SEA Working Paper 98/05

What can agricultural researchers do to encourage the adoption of sustainable farming systems?

Sally P. Marsh

Centre for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture, and Agricultural and Resource Economics, The University of W.A., Nedlands, 6907, Ph: 08 9380 3427. Email: spmarsh@cyllene.uwa.edu.au

1. Introduction

It is well recognised that traditional land management and farming practices in Western Australia are contributing to the rapid degradation of our agricultural resource and remaining natural habitat resources. In an effort to address issues of agricultural sustainability, research is increasingly oriented towards developing crops, pastures and farming systems that will maximise water and nutrient use, and minimise soil degradation. Furthermore, a great deal of money is being invested by governments, agribusiness and farmers in extension efforts to encourage farmers to adopt practices which will reduce or stop land degradation. Despite a high level of awareness by farmers of land degradation issues (Vanclay & Lawrence, 1995), the rate of uptake of conservation practices and changed farming systems by farmers in general is slow; much less than desired by governments, researchers and committed farmers.

Pannell (1999) asserts that "the fundamental challenge facing us in addressing land degradation is to develop a farming system that will be adopted and maintained by farmers". In this paper I am going to firstly address the factors that have been shown to influence adoption, and then go on to relate these to the types of technologies and changed farming systems that are needed to address issues of sustainability. Finally, I want to look at issues of learning and participation that I believe are vital to address the difficulties associated with changing practices when the changes proposed are complex and difficult to assess.

2. What determines whether farmers adopt or reject innovations?

The adoption and diffusion of agricultural innovations has been studied by agricultural economists and rural sociologists, but the process of evaluating change and why it happens generally is a area of interest for economics, sociology, communication science, education, business and marketing, political science, etc. You can read articles related to adoption/diffusion in journals concerned with Health, Business, Marketing, Information Technology, Education, Policy, etc. Factors that can encourage people to change their activities or attitudes and the goods they purchase are of interest to many disciplines and people.

Adoption theory in agriculture essentially sees the adopt/reject decision as a ‘risky choice’ problem. The decision to adopt a new innovation is risky because the farmer is unsure whether he or she will be better or worse off by adopting. The likelihood of making a correct, or incorrect, decision clearly depends on the decision maker’s knowledge of the relevant parameters - the more that is known the less likely it is that an incorrect decision will be made. Adoption is essentially a process of collecting information, revising opinions/attitudes and reassessing decisions - i.e. a dynamic learning process.

There is a wealth of empirical evidence on the factors that influence farmers’ adoption of innovations (e.g. Abadi Ghadim & Pannell, 1998; Rogers, 1995; Marsh et al., 1995; Feder & Umali, 1993; Lindner, 1987; Feder at al., 1985). A list from this literature would include the following factors

Lindner (1987) concluded that there was strong empirical evidence that farmers in general are rational, meaning that if they are not adopting an innovation it is because they don’t believe it is in their own best interest. Apparent irrationality, he said, can be explained by:

An addition to this list might include discount factors that distort the true value of the innovation or make it difficult to assess.

However, the notion that the decision to adopt or reject an innovation depends on what is in the producers’ best interest is deceptively simple. Pannell (1999) acknowledges this in saying "we can identify the conditions necessary to achieve adoption of an innovation but it remains difficult to meet these conditions". He goes to outline the "conditions" that are "necessary" for the producer to determine whether or not the innovation or changed system is in his or her best interest. As Pannell (1999) lists them these are:

Points (a) and (b) are seen by Pannell (1999) as necessary precursors to (c), which in the end is what is needed to ensure that the producer will act.

In this next section I want to develop the ideas that confound the "simplicity" of the notion of "best interest".

3. Why does adoption behaviour vary so much?

3.1 There are differences between innovations in the rate at which they are adopted and the final level of adoption.

Defining the characteristics of innovations that are readily adopted has been the area where agricultural economists have had the most influence. Faster rates of diffusion (i.e. measure of the uptake of an innovation over time and space) are associated with:

Innovations that have greater relative advantage. Economists go on to claim that a very large part of "relative advantage" is determined by the relative objective profitability of the innovation compared to the alternative. Relative advantage is also related to the scale of relevance of an innovation, for example, the area of suitable soil type for a new crop. Conclusions drawn from empirical studies suggest that the profitability of the innovation has a major influence on the adoption process.

Innovations that are compatible. Compatibility is also strongly linked to relative advantage. An innovation that is compatible with previously introduced ideas, or beliefs and values already held, or with needs, is able to be quickly assessed and implemented. It wouldn’t be difficult to draw an anology with scientific ideas and work that are acceptable and publishable.

Innovations that can be trialed easily. Pannell (1999) sees trialing as "perhaps the most important phase in determining final adoption or disadoption". If small scale trials are not possible or not enlightening for some reason, the chances of widespread adoption are greatly diminished. Conducting a trial incurs costs of time, energy, finance and land that could be used productively for other purposes. To be willing to trial an innovation, the farmer’s perceptions of it must be sufficiently positive to believe that there is a reasonable chance of adopting the innovation in the long run.

Innovations that are less complex. Innovations that are less complex are easier to learn about, easier to understand, easier to trial, easier to implement.

Innovations that can be observed. If an innovation has results that are observable it is easier to learn about the worth of the innovation and its applicability to the individual’s circumstances.

This is all pretty basic stuff but there should be some fairly strong messages for researchers coming through, particularly with regard to the difficulties associated with trying to achieve major changes in farming systems. Many of the innovations/systems that we are asking farmers to accept and adopt are not demonstrably more profitable (especially in the short term), they are incompatible with current farming systems and beliefs about "what farming is"; they are difficult to trial, and the results of trials are difficult to assess because there are long time scales involved and variability caused by external influences. Pannell (1999) and Marsh & Pannell (1997) discuss these difficulties in more detail.

It is worth acknowledging at this point that most research on the factors which influence adoption and diffusion of innovations has centred around ‘profitable’ production-oriented innovations, and not on complex systems innovations that typify sustainable management systems. Some researchers have argued that the factors influencing the adoption of conservation technologies could be different to those affecting the adoption of production-oriented technologies (Pampel and van Es, 1977; Napier et al., 1984). However, the available empirical evidence does not support this argument. Recent Australian research indicates that while a stewardship ethic and personal factors influence perception of environmental problems, it is economic factors which actually promote adoption of conservation technologies (Sinden and King, 1990; Cary and Wilkinson, 1997).

Indeed, even rural sociologists acknowledge that economic factors play a role in the adoption of sustainable farming systems (see, for example, Vanclay and Lawrence,1995, pp. 88-89). Some recent work by Frost (1998) with Landcare groups in Western Australia showed that farmers "required" (through their membership of an Alcoa-sponsored group) to implement Landcare projects believed it was more important that "all Landcare projects should be profitable", compared to farmers who were members of other Landcare groups where implementation of changed practices was not required.

Given then that the innovations and changed systems that are part of a move to sustainable farming do not easily fit into the class of innovations that are easily and readily adopted, why is it just not enough for the "experts" to tell and show farmers (as much as possible) the benefits of the new system. The simple reason is that you and I really don’t have much idea of what is in their best interest. We might have some opinion of what is needed from a total community or environmental perspective, but as Pannell (1999) notes, it is difficult to recognise and account correctly for the many subtle and interacting factors that determine the impact of a technology on any individual farmer’s welfare. We may see research as holding the answers, but for farmers it can be perceived as an example of how "they do the research and rely on us to excitedly line up to change our lives with it".

3.2 There are differences in the adoption of a given innovation between different individuals.

No two farms are identical and no two people are the same. "Best interest" is not only determined by objective factors but is heavily influenced by perceptions. Every producer considering a new innovation or system has:

Furthermore there can be differences in rates and levels of adoption between different societies or regions because of differences in the nature of existing communication networks, legal constraints, availability and access to markets, and cultural factors.

At about this point it is appropriate to say that the whole issue of understanding individual adoption behaviour is so intractably complex it is a wonder that we can make any sense of it at all. Is it any wonder that economists focus on relative profitability. At least it is measurable! And it has proven to be a good predictor of behaviour change, unlike many of the other factors that influence behaviour change (Lindner, 1987).

It is difficult to change what people do, especially if they see no need to change or benefit from changing. People who study behaviour change are split between the disciplines of economics, sociology, communication science and psychology (and probably others), and to a certain extent speak different languages. All these disciplines, however, have valuable insights to make about behaviour change. This paper is written from a socio-economic perspective of looking at adoption behaviour (and the sociological side is a bit weak - it is probably written more within a production economics framework). Listening to psychologists talk about behaviour change is like moving to another world. For example:

"A measure of discontent" needs to exist before people will change what they do. Creating a climate for change requires helping people become discontented with what they are doing (e.g. by facilitating opportunities for them to interact with people who are doing it better).

It is important to recognise that change is a major cause of stress.

Many people have feelings of self-worth that are more dependent on "what they do" than "who they are". If a farmer’s self esteem comes only from pride in the way they farm and the success of their business, then criticising their farming system is perceived by them as a personal attack (Sykes, 1998).

I might hypothesise, for example, that the lack of motivation to innovate in the wool industry might be partially explained by the observation that the objective systems for breeding and wool measurement being promoted devalue subjective skills that are closely tied to perceptions of self-worth by people in the industry. Similarly, major changes to catchments that involve reforestation require a total rethink by farmers (who cleared trees off this land to plant pasture and crops) of what constitutes good farming practice, as illustrated by this quote from a South-West farmer: "That was a good farm, now its only blue gums" (Rose et al., 1996).

Enough amateur pyschology. I want to now try and develop ideas about how knowledge about the factors that influence adoption might be relevant for researchers.

4. What might researchers do to encourage the adoption of sustainable farming systems?

Overcoming the difficulties that make the adoption of sustainable farming systems slow (see Pannell, 1999; Marsh & Pannell, 1997) will require innovative approaches by researchers and extension practitioners. In this section I want to briefly outline a number of ideas that biological scientists may need to consider.

4.1 Be conscious of the type of innovations that are adopted more readily

The principles underlying adoption theory that I have outlined suggest that it is important for research to be able to:

If you can’t do these things then you are probably engaged in research that will not be widely adopted voluntarily. For technologies that have slow and indirect effects, Pannell (1999) strongly emphasises the importance of the second point, saying that:

Scientists need to consider ways to increase the observability of results from trials of such technologies, ways to help farmers recognise that the technology is what is causing the results, and ways to allow results to be observed sooner. (p. 13)

The italicised sections in the dot points above imply that the research has been undertaken with farmer cooperation and input. This is not always necessary for adoption of research, but I suggest, will increase the chance of adoption of the complex technologies and changed management practices needed to combat degradation processes.

4.2 Encourage a participative approach

Most things "happen" better if the people who the things are "supposed to happen to" are involved in the process. This is especially so if changes are necessary to meet goals or aims that are largely community-driven (e.g. reduction of salinisation in rural townships or lower in the catchment), rather than address goals and aims of the individual. Working with people forces researchers (and extension workers) to recognise that their goals may be different from the farmers’ goals, to recognise this as a constraint, and to adapt their research/extension accordingly.

Participatory research is underscored by an educational and political philosophy which claims that the more people are involved in an activity the more they will appreciate, understand and take responsibility for it. The whole process is cognisant of the principles of adult learning (Knowles, 1990), action learning (Kolb, 1986) and good facilitation processes. Group processes, in particular, become very important. Participatory research is supported by its advocates by two arguments: an ethical argument and a ‘better research’ argument.

The ethical argument says that people have a right to be involved because:

The argument that people participation results in more relevant research says that farmers and the local community have a much better understanding of farming constraints and hence research which acknowledges these constraints can help to increase the chance that local operators remain willing to adopt outcomes. It is argued that it is possible to get stakeholder involvement in contentious issues, better research credibility, better research adaptation and broader research perspectives (Hope et al., 1997)

There is a relatively recent but quite extensive literature on participative research. Participation means different things to different people, and levels of participation have been well defined (Pretty et al., 1995). Much research incorporates some degree of participation, but work by Syme (1992) has shown that the perceptions of ‘how much’ varies depending on whether you are doing the consulting or being consulted. His data shows that those being consulted (i.e. asked to participate), perceived a lower level of involvement than those who were doing the consulting (i.e. inviting others to participate). Interestingly, both parties desired a similar level of participation. The challenge therefore is to achieve this.

Participative research has advantages and disadvantages, can operate at different levels of participation, is more appropriate in some circumstances than others, and requires an ‘enabling’ environment to be effective. There are a number of documented examples of various levels of participatory research in Australia; ranging from relatively small projects to whole research programs. For example, a participatory research process was used to develop a method for irrigation farmers in NSW to estimate paddock water use efficiency and accessions to the water table (Hope et al., 1997). They report that:

An important benefit as a result of this approach was that it increased farmer ownership of research outcomes. Added to this ( and despite the fact that measuring paddock water use can be a sensitive subject in irrigation communities), the participative research approach stimulated discussion about WUE and recharge and provided the impetus for farmers to seek further funding to continue the project. (p. 727)

4.3 Look constructively at what landholders are doing already

Implicit in many discussions on technology transfer is the presumption that excellent research is not being adopted by farmers. While it is relatively easy to explain why individual farmers may not adopt a particular technology or management strategy, the value of their own alternative pursuit is rarely considered. Landholders often make choices to undertake activities to tackle a specific problem differently to what is wanted/recommended by researchers and agencies. An example might be farmers’ interest in drainage as a potential solution to their on-farm salinity. Rather than concentrating on the so-called ‘barriers to adoption’ of technologies that researchers think are appropriate, it may be useful to look at what landholders are doing or say they want to do and think about working with that.

Nicholson (1996) reports on his experience with the Woody Yaloak catchment group in Victoria, the first farmer-led, privately-sponsored catchment project in that State. Farmers were given the opportunity to say what they wanted to achieve for the catchment, and nominated a very simple one: "to get everyone to ‘have a go’ - to participate in anything to do with land management". Nicholson (1996) recounts his dismay at the lack of "hard outputs such as reduction in salinity, number of trees planted or weeds removed". The "package" designed by farmers to achieve participation dealt with social dynamics as much as technology and aimed to create the conditions which made it easy and attractive for people to participate. For example, if a farmers had never planted trees before it was acceptable to plant trees up the driveway if it got them planting trees.

Four years into the project, participation in Landcare activities by landholders has risen from less than 20 percent to 68 percent. All "hard output" targets set have been met, 12 months ahead of schedule. Nicholson (1996) comments that:

We only tend to see goals from a technical or physical point of view, e.g. adoptions of spraytopping or a reduction of salt in a river. … We tend to want to find the ‘barrier to adoption’ and then put solutions in place to remove this barrier. I would suggest some of the ‘barriers’ reside with us. (p. 35)

Kington (1998) has conducted a comprehensive survey of Landcare practices undertaken by farmers in the upper Kent River Catchment. The upper Kent River catchment is heavily affected by salinity and waterlogging problems. Only 2 percent of her respondents (which was 53% of those surveyed) had not implemented any landcare practices on their properties, although 33 percent had done less than five hectares of revegetation and/or five kilometres of drainage. Drainage for water management was undertaken by more landowners than tree planting, and the use of salt tolerant plants in discharge areas much more popular than planting perennial pasture. At this point most researchers and extension workers walk away shaking their heads and muttering quietly to themselves.

The point is that no-one is really interested in the value of what farmers are doing. Given the extent of the problem in the upper Kent River catchment it would probably be fair to say that they are doing far too little. Indeed, Kington (1998) concludes that: "this survey suggests that dryland salinity and waterlogging will continue to increase in the future, despite present rates of landcare activity on individual farm properties". However, as she shows, many farmers are doing something and plan to continue doing so. Seventy three percent of the respondents indicated that they would continue to implement landcare practices in the future, despite over half of them thinking it was uneconomic. As Kington(1998) reports, landowners preferred options are:

An integrated system of drainage, tree planting and fencing of waterways and remnant vegetation. Drainage of waterlogged land, either into dams or down the natural river system was proposed. … The planting of perennial pastures such as lucerne and balansa clover were suggested but these were not a favoured landcare option. Commercial trees were favoured over the use of local species, except for revegetation of the natural river system, and discharge planting with salt tolerant species (especially Puccinellia and tall wheat grass) and trees another common management option. (p. 15)

These options reflect what landholders are currently prepared to do and are doing in the upper Kent River catchment. If you think they should use other options, then basically you have to convince the landholders to change their mind. This is a course of action that may be necessary, but I hope I have illustrated that it can be difficult. Alternatively, landowners can try and convince you that their options are more appropriate or practical. Usually not much real communication goes on between the two parties.

4.4 Work more closely with economists, sociologists and psychologists

This paper has attempted to outline the complexity of the decisions faced by farmers trying to decide whether to change their management practices. Science doesn’t have a big handle on some of these complexities. I read in the UWA Leader this week a quote from the Executive Dean of the Faculty of Engineering and Mathematical Sciences which could easily apply to agriculture: "More engineering projects fail on sociological and political grounds than for want of technical expertise."

At early stages of research projects, especially those with clear on-farm implementation goals, scientists should talk to economists, sociologists and psychologists. I have already made it clear that I believe that farmers should also be involved in the process. Endeavour to build their knowledges into the project design.

Running a Preliminary Research Proposal past them a week before the due date doesn’t really count, but it might be better than nothing!

5. Conclusion

Farming is an interdisciplinary business. Although farmers are interested in the details that make up bits of their business (e.g. nutrient and water management) and generally recognise their importance, in the final analysis what really matters is how innovations/new systems fit in with the whole package which is their farm in their community.

Researchers can’t make the adoption of sustainable land practices happen. Science should aim to make solutions as relevant and effective as possible to encourage it to happen. To do that it will need to work closely with farmers, economists and sociologists. Government should be committed to create an enabling environment, that reflects both the needs of the rural community and the concerns of the wider community, to encourage it to happen. Then landholders will make it happen.

6. Acknowledgements

The author acknowledges the work and ideas of David Pannell, and helpful conversations with Fionnuala Frost and Liz Kington.

7. References

Abadi Ghadim, A.K. and Pannell, D.J., 1998, "The importance of risk in adoption of a crop innovation: Empirical evidence from Western Australia", Paper presented at the 42nd Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, University of New England, January 19-21, 1998

Cary, J.W. and Wilkinson, R.L., 1997, "Perceived Profitability and Farmers’ Conservation Behaviour", Journal of Agricultural Economics 48: 13-21.

Feder, G., Just, R. and Zilberman, D., 1985, "Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries: A survey", Economic Development and Cultural Change 33: 255-298.

Feder, G. and Umali, D.L., 1993, "The Adoption of Agricultural Innovations, A Review", Technological Forecasting and Social Change 43: 215-239.

Frost, F.M., 1998, "Evolving sustainable systems and an emerging sense of community", Unpublished PhD thesis, Murdoch University.

Hope, M., Humphreys, E. and Dunn, T., 1997, "Using farmer skill and knowledge in agronomic research - a case study", in Proceedings of the 2nd Australasian Pacific Extension Conference (Vol I) Managing change - building knowledge and skills, 18-21 November 1997, Albury, NSW, p. 727-736.

Kington, E., 1998, "How land owners in the upper Kent River catchment are responding to dryland salinity", Unpublished paper, March 1998.

Knowles, M., 1990, The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species, Gulf Publishing Company, Houston.

Kolb, D.A., 1986, Experiential Learning as a Source of Learning and Development, Prentice Hall, Eaglewood Cliffs.

Lindner, R.K., 1987, "Adoption and Diffusion of Technology: An Overview", in Technological Change in Postharvest Handling and Transportation of Grains in the Humid Tropics, Eds. Champ, B.R., Highley, E. and Remenyi, J.V., ACIAR, Proc. No 19, 144-151.

Marsh, S.P. and Pannell, D.J., 1997, "What we think we know about extension, and why its not enough for Landcare", Paper presented at the Western Australian Landcare Conference, Geraldton, September 1997.

Marsh, S.P., Pannell, D.J. & Lindner, R.K., 1995, "The Adoption of Lupins in Western Australia: Did Extension Make a Difference?", Paper presented at the 39th Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural Economics Society, University of Western Australia, February 14-16, 1995.

Napier, T.L., Thraen, C.S., Gore, A. and Goe, W.R., 1984, "Factors Affecting Adoption of Conventional and Conservation Tillage Practices in Ohio", Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, May-June, 205-209.

Nicholson, C., 1996, "Woady Yaloak - What Can We Learn", in Australasia Pacific Extension Network Conference Proceedings Beyond Technology Transfer, University of Melbourne, 5-6 Dec 1996.

Pampel, F. and van Es, J.C., 1977, "Environmental Quality and Issues of Adoption Research", Rural Sociology, 42, 57-71.

Pannell, D.J. 1999. Social and Economic Challenges in the Development of Complex Farming Systems, Agroforestry Systems 45(1-3): 393-409.

Pretty, J.N., Guijt, I., Scoones, I. and Thompson, J., 1995, "A Trainer’s Guide for Participatory Learning and Action", International Institute for Environment and Development, London.

Rogers, E.M., 1995, Diffusion of Innovations, The Free Press, New York.

Rose, B. and Survey Team, 1996, "Bridgetown-Greenbushes and Boyup Brook Rural Survey: Results and Conclusions, Agriculture Western Australia, September 1996.

Sinden, J.A. and King, D.A., 1990, "Adoption of Soil Conservation Measures in Manilla Shire, New South Wales", Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics 58: 179-192.

Sykes, L., 1998, Rural Counsellor, Dubbo, NSW, pers. comm.

Syme, G., 1992,

Vanclay, F. and Lawrence, G., 1995, The Environmental Imperative: Eco-Social Concerns for Australian Agriculture, Central Queensland University Press, Rockhampton, Queensland.

Citation: Marsh, S.P. (1998). What can agricultural researchers do to encourage the adoption of sustainable farming systems? Paper presented at the CLIMA/ASSSI(WA Branch) Forum, Sustainability of Farming Systems with a Focus on Future Management of Water and Nutrients, CSIRO, Perth, Western Australia, August 13-14 1998. http://www.general.uwa.edu.au/u/dpannell/dpap987f.htm

SEA News issue #2

The SEA News index is at http://welcome.to/seanews

Adoption, diffusion and extension papers, UWA

Copyright © Sally P. Marsh 1998
Last revised: May 21, 2003.