promoting adoption of more profitable
cropping systems. FAO (2016) mentioned that one of the ways of bringing the extension
services would be to hold field day visits for the community in order to equip them withknowledge on how to manage their farms. Kingiri and Nderitu (2014) also stated that onfarm demonstration is one of the extension methods which can be used to actively involvethe farmers and by doing so they may take ownership of the program.
The findings from factors affecting communication processes for partnership project
development draws conclusion and recommendation to the research study.

Riwasino et al.: Communication Process for Partnership Tree Farming in Markham Valley of Papua New Guinea

43

Conclusion and recommendations
Conclusion
This research underpins partnership tree farming project development between adeveloper and the landowners of Markham Valley in Morobe Province, Papua New Guinea.
The partnership project involves PNG Biomass as a developer who provides technicalexpertise as well as financial capacity whereas the landowners provide land resources andlabor strength for farm development. Partnership tree farming is necessary for forestry
industry in order to produce and use wood chips for fueling a biomass power plant including
climate change resilience through carbon sequestration process from planted trees.
The research paper discusses the communication process for partnership tree farming
project development. The research identifies factors affecting communication process forpartnership project development and further provide strategies towards mitigating andovercome those factors affecting communication process.
The research identified infrastructure, socioeconomic and extension service problems
as main factor affecting communication processes for tree farming efforts. According
to Problem Identification Index (PII), highest ranked problem affecting communication
process for partnership project development were; lack of electricity (168) and funding(158), followed by training needs and awareness (155) and then lack of visit by transfer
agent problem (154). The lack of electricity was the main infrastructure problem affecting
communication process since most landowners agreed that electricity as the basic
household need and livelihood improvement services in the community. Funding wasanother main factor under socio-economic limitations, in terms of monetary, material andequipment to supports on-going communication process for tree farming. The money was
found to be a source of transaction between people and access to modern communication
facilities and services. The landowners’ needed funding (money) in order to access
communication systems and also purchase communication equipment such as mobile
phones to communicate effectively and access services. Lack of training for the landowners
and awareness program about importance of tree farming business also contribute towards
communication barriers and interaction between the developer (PNG Biomass), landowners
and other stakeholder for collective action that influence active participation, integrationand capacity building for partnership project development. Another problem that affectcommunication process was the lack of visit by transfer agent (developer) to enhance
effective communication and interaction between landowners and other skate holders. Most
landowners agreed that, for example, holding a field day visits and on-farm demonstration
improve active participation and further improve skills and knowledge on how to manage
their farm through the process of technology transfer.
Recommendations
In order to improve and enhance effective communication process for tree farming
efforts, the research recommends for the use of appropriate language during conversations
and interactions between the developer (PNG Biomass) and the landowners of Markham

44South Pacific Studies Vol.42, No.1, 2 2021-2022

Valley including other stakeholders who involved in tree farming business. The researchalso recommends for developer (PNG Biomass) to carry out communication campaign andawareness programs that address current trend of need in the community and the importanceof partnership tree farming development. Furthermore, the research recommends ofchange overall message packaging approach to make it appropriate for the socioculturalcontext when communicating for partnership project development. Most importantly,
the communication approach should meet a particular need of a society so that people
readily accept the message. The research further recommends for funding make available
to the landowners through monetary, material and equipment resource for community
developments initiatives.

Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledged the Papua New Guinea (PNG) Universityof Technology Post Graduate School, Department of Communication and Development
Studies, PNG Biomass Project Management Team, and the land owners of Markham Valley
in Morobe Province for the support towards the research.

References
Abah, C. R. and Petja, M. B. 2015. The Socio-economic Factors Affecting Agricultural
Development in the Lower River Benue Basin. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and
Health Care, 5: 84-94.
Aciar Report 2014. The Potential of Incorporating High-value Tree Species in Papua New
Guinea Agroforestry Systems to Enhance Landowner Livelihoods. Australian Centre forInternational Agricultural Research (ACIAR), 71pp., Canberra ACT 2601, Australia.
Agunga, R. and Manda, Z. L. 2014. Communication for Strengthening Agricultural
Extension and Rural Development in Malawi. Journal of Development andCommunication Studies, 3: 2305-7432.
Bessette, G. 2006. Facilitating Dialogue, Learning and Participation in Natural Resource
Management. In People, Land and Water: Participatory Development Communication for
Natural Resource Management (Ed. Bessette G.),3-31, Earthscan, London, UK (fromhttps://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/People%2C-Land-and-Water%3A-ParticipatoryDevelopment-Bessette/5371ac51222ff454bcb783a26f7d7f841b095d47).
Black, K.M. 2014. Perceptions of Agricultural Extension Agents’ in-service Training Needs
within the National Agency for Rural Development in the Republic of Moldova. 126 pp.,
(Masters of Science Thesis), Office of Graduate and Professional Studies of Texas A&M
University, Texas, United State.
Cano, J. and Bankston, J. 1992. Factors which Influence Participation and Nonparticipation of Ethnic Minority Youth in Ohia 4-H Programs. Journal of Agricultural
Education, 33: 23-29.
Cook, M., Lally, C., Mccarthy, M. and Mischler, K. 2007. Guidelines for theRiwasino et al.: Communication Process for Partnership Tree Farming in Markham Valley of Papua New Guinea

45

Development of a Communication Strategy. New Horizon Centre. (from https://web.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project-042507084241/unrestricted/
GuidelinesForTheDevelopmentOfACommunicationStrategy.pdf)
Crowley, E., O’sullivan, S. and O’keeffe, B. 2017. An Evaluating of Kerry Social
Farming 2017. 150 pp., South Kerry Development Partnership CLG, West Main Street,
Caheryveen, Co, Kerry Island, Ireland (from https://www.southkerry.ie).
Delgreco, M., Denes, A., Davis, S. and Webber, T.K. 2021. Revisiting Attribution
Theory: Toward a Critical Feminist Approach for Understanding Attributions of Blame.
Communication Theory, 31: 250-276. DOI:10.1093/ct/qtab001
Driscoll, L.D., Appiah-yeboah, A., Salib, P. and Rupert, J.D.2007. Merging Qualitativeand Quantitative Data in Mixed Methods Research: How to and Why Not. Ecological andEnvironmental Anthropology, 3, 19-28.
FAO. 2016. Farmer Field School Guidance Document: Planning for Quality Programmes.
112 pp., Food and Agricultural Organisation for the United Nation, Rome, Italy.
Figueroa, E.M., Kincaid, D.L., Rani, M. and Lewis, G. 2002. Communication for Social
Change: An Integrated Model for Measuring the Process and Its Outcomes. In Working
Paper Series: No.1 (Ed. Byrd, I.B), 10018-2702, The Rockefeller Foundation, New York,
United States(from http://archive.cfsc.org/pdf/socialchange.pdf).
Harzing, A. W. and Feely, A. J. 2008. The Language Barrier and its Implications for HQsubsidiary Relationships. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 15:
49–61.
Japan International Co-operation Agency. 2009. Project on Strengthening Technology
Development, Verification, Transfer and Adoption Through Farmers’ Research Group,
FRG N0.6, Japan International Co-operation Agency (JICA), Adam, Ethiopia(from https://www.jica.go.jp/project/ethiopia/5065025E0/05/pdf/newsletter_04.pdf).
Kasser, T. 2009. Psychological Needs Satisfaction, Personal Wellbeing and Ecological
Sustainability. Ecopsychology, 1:175-180(from http://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2009.0025).
Khan, R.F., Iqbal, Z. and Gazzaz, B.O, 2012. Communication and Culture: Reflections on
the Perspectives of Influence. Wulfenia Journal, 19; 197-212.
Kingiri, A. and Ndritu, S. 2014. Assessment of Extension and Advisory Methods andApproaches to Reach Rural Women, FEED the FUTURE: The US Government’s Global
Hunger & Food Security Initiative, MEAS Evaluation Series, United States Agency forInternational Development (USAID), United State (from https://meas.illinois.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2017/02/MEAS-EVAL-2014-EAS-Reaching-Rural-Women-ReportKenya-Kingiri-Nderitu-July-2014.pdf).
Koczberski O, G. and CURRY, N. G. 2005. Making a Living: Land Pressure and Changing
Livelihood Strategies among Oil Palm Settlers in Papua New Guinea., Agricultural
System, 85:324 -339.
Kulshreshtha, A.C. (2013). Basic Concepts of Sampling: Brief Review; Sampling Frame,
U.N. Statistical Institute for Asia and the Pacific (SIAP) Second RAP Regional Workshop

46South Pacific Studies Vol.42, No.1, 2 2021-2022

on Building Training Resources for Improving Agricultural & Rural Statistics Sampling
Methods for Agricultural Statistics-Review of Current Practices SCI, Tehran, Islamic
Republic of Iran (from https://www.unsiap.or.jp/elearning/el_material/5_Agri/rap2/
ag_02_03_L1_BasicConcepts_Sampling_Frame.pdf).
Kwofie, E.T., Fugar, F., Adinyira, E. and Ahadzie, D. 2014. A Conceptual Frameworkfor Evaluating Communication Performance among Mass Housing Project Team, 3rdInternational Conference on Infrastructure Development in Africa, 17-19 March, 2014,
Abeokuta, Nigeria.
Lee, M. S. 2003. A Review of Language and Other Communication Barriers in Health Care,
Department of Sociology, Portland State University, Port Land.
Levin, A.K. 2006. Study Design III: Cross-sectional Studies. Evidence-based Dentistry,
7:24-5. DOI: 10.1038/sj.ebd.6400375
Lunenburg, C.F. 2010. Communication: The Process, Barriers, and Improving
Effectiveness. Schooling, 1: 1-10.
Obregon, R. and Casanova, V. J. 2019. Voices with Purpose: A Manual on Communication
Strategies for Development and Social Change. Participant’s Module, FRIEDRICHEBERT-STIFTUNG (FES) fesmedia Africa, Windhoek, Namibia.
Onwuegbuzie, J. A. and Teddie, C. 2003. A Framework for Analysing Data in Mixed
Methods Research. In: Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioural Research(Eds. Tashakakakkori, A. and Teddie C.), 321-350. Sage, California, USA.
Riscoll, L. D., Appiah-Yeboah, A., Salib, P. and Rupert, J. D. 2007. Merging Qualitativeand Quantitative Data in Mixed Methods Research: How to and Why Not. Ecological andEnvironmental Anthropology, 3: 19-28.
Roshetko, J.M. 2013. Smallholder Tree Farming Systems for Livelihood Enhancement andCarbon Storage, IGN PhD thesis August 2013. 135 pp., Department of Geosciences andNatural Resource Management, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg, Denmark(from https://www.worldagroforestry.org/publication/smallholder-tree farming-systemslivelihood-enhancement-and-carbon-storage-ign-phd).
Servaes, J (Ed.) 2008. Communication for Development and Social Change. 429 pp., Saga
Publications Inc. California, USA.
Suri, H. (2011). Purposeful Sampling in Qualitative Research Synthesis. Qualitative
Research Journal, 11: 63-75.
Suvedi, M., Ghimire, R. and Kaplowitz, M. 2017. Farmers’ Participation in Extension
Programs and Technology Adoption in Rural Nepal: A Logistic Regression Analysis. The
Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 23:1-21.
Van Ruler, B. 2018. Communication Theory: An Underrated Pillar on which Strategic
Communication Rests. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 12: 367-381.
Vanclay, F. 2004. Social Principles for Agriculture Extension to Assist in the Promotion of
Natural Resource Management. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 44: 213-222.
Zahran, Y., Kassen, S. H., Naba, M. S. and Alotaibi, A. A. 2020. Shifting from
Fragmentation to Integration: A Proposed Framework for Strengthening Agricultural
Knowledge and Innovation System in Egypt. Sustainability, 12: 5131.

Riwasino et al.: Communication Process for Partnership Tree Farming in Markham Valley of Papua New Guinea

47

Appendix I: Research quesionnaire
Research objective: Find out the factors that affect communication processes forpartnership Tree Farming project development in Markham Valley.
Rank the problem(s) in the box provided against the questions from 1-4 as:
1, most frequently encountered2, frequently encountered3, encountered4, not encountered.
2.1.0 Personnel problem
2.1.1 Language barriers
2.1.2 Education and literacy
Briefly explain your reason? ……………………………………………………
2.2 Sociocultural problem:
2.2.1 Tradition & custom
Briefly explain your reason: ……………………………………………………
2.2.2 Rural power structure
Briefly explain your reason: ……………………………………………………
2.2.3 Gender inequality
Briefly explain your reason: ……………………………………………………
2.2.4 Do cultural factors affecting communication? YesNo
If yes, how does it affect development of a project?..............................................
2.3.0 Socio-economical problem
2.3.1 Lack of funding
2.3.2 Lack of participation
2.3.3 Lack of collaboration (team work)
2.2.4 Do social factors affect decision making process? Yes
No. “If yes, how does it affects communication process and the development of tree farming?”,……………………………………………………………………………………
2.4 Illiteracy
2.4.1 Lack of understanding (e.g. biophysical benefits)
2.5 Infrastructural problem (e.g. airstrips, roads and bridges deteriorated or being spoiled).
Rank the problem(s) in the box provided against the questions from 1-3 as:
1. strongly recommended
2. recommended
3. not recommended
2.5.1 Road & bridge
2.5.2 Communication medium
List the type of communication medium: ………………………………………
2.5.3 Electricity
2.5.4 Transportation
2.6.0 Extension services
2.6.1 No regular visit by transfer agent at the site

48

South Pacific Studies Vol.42, No.1, 2 2021-2022

2.6.2 No awareness & training
2.6.3 No field trials