The nature of the adoption process in agriculture David Pannell School of Agricultural and Resource Economics University of Western Australia

Innovation  Farmers making decisions to change aspects of their farm or its management  new practice created by the farmer  or by another farmer, a business or a researcher  A key aspect of innovation is the process of learning about, evaluating and (perhaps) adopting new practices or technologies from elsewhere

 What drives or inhibits farmers to adopt new practices or technologies?  Very well studied

The human dimension The innovative practice

At the individual level  It’s a learning process  Initially uncertainty is high  e.g. about a new pasture plant’s response to climate, soils, pests, weeds, inputs, grazing, etc.  Over time, learning  uncertainty falls  Subjective perceptions – it’s personal

Learning process - stages  Awareness of problem or opportunity  Non-trial evaluation  Trial evaluation  Adoption (or not)  Review and modification  Disadoption Continuum Process is never complete

Social factors influence adoption  Related to communication, trust, credibility  Social networks  Physical proximity  Extension  Related to benefits from adopting the practice  Off-farm income  Property size  Age/education  Goals

A variety of goals (i) material wealth & financial security (ii) environmental protection and enhancement (iii)social approval and acceptance (iv)personal integrity, ethics (v) balance of work and lifestyle

Categories of adopters  Kernal of truth  But given too much emphasis  Don’t forget the practices  An individual could be  Early adopter for a new crop variety  Laggard for a new pasture species

The human dimension The innovative practice

Characteristics of practices Relative advantage Trialability

Relative advantage  Economic benefits  Profitability of practice  Farming systems effects  Adjustment cost  Riskiness  Compatibility  Complexity  Opportunity cost  Compatibility with  Beliefs/values  Family goals  Self image  Brand preference  Environmental  Values of landholder  Threats  Benefits of practice

Relative advantage driving peak adoption

Characteristics of practices Relative advantage Trialability

Trialability  How easy is it to get over the learning hump?

Factors reducing value of trialling  Ease of trialling  Can it work on a small scale?  Complexity  Can results from a trial be discerned?  Do results occur quickly?  Is it similar to existing practices?  Observability  Is the practice obvious to neighbours (to enhance diffusion)

Some key lessons

Factors influence different stages StageSocialTechnology: relative adv. Technology: trialability Awareness*** Non-trial evaluation ****** Trial eval.** *** Adoption***** Revision***** Disadoption****

Each practice has its own adoption story  Zero tillage  Integrated weed management

Factors influencing no-till adoption  Higher education  Participation in extension activities  Use of paid consultant  Years since first awareness of nearby no-till adopter  Occurrence of a very dry year  Fall in price of glyphosate  Location (region/state) & average rainfall  Effectiveness of pre-emergent herbicide (trifluralin)  Soil-moisture-conservation & seeding timeliness NOT SIGNIFICANT: Erosion risk; soil conservation benefits; Landcare 82% of decisions correctly predicted Source: D’ Emden et al. 2006

Factors influencing IWM adoption  Higher use of extension  Higher education  Lower discount rate for future returns  Perception of higher ryegrass control (efficacy)  Perception of higher economic value of practices  Perception of longer time until new herbicide  Uncertainty of when new herbicide will be available  Higher proportion of the farm cropped  The resistance status of the farm 86% of decisions correctly predicted Source: Llewellyn et al. 2006

Adoption is often slow

But not always …  GM Cotton in Australia  Close to 100% adoption within 2-3 years

Adoption ofter lower than expected  Heterogeneity of farms  Heterogeneity of farmers  Need for the innovation to be integrated into the farming system  Unrealistic perceptions about the practice by advocates  Failure of advocates to understand the farmer’s context

Key points  Practice change depends on:  The human dimension (learning, social processes, goals, perceptions, …)  The technologies (relative advantage, trialability)  Each practice has its own unique adoption story  Adoption often lower/slower than expected  WA farmers are rapid adopters of new practices where they work for those farmers

Products  Book  Changing Land Management  CSIRO publishing  Web site   ADOPT  Adoption and Diffusion Outcome Prediction Tool 