Constraints to the adoption of innovations in agricultural research and environmental management: a review

Australian Journal of ExperimentalAgriculture, 1994,34,549-71
Constraints to the adoption of innovations
in agricultural research and environmental
management: a review
L. J.~ u e r i n ~and T. F. Guerin BC
A Innovation Assessment and Research,PO Box 462, World Trade Centre,Melbourne,Vic. 3005,Australia.
Minenco Bioremediation Services,1Research Avenue, Bundoora,Vic. 3083, Australia.
Author to whom reprint requests should be addressed.
Summary. There are several constraints to the
adoption of technologies and innovations by Australian
farmers. Here an attempt has been made to define the
major constraintsto adoption. These are identified as: the
extent to which the farmer finds the new technology
complex and difficult to comprehend; how readily
observable the outcomes of an adoption are; its financial
cost; the farmer's beliefs and opinions towards the
technology; the farmer's level of motivation; the farmer's
perception of the relevance of the new technology; and
the farmer's attitudestowards risk and change.
The classical adoption-diffusion model and
subsequent modifications are discussed. In particular,
issues relating to the participatory action research
(PAR) approach are raised and discussed. In addition,
methodologies in extension research are briefly
discussed and the roles of extension personnel and
agricultural scientists in the technology adoption
process are examined.
The adoption of innovations in natural resource
management is discussed and the findings indicate that
this is an area of agriculture in which extension practice
and research will play an increasingly important role in
the future. Recommendations for further research into
adoption of technological innovations in resource
management and agriculture are made.
Introduction
Agricultural practice in Australia has changed from
the production (or volume) orientation of the early part
of this century, through productivity- or efficiency-
based agriculture of the 1960s,to the current philosophy
of sustainability. Timely adoption of relevant
technologies and innovations by the farming community
has been critical for improving agricultural productivity
in Australia (Campbell 1980) during each of these eras.
Typically the important participants in this process have
been federal and state governments and industry
(Campbell 1980) and, more recently, research
institutions (Steinke 1991). The problem of non-
adoption is common around the world, and much
research in this field has been carried out in developing
countries, where the need for very basic agricultural
technologies is great (Sethu-Rao and Bhaskaran 1978;
Swindale 1979; Arcia 1980; DeKlerk 1980; Itharat
1980; Singh and Ray 1980; Siddaramaiah and Jalihal
1982; Bangura 1983; Jones 1986; Koons 1987; Jameel
1988; Lee 1988; Oakley 1988; Albrecht et al. 1989;
Chambers et al. 1989; Fuglie 1989; Ojiambo 1989;
Uehara 1989). Much research has also been conducted
on non-adoption in Australia (e.g. Fallding 1957;
Davidson and Martin 1965; Tully 1966; Davidson et al.
1967; Hawkins et al. 1974; Anderson 1979, 1981;
Salmon I981; Anderson 1982; Bardsley 1982; Macadam
and Bawden (1985); Vere and Muir 1986; Martin et al.
1988; Lees 1991;Barr and Cary 1992b; Campbell 1992).
Various aspects of this research have been reviewed by
Chamala (1987), Russell et al. (1989), McKenzie (1990),
Sinden and King (1990), Anon. (1992), Campbell and
Junor (1992), Cary (1992), Frank and Chamala (1992),
Southwood (l992), and Vanclay (1992a, 1992b).
This review further examines the various constraints
limiting the adoption of agricultural technologies by
farmers in Australia. Key findings of Australian
researchers are evaluated, which draw upon work
conducted in a range of agricultural enterprises. Aspects
of this problem that have been researched in other
countries are considered where deemed relevant to
technology adoption in Australia. However, our
conclusions are drawn primarily from Australian studies.
We aim to identify the constraints to adoption that are
relevant to Australian farmers, and to highlight areas for
future research. In addition, this review defines and

L. J. Guerin and T. F. Guerin
Table 1. Some classic examples of technological innovations in Australian agriculture (from Campbell 1980)
Innovation Benefits of innovation
Introduction of Cactohlastus cactorizrnl
Introduction of Myxomatosis virus
Introduction of disease-resistant wheat cultivars
Introduction of Bos indicus cattle
Introduction of Merino sheep
Subterranean clover and superphosphate
Regional quarantine and systematic
immunisation of livestock
Improved livestock fecundity
Introduction of trace elements into fertiliser applications
Control of prickly pear
Control of rabbits
Control of wheat rusts and other diseases in wheat
Increased productivity through improved pest
resistance in northern Australian cattle herds
Increased wool production and quality
Improved livestock carrying capacity
Control of disseases in cattle, including tuberculosis,
brucellosis and pleuropneumonia
Improvement of the reproductive efficiency of
sheep and cattle
Improved yields in element-deficient soils
evaluates the classical adoption-diffusion model and the
more recent approaches to technology transfer.
Defining technological innovation and the transfer
process
An innovation is an idea, practice, or object that is
perceived as new by an individual or another unit of
adoption (Rogers 1983). Whether or not an idea, practice
or object is objectively new, as measured from the time
of its first discovery, is of little concern. If an idea is new
to an individual or other potential adopting body, it is an
innovation (Rogers 1983).
A technological innovation consists of both the idea
component and the object component (Rogers and
Shoemaker 1971). A technology or innovation may take
the form of a new piece of machinery, a new method for
soil cultivation or advice not to cultivate, the
recommendation to sow a new cultivar which has
improved agronomic properties over one previously
grown, or the provision of information on the fate of a
commonly used insecticide, such as details of its
ecotoxicity and degradation rate in soil (Guerin and
Kennedy 1991h). Value adding may also be considered a
technological innovation. Walcott and Adams (1992) have
indicated that improved productivity may be achieved by
breeding added value to farm crops and livestock. This
type of value adding may include the growing of crop
cultivars that have reduced pest or disease susceptibility,
and which, therefore, require less input (in the form of
agricultural chemicals) to produce the same amount of
product, resulting in higher productivity and profitability.
Campbell (1980) described some of the more notable
examples of classic innovations and technologies adopted
by the Australian farming community (Table 1).
Technology transfer is the process of moving
scientific and technical knowledge, ideas, services,
inventions and products from the origin of their
development to where they can be put into operation.
Technology adoption is the implementation of this
already transferred knowledge about a technological
innovation, and is the end product of the technology
transfer process (Rogers 1983). Implicit in transfer is the
notion of a process, and implicit in the transfer of
technology is the transfer of knowledge.
The innovation-decision process
Rather than thinking of adoptions of innovations
as events which occur in some specific time-frame or as
processes which, once completed, are never to be
repeated, it is preferable to think of an innovation-
decision process. This process continues as long as the
innovation remains viable. Crucial to the diffusion of
new ideas is the innovation itself, communication, and
time (Rogers and Shoemaker 1971). Four stages in the
innovation-decision process of the individual have been
identified by Rogers and Shoemaker (1971).
The first is the knowledge phase in which the
individual becomes exposed to the new idea and develops
some understanding of it. The second is persuasion,
during which individuals either persuade themselves, or
are open to persuasion by others. At this stage too, an
attitude towards the innovation evolves. The third stage is
decision, when the farmer decides to accept or reject the
idea. Finally, there is confirmation, in which the
individual continues to question the wisdom of their
decision once the decision to adopt the innovation has
been made. However, it is also useful to recognise latent
adoption, which may occur when farmers decide to adopt
but are prevented from doing so because of various
circumstances on the farm (Vanclay 1992a, 1992b).
Chamala (1987), from a land management
perspective, suggested a similar model to explain the
adoption process, which incorporates the model of
Rogers and Shoemaker (1971) and Rogers (1983).

Constraintsto the adoption of agricultural and environmental innovations 55 1
However, in Chamala's model there are crucial stages
where the potential adopter may discontinue the
adoption process. An example of this discontinuation, or
'dis-adoption', is highlighted in research conducted by
Cary et al. (1989). These researchers showed that for
every 2 farmers in northeast Victoria who had
successfully adopted conservation tillage practices, there
was 1 farmer who had abandoned it. Those farmers who
had given up the practice believed their soil was
unsuitable because with direct drilling, the soil crusted
over in the top layers. Because fewer wheat seedlings
broke through, early growth was poor and yields were
lower. The farmers who experienced these particular
problems believed cultivation was necessary to provide a
permeable seedbed. It is, therefore, not sufficient for
extension personnel to have simply given information or
even created an interest in a new technology -they
must follow through the entire adoption-decision
process to ensure that adoption is maintained.
Goss (1979) has criticised Rogers and Shoemaker's
(1971) classical diffusion model on its lack of
applicability to a cross-cultural context. However, this
limitation does not constrain our use of the diffusion
theory as a valuable contribution and useful model for
the analysis of the adoption of agricultural innovations in
Australia. Other conceptual models of adoption, such as
that of Sinden and King (1990), vary in their details but
most recognise a multistage decision process, which is
the most important factor in the extrapolation of the
classical model. Participatory action research (PAR),
complements the traditional adoption-diffusion model of
Rogers (1983) (Campbell and Junor 1992). This
approach to technology development and transfer, and its
significance to extension in Australia in the future, is
dealt with later in this review. Both PAR and the
classical diffusion approaches are valuable in looking at
such a complex phenomenon as the transfer of
innovations in agriculture and environmental
management. Malik (1991), in a review of technology
transfer models, argued that none of the approaches to
extension individually satisfy all situations in need of
technology transfer.
Other limitations of the classical diffusion model have
been described by Vanclay (1992a, 1992b). He indicated
that adoption does not necessarily follow the suggested
stages from awareness through to knowledge, trial and
then adoption, because it is not always possible to trial
the new technology. For example, the new technology
may be new management plans for the farm, and thus
require adoption in a single step. Vanclay (1992) saw the
classical model as assuming that awareness and
knowledge will always filter through to all sections of
the farming community. However, this is not what the
classical model postulates. The classical model argues
that even the concept of innovation is subjective. What
may be a novel idea or technology to one farmer may not
be to another farmer (Rogers 1983). Thus it would seem
that the stages are also dealt with in an individual
manner and-that individual farmers do not reach the
same stages at the same times.
The informationflow process
Farmers are not a passive part of the technology flow
process; it is the purpose of the extensionpersonnelto help
farmers help themselves. The key agents in this process are
the field staff, who receive support from scientists and
other technical experts in universities and research
institutes. Field staff are in constant contact with farmers,
particularly the leaders of farming communities. It is
implicit in the classical adoption-diffusion model that
contact has to be dynamic, and the flow of information
must be 2-way; that is, from farmers, about what
information they most need, and from institutions where
the new technology originates. The 2 parties can then
interact meaningfully, enabling technology dissemination
to become oriented towards real farm problems (Lee
1988). Rogers (1983) stated that communication is a
2-way process of convergence, rather than 1-way, where
one individual seeks to transfer a message to another.
Thus he described the convergencemodel, in which there
is a 2-way flow of information and where participants
create and share information with one another.
The multifactorial problem of technology adoption
From the wide range of studies carried out in
agricultural extension, the problem of non-adoption is
multifactorial. For different enterprises and for different
technologies or innovations, different constraints apply.
The individual factors that affect adoption fall into 2
broad categories. The first puts the emphasis on the
farmer and consists of factors such as personality,
education level, and degree of motivation. The second
emphasises the characteristics of the technology itself
and the social and economic environment of the farmer,
for example, how labour-intensive the new technology
is, or how much it costs. These aspects are discussed in
the following sections.
Constraints inherent in thefarmer and thefarm
Post World War 2. the needs of farmers tended to
focus on practicalities, new technologies and innovations
(Campbell 1980; Davidson 1981; Clowes 1990). These
needs included the introduction of new animal breeds,
new tillage equipment and new crop varieties, to
increase production and productivity. More recently,
these needs have become more specialised (Clowes
1990), focusing on, for example, artificial breeding of
animals, integrated pest management systems,
minimum- and zero-tillage approaches to cropping, and
computer management systems.
Not all farmers adopt all the technological
innovations related to farm production that are available

552 L. J. Guerin and T. F. Guerin
to them. Farmers tend to select from the package of
practices developed by scientists, those that are
consistent with their needs, socioeconomic status and
attitudes toward different practices (Chamala 1987).
Farmers have to make many decisions during the
agricultural production cycle, keeping potential problems
and alternate solutions in view. Some of these decisions
are for immediate survival, while others are made in
view of anticipated long-term benefits (Chamala 1987).
The adoption of commercial innovations for immediate
survival and viability, and concerns for the conservation
of resources in the long term, are therefore 2 important
aspects of management decision-making in Australian
farming (Chamala 1987).
Itharat (1980) proposed that farmers who are older,
have more years of farming experience and who have a
larger amount of land used for agricultural production,
are more innovative. An Australian study by Anderson
(1982) has shown that the optimum age of 40-50 years
correlates well with the 'progressive farmer'. However,
in a study by Warner (1981) on the adoption of
conservation practices in east-central Illinois, he found
that adopters tended to be relatively young, have farmed
for fewer years and have smaller areas of land. Adopters
of land management practices in Australia were younger
than the mean age of the farmers surveyed in a recent
study reviewed by Campbell and Junor (1992). From
these studies it appears that there is no clear correlation
between farmers' age and rate of adoption. They do,
however, suggest that experience may positively
influence the decision to adopt particular practices.
Chudleigh (1984) indicated that the fact that many
crops are grown in locations unsuited to their production
is due to a lack of formal education in the farming
community about the fundamentals of crop production
and management. He also suggested that many producers,
either through ignorance or stubbornness, do not use the
extension services provided, or make themselves familiar
with the requirements of certain crops. Fuglie (1989)
found that early adopterstended to be farmers with above-
average education, access to institutional credit and
below-average farm size. In an Indian study, Sen (1983)
also found that farmersmanaging small and medium-sized
properties, were the most innovative. Itharat (1980) found
that level of education was not a significant factor in the
innovativeness of the farmer, nor was land ownership
status or farm income. In his study across 3 Australian
states, Anderson (1982) has shown that one characteristic
of progressive farmers was the possession of larger
holdings, with their properties being 22% larger than the
average farm. In relation to soil conservation practices, it
can be inferred that property location and property size
can affect goal setting,which in turn are positively related
to the adoptionof innovations (Chamala 1987).
Family factors probably have an effect on the goals set
by the farmer and, therefore, on their adoption of
innovations (Charnala 1987). These factors include the age
of the children, and the number of generations of family
ownership. However, further work is required to determine
the influenceof these factors on the rate of adoption.
Sinden and King (1990) studied soil conservation
measures in Manilla Shire, New South Wales, and noted
5 variables that differentiated between farmers who had,
and farmers who had not, adopted soil conservation
measures. These were farm size, perception of the
general problem of erosion, pursuit of double cropping,
income and level of education. They found that increases
in each correlated with the likelihood of adoption. In a
study reviewed by Campbell and Junor (1992), adopters
of improved or new land management practices had
higher levels of debt, and farm cash incomes that were
higher than average. This suggests that farmers who
adopt new technologies are more willing to take
financial risks.
Psychological constraintsinfluencing the decision
process
Itharat (1980) and Lobel (1987) suggested
predisposing aspects of personality as a key factor in
resistance to adoption. Singh and Ray (1980) found that
better motivated and more intelligent farmers made the
greatest financial progress on their properties. However,
we believe that financial progress is not an adequate
measure of technology adoption. De Klerk (1980) found
that the level of aspiration of the farmer will also influence
the adoption of technology. Farmer's attitudes are also
important when examining the psychological constraints
on adoption. Some important attitudinal variables that
have been identified are attitudes of the farmer towards
farming, expectation of the economic future of farming,
perception of the gravity of the problem that the
technology is aiming to address, attitudes toward risk and
towards the technology. If an extension officer suggests to
farmers that a particular technology or agricultural
technique could improve productivity, yet is unable to
explain how much the technology will cost, how to use it,
and what benefits can be expected from its use, one can
predict that conservative attitudes will predominate, and a
decision based on avoiding risk will be taken not to adopt
the technology (Jedlicka 1979).
Agriculture nearly always involves a considerable
degree of risk, and this may assume major dimensions
when a new practice is being contemplated (Hawkins et
al. 1982). The risk perceived by the primary producer
about the technology in question is an important factor
in the adoption process (Hawkins et al. 1982; Lobel
1987). If a person or a group of people do not
understand the nature of the risks involved with a new
venture they may be considering, it is more likely that
they will be resistant to change (Jedlicka 1979). People
are more likely to take a calculated risk if they

Constraintsto the adoptionof agriculturaland environmental innovations 553
understand the circumstances associated with that risk
and can compare the new alternative with the old
technology, and consequently determine that the new
alternative is better (Jedlicka 1979).Ongaro (1988) also
confirmed that a perception of risk leading to a farmer's
uncertainty is an important factor in the adoption of
new technology. Hawkins et al. (1982) also suggested
that it is important to appreciate the pervasiveness of
risk in most forms of agriculture, and particularly
small-scale farming.
Attitudes to risk are subjective and will, therefore,
vary between individuals. Individual farmers typically
will reduce the risk by choosing reliable enterprises for
their own particular geographic and climatic location.
Vanclay (1992) pointed out that risk is greater for
environmental innovations than for commercial
innovations because with both, the risk includes the
capital resources expended and the yield for that season.
However, with environmental innovations, risk also
includes the production for future seasons if the
environmental degradation is not stopped. On the other
hand, research conducted by Fuglie (1989) found that
attitudes toward risk taking did not have a significant
effect on the decision to adopt.
Bangura (1983) found that the best predictor of
adoption was the farmer's individual goals in farming,
whereas a weak relationship was found between farmer
motivation and adoption. Farmer motivation was
determined by the farmer's socioeconomic status and
economic constraints (Bangura 1983). Sinden and King
(1990) noted that any model of the adoption process must
include the motivations of the farmer. These researchers
highlighted the income and capital gains motive in
particular, and suggested that the stewardship motive of
passing on to future generations a fully productive
resource may also be of importance to many landholders.
Beliefs, values and fears are all factors that affect
farmer's attitudes. Chamala (1987) defined beliefs as
"the knowledge and information that a person assumes to
be true about the environment". Since beliefs underlie
attitudes towards various practices, it is expected that
particular practices will be difficult to change. Chamala
(1987) defined values as general feelings about what is
desirable or undesirable. They give "order and direction
to the ever-flowing stream of human acts and thoughts7'
(Chamala 1987).
Lobe1 (1987) suggested that farmers may perceive a
lack of personal control over agricultural production.
Thus, bad experiences in the past are causing farmers to
reject new technology indiscriminately in the present.
We suggest that this emotional response is akin to the
psychological phenomenon of 'learned helplessness'.
This phenomenon of learned helplessness has played a
major role in the understanding of the most fundamental
aspects of behavioural conditioning (Schwarz 1989). For
example, in some farmers there seems to exist a learned
helplessness effect where the adoption of technology by
farmers in the past may not have made any difference to
their particular farming practices. Thus, farmers have
learnt that their adoption behaviour does not matter and
that nothing they do makes a difference to the level of
production on their own farms. In addition, resources
committed to a new enterprise often represent a large
portion of the farmer's cash reserve, and the loss of such
a cash reserve may also inhibit further attempts at
innovation (Hawkins et al. 1982).
A farmer's attitude to change is one of the main
catalysts for the adoption of an innovation (Chamala
1987). Negative attitudes isolate the individual from
information that is considered inconsistent with beliefs,
values, and needs. Conversely, positive attitudes
prompt an individual to seek new ideas and
information. Changing one's behaviour is often
unpleasant and it is often easier to change perception
and judgement instead (Albrecht et al. 1989). It is well
documented that individuals tend to change their
attitudes so that they become consistent with their
actions (Mook 1987). Assuming that people have a
need for security and a feeling of wellbeing, it is to be
expected that information that creates too much
uncertainty will not pass through the process of
perception without some adjustment. Even though a
state of inner tension is necessary for action, only a
certain degree of tension is acceptable or bearable.
What has been called 'cognitive dissonance' describes
this situation where elements in thinking and
perception are in conflict and form a state of discord
(Mook 1987). Hawkins et al. (1982) also noted this
psychological discomfort and unpleasantness of
inconsistent or unbalanced mental states in relation to
the adoption of new technologies.
There are 2 major schools of thought as to the best
methods to achieve attitude change (Salmon 1981).
These are the approaches held by learning theorists and
cognitive theorists. The latter approach, which is taken
by Salmon, suggests examination by the farmer of
present attitudes and the ways they might be hindering
their goals. Cognitive theories see the farmer as an
active participant in the exploration of their attitudes
and subsequent conscious decision making to modify
these attitudes. However, with learning theory
approaches, the farmer is viewed as a passive recipient
whose behaviour can be manipulated by skillful control
of the environment (Salmon 1981). Instead, Salmon
argued that farmers are basically self-directed learners
who seek out knowledge which is most relevant to their
current needs and problems, and integrate it into their
own frame of reference.
In order for farmers to adopt new technology, Diallo
(1983) suggested that farmers need to have an

understanding of, and belief in, the technology. In
research conducted by Siddaramaiah and Jalihal (1982),
farmers to whom the 'oral advancers' or extension
workers, had already gone had increased recall and
comprehension. However, we maintain that recall and
comprehension is not an adequate measure in evaluating
whether or not the technology is adopted. Nevertheless,
De Klerk (1980) found that perception of the new
technology was a precursor to- adoption, followed by
aspirational level and knowledge, in that order.
For adoption to occur, it is necessary that farmers'
adverse attitudes to an innovation change. Once the
innovation is perceived as profitable, appropriate, having
an acceptable level of risk, being compatible with the
farmer'sgoals, and being easily integrated into existing
farm practices, then the innovation will be adopted
relatively quickly (Barr and Cary 1992b).
The social and economic etzvironment
Opinion leaders are thought to have an important
influence on the adoption process (Sethu-Rao and
Bhaskaran 1978; Rogers 1983). They uphold or create
new norms in a communitv which influencethe behaviour
of farmers. It was observed in some farming communities
that there was a 'spoked-wheel' type of interaction, with
many farmers going to a few leading farmers for
information and advice. This phenomenon is not negative;
rather, it should be hamessed and used to the advantage of
scientists in promoting their message. However, leaders,
no matter how innovative they are personally, are unlikely
to favour innovations that threaten their roles as leaders
(Dixon 1982). If this were the case, one would reach a
stalemate and these opinion leaders would become a
liability. It is important for extension personnel to locate
opinion leaders and gain their approval and confidence by
providing them with information on new technologies. In
Australia, it is possible that opinion leaders play a
significantrole in encouraging the adoption of appropriate
technologies among farming communities. In an
Australian study, Anderson (1982) described innovators,
or those who were quick to adopt new technologies, as
progressive farmers. It is likely that these farmers are
influencial in encouraging other farmers to adopt.
However, from a study of Queensland farmers by Tully
(1966), the progressive farmers were shown to have no
positive influence on the rate of adoptionby other farmers
in that same community. Further research is required to
determine the role of leadership in rural communities in
adoption, and to ascertain whether progressive farmers are
opinionleaders.
Farmers will consider a new idea in the light of its
advantages and perceived benefits. These advantages
will be considered relative to those of the practice it
replaces. The adopter's perception of an innovation may
be influenced by various factors, including their social or
economic position and the message of the extension
officer. The advantage may be expressed in terms of
economic profitability, safety or security, enhanced
social standing, or of self-esteem (Dixon 1982). In a
study of the adoption of soil conservation practices,
Sinden and King (1990) found that the major
determinant in the final decision to adopt was the
economic measure of land condition. Two other
significant variables were found to be key economic
factors. These were the annual wheat yield and livestock
carrying capacity. The significance of these economic
variables provided further evidence that the economic
paradigm is a useful model of farmer behaviour (Sinden
and King 1990).
The initial and sustaining cost of a technology is
another important aspect affecting its adoption. The
farmer must be able to see the financial benefits of
making the adoption in addition to the long-term benefits
of maintaining productivity (Chamala 1987). An
example of such long-term benefits has been
demonstrated by the adoption of innovations in land
management in the Land Care program (Chamala and
Mortiss 1990;Campbell and Junor 1992).It is also likely
that adoption will not occur if a big gain is not expected
by the farmer. Presumably a large gain is needed to
compensate for the risk involved. The technology
developed may be shown to provide a certain minimum
level of improvement in productivity; however, it must
be seen to be a substantial improvement by the farmer
(Cary et al. 1989).In a study of conservation cropping in
northern Victoria, a steady increase in the use of direct
drilling and minimum-tillage cropping during the 1980s
was reported by Cary et al. (1989). The key advantage
which convinced farmers to bring these innovations into
practice was the lower crop-growing costs, which were
clearly demonstrated in terms of savings of time and fuel
(Ewers 1990). Although improved soil structure results
in higher yields, this has not led to increases in adoption.
yield increases may need to be converted to profit or
income increases before adoption is secured. Many
farmers are now being forced to reappraise the
traditional systems of conventional cultivation due to the
high costs of equipment and fuel, and the increasing cost
and scarcity of labour (Corbin and Pratley 1984). This
could, however, be offset by higher chemical costs with
the adoption of reduced tillage systems.
Arcia (1980) suggested that the adoption of new
technologies should incorporate available information
about farming systems and the circumstances in which
the farmer or farming system is operating. Even
technologies that are supported by extensive research
and development may not successfully transfer, usually
because the socioeconomic setting in which the problem
is embedded has not been taken into account (Russell et
al. 1989; Bawden and Macadam 1991). Bangura (1983)
suggested that farmers' individual characteristics and

Constraintsto the adoption of agriculturaland environmentalinnovations 555
their economic limitations need to be considered by
planners of agricultural development programs. The
adoption of new technology may also cause existing
farm equipment to become obsolete before the end of its
useful life (Swindale 1979). Not all technology-based
innovations, however, have a financial cost. In some
instances there may be a direct saving of expenditure
with no initial output of resources.
Allowance should also be made for socioeconomic
variables associated with risk and uncertainty in the
design of new farming technologies (Ongaro 1988). The
relationship between socioeconomic status and innovation
has generally been depicted as positive and linear (Gartrell
et al. 1973). These findings have also been supportedby a
South American study, where low-income farmers were
found to be more risk-averse (Arcia 1980).
Bangura (1983) found that farmers prefer to adopt
those innovations that satisfy their security needs, are less
complex, require less time to use and are less labour-
demanding. Innovations that are simple and relatively
easy to understand are more likely to be adopted than
those that are complex. These simple innovations include
recommendations to change crop cultivars or to use a
new chemical (Martin et al. 1988). These can be
communicated easily and in a short time (Dixon 1982;
Vanclay 1992a, 1992b). Although it appears that the
more complex the innovation,the greaterthe resistance to
its adoption (Vanclay 1992a, 1992b), Cary (1992)
proposed that these complex or difficult practices may
still be adopted,but their rate of adoptionwill be slow.
The individual is less likely to be innovative in an
environment which does not favour change, even if the
individual does. If one was to go outside the social
boundaries, one would risk being considered a social
deviant and at the mercy of social sanctions (Dixon
1982). Tully (1966) demonstrated this problem where 2
early adopters became isolated from a larger farming
community that contained 34 farmers in total. These
farmers lost their influence among the larger community
of dairy farmers, as they were considered to have
deviated too far from the group norms. These 2 farmers
had adopted improved pastures on their farms for 15
years before the rest of the farming group, and their
levels of income were 3 times higher than the average
income on the farms of that region. Despite their higher
productivity, they had very little impact on the rest of the
farming community in securing adoption.
Chamala (1987) suggested that the attitudes of
farmers towards the methods used in agricultural
production are influenced by macro- and micro-level
factors. Macro-level factors include government policies
such as legislation, taxation policies, subsidies,
availability of lower-interest capital, cross-compliance,
cost-sharing, import duties, demand for food, prices at
the international level and foreign exchange fluctuations.
The so called micro-level factors are those aspects
associated with socio-psychological variables and
information exposure.
Ben-Achour (1988) suggested that there is a positive
relationship between the availability of family labour
and the adoption of a new technology. However, this is
unlikely to be the case in Australia, where the labour
resource has traditionally been scarce (Campbell 1980;
Davidson 1981). Further evidence is required to
determine whether this is still the case.
Constraints inherent in the irinovation
Rogers (1983) describes 5 aspects of innovations.
These are its relative advantage, compatibility with
existing innovations, trialability, observability, and
con~plexity.If a new innovation is complex and its cost
and expected returns are difficult to identify, and the
adoption challenges the farmer's belief, then the
communication from researcher to extension officer to
farmer is less likely to lead to adoption. In analysing the
constraints to adoption that are inherent in the innovation
itself, there are 2 major types of innovations. These are
commercial and environmental innovations (Chamala
1987; Vanclay 1992a, 1992b). Commercial innovations
are designed to increase productivity in a relatively short
time and have immediately visible effects. These appeal
to farmers who wish to increase returns, reduce labour
input or increase social status. Environmental innovations
are designed to protect the environment and maintain
long-term productivity, for example, conservation tillage
practices and integrated pest management (Chamala
1987), and advice to use chemicals in a particular way.
Discussion by Cary (1992) of the adoption of land
conservation practices has revealed that the major
determinantsaffecting the adoption of a soil conservation
practice are the attributes of the practice itself. A case in
point is that there is little evidence that beliefs about soil
salinity control alone influence the rate of pasture
sowing, independently of expectations about the
profitability of this innovation (Barr and Cary 19926).
Another example is the adoption of new wheat varieties
by farmers in the northern wheat belt of New South
Wales (Martin et al. 1988). In their survey, conducted
between 1983and 1985,Martin et al. (1988) showed that
the wheat cultivars that were grown corresponded closely
to those recommended by the New South Wales
Department of Agriculture. Only 1 case of growth of the
non-recommended cultivar, Osprey, was encountered
among the 50 farms studied. Bardsley (1982) indicated
that the reasons farmers do not adopt newly
recommended wheat varieties are that they are offered no
clear improvement over those existing varieties, and that
they may have strong ties with the existing variety. In the
survey by Martin et al. (1988), the herbicide
chlorsulfuron was also quickly adopted. This study
showed that the innovations were readily adopted

because of their clear advantages over existing practices,
their compatibility with other practices on the farm, their
high degree of observability and low degree of
complexity. These attributes are characteristic of
innovations that are readily adopted (Cary 1992; Vanclay
1992a, 19923). On the other hand, adoption of
nitrogenous fertiliser use has been slow, considering that
widespread deficiencies in the soils of the region have
been known for almost 40 years (Martin et al. 1988).This
slow adoption of nitrogenous fertilisers may have
occurred because of cost and a low and variable
correlation between the soil nitrate test at sowing and
grain yield at harvest (Martin et al. 1988). Also in this
study, the estimated area of wheat stubble that was burnt
in northern New South Wales in 1985 was 227 000 ha.
There has been a significant reduction in stubble burning
over the past 40 years. However, tillage practices have
changed to a lesser extent over the same period, with
minimum tillage and no-tillage direct drilling occurring
on 14 and 1% of farms in the study, respectively. In
contrast to the results of the study by Cary et al. (1989)
on the adoption of conservation practices in northern
Victoria, this level of adoption is relatively low. The key
advantage that convinced farmers to bring these
innovations into practice was the lower crop-growing
costs, which were clearly demonstrated in savings in time
and fuel (Cary et al. 1989; Ewers 1990). Thus the
northern New South Wales wheat-belt farmers studied by
Martin et al. (1988) may require further convincing of the
financial benefits of conservation tillage practices if
greater rates of adoption are to be achieved.
As demonstrated by Martin et al. (1988), there are
usually no problems in securing the adoption of new
varieties of wheat, a crop which is bred purely for grain.
A very different picture is presented by the oat crop.
Although this crop can produce very high dry matter
yields during the winter without decreasing the overall
state average grain yield of 1.38 t/ha, widespread
adoption of recommended varieties is still low (Guerin
and Guerin 1993). Methods of oat crop management
suitable for most farm situations have been carried out
on New South Wales government research stations for
well over the 34-year period recorded (Guerin and
Guerin 1992~).The major constraints to the adoption of
recommended oat varieties in New South Wales are the
scarcity of seed of the recommended varieties and a
preconception of what a 'good' oat variety looks like. In
many parts of the wheatbelt, the 'grain only' varieties,
often from Western Australia, are killed off by frost and
close grazing by sheep. Registered oat seed growers in
the wheat-growing areas further increase the already
plentiful supply of these 'grain only' varieties, as well as
mid-season varieties, neither of which have been bred
with dual-purpose characteristics. Farmers of the
potentially high-yielding soils of the slopes and
tablelands cannot obtain enough seed of the
recommended varieties and often have to sow 'grain
only' oats which do not produce autumn or winter feed
for grazing (Duncan 1983). This non-adoption of
recommended, dual-purpose varieties may have also
limited the production of fat lambs in these regions
(Spurway 1975;Archer and Swain 1977).
Not all innovations developed by scientists and other
technology developers are relevant to all farming
systems (Audirac and Beaulieu 1986). These researchers
argued that technology adoption is influenced by factors
called 'access conditions' and that potential adopters
respond more to these than they do to attitudinal
variables. Access conditions are intrinsic in the
technology itself, and include factors such as how
knowledge-demanding and how labour-saving the
technology is. The access conditions also consist of
distributional characteristics of the innovation, such as
whether it is promoted through publicly funded
extension or by commercial franchising. Traditionally in
Australia, much of this promotion has been conducted by
district agronomists from State Departments of
Agriculture (Campbell 1980). However, in recent times
with reduced government funding, this service has
become less common. Commercial organisations,
including rural retailers and agricultural consultants,
have supplemented this service to a large extent (Wylie
1992). In fact, rural retailers have siezed on this need of
farmers, turning it into an opportunity to add value to the
products they sell (B. Guerin, pers. comm.).
Sound advice can fall on deaf ears if the farmers
being addressed have no awareness of the problem.
Extension officers may have a difficult task that
demands a good deal of patience, and this involves first
creating an awareness of problems in the target group. In
many cases, however, the farmers have well founded
reasons for rejecting an innovation (Vanclay 1992a,
1992b) and the adviser must examine these in detail to
appreciate the reasons for its rejection (Albrecht et al.
1989). There is another problem of relevance in this
regard. Discrepancies between experimental farm yields
and those found on most farms, for many crops and over
many years, are a likely reason for farmers deciding not
to grow a new crop cultivar. Davidson and Martin (1965)
and Davidson et al. (1967) have provided some evidence
for this for wheat in Western Australia and Victoria. In
unfavourable years, the average yield of commercial
crops is approximately equal to experimental yields. In
years favourable to the crop, both farm and experimental
yields increase, but experimental yields increase at a
greater rate. Apparent exceptions to this are sugar yields
in Queensland and rice in the MIA.
The results of some research are simple and easily
observed, and are therefore easier to communicate to
farmers. Innovations with a high degree of observability

Constraintsto the adoption of agricultural and environmental innovations 557
are more likely to be adopted (Dixon 1982). Warner
(1981) also proposed that a lack of observability of results
will hinder the adoption of technology. However, it should
be remembered that some innovations do not lend
themselves to easy communication and sometimes the
information packages are too complex. These are some of
the most common reasons for non-adoption (Chamala
1987). This should not be a problem, however, if the
information is prepared by professional communicators.
Lack of observability of the results of new technology has
been shown to limit the motivation of some farmers
(Warner 1981). Demonstrations of new technologies,
however, can greatly improve their observability.
Demonstrationscan take the form of field days, on-farm
demonstrations, or visits to other farmers who have
successfully adopted a particular technology. The
formation of participatory groups in the Australian Land
Care program has closely involved the land-using
community and has helped understand the need to prevent
and overcome problems of land degradation (Campbell
and Junor 1992). This approach of establishing land-user
groups, has worked well in promoting change in land
management practices (Chamala and Mortiss 1990;
Campbelland Junor 1992).This is being achieved through
organised tours in which farmers to travel to on-site
demonstrations, and through active participation in land-
user discussion groups. This approach is being further
addressed in projects to develop self-mustering systems
for sheep (O'Dempsey 1992), improve wool production
from pasture (Wilson 1992) and increase the adoption of
herbicide-based fallows (Cox 1992). The outcomes from
these studies should prove useful in evaluations of the
effectivenessof this approach to extension.
Swindale (1979) suggests that technology that can be
readily transferred from the research environment, and
which is appropriate for the farmer's needs, may not be
accepted by the farmer because it is not understood. This
is the case especially for complex technology that
evolves from multidisciplinary efforts. It has been
inferred that scientists are generally better at analysis
than synthesis, and thus that the process of recapturing
technology from its principles can be difficult for the
farmer (Swindale 1979).Therefore, new technology may
prove inappropriate if the information gathered about
farmers' needs and resources is inapplicable or
inaccurate (Swindale 1979).
The role of communicationin the adoption process
An important aspect in the adoption process is the
identification and proper use of appropriate
communication (Blum 1987). For example, it is unlikely
that the use of media in agricultural extension can
replace personal contact between extension workers and
target groups or individual farmers. Media may make
this work easier and broaden the range of people
addressed (Anderson 1981). They can, therefore, be a
great help in extension work because they enable the
individual adviser to operate more effectively. They also
provide a way of making it easier for the target group or
individual farmer to absorb information. For a review of
extension aids, the reader is referred to Mortiss (1988)
and Albrecht et al. (1989). Some of the main methods
are described in the following paragraphs.
Methods of communication that were traditionally
used in Australian agriculture were word of mouth, print
and postal media (Milne 1992). These methods were
slow and were often limited as to their geographical
destinations. With more sophisticated, electronic
communications, information access is becoming less
significant as a constraint to the adoption of technology.
The telephone, while providing farmers with immediate
information regarding a problem, has its limitations.
Even though the cost of long-distance telephone calls has
decreased, it can still intimidate many people. Also,
telephone communication depends on the person who is
being called to be available; unavailability may lead to
the 'telephone tag' syndrome of 2 people continually
trying to return calls, but never making contact (Hawkins
et al. 1992). Some of the main forms of electronic
communications are electronic databases and on-line
retrieval systems, electronic mail, electronic bulletin
boards, and electronic conferences (Milne 1992).
Farmers need continual access to information. More
experienced farmers may need specialised information,
while farmers operating a diversified farming system
may need a complex mix of information (Lee 1988).
Electronic networks are proving successful in the
transfer of research that is relevant to Australian farmers.
LandcareNET, an electronic network for Land Care
groups across Australia, is an example (Hawkins et al.
1992). This system has become significant in technology
adoption by both disseminating useful knowledge that
already exists, and providing research findings as they
are required. This latter aspect is of considerablevalue as
it should help reduce the problem of information
overload to primary producers.
The results of a recent survey conducted on the
1andcareNET system to determine the interest areas of
the network users were reported by Hawkins et al.
(1992). Six issues were found to be of interest to 20% or
more of the users surveyed. These issues were: salinity,
erosion and acidity of soil, planning for whole farms and
catchment areas, and education programs. This system
has improved the interaction between land users,
extension personnel, and technology developers. The
implementation of LandcareNET has therefore
complemented the traditional approach to extension in
land management. By determining the gaps in farmers'
knowledge, through the use of surveys on the computer
network, extension personnel can focus their time spent
in personal contact clarifyingfarmers' needs.

Improved access to information for farmers and
extension personnel may assist the agricultural industry
to gain a competitive advantage by reducing costs,
increasing the rate of adoption of innovative
technologies and methodologies, and providing support
services for the proper integration of new innovations. A
recent conference in Australia has further addressed the
issue of information technology and reported a number
of useful applications in the agricultural extension arena
(Cuddy 1992; Gillard 1992; Hawkins and Rimmington
1992; Stapper 1992a).
The role of the media and the ruralpress
The effectiveness of providing information about new
technologies to farmers-depends largely on the medium
used. Where there is no extension officer or other skilled
individual or group to provide the necessary information,
radio, television and printed media will be important.
Radio's effectiveness lies in its immediacy for conveying
information. Television has the advantage of stimulating
the farmer audience through the combination of pictures
and words (Clowes 1990).
Printed media allow the farmer to deal with issues in
more detail. The permanency of printed media enables
farmers to refer back to specific points, thus allowing
them to gain a greater understanding of the innovation
(Clowes 1990). The most important printed media for
conveying information are the rural press and State
Departments of Agriculture publications. Anderson
(1981) has reported that advice from extension personnel
is only 1 source of information among many used by
farmers in decision making. Ratings of the importance of
information sources showed that farmers regarded other
farmers as the most important source (85%); the second
was reading (excluding state Department of Agriculture
Publications) (78%). Third was state Department of
Agriculture publications (60%).In this study, advisers
were rated sixth (59%).
Rural newspapers, journals and magazines are the
specific means whereby farmers find out about new
technologies, including recommendations for new crop
and pasture cultivars. In New South Wales the supply of
much of this technical material has traditionally been the
role of the State Department of Agriculture, through the
regular publication of technical mailouts, which almost
all farmers received. The rural press has communicated
some of this important information throughout Australia
in weekly tabloids and specialised journals. In 1991
there were at least 43 specialised serials available to
farmers in Australia, covering all the major areas of
agricultural practice (Cribb 1991).
Role of the scientist in the adoption of technology
Effective communication between scientists and
farmers is a prerequisite for effective knowledge flow
(Pickering 1992; Gray 1993). This can be achieved
through the use of extension personnel or directly from
the scientist to the farmer. It is likely that if this
communication is not effective, then technology
adoption will be limited. The following paragraphs
describe some of the issues where scientists directly
influence the adoption of the technologies they develop.
Pickering (1992) defined many of the constraints on
scientists in communicating their findings to the press.
One that is of particular importance in the transfer of
technology to primary producers is the lack of training
and familiarity that many journalists have with
agricultural science and related technologies. Pickering
(1992), who claimed that few journalists have studied
any science since high school, suggested that there may
be difficulties in persuading some journalists to write on
technical or scientific topics. Furthermore, he indicated
that this may also mean that when interviewing
scientists, they will often pretend to understand material
that actually confuses them.
Journalists are also restricted in what they write by
their audience. Thus even if they do understand the
complex issues themselves, they are restricted to writing
in general terms for a wide audience. It is therefore
important for scientists and other technology developers
to limit the volume and complexity of material presented
to journalists writing articles for the rural audience, and
to present it clearly. Pickering (1992) believed that the
most important constraints in the communication process
are those that are imposed by the methodology of the
scientists or that arise from their perceptions of how
scientific information should be disseminated, or what
they may need to do to achieve professional recognition.
Scientists have often been criticised for lacking the
skills necessary for the implementation of their
technological innovations. They tend to rely on the
written word for their information and subsequent
dissemination of their findings. Farmers, on the other
hand, rely mostly on visual and verbal messages in
acquiring knowledge (Hanlon 1989; Pickering 1992).
Scientists often assume that the gap between themselves
and farmers will be automatically filled by the farmers or
extension personnel (Pickering 1992). Farmers are often
expected to be able to fully understand the various
aspects of the new technology, and interpret complex
agronomic interactions which can be different from
those associated with the previous technology that may
have been employed (Hanlon 1989). Effective research
should, therefore, include a communication or extension
process which starts at the design stage of the research,
that is, by making sure that farmers want to know the
results in the first place.
The researcher does not have to do all the
communicating. A research team may have specialist
communicators (or extension staffj, but should not have
so many as to break what should be strong 2-way
communication links between researchers and farmers

Constraintsto the adoptionof agriculturaland environmental innovations 559
(Wylie 1992).Farmers often take an interest in specialist
advice when it is made directly available to them. This is
evident when scientists are given the chance to discuss
particular aspects of their own work directly with
farmers. Thus 1 role of the scientist is to encourage
farmers to ask questions of themselves about the day-to-
day tasks they conduct. If farmers could be encouraged
to ask more questions about their own farming practice,
their understanding of the task would increase and their
awareness of the need for technology adoption might be
increased, where this is appropriate. Scientists too could
be encouraged to ask questions of the farmer.
Not only can there be a breakdown in communication
between technology developers and users, but the same
may occur between the technology developers and the
extension personnel. In some instances, a negative
attitude has been shown to exist between research
scientists and extension personnel, which in turn causes
infrequent communication between the 2 (Ojiambo
1989). Wylie (1992) has indicated that in Australia, this
breakdown in communication between extension
personnel and scientists may be the cause of research
findings remaining unused. There is also a tendency for
scientists to disseminate their research findings in highly
specialised scientific journals in a manner that helps
them to command respect from other scientists, thereby
helping the scientists to become established in their own
fields. The disadvantage is that scientists are likely to
place less emphasis on publishing in extension-type
journals, and as a result the farmer is unlikely to be
targeted in the reader audience (Pickering 1992).
To ensure effective adoption, scientists and other
technology developers need to acquire information about
agricultural practices on farms. This may be obtained
using both formal and informal sources. According to
Ojiambo (1989), personal communication with
immediate colleagues is the most frequently used source.
Agricultural scientific literature and farmers themselves
are also considered as important in decision making and
problem solving (Ojiambo 1989). Technology
developers should consider how their innovations will be
perceived by the farmer and whether they are likely to be
successful in improving productivity when implementing
these under Australian conditions (Lawrence 1992).
Scientists, therefore, need to understand problems with
existing technology in the farming operation in order to
develop effective new technology. Clunies-Ross (1990)
has suggested that adoption is more likely to occur
where there is a problem with existing technology than
as the result of new scientific findings. Conservation
tillage is a case in point. Diallo (1983) showed that the
most important reason for adopting no-till practices was
soil conservation, followed by energy and time savings.
The tangible benefits to the farmer were observed as a
reduction in soil erosion and fuel expenses.
Limited adoption of agronomic research has been
caused, at least in part, by presentation of research
findings in a general form which is not paddock- and
season-specific, and which is often difficult to integrate
into other management practices (Stapper 1992b). It is
likely that farmers tend to localise their knowledge of
farming operations, while researchers tend to generalise
their knowledge for dissemination. Current research is
developing interactive, computer-based systems to assist
producers and advisers in the optimal economic
management of crops. This work includes specific
information on fertiliser management, variety and
sowing date choice, choice of rotations, disease and
weed control, and fallowing (Stapper 1992b).
When scientists conduct their research, they also need
to keep in mind the criteria which make particular
enterprises successful in Australian agriculture
(Davidson 1981). First, the resulting innovation must
have a low labour requirement for its implementation, as
the labour resource in Australia has traditionally been
scarce and is now costly. Second, it must be focused on
producing a product for an export market since the local
market is quickly satisfied. Third, it must benefit an
enterprise that makes use of relatively large land areas.
Fourth, it should also benefit an enterprise that produces
a product that is easily transported to its export market.
There is no point expecting that a new, high-yielding
crop or animal breed will be adopted in any sustainable
manner if it requires 2 or 3 times more labour input to
produce the higher gains. Thus for an innovation to be
successfully adopted into Australian farming practice, it
should fulfil Davidson's criteria and the technology
developer should be aware of these.
Every component of the farming system is influenced
by climate and weather, so it is very important that a
consideration of climate be incorporated into agricultural
research. This is particularly the case in Australian
agriculture where climate, even within a state, can vary
quite dramatically (Kelleher 1984). Climatic
considerations are especially important to those who are
breeding new crops and pastures. One example of this is
the breeding of oat varieties in northern New SouthWales,
where the summer rainfall climate has been suitable for
the selectionof frost-resistant, dual-purpose cultivars for a
wide range of climates (Vertigan 1979; Craig and Potter
1983; McLeod et al. 1985; Simmons 1989; Smith 1990;
Guerin and Guerin 199227;Guerin and Guerin 1993).
Thus, there are several important constraints to the
adoption of technology that are influenced directly by
scientists. These should be taken into consideration by
extension planners when developing extension programs.
The role of extension personnel
The role of extension personnel in the transfer of
technology in Australian agriculture has been pivotal in
achieving the high levels of adoption of many important

innovations (Campbell 1980). Extension officers must
understand all aspects of the technology in order to
communicateeffectivelyto the farmer. But prior to this, the
extension officermust explore and understand the farmer's
needs first and foremost, to determine what is relevant
technology for the particular situation. It is only then that
the farmer can be expectedto adopt the technology.
In Cary's (1992) discussion of the adoption of soil
conservation practices in Australia, he showed that very
few farmers believed that direct drilling would give
increased yields, despite the widespread belief by
farmers that it improved soil structure. He has also
pointed out that while many farmers were aware of soil
compaction on their farms, those who saw soil
compaction or crusting on their farm were no more
likely to direct drill than farmers who believed they had
neither problem on their farm. This is an example where
the help of extension personnel was vital in enabling the
farmer to make the connection in understanding between
higher yields and conservation tillage practices.
Koons (1987) observed that a valuable message may
not always be communicated, even if the extension
personnel are knowledgeable and the farmers are
re-ceptive. Thus basic scientific knowledge does not
necessarily reach the rural community. A case in point is
cropping enterprises, where dramatic improvements in
agricultural productivity can be achieved by introducing
simple, low-cost practices such as changing to a new
variety that responds better to the prevailing conditionson
the farm than a previously recommended variety (Blum
1987). If these simple messages are not conveyed clearly
to the farmer, easily accessible gains will not be realised.
Wylie (1992) argued that extension personnel are not
always needed since innovative farmers have direct
contact with researchers, have research trials on their
properties and quickly put research into practice where it
is of demonstrable value to them. However, we suggest
that this is an extreme and rare situation and that most
farmers, even if relatively innovative, are not of this sort.
Some farmers may believe they are performing their
routine farming tasks correctly but cannot see that the
task could be made more efficient by adopting a
particular technology. These farmers are unlikely to ask
for the help of extension officers. It may be that other
forms of information will be significant in this situation,
such as the media and contact with farmer leaders. Some
fanners will continue to base their adoption decisions on
traditional beliefs and social criteria. Information on
matters such as crop prices, fertiliser availability or
irrigation schedules can efficiently be passed on through
mass media, whereas attempts to impart skills or to
persuade require a more personal involvement by
extension personnel (World Bank 1990).
Cary (1992) observed that many farmers who had
abandoned the adoption of direct-drilling practices kept a
positive attitude towards that particular technology.
Despite their dis-adoption, they still believed that the
advantages of the technology outweighed the
disadvantages, but not on their own farms. The link
between soil conservation attitudes and farm
management behaviour was weak. This indicates the
need for extension personnel to focus on solving
technical problems associated with the implementation
of conservation tillage technology, as well as on
changing attitudes and awareness of soil degradation.
Other examples of where there is a weak link between
soil conservation attitudes and farm management
behaviour have been observed in farmers' beliefs about
agricultural chemicals and the adoption of the practice of
stubble retention on cropping farms (Cary 1992). Cary
(1992) suggested that there is little benefit in attempting
to change the negative attitudes of the non-adopters until
technical problems experienced by those who have
adopted and rejected conservation tillage practices are
solved. The ramifications of this example are likely to be
significant for the adoption of agricultural technologies
and innovations other than those recommended in the
area of land management.
Jameel (1988) pointed out that 2 fundamental aspects
of the promotion of agricultural knowledge flows are
farmer training and field support. The training of farmers
followed by back-up support to facilitate the application
of newly acquired knowledge and skills is essential.
Cary (1992) also emphasised this need for back-up
support for the successful adoption and retention of soil
conservation practices. Thus, extension officers must
keep up to date with the latest developments in
technology that are relevant to their farming community.
The training of extension personnel is vital, through
formal courses or conferences, or less formally through
reading of scientific and technical literature, or
discussions with scientists directly.
Bias and role conflict can disrupt the
extension-farmer relationship and therefore the
extension work. This danger, highlighted by Ben-Achour
(1988), concerns the issue that technology developers
and extension personnel can sometimes adopt an elitist
attitude and treat farmers with contempt. Although such
a situation has not been documented in Australia, it
needs to be considered as a potential constraint.
Extension personnel must also understand the economic
issues relating to the farmer. The extension officers work
with people, and therefore must be able to relate to them.
They must be able to understand their problems and
needs, and know how to communicate technical
information in a way that is understood and seen to be
meaningful (Anderson 1982).
In Rogers's model (Rogers 1983), the extension
worker is very much the mediator with regard to the
communication of technology. Extension workers are
seldom responsible for developing the technology and

Constraintsto the adoption of agriculturaland environmental innovations 561
may not even use it in their own work, but they must be
capable of interpreting the complexities of scientific
jargon in terms familiar to their farmer clients. To work
successfully with farmers, they must respect farmers'
skills and knowledge, and work hard to adjust to the
farmer's situation rather than expecting the farmer always
to look up to them (Hawkins et nl. 1982). Extension
personnel must have an empathy with the farmers they
are designated to assist (Anderson 1982). An effective
extension officer will help not only to change and
increase rates of adoption of new technologies, but also
to reinforce those current practices of the farmer that are
also beneficial (Albrecht et al. 1989).
Extension officers need to have credibility with the
farmers and must have technical competence.
Developing credibility with farmers is claimed to be the
single most important influence on the success of
advisory services and individual extension personnel
(Anon. 1988). When this is achieved, extension
personnel are able to transfer technology and secure
adoption at a considerably higher level. Table 2
identifies some of these criteria for credibility as
perceived by farmers in New South Wales.
Computerised expert systems show potential for
improving the quality and efficiency of agricultural
extension services by making vital expertise available to
extension workers when and where it is needed. These
expert systems can provide solutions for many current
extension problems such as delayed decision time, which
can be costly to farmers. They can also provide solutions
to the problem of extension workers being bombarded
with increasing amounts of information. Assisted by
computer systems, extension personnel can solve
problems that are out of their areas of specialisation.
Lack of human resources is another problem addressed
by computer expert systems becauie Departments of
Agriculture can rarely afford to employ a full range of
experts (Pasqual 1988;Volum 1988).
Hawkins et al. (1982) showed that interpersonal or
face-to-face communication generally was more
effective than mass media for bringing about attitude
change. Similarly,Underwood (1984) showed, in a study
of 153 Queensland dairy farmers, that the most preferred
method for acquiring information about a new
technology was through face-to-face private discussions
with people they knew. Mass communication should not
be regarded as a substitute for interpersonal
communication but is complementary to it (Hawkins et
al. 1982). Rhoades (1990b) asserted that interpersonal
communication is crucial for the adoption of technology
and that there is no substitute for it.
Government advisory services in Australia are
centred on state Departments of Agriculture. These
services are mediated predominantly along commodity
lines, for example by sheep and wool extension officers
Table 2. Farmers' perceptions of attributes that make extension
personnel credibleA
Maintain a practical approach to problem solving
Make recommendations that are feasible in economic, technical and
social context
Make recommendations visible to the farmer
Have experience in the application of new practices on farms
Be well informed on the latest developments in agriculture
Have an overall knowledge of agriculture
Know the trends within industries in agriculture
Be accessible to the farmer
Be unbiased, honest, trustworthy and reliable
Maintain confidentiality
Empathise with farmers and their needs
Understand and work within the social rules of the farming
community
A Modified from Anon. (1988).
and horticultural extension officers. Different
administrative arrangements are followed in different
states. In Victoria and Western Australia, the extension
services have been staffed principally by university
graduates, whereas in New South Wales, large numbers
of graduates of agricultural colleges have been employed
(Campbell 1980). When staff of different educational
backgrounds are employed in the same establishment,
there may be friction within the service (Campbell 1980)
which may limit the effectiveness of extension activities.
Many extension officers are funded by the government.
However, this government service has decreased as fewer .
funds have become available. It is gradually being
replaced to some extent by user-pays services and cost-
recovery procedures (Cummins 1991;Frank and Chamala
1992; Vanclay 1992b). This means that only farmers who
request help are likely to be visited by extension
personnel. However, private sector involven~entin
advisory services has increased several fold in recent
years to the stage where, in some rural districts, there are
more private sector advisers than those employed by the
government. The largest group of private sector extension
personnel includes advisers employed by retailers of rural
merchandise, who provide a range of products and
services to farmers (Wylie 1992). A further example of
this change has been found in the Darling Downs region
of Queensland. The number of professional advisory staff
employed outside the government has increased over the
last 15 years from about 10 to more than 60. At the same
time, the number of government extension advisers
(agronomists, livestock advisers and economists, but
excluding soil conservationists) has declined from more
than 20 to 16 (Wylie 1992).

Private agricultural consultants have complemented
government personnel in extension in Australia. The
former first appeared in Australia in the late 1950s when
groups of farmers formed farm management clubs and
employed their own advisers. These clubs originated as a
result of farmers' dissatisfaction with the services then
provided by the state Departments of Agriculture
(Patterson 1978). The club adviser was recognised as
one who dealt with the whole farm on a management, as
well as a technical, basis. Patterson (1978) conducted a
survey of all consultants known to have practised in
Australia, as well as a survey of a sample of farmers
from areas of Victoria and New South Wales serviced by
consultants. This study revealed that 13% of the farmers
in these areas had paid for professional farm
management advice. These farmers-tended to be larger-
scale operators with multi-enterprise properties. As a
result of farmers' declining demand for consultants'
services, consultants have to a large extent diversified
their activities into overseas consulting and/or
institutional and business consulting (Patterson 1978).
Farmers require specialised advice to maintain high
productivity. Advice is becoming less available because
of reductions in government funding, and many farmers
can no longer afford to pay for consulting services.
Therefore, other sources of advice about new
technologies and innovations are likely to become
increasingly important.
Methodologies in extension research
The traditional methods of conducting agricultural
extension research have included the use of
questionnaires, on-farm trials and demonstrations, farm
budgets and cost-benefit analyses, yield extrapolations
from experiment stations, field days, informal farm visits
and formal interviews. The most common method has
been the use of questionnaires. The adoption or non-
adoption of a particular innovation was correlated with a
wide range of variables such as age, level of education and
socioeconomic status, and constraints are then identified
from the significantcorrelationsfound (Rogers 1983).
The benefits of the questionnaire approach are that
large numbers of farmers can be surveyed, and statistical
analysis can be performed on quantitative data for the
testing of various hypotheses. From these analyses,
generalisations can be made as to the reasons for non-
adoption. Data collected in the questionnaires are often
substantiated or complemented with informal or formal
interviews on the farm. Extension personnel then use this
information to focus on the likely problems limiting
adoption. The success of this approach has been
documented in the vast number of empirical studies
reviewed by Butte1et al. (1990).
Rhoades (1990b), however, criticised over-reliance on
the questionnaire as the primary means of obtaining
information. He indicated that what people say is not
necessarily what they do, and that the results obtained are
culturally and time bound and the context of a particular
farm activity is not revealed. The person asking the
questions introduces a bias, since deference and untrue
answers may be given. These criticisms are based on case
studies conducted in developing countries (Rhoades
1990b), therefore there are cross-cultural barriers to the
interpretation of these studies in terms of agricultural
extension in Australia. Rhoades (1990b) describes the
necessity for a greater diversity of methods to be applied
in extension research. all of which should be based on
greater farmer participation and empowerment. The
success of this approach has been described by Chambers
et al. (1989) and its recommendations and applicabilityto
Australian agriculture have been reported and discussed
by Russell et al. (1989).
A few projects are specifically addressing the issue of
extension through the training of extension personnel in
the use of computer models (Dumsday 1992; Vickery
1992; Young 1992) and in the use of field manuals
(Daniels et al. 1992). Some research programs are
examining the effectiveness of participatory approaches
in land management extension. One of these programs
involves the farmers in the decision-making process
through action learning on small localised demonstration
sites before transferring conservationcropping techniques
to a larger scale. It has also involved bus tours for farmers
to travel to these demonstration sites, farmer group
discussions and the dissemination of brochures and
newsletters written specifically for farmers (Harvey
1992). A similar approach is being used by Woog and
Kelleher (1992) to determine the constraints to the
adoption of new technologies by a number of New South
Wales and Victorian dairy farmers.
The interaction betweenfarmers and scientists
Participatory action research (PAR) and its variants
(the farmer-first, the bottom-up and the land user driven
approaches) have been suggested as improved
approaches for the adoption of innovations (Chambers
et al. 1989; Russell et al. 1989; Chamala 1990; Lockie
and Wilson 1990; Rhoades 1990a, 1990b; Macadam and
Bawden 1991; Whyte 1991; Campbell and Junor 1992).
PAR involves farmers in the research process from the
initial design of the project, through data gathering and
analysis, to final conclusions and the development of
recommendations arising from the research. In this
approach, groups of farmers, extension personnel and
scientists work closely to achieve the needs of the
farmers. This approach recognises that scientists are in a
potentially strong position to demonstrate the benefits of
adopting because of their intimate knowledge of the
technology (Whyte 1991). It also implies that farmers
become directly involved in the research that is
appropriate to their particular needs. Group meetings are
an important part of the information exchange process in

Constraintsto the adoption of agricultural and environmental innovations 563
this approach. This is especially true for small-scale
farmers who engage in joint-farm operations, or belong
to agricultural co-operatives. There, members of the
group can compare their experiences of technology
transfer (Lee 1988).
PAR complements the Rogers (1983) traditional
adoption-diffusion model (Russell et al. 1989; Campbell
and Junor 1992)and may be considered as an extension or
further development of Rogers's convergent model of
adoption-diffusion, where farmers, scientists, and
extension workers create and share information to help
themselves reach a common understanding of the
problem. In Australia, the PAR approach is only
beginning to be tested. A recent example of the
application of this approach to extension has been through
the establishment of the Land Care program (Campbell
and Junor 1992). The perceived benefits of the PAR
approach are: first, groups accelerate attitude change, and
the development of more appropriate land management
innovations. Second, this approach asserts that attitude
changes lead to behavioural-change.However, we would
suggest that although attitude change is a prerequisite for
behavioural change, behavioural change does not
automatically follow on from attitude change. Third, PAR
has developed to recognise the needs of farmers to
become involved directly in taking responsibility for their
own destiny, and to participate to enhance their
understanding and commitment to developing solutions
and decision making. This is based on the findings of
Knowles (1978), which indicated that people are
committed to a decision or activity in direct proportion to
their planning in, or influence on, that decision. In
addition, Rhoades (19906) claimed that farmers are
experts in defining their problems and therefore should
have input directly into agricultural research. Fourth,
limited extension resources can be more efficiently
utilised in servicing groups. This is particularly the case in
land management extension in Australia, where the
government does not have the resources to deal with
conservation,management and remediation of soils on its
own (Charnala and Mortiss 1990). Some of the key issues
in this area are: soil and water pollution from agricultural
chemicals; salination of water; soil acidification;declining
soil structure; insect resistance; and reduced water quality.
Finally, it has been suggested that local farmer groups can
more readily access agribusinesses and private consultants
(Campbelland Junor 1992).
Campbell and Junor (1992) reviewed studies
conducted in 1990 and 1991 where from a total of more
than 3000 Australian farmers, 23% were found to be
involved in Land Care groups. Cary (1992) has shown
that membership of a Land Care group was the most
important factor determining the level of tree-planting
behaviour in a group of central Victorian farmers. These
reports indicate that PAR has had a wide impact,
particularly as it was only introduced into land
management extension in the late 1980s. Although
widespread, the effectiveness of this approach across a
wider spectrum of enterprises needs to be further
validated, and the relative rates of adoption of those
farmers involved and those not involved in Land Care
programs should be determined.
The concept of farmer community groups working on
their own productivity-based problems is not a new
concept (Tully 1966). By forming a group, where
extension personnel and farmers discussed the issues
relating to their low productivity, dairy farmers from the
Caleta Valley in Queensland were able to both define
and solve their problems of poor pasture vigour. Tully
(1966) demonstrated that on being encouraged to see
what their real problem was, which in this case was the
need for improved pasture, the farmers became
convinced of their need and actively went about
adoption. The formation of the group also increased the
understandingof the need for adoption within the group.
There are a number of perceived limitations of the
various PAR approaches to extension (Campbell and
Junor 1992). There is a perception that to involve
scientists in this process is distracting them from their
primary role of research. Also, as PAR groups assume
more responsibility, government advisory officers will
have less input into extension. There has also been a
suggestion that farmer groups that were originally
established for a specific purpose could become
distracted from their original reasons for forming the
groups (Campbell and Junor 1992). Anderson (1981) has
identified a problem that may arise when networks of
farmers are established. Once established, these
networks can exhibit varying degrees of closure so that
information entering these networks from government
advisers or specialists, or knowledge produced within
these networks through farmer group trials, is likely to
remain within the networks and not pass immediately to
the wider farming community. This claim was based on a
study of several farming groups in Australia, and
therefore highlights a potential problem with an
approach to extension that involves the formation of
groups (Anderson 1981). Another criticism is that if
farmers are directly involved in research, what will be
the scientific quality and wider applicability of the
results? The quality of data obtained from some field
experiments conducted by personnel who are not trained
in scientific methods is unlikely to be useful to the wider
scientific community. Moreover, the PAR approach to
extension assumes that farmers want to be involved in
the research that is applicable to them, but it should not
be assumed that farmers necessarily want to be involved.
In addition, Ojiambo (1989) has provided evidence that
farmers prefer informal oral sources, channels mainly
with extension personnel, farm demonstrations, and

L. J. Guerin and T. F. Guerin
Table 3. Selected innovations from agricultural research in Australia and the major constraints
to their adoption
ITechnology or innovation Major constraints to adoption Reference
Availability of a new meat sheep breed
Release of a new legume pasture species
into native pastured areas of northern
Queensland
Mulesing of sheep in Queensland
Release of a new wheat cultivar No perceived benefit in adoption and Bardsley (1982)
strong ties between the fanner and the
currently used cultivars
Perceived lack of profit in adoption Lees (1991)
No perceived relevance to farmers Frank and
Chamala (1992)
Considerable effort required to learn Mortiss (1988)
the technique and the unpleasantness
of the job
A development in soil management to
reduce erosion (e.g. direct drilling)
The development of a management
program for the eradication of a crop
or animal pest
Introduction of urea-molasses roller
drums during 1965-66 drought
Technical problems and lack of follow-up Carey (1992),
by extension personnel Sinden and King
(1990)
Lack of understanding of program Russell et al.
(1989)
No major constraints identified Frank and
Chamala (1992)
communication and informal visits to other farmers.
Besides, there are difficulties in getting scientists out to
farmers, particularly in Australia, where distances
between scientists and farmers can be great. Further
research needs to be conducted to test the validity of
these criticisms.
Although little published information is available on
the extent to which farmers conduct their own
experiments and field trials, it is highly likely that this
may be an important mechanism by which farmers learn
about and evaluate new technologies (J. Glendinning and
B. R. Davidson, pers. comm.). By conducting their own
trials, even if only very simple, with few variables being
tested, it is likely that their decision to adopt will be
made considerably more easy. Such 'pers6nal PAR'
increases dramatically the observability of the usefulness
of a technology or innovation, and could help overcome
non-adoption (Ojiambo 1989). This approach has been
used extensively in developing countries and the success
of this method has been reported recently by Chambers
et al. (1989).
Discussionand conclusions
In the classical diffusion model of extension,
innovative farmers have direct contact with researchers,
have research trials on their properties and quickly put
research into practice and diffuse the findings to other
farmers who have contact with them. A criticism of the
classical diffusion model stems from the observation that
many farmers would prefer to wait for a farming or
opinion leader to invest in and test a new technology
before the farmers themselves do so. They do this in
order to avoid taking any risks that they may experience
if they were to adopt immediately. The classical model
relies on the identification of key or progressive farmers
who are instrumental in further diffusing innovations to
other farmers. This model has also been based on the
belief that the causes of poor agricultural performance
are essentially technological and can be solved by
developing technology and improving the delivery of
this technology. Further criticisms of the model are that
it does not take into account cross-cultural differences,
nor does it consider the social context in which farming
operates, and that for some innovations, clear-cut stages
in adoption are absent. Rather, the classical model
assumes that awareness of a new and relevant
technology is sufficient reason for farmers to adopt.
A number of current research projects that address
extension in Australian agricultural research have been
examined, and clear trends have been observed in the
manner in which research findings are expected to be
extended to the farmers. Most agricultural scientists
conducting research in Australia have indicated that
extension in their projects will involve media publicity,
field days, seminars, and publication of findings in
newsletters and technical journals. Although this implies
the involvement of scientists and extension personnel,
the specific means of extension in these projects have
not always been clearly defined. Some research in
Australia is being conducted with the aim of training
extension personnel, and only relatively few projects are
applying the principles of participatory action research in
their extension methodology.

Constraints to the adoption of agricultural and environmentalinnovations
Table 4. Key constraints to technology adoption that require further researchA
Seneral type of constraint Specific constraint and recommended Likelihood of occurrence and
areas for further research priority for further research
rechnological only
Inherent in technology and
method of extension
[nherent in method of
extension only
Farmer- and farm-based
Complexity of technology or advice
Cost of technology or service
Lack of information on the technology
Lack of observability of new technology
Limited or ineffective interaction between
extension personnel and farmers
No perceived relevance of new technology
Farmers' isolation from field days and on-site
demonstrations
Absence of farmer group leaders
Farmers' attitudes towards technology
Limited education
Perception by farmers that agricultural
productivity is beyond their control
Low socioeconomic status
Limited access to specialised forms
of media
Size of farm
Age of farmer
High
Medium-high
Low
High
High
High
High
High
High
Medium-high
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
A Compiled from references cited throughout the text.
Constraints have been identified in relation to the
problem of technology adoption in Australia (Table 3).
Adoption will be limited if the new technology has little
financial benefit or relevance, or if there are
considerable technical difficulties associated with its
implementation, coupled with little back-up support.
However, some innovations are adopted with relatively
few, if any, constraints (Table 3). Based on these studies
and other examples described throughout the review, a
number of general constraints to adoption have been
identified. These findings indicate that the barrier to
adoption of agricultural technologies and innovations is
multifactorial (Table 4). These constraints include the
nature of the technology, the way in which it is conveyed
to the farmer, and the attitudes and perception that the
farmer has about the technology.
Innovations are adouted because of their direct
commercial value, or because they are designed to
maintain long-term productivity on the farm. However,
innovations will not be adopted if they are perceived to
be unprofitable, risky, not easily integrated into existing
farm practices, or too complex for the farmer to
understand (Table 4).
The lack of observability of the benefits of a new
technology is a further constraint to adoption. The factors
associated with the farmer's beliefs and attitudes toward
the technology are the other major constraints identified.
In addition, farmers' levels of motivation and their
perceptions of the likely relevance of a new technology
are of fundamental importance. The way that farmers
receive information, and the manner in which extension
personnel and scientists interact with farmers, are further
key issues in extension (Table 4). The relevance of new
technologies may be improved by further involving
farmers in the research process.
For any 1 innovation, geographical location and
group of farmers, not all the same constraints will apply.
In each particular circumstance, the constraints will be
different and specific to a farmer or group of farmers.
Although it can be difficult for extension personnel to
predict with accuracy which constraints need to be
overcome, they must be addressed in order to design
effective extension programs.
Further implementation of the participatory action
approach to research may help overcome some of the
constraints leading to non-adoption. However, this ought
not be considered a completely new or alternative
approach to extension as state government Departments
of Agriculture have always involved farmers to varying
degrees, in trials and field days, thus providing input to
the scientists in the convergent form of Rogers's
classical diffusion model (Rogers 1983). Widespread

demonstration of the effectiveness of the participatory
approach has yet to occur in developed countries such as
Australia. This approach has been criticised in that it is
perceived to be distracting to research scientists, who
should be focusing their efforts on developing
technologies.If a technology has been developed in a well
thought-out way, then farmers will adopt it because they
will see its relevance. A further criticism of this approach
is that trained extension officers may provide less input
into farm operations. This may be detrimental to the
continual back-up support that farmers have been
identified as requiring if they are to maintain the adoption
of a new technology. There is also the perceived problem
that when involved in participatory groups, farmers may
keep information exclusively within their groups, and also
become distracted with other issues that are peripheral to
the originalreason that the groups were formed.
Field trials and on-site demonstrations are a vital link
in the extension process. This has been the case
historically in Australia and is even more so now, with
the increasing emphasis on participatory approaches to
extension. Extension personnel have played a key role in
these demonstrations, although there is some indication
that farmers do not require their services. While most
extension personnel have been employed by state
Departments of Agriculture, some farmers, particularly
those with large-scale properties, pay for advice from
consultants. State Departments of Agriculture are also
beginning to charge for various services.
In summary, Rogers's model of technology transfer is
still applicable to the extension of innovations to the
Australian farming community. In recent times this
model has been supplemented by participatory
approaches. The effectiveness of the latter approaches,
claimed by some to be the way forward in extension,
still needs to be validated. The most effective examples
of technology adoption are situations where the adoption
has brought a direct financial benefit, minimal
complexity, acceptable risk, and has been easily
integrated into current practices. As has always been the
case, farmers usually need to have the new technology
demonstrated to them before they will adopt.
Directions for further research
Some areas in agricultural extension in Australia
require further investigation (Table 5). From current
research and recent reviews of Australian extension, a
high priority needs to be given to the involvement of
farmers in the development of technology, along with
better training of extension workers and a better
knowledge of farmers' needs. This may be achieved by
further implementation of participatory approaches to
extension. There are many examples of the effectiveness
of such approaches to extension in developing countries;
however, further research needs to be conducted to
determine their effectiveness in Australia. A review of
Table 5. Summary of issues in extension that require further
researchA
Effectivness of participatory approaches relative to that of the
classical adoption-diffusion approach to extension
Determination of baseline levels of adoption of innovations among
various farming communities thoughout Australia
Influence of different forms of media on adoption
Effectiveness and feasibility of incorporating an extension
component into scientific research proposals
Quantification of levels of adoption of innovations in environmental
management in various agricultural industries
A Compiled from references in the text.
extension research from developing countries indicates
that the classical approach to determining the constraints
to adoption, using Rogers's model (Rogers 1983), needs
to be modified if extension research is to develop further.
Much speculation exists in Australia as to PAR'S
effectiveness, but few data exist to support these
assertions. Thus, there is a need to compare traditional
extension methods based on the adviser as the
intermediary between scientists and farmers, and PAR
approaches. Research on the effectiveness of the PAR
approach in extension has been conducted with sheep
graziers (Roberts 1992; Russell et al. 1992) and in the
developmentof a buffalo fly trap for dairy cattle that does
not use pesticides (Vogt 1992). The findings from these
studies should prove helpful in addressing these concerns.
Despite the perceived limitation of the classical
adoption-diffusion model, research and advisory
structures in Australia are still largely based on this
model. As a consequence, the effectiveness of
technology transfer from the specialist/adviser to the
farmer on a one-to-one basis could be compared with the
transfer from the same to a group of farmers. This
comparison could be made in conjunction with the
current Land Care program. A study should also be made
of the relative numbers of farmer opinion leaders in
various agricultural industries and their levels of impact.
Furthermore, the effectiveness of communication
between scientists and extension personnel should be
assessed to determine whether this is a weak link in the
classical adoption-diffusion model.
The role of the questionnaire in extension research
has also been examined in regard to its ability to truly
reflect the farmer and the farm situation. More informal
approaches may be needed to complement the
questionnaire; these approaches could be investigated
further under Australian conditions.
Baseline levels of adoption must be obtained before
further attempts are made to determine whether a

Constraints to the adoption of innovations in agricultural research and environmental management: a review

Constraints to the adoption of innovations in agricultural research and environmental management: a review

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (19)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (13)

Ähnlich wie Constraints to the adoption of innovations in agricultural research and environmental management: a review

Ähnlich wie Constraints to the adoption of innovations in agricultural research and environmental management: a review (20)

Mehr von Turlough Guerin GAICD FGIA

Mehr von Turlough Guerin GAICD FGIA (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Constraints to the adoption of innovations in agricultural research and environmental management: a review