Identifying cogs in the adoption wheel: opportunities to target extension

www.RuralPracticeChange.org

Department ofPrimary Industries

Identifying cogs in the adoption wheel -

opportunities to target extension

Rick LlewellynCSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems

Adelaide, SA


Initially decision makers do not know everything that matters

Hiebert

Adoption as a learning process

Learning of relative advantage

An economic basis


Targeting information and extension

Many projects have aims of extensive adoption and impact

Most projects don’t have close personal contact with all potential adopters

Many projects involve practices that aren’t ‘new’

Many projects have information and learning as their primary tool


Key Points Understanding adoption decisions so that you

can see where you can make a difference

You can identify and quantify the key (non) adoption drivers

You can identify where information and learning can be most effective

You can target extension and consider information effectiveness


Identifying common drivers


Steps to more effective targeting of information

1. Explore factors that may influence the relative value of the innovation for individual growers on their farm

2. Collect quantitative data from a representative sample of growers, including perceptions

3. Identify inconsistencies, high uncertainties and likely misperceptions

4. Conduct analyses to identify variables that have the biggest influence on the likelihood of adoption

5. Identify what influential variables can be influenced by learning (if any) and targeted R, D and/or E


Adoption of no-till and conservation farming practices

Public good aim of reduced soil erosion

Still the focus of major public investment


Adoption of no-till cropping practices

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

19

60

19

62

19

64

19

66

19

68

19

70

19

72

19

74

19

76

19

78

19

80

19

82

19

84

19

86

19

88

19

90

19

92

19

94

19

96

19

98

20

00

20

02

20

04

20

06

20

08

Year

% n

o-t

ill a

do

pti

on

NSW QLD SA VIC WA

% farmers using some no-till

GRDC, SANTFA, DAFF (2008)


Factors influencing no-till adoption Years since first awareness of nearby no-till adopter Use of directly paid consultant Higher participation in extension activities Prior year much drier than average Higher education

Perceived relative effectiveness of pre-emergent weed control Perceived soil moisture conserving benefits and improved seeding timeliness

Relative price of glyphosate herbicide Location (region/state) and average rainfall82% of decisions correctly predicted

(logit and duration analysis)

Source: D’ Emden et al. 2007 (SA, Vic, NSW, WA 2003)


No-till adoption strategiesWHAT TO TARGET:

Early-season weed control

Water use efficiency benefits

Benefits of ability to seed on time

WHAT NOT TO TARGET:

Ability of no-till to reduce erosion

2005


Where to now?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

19

60

19

62

19

64

19

66

19

68

19

70

19

72

19

74

19

76

19

78

19

80

19

82

19

84

19

86

19

88

19

90

19

92

19

94

19

96

19

98

20

00

20

02

20

04

20

06

20

08

Year

% n

o-t

ill a

do

pti

on

NSW QLD SA VIC WA

% farmers using some no-till

Llewellyn & D’Emden and 2008


Extent of no-till use% using no-till % users using all

NTYear 03 08 13* 08Vic Mallee 40 68 88 44WA Northern 84 92 96 64SA Western EP 48 55 73 30

•Adoption AND probably extent of use will have lower peak in some districts•Some disadoption (5% disadopted; 10% reduced area)•Still some opportunities to target some information •But most farmers now have some on-farm experience•Only 20% of non-adopters use a paid cropping adviser •Options for lower-cost ‘farm-specific’ information e.g. local clusters with shared agronomy consultant?


Location, location, location

Walker et al. 2005.

0

5

10

15

20

25

< 10 10 to 50 50 to 200 over 200

Distance from trial (km)

Willingness to pay ($)

The value placed on trial report information by WA growers


CORRIGINFarm Improvement Group

FARMER GROUPS


Considering learning and information quality

Relative Advantage →

Prob.

Actual Average Advantage of

Practice

Actual Variance

Of Practice

Grower perception of

practice


Perception of trial results when

considering own farm

Perception of trial results when

considering own farm

Considering information quality

Relative Advantage →

Prob.Observed trial


Factors associated with adoption of multiple integrated weed management practices

Perception of higher ryegrass control (efficacy) Perception of higher economic value of practices in farming system Perception of a longer time until effective new herbicide Level of uncertainty of when a new herbicide will become available Higher use of information/extension Higher education

Higher proportion of the farm cropped Lower discount rate for future returns The resistance status of the farm

86% of decisions correctly predicted (logit)


0 20 40 60 80 100

Efficacy (% weed reduction)

ProbabilityPerceived efficacy of weed seed

capture


0 20 40 60 80 100

ProbabilityPerceived efficacy of weed seed

capture

Efficacy (% weed reduction)

Non-adoptersAdopters


Factors associated with first use of durum wheat in WA

Higher expected durum: bread wheat yield ratio Perception of higher rust resistance of durum Involvement in cropping extension events Larger farm size

84% of decisions correctly predicted (logit) Source: Nguyen et al. 2007

Past durum growing was not a significant predictor of future durum growing


Recognising information and learning costs

“.. a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention and a need to allocate that attention efficiently among the overabundance of information sources that might consume it"

Herbert Simon


Recognising the appeal of ‘convenience agriculture’

Less managers per hectare ; More management demands

‘Attention’ is scarce and valuable

The challenge for ‘inconvenient’ agricultural & NRM practices


The future of

Mixed-Farming Agriculture

A livestock management service for

time pressured farmers


Department ofPrimary Industries

KEY MESSAGESIt is possible to:

Predict a high proportion of adoption decisions for a particular practice

Identify the common factors driving adoption decisions for a particular practice – including perceptions

Target R,D & E towards factors that are influential and can be influenced to improve decision making

Identify where further information is unlikely to have any impact on the adoption decision

Consider information quality and effectivenessNovel ways to address ‘attention’ scarcity


Acknowledgements:

GRDC, SANTFA, DAFF, Mallee Sustainable Farming

Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, University of Western Australia

CRC Australian Weed Management

CRC Future Farm Industries

Frank D’Emden, Michael Burton, Bob Lindner, David Pannell, Steve Powles, Sally Marsh, Amir Abadi, Tracey Gianatti, Bob McCown, Peter Carberry, Shahajahan Miyan, Ellen Walker, Van Nguyen,

Thank You

Education

Identifying cogs in the adoption wheel: opportunities to target extension