Overcoming the Constraints to the Adoption of Sustainable Land Management Practices in Australia

Overcoming the Constraints to theAdoption of Sustainable LandManagement Practices in Australia

TURLOUGH F. GUERIN

ABSTRACT

There are numerous reasons why landusers do not always adopt innovations. For different landuseenterprises and for different innovations, different constraints will apply and these can be organised into threebroad categories. The first is characterised by the landuser and the adoption process. The second emphasisesthe characteristics of the innovation itself and issues associated with the developers of the innovation. Thethird area deals with the role of extension agents and the transfer process. It is apparent that technologytransfer and adoption in sustainable landuse is largely being led by commercial organisations. Landusers arebeing recognised as key stakeholders in both the adoption and technology development processes. Furthermore,community groups and a range of government and NGOs are becoming involved as major stakeholders in thetransfer and adoption of sustainable landuse practices. The study, however, reveals a shortage of data on theeffectiveness of corporations and other commercial organisations on the technology transfer and adoptionprocesses. Future research is needed on the following: understanding the effectiveness of group-based ap-proaches to technology transfer and adoption; determining and predicting rates of adoption of sustainablepractices; the ongoing effectiveness of different forms of media; evaluating existing efforts of technologytransfer and adoption particularly related to land management practices; and understanding the constraints toadoption associated with an aging landusing population. 2000 Elsevier Science Inc.

IntroductionThe role of technology adoption in environmental management is increasingly

becoming a key issue for natural resource users. Central to effective environmentalmanagement is the timely adoption of appropriate technology [1]. However, appropriatetechnologies are not always adopted, even where the need for these technologies is clear.

Technology transfer (or extension in a rural context) involves the moving of techni-cal knowledge, ideas, services, inventions and products from the origin of their develop-ment (or other location), to where they can be put into use. Technology adoption isthe implementation of this transferred knowledge about an innovation, and is the endproduct of extension.

TURLOUGH F. GUERIN is an international Environmental & Business Adviser working in the UnitedStates and the Republic of Singapore and is based in Australia.

Correspondence: Dr. T. F. Guerin’s forwarding address in 2000 is 190 Grabben Gullen Rd, CrookwellNSW 2583, Australia. E-mail: [email protected].

Technological Forecasting and Social Change 65, 205–237 (2000) 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. 0040-1625/99/$–see front matter655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010 PII S0040-1625(99)00090-6

206 T. F. GUERIN

From previous studies in landuse extension, it is evident that non-adoption isa multi-factorial problem [2, 3]. For different landuse enterprises and for differentinnovations, different constraints will apply. These constraints can be organised intothree broad categories. The first is characterised by the landuser and consists of factorssuch as personality, education level, and degree of motivation. The second emphasisesthe characteristics of the innovation itself and issues associated with the developersof the innovation. The third area deals with the role of extension agents and thetransfer process.

The aim of this article is to discuss the constraints to technology transfer andadoption of sustainable land management practices, drawing largely on experiencewithin Australia. A further aim is to highlight areas for practical application and futureresearch. Specifically, this article highlights the key models of technology transfer andadoption, and how the major types of constraints impact these. The article also introducesthe important issue of the role of commercial and community organisations, and howthese are extending the current model of technology transfer and adoption of sustainablelanduse management.

Constraints Relating to the Landuser and the Adoption ProcessThe wide range of studies carried out in landuse extension reveal that non-adoption

is a multi-faceted issue. For different enterprises and for different innovation, differentconstraints apply. However, in the current study, it was found that personal attributesof the landuser were common to the majority of extension studies. These attributes areaddressed in the following sub-sections.

LANDUSERS GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Goals and objectives of the landuser are critical factors in explaining why individualsdo not adopt innovations. These goals and objectives may not necessarily be conspicuousbut rather may be unspoken, and possibly even subconconscious. Bangura [4] foundthat the best predictor of adoption was the landuser’s individual goals, whereas a weakrelationship was found between landuser motivation and adoption. The landuser’s socio-economic status and economic constraints can also determine landuser motivation. Anymodel of adoption must incorporate the motivations of the landuser and these includethe income and capital gains as well as the stewardship motive of passing a productiveresource on to future generations. Since beliefs underlie attitudes towards variouspractices, it is expected that particular practices will be difficult to change. In relationto soil conservation practices, it can be inferred that the size and location of property canaffect goal setting which, in turn, are positively related to the adoption of innovations [5].

Negative experiences in the past with the introduction of new technology can causelandusers to reject innovations indiscriminately in the present. This emotional responseis similar to the psychological phenomenon of “learned helplessness.” For example,among some landusers there seems to exist a learned helplessness effect where theadoption of innovation by landusers in the past may not have made any difference totheir particular landuse practices. Thus, landusers have realized that their adoptionbehaviour does not matter and that nothing they do makes a difference to the level ofproduction on their properties [3]. The landuser needs to recognise that not all theirdecisions are going to be the right ones at that particular point in time, and that therewill be reasons beyond the scope, and even understanding of the individual, that maymake adoption ineffective. Rather than dwell on the negative experience, the landuser

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 207

should seek out advice and assistance from others to address the issue at hand. Theextension agent needs to be sensitive to this issue.

A landuser’s attitude to change is one of the main reasons for the adoption of aninnovation [5]. An openness to change and to adopt a new concept, where there is abenefit for the landuser, the wider community, and the environment, is an attribute ofan opinion leader in land management. Equally important however, is being preparedto abandon old ways that do not enhance the management of the natural resources.

ATTITUDES TOWARDS RISK AND UNCERTAINTY

Taking risks, by necessity, means thinking and actively behaving differently to thesocial norms. If an individual or a group does not have a clear idea about the natureof the risks involved with an innovation that they may consider for adoption, it is morelikely that there will be resistance to change. People are more likely to take a calculatedrisk if they understand well the risk associated with the innovation, can consider suchrisk in the new alternative compared with that of the “old” technology, and consequentlydetermine whether or not the new alternative is better [6]. If an extension agent, whosuggests to landusers that a particular innovation could improve productivity, is unableto explain how much the innovation will cost, how to use it, and what benefits can beexpected from its use, one can expect that conservative attitudes will predominate. Inthis case, less or no adoption of the innovation is likely. Here, the extension agent orsource of knowledge needs to be clear and influential in their dealings with the landuser,though logic on its own is unlikely to bring about the adoption.

Attitudes to risk are subjective and will, therefore, vary between individuals. Individ-ual landusers typically will reduce the risk by choosing enterprises which are reliablefor their own location [3]. As Vanclay and Lawrence [2] have discussed, conflictinginformation regarding an innovation from various sources (e.g., scientists, literature,green groups, and extension agents), can be an understandable limitation to adoption.If uncertainty prevails over an innovation and the innovation is not adopted as a result,then, this is a rational management decision.

One of the key activities an extension agent can do for a landuser that is risk aversewith respect to a new technology or concept, is to encourage that individual to trial thetechnology or concept themselves or become involved with groups (from the sameindustry or sector) that are attempting the same. Trialing however, must be doneeffectively. The landuser may experience difficulties that they attribute to the technologybut which are actually a result of ineffectual implementation. The extension agent needsto be sensitive to this issue and act in a way that ensures the landuser will be in aposition to have confidence in the technology if indeed it does perform well.

Pannell [7] argues that uncertainty, particularly as it relates to the income of thelanduser, has been under-recognised as an impediment to the adoption of innovativeland conservation practices. High levels of uncertainty inhibit adoption because (a)most farmers are psychologically averse to risk and uncertainty, (b) uncertainty leavesroom for misunderstanding and misperceptions about the innovation and (c) in somecases there can be an option value from not trialing. Pannell [7] emphasises that adoptionis a process involving collection, integration and evaluation of new information, whichleads to reduction in uncertainty over time.

LANDUSER’S ATTITUDES AND LEARNING STYLES

For adoption to occur, it is necessary to change the landusers’ adverse attitudestowards an innovation. Once the innovation is perceived as profitable, appropriate,having an acceptable level of risk, being compatible with the landuser’s goals, and being

208 T. F. GUERIN

TABLE 1Questions that Extension Agents and Landusers Should Ask Themselves

Extension Agent Landuser

How do I perform?a How do I learn?a

What personal attributes are limiting my Have I implemented the trial properly? Whatability as a leader, particularly in mistakes do I typically make when attemptingdeveloping influence amongst my to implement a new technology or concept?landuser “clients”?

Have I looked outside my immediate field Based on my experiences to date, would I go into thefor new technology developments? practices I am now in (or use the technologies

that I have)? What should I abandon?

Have I found a balance between introducing What are the consequences of adopting thechange and maintaining continuity innovation?among my landuser clients?

Have I followed through on earlier advice Have I budgeted for change? (to ensure I can be readyand encouraged ongoing adoption of to adopt new innovations as they becomeappropriate technologies? available)

a Extension agents and landusers ultimately need to ask both these questions of themselves in orderto be effective in their own work.

easily integrated into existing farm practices, then the innovation tends to be adoptedrelatively quickly [3].

Of key importance is the way individuals take in information and get things done:that is, how do we learn and how do we perform? Landusers needs to focus on howthey learn, whereas extension agents need to know how they perform. Understandingthe first question, of how one learns, is fundamental to the process of change. Individuallandusers will approach problem solving and learning in different ways, depending onwhat is effective for them. A fundamental way of answering this question is to askoneself whether one learns by listening, reading, or through pictures/visualizing. Oneof the tasks of the extension agent should then be to aim to understand the way inwhich they themselves and their landuser clients learn. The extension agent shouldalso encourage the landusers to understand and explore their own learning styles.Understanding the cognitive styles of individual landusers or individuals in landusergroups, is likely to assist extension agents focus on the most appropriate means to“package” and deliver new technologies and information, and therefore be more effec-tive in their work.

The second question, “How do I perform?,” is particularly important for the exten-sion agent as they need to understand how they best communicate concepts and ideas.People do not often know how they best do this, and understanding this requirespersonal evaluation and commitment. Some individuals are good writers whereas othersperform best through oral communication. By understanding one’s own strength in thisregard makes for much greater interpersonal effectiveness. Clearly, in many cases, itwill be important for the extension agent to provide a mix of written, pictorial and oraladvice to explain an innovation and its benefits. Such self-knowledge allows the extensionagent to tailor packages of information most effectively. Indeed there are numerousother questions that both extension agents and landusers need to ask themselves andsome of these are highlighted in Table 1.

Although landuser’s behaviour may be modified, attempts at changing or modifyingindividual styles will not be permanent. The classical diffusion model is illustrated


(simplistically) by the left to right flow of information in Fig. 1 (refer to large arrow),from scientist, extension agent, opinion leader then through to landusers. This model,where there is an extension agent transferring information from technology developers(or scientists) to the endusers, assumes that there are broad groups of styles amongindividual opinion leaders and landusers, from “innovators” to “laggards” [8]. This hasproven to be a very useful predictor of adoption behaviour, and it has been widely usedin developing nations. However, Von Fleckenstein [9] has shown that general groupingsof “innovator” types were meaningless, since there were particular landusers who onlyadopted specific innovations.

In expanding on this issue of “innovator” types among the landuser community,it is of value understanding the meaning of cognitive style. Cognitive styles are personal-ity traits, where these traits are variables or dimensions along which individuals differ.Cognitive style has been defined as consistent individual differences in preferred waysof organising information. It refers to the manner or mode of cognition, that is, the wayin which a person thinks, approaches problems, or adopts strategies to solve problems. Ithas been found to be independent of levels of ability, skills, intelligence, and levels ofcognitive complexity. It has also been found to be stable over time and situations, and,as a consequence, remains largely unresponsive to specific training. Cognitive style alsoinfluences attitudes, values, and social interaction, all of which are important in groupdynamics. Examples of tools that provide a measure of cognitive style include the KirtonAdoption-Innovation inventory, which is a continuum, along which individuals lie,depending on whether they are adaptive (continuous cognitive approach; “works withinexisting paradigm”) or innovative (discontinuous cognitive approach; “works to theedge of a paradigm”). Such scales may prove valuable in future extension and researchprogrammes and have been described in detail elsewhere [10]. Such adaption-innovationscales would complement the widely used Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (Table 2).

Another useful tool for measuring individual style is the Kolb Learning Style Grid[11], which measures learning style, and which is also commonly used in teamworkprogrammes. For extension agents who aim to bring about a behavioural change at theindividual or group level, understanding and utilising the styles of the potential adopterscould be a key part of extension. The Belbin Team Roles are another means for gaininggreater understanding of team dynamics and this is also briefly introduced in Table 2[11]. Understanding one’s own cognitive and learning style, and sharing this with others,helps provides insights into improving individual and group effectiveness.

THE LANDUSERS’ SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

The role of leadership is critical to understanding the adoption of innovations insustainable landuse. This is important in both terms of the landusers as well the extensionagents (the latter is discussed later in the paper). “Opinion leaders,” or those individualsin a community that influence the behaviours of other community members, have animportant influence on landusers in their adoption decisions. They uphold or createnew norms in a community, which influence the behaviour of other landusers. It isimportant for extension agents to identify opinion leaders and gain their approval andconfidence by providing them with information on new environmental managementinnovations. A landusing community lacking such a leader will be slower to adopt thanthose communities that have opinion leaders.

The initial (capital) and sustaining (operating) costs of an innovation are anotherimportant aspect influencing its adoption. The landuser must be able to see the financialbenefits of adoption in addition to the long-term benefits of maintaining productivity.

210 T. F. GUERIN

Fig

.1.

An

Inte

grat

edA

ppro

ach

toth

eT

rans

fer

ofE

nvir

onm

enta

lM

anag

emen

tIn

nova

tion

s.


TA

BL

E2

Exa

mpl

esof

Too

lsfo

rA

ssis

ting

Ext

ensi

onA

gent

san

dL

andu

sers

toIn

crea

seT

heir

Per

sona

lan

dIn

terp

erso

nal

Eff

ecti

vene

ss

Too

lE

xpla

nati

onIm

plic

atio

ns

Mye

rs-B

rigg

sT

ype

Psy

chol

ogic

alty

pes

deve

lop

aspe

ople

dire

ctth

eir

ener

gyto

war

don

eof

each

pair

ofth

eH

elps

one

unde

rsta

ndte

mpe

ram

ents

,In

dica

tor

oppo

site

s(S

ensi

ngor

Intu

itio

n,T

hink

ing

orF

eelin

g,E

xtra

vers

ion

orIn

trov

ersi

on).

pref

eren

ces,

and

toas

sist

inpr

edic

ting

Bec

ause

one

ofea

chpa

iris

pref

erre

dan

dus

edm

ore

ofte

n,ps

ycho

logi

cal

type

theo

rybe

havi

our

ofin

divi

dual

spr

edic

tsth

atth

epr

efer

ence

will

beco

me

mor

ere

liabl

ean

dbe

tter

deve

lope

d.T

his

habi

tual

use

ofpr

efer

ence

sle

ads

tofu

ndam

enta

ldi

ffer

ence

sbe

twee

npe

ople

and

topr

edic

tabl

epa

tter

nsof

beha

vior

.Whe

nth

em

ind

isac

tive

,peo

ple

are

doin

gon

eof

two

thin

gs:p

erce

ivin

g(t

akin

gin

info

rmat

ion)

orju

dgin

g(o

rgan

isin

gan

dpr

iori

tisi

ngin

form

atio

nto

arri

veat

deci

sion

s).T

houg

hev

eryo

neus

esth

ese

men

tal

proc

esse

s,pe

ople

are

born

wit

hpr

efer

ence

sfo

rho

wth

eyw

illus

eth

em.T

here

are

two

diff

eren

tw

ays

that

peop

lepe

rcei

vean

dju

dge:

Per

cept

ion

may

beby

Sens

ing

orIn

tuit

ion

and

judg

emen

tby

Thi

nkin

gor

Fee

ling.

Att

itud

esor

orie

ntat

ions

that

indi

vidu

als

take

tow

ards

the

wor

ldar

em

easu

red

asei

ther

Ext

rave

rsio

nor

Intr

over

sion

.K

irto

nA

dapt

ion-

At

the

basi

sof

adap

tion

-inn

ovat

ion

theo

ryex

ists

adi

men

sion

“ada

ptio

n”an

d“i

nnov

atio

n”U

nder

stan

ding

cogn

itiv

est

yles

ofin

divi

dual

sin

Inno

vati

onIn

vent

ory

whe

reth

etw

oar

eex

trem

esof

abi

pola

rdi

men

sion

.Ind

ivid

uals

can

belo

cate

dat

agr

oup

sett

ing

any

poin

tal

ong

this

dim

ensi

onan

dth

isad

apti

ve-i

nnov

ativ

ein

divi

dual

styl

eis

norm

ally

dist

ribu

ted

inth

epo

pula

tion

.Whe

nco

nfro

nted

wit

ha

prob

lem

,ada

ptor

stu

rnto

conv

enti

onal

way

san

dgr

oup

cons

ensu

s;in

nova

tors

atte

mpt

tore

stru

ctur

epr

oble

ms

byap

proa

chin

gth

emfr

oma

new

angl

e.In

nova

tors

pref

erto

gene

rate

new

and

diff

eren

tso

luti

ons

topr

oble

ms,

whi

chdi

srup

tsra

ther

than

pres

erve

sth

efa

mili

arpa

tter

nsin

whi

chpr

oble

ms

exis

t.B

oth

type

sca

nha

veeq

ual

leve

lsof

crea

tivi

ty[1

0].

Kol

bL

earn

ing

Styl

esK

olb

[11]

prop

oses

ath

eory

ofex

peri

enti

alle

arni

ngth

atin

volv

esfo

urpr

inci

pal

stag

es:

Spec

ifica

llyfo

run

ders

tand

ing

indi

vidu

alG

rid

conc

rete

expe

rien

ces

(CE

),re

flect

ive

obse

rvat

ion

(RO

),ab

stra

ctco

ncep

tual

izat

ion

lear

ning

styl

es(A

C),

and

acti

veex

peri

men

tati

on(A

E).

The

CE

/AC

and

AE

/RO

dim

ensi

ons

are

pola

rop

posi

tes

asfa

ras

lear

ning

styl

esar

eco

ncer

ned

and

Kol

bpo

stul

ates

four

type

sof

lear

ners

(div

erge

rs,a

ssim

ilato

rs,c

onve

rger

s,an

dac

com

mod

ator

s)de

pend

ing

upon

thei

rpo

siti

onon

thes

etw

odi

men

sion

s.B

elbi

nT

eam

Rol

esE

xpla

ins

pref

eren

cefo

rte

amro

les,

espe

cial

lyas

they

high

light

posi

tive

and

prob

lem

atic

Ass

isti

ngex

tens

ion

agen

tsan

dla

ndus

ers

toas

pect

sof

each

role

,ena

bles

team

sto

look

atga

psan

dco

nseq

uenc

esof

bala

nce

inbe

tter

unde

rsta

ndth

ew

ayin

whi

chth

eir

thei

rte

am.R

oles

are

Shap

er,C

oord

inat

or,T

eam

Wor

ker,

Com

plet

erF

inis

her,

team

wor

ksIm

plem

ente

r,R

esou

rce

Inve

stig

ator

,Inn

ovat

or(o

r‘p

lant

’),a

ndM

onit

orE

valu

ator

.

212 T. F. GUERIN

Such long-term benefits have been demonstrated by the adoption of innovations underland management in the National Landcare Program (NLP) in Australia [12]. The NLPis a community based approach to enhancing the long-term productivity of naturalresources in Australia. There are now more than 4,500 Landcare groups across Australiaand approximately one in every three farmers is a member of a Landcare group. TheNLP supports collective action by communities to sustainably manage the environmentand natural resources in partnership with the Australian government. The NLP alsosupports an expansion of property management planning to give landusers improvednatural resource and business management skills [13].

It is also likely that adoption will not occur if a large gain (i.e., in economic returnor other measure of value to the landuser) is not expected by the landuser to compensatefor taking the risk. The following example illustrates the point. In a study of conservationcropping in northern Victoria, Australia, a steady increase in the use of direct drillingand minimum-tillage cropping was reported during the 1980s [14]. The key advantage,which convinced landusers to bring these innovations into practice, was the lower crop-growing costs, which were clearly demonstrated in terms of savings of time and fuel.Although improved soil structure resulted in higher yields, this in itself has not led toincreases in adoption; yield increases need to be converted to profit increases beforeadoption is secured [14]. Many landusers are now being forced to reappraise the tradi-tional systems of conventional cultivation due to the high costs of equipment and fuel,and the increasing cost and scarcity of labour [14]. This relative cost disadvantage ofconventional cultivation could, however, be offset by higher chemical costs associatedwith the adoption of reduced tillage systems. Minimising financial risk was an importantfactor in adopting sustainable practices in rural Utah [15].

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AND ITS INFLUENCE ON ADOPTION

Itharat [16] proposed that landusers, who are older, with more years of landuseexperience and who have a larger amount of land used for production, are moreinnovative. In an Australian study, Anderson [17] has shown that the age of 40–50 yearstends to be associated with the “progressive landuser,” which has also been termed asthe “opinion leader” in this article. However, Warner [18] found that early adopterstended to be relatively young, and those who have used the land for fewer years andhave smaller areas of land. Adopters of land management practices in Australia tendedto be younger than the mean age of the landusers surveyed [12]. In an Australian study,Reeve and Black [19] demonstrated that the greater the number of years a person hasbeen involved in landuse practices, while in adulthood, the more positive their attitudetowards: (i) using agricultural chemicals, (ii) believing profit from landuse is moreimportant than the environment; and (iii) a reluctance to draw upon outside expertise.Of interest in Reeve and Black’s (1993) study was that landusers of age >60yrs havemore favorable attitudes towards additional environmental policies to safeguard theenvironment, that those who are young (<30yrs). In a study in rural Utah, olderfarmers were more resistant to adoption of low-input practices and perceived them tobe unfeasible or impractical. Many felt the change to sustainable practices may notoccur in their lifetimes and questioned whether sustainable practices would be beneficialor profitable. In addition, those approaching retirement were unlikely to risk learningand applying new production practices, especially if there were added costs or riskswith adoption [15]. It therefore appears that there is no clear correlation betweenlandusers’ age and adoption and this is an area for further investigation and clarification,particularly now we have an aging population.


Constraints Related to the Nature of the Innovation and Its Developers

COMPLEXITY OF INNOVATIONS

Innovations that are simple and relatively easy to understand are more likely tobe adopted than those that are complex. Simple innovations include recommendationsto change crop cultivars or to use a new chemical. Bangura [4] found that landusersprefer to adopt those innovations that satisfy their security needs, are less complex,require less time to use, and are less labour-demanding. Innovations of these types canbe communicated easily and in a short time.

Swindale [20] suggests that an innovation, though can be readily transferred fromtechnology developers and is appropriate for the landuser’s needs, may still not beaccepted by the landuser as long as its attributes (including integration with existinglanduse and management) are not understood. This is the case especially for complexinnovations that evolve from multi-disciplinary efforts. Therefore, an innovation mayprove to be inappropriate if the information gathered about landusers’ needs andresources is either inapplicable or is inaccurate. A lack of knowledge about an innovationcan limit its adoption but this does not necessarily correlate with the extent or natureof the landuser’s education. Vanclay and Lawrence [2] describe a related phenomenon,called intellectual outlay, which relates to the knowledge base on the individual landuser,rather than to an objective measure of innovation complexity. Such intellectual outlaycan be considered as an implementation cost as the landuser may need to invest consider-able amounts of time in learning about the new innovation, devoting time and otherresources to adoption. Trialing of the technology will be part of this implementation cost.

In Australia, land management recommendations on grazing lands contaminatedwith chlorinated insecticides (specifically dieldrin and DDT) have been widely adopted.This is evident from the low number of contaminated meat violations reported sincethe initial detection of these chemical residues in export beef in 1987 [21]. Contaminationof Australian beef with these insecticides provided an example of how specialised andsimple information about agricultural chemicals and land management is required byextension agents and landusers to offset contamination of livestock grazing on contami-nated pastures and soils. During the period of major beef contamination problems inAustralian during the late 1980s, there was widespread adoption recommendations madeby the government Department of Agriculture in various States [21]. This widespreadadoption indicates their low degree of complexity and their perceived relevance toproductivity of the main landuse. These recommendations have been to temporarilymove contaminated livestock into uncontaminated land for periods of 6–10 months,change from meat production to other practices and return any remaining stocks of thechemicals that were responsible for the contamination. More innovative land uses bycontaminated land holders have been to raise horses, goat fibre production and sandextraction from beneath contaminated depths [21]. Although these soil contaminantsare (i) only slowly degraded in the environment [22, 23], (ii) can accumulate in thefood chain, and (iii) can be toxic to a range of organisms, none of these were thereason why the affected landusers adopted the recommended practices. These particularlandusers adopted these practices because they saw the economic disadvantages in non-adoption. Recent beef contamination problems in Australia during 1998–1999 involvingendosulfan, a different type of organochlorine insecticide to dieldrin and DDT, but onethat degrades at a faster rate in soil [24], indicate that this type of contamination problemcan still occur on occasions [25]. Such livestock contamination is likely to be an ongoing

214 T. F. GUERIN

Fig. 2. Consequences of Salinity Extension Agents Transferring Information.

land management problem, at least intermittently, as the range of chemicals tested andthe sensitivity of the analytical procedures used increases.

ACCEPTANCE AND ADOPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL

MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

Not all recommended practices, which are designed to conserve natural resources,are likely to be readily adopted. A case in point is the practice for the prevention ofcontamination of soils and water from agricultural chemicals. It is relatively easy for alanduser to see the benefits of stopping a practice which is affecting productivity directly,such as grazing contaminated land and pasture, however, it is more difficult for thelanduser to see how preventing pollution of land and water, particularly off the farm,would benefit their productivity. In the event of off-site environmental effects from anon-site practice, there is a need for the government to provide incentives for the adoptionof sound environmental practices [19] and this issue of externalities is further discussedin Altham and Guerin [1]. With salt affected landusers in Australia, it has been shownthat while in the majority of cases the extension agent’s transfer of information leadsto “on the ground action,” that is not always the case (Fig. 2).

The cotton growing industry in Australia, which depends on the strategic use ofagricultural chemicals, including large quantities of endosulfan, is in a different categorybecause landuser perceptions of environmental problems are already at a high level[26]. General recommendations that have been made to cotton growers by the NewSouth Wales Department of Agriculture include the advice to use all chemicals withextreme care, not to use particular chemicals near waterways, and to retain irrigationtail water on their properties for a minimum period prior to its release off-farm. Landus-ers have also been recommended to retain storm water and other field run-off on theirproperties in addition to advice regarding the safe disposal of various chemical wastes.The extension of these recommendations has been successful as indicated by the vastmajority of landusers who have adopted this advice. The extent of adoption of thisadvice has been measured relatively easily in that fish kills results if chemicals are


released to the waterways in any significant quantity (though chronic effects are notreadily observed). In the Australian cotton industry, where the total number of landusersis relatively low (1,200 cotton growers) [26] compared to the remainder of the ruralsector (1% of total Australian farming population), it is likely that peer group pressurewill be important in changing landusers’ attitudes to environmental problems and envi-ronmental innovations. Further evidence is required to determine whether this is infact one of the explanations for the perceived innovativeness of smaller landusing groups.Most cotton growers use commercial extension agents (86% of all cotton growers), whoprovide advice on environmental management and related technologies, in conjunctionwith the industry’s own technology transfer programmes [26]. It is likely that the useof endosulfan will continue as long as it is still registered for its various agriculturaluses, and while it is a key component of integrated pest management strategies. Suchstrategies are used by numerous landusers in various agricultural industries throughoutthe world.

In an Australia-wide survey prepared for policy making bodies, the majority ofthe farming community showed a “high level” of concern for the environment and asubstantial degree of support for environment-related policy instruments [19]. Amongthe survey respondents of 2000 (with a response rate of 57%), there was a majoritysupport for the following actions for environmental resource conservation;

• More testing of produce for chemical residues• More penalties against those landusers whose produce contains such residues• Having buffer zones around towns where there is considerable crop spraying• Zoning of poor or marginal country to show what types of landuse shall be per-

mitted• Requiring environmental impact statements before undertaking large develop-

ments such as feed lots or major land clearing• Using satellite photography and remote sensing to monitor whether land degrada-

tion is occurring on individual properties• Educating landusers about damage done by selected landuse practices• Providing financial incentives to encourage the use of soil improving practices

such as rotation, stubble retention and deep ripping

Frank [27] indicated that selected Australian landusers choose to maintain a mediumlevel of adoption behaviour in harmony with their physical environment, rather thanadopt innovations which scientists have implicitly perceived as desirable, profitable andsuitable. This finding indicates that the landusers lifestyle needs to be taken into accountwhen extension agents make adoption recommendations.

In a recent survey to assess perceptions of risk associated with use of farm chemicalsin central Ohio, the sample farmers (245) were asked to evaluate the level of risk tothe environment (among other factors) associated with use of agricultural chemicals.The study findings revealed that respondents perceived that the use of farm chemicalsposed little or no treat in this regard [28]. These findings suggest that landusers fromdifferent regions are likely to have different perceptions of the environmental impactsof agricultural chemicals. As a consequence, different groups will require informationto be targeted to them in ways that will enable the groups to gain greater understandingof the environmental implications of agricultural chemical use. A “one-size-fits-all”approach is unlikely to be effective for the extension agent when making recommenda-tions. This highlights the importance of carefully packaging information to the targetaudience.

216 T. F. GUERIN

Landusers will consider an innovation in the light of its advantages and perceivedbenefits relative to those of the innovation that it replaces. The adopters’ perceptionsof an innovation may be influenced by various factors, including their social or economicposition and the message of the extension agent. The advantage(s) may be expressedin terms of profitability, safety or security, enhanced social standing, or of self-esteem.In a study of the adoption of soil conservation practices, Sinden and King [29] foundthat the economic measures of land condition, namely annual crop yield and livestockcarrying capacity, influence the adoption. This provides further evidence that the eco-nomic paradigm is a useful model of landuser adoption behaviour.

The major determinants affecting the adoption of a soil conservation practice arethe attributes of the practice itself. A case in point is that there is little evidence thatbeliefs about soil salinity control alone influence the rate of pasture sowing, indepen-dently of expectations about the profitability of this innovation [30]. Another exampleis the adoption of crop varieties by landusers. Martin et al. [31] showed in the contextof New South Wales, Australia, that wheat cultivars that were grown in a particularseason corresponded closely to those recommended by the State Department of Agricul-ture; only one case of the 50 surveyed reported the use of a non-recommended cultivar.Bardsley [32] indicated that the reasons landusers do not adopt recommended cropvarieties are that they are offered no clear improvement over those existing, and thatthey may have strong ties with the existing variety. In a survey by Martin et al. [31],the herbicide chlorsulfuron was also quickly adopted; innovations were readily adoptedbecause of their clear advantages over existing practices, their compatibility with otherpractices on the farm, their high degree of observability of the benefits and low degreeof complexity.

RELEVANCE OF THE INNOVATION

Not all landusers adopt all the innovations that are made available to them. Theyselect those practices that are consistent with their attitudes, needs, and socio-economicstatus [5]. Landusers have to make many decisions during the production cycle, keepingboth potential problems and alternate solutions in their view. Some of these decisionsare for immediate survival (economic benefit), while others are made in view of antici-pated long-term benefits [5] and this issue is further discussed later. It is now widelyrecognised by extension agents that a mix of relevant information needs to be providedto landusers, if the agents are to be effective.

ATTITUDES OF SCIENTISTS

Scientists have often been criticised for lacking the skills necessary for implementingtheir innovations [33]. They tend to rely on the written word for their information andsubsequent dissemination of their findings. Landusers (particularly farmers), on theother hand, rely mostly on visual and verbal messages in acquiring knowledge, though(as mentioned earlier in this article) this will vary from individual to individual. Scientistsoften assume that the gap between themselves and landusers will be automatically filledby the landusers or extension agents [33]. Landusers are often expected to be able tofully understand the various aspects of the new innovations, and interpret complexenvironmental interactions, which can be different from those associated with the previ-ous innovations that may have been employed.

Limited adoption of land management research has been caused, at least in part,by presentation of research findings in a general form which is not site- and season-specific, and which is often difficult to integrate into existing work practices. It is likely


that landusers tend to localise their knowledge of farming operations, while researcherstend to generalise their knowledge for dissemination.

To ensure effective adoption, scientists should acquire information about landuserpractices, and this may be through both formal and informal sources. According toOjiambo [34], personal communication with immediate colleagues is the most frequentlyused source. Scientists should consider how their innovations will be perceived by thelanduser and whether the innovations are likely to be successful in improving productiv-ity when implemented under site-specific conditions. Scientists therefore need to under-stand problems with existing innovations in order to develop effective new innovations[3]. There is now emerging evidence that scientists in Australia are taking a moreproactive role in the development of solutions for landusers, particularly through theirinvolvement in the commercial extension programmes.

Clunies-Ross [35] has suggested that adoption is more likely to occur where thereis a problem with existing innovations than as the result of new scientific findings.Conservation tillage is a case in point. Diallo [36] showed that the most importantreasons for adopting no-till practices was soil conservation, followed by energy andtime savings. The tangible benefits to the landuser were observed as a reduction in soilerosion and fuel expenses. It is critical for the technology providers to ensure that theinnovations they are recommending are the most appropriate for the problem at hand.

Effective research should, therefore, include an extension component, which startsat the design stage of the research, by making sure in the first place what the landuserswant to know from the research. There is evidence in Australia that extension isincreasingly being incorporated into research projects, including those of the grains,horticulture, dairy research corporations and Rural Industries Research and Develop-ment Corporation (RIRDC). Cotton [37] argues, however, that one of the Australia’skey rural research and development corporations still allocates ,10% of its total budgetto specific communication and extension projects. Cotton [37] also argues that there isinsufficient exploitation of existing technologies across the rural sector and that researchresults are often not “packaged” appropriately for the enduser. Nevertheless, since thisissue of incorporating an extension and adoption component into funded rural researchprojects in Australia was discussed five years ago [3], there have been at least 10 projectsrelated to natural resource conservation that have been specifically funded in Australiawith this extension and adoption component included [38]. Recent developments inensuring scientists incorporate an extension component into their research projectsinclude an initiative by the RIRDC in Australia that involves the scientists describingthe communication process to be used prior to receiving funds for the proposed research.In general, there are still few formally articulated communication requirements (insponsored research), and almost no rigorous evaluation procedures presently beingapplied [39]. The trend in Australia in this regard is toward the researchers buildingstrong partnerships with stakeholders, making these researchers responsive to the stake-holder’s needs, with the role of the scientist and the overall communication of science,being minimised [39]. In a recent review on evaluating the effectiveness of extension,there was a difficulty in finding well-documented examples of programme evaluationin Australia [40]. However, the published literature on evaluation covers just one partof the “lived experience” of applied evaluation: only the information that authors chooseto write about comes into the public domain; other potentially valuable informationoften remains unrecorded and hidden. It could well be that practitioners do not fullyrealise the value of their experiences for others in similar situations [40].

218 T. F. GUERIN

Research and development corporations are increasingly and actively courtingprivate-sector research [41]. At the Annual Conference of the Australian AccreditedAgricultural Consultants (AAAC) held in Canberra in August 1996, consultants wereurged by the research and development corporations to apply for research funds [41].The Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC), for example, saw a majoropportunity for consultants to play a role under their new emphasis of commissioning andnegotiating research. They saw consultants as having an advantage under the newemphasis because they were used to doing jobs for an outcome rather than a salary.They also perceive consultants as having better links to farmers, especially opinionleaders, and so being capable of more focused research.

Scientists have a need for their research findings to be recognised by other scientistsin their field. This fact should not be overlooked. It is a reality that there is usuallylittle incentive for scientists to write for a farmer audience, as such publications derivelittle academic merit to the scientist and give them little recognition amongst their peers.Effective scientists will have communication specialists that are able to write for a wideaudience and in particular landusers. This issue underlies many of the current problemsof lack of relevance of scientific research to on the ground problems that landusers have.

Constraints Relating to the Communication and Transfer Process

DEMONSTRATIONS AND FIELD TRIALS

Field demonstrations are akin to “prototyping” a technology or process. The fieldtrial objectively demonstrated the appropriateness of the technology, process, or innova-tion. Traditionally, field demonstrations and trials were conducted by government agen-cies [3]. The landusers need to understand the benefits and the drawbacks of theinnovation and to know what modifications and adaptations are likely to be needed forimplementing the innovation to their own environmental problem and trials help achievethis. The results of some research are easily observed, and are therefore easier tocommunicate and innovations with a high degree of observability are more likely to beadopted. It is recognised that some innovations do not lend themselves readily tocommunication and this is one of the most common reasons for non-adoption [3].This should not be a problem, however, if professional communicators prepare theinformation. Lack of observability of the results of innovations, has also been shownto limit the motivation of some landusers. Demonstrations of innovations, however,can greatly improve their observability. Demonstrations can take the form of field days,on-farm demonstrations, or visits to other landusers who have successfully adopted theinnovations involved. The formation of participatory groups in the Australian NationalLandcare Program has closely involved the landusing community and has helped allinvolved understand the need to prevent and overcome problems of land degradation[13]. This approach of establishing landuser groups has worked well in promoting changein land management practices in Australia and has now largely moved the provisionof demonstrations and field trials from government agencies to landuser groups andcommercial organisations involving the properties of the landuser’s themselves. Table3 describes a number of such programs and activities involving demonstrations and fieldtrials [65].

COMMERCIALLY FUNDED DEMONSTRATION SITES FOR

SUSTAINABLE LAND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

There are now numerous examples of commercially funded demonstration sitesfor conservation practices though there is relatively little published on these activities


TA

BL

E3

Exa

mpl

esof

Com

mer

cial

Ext

ensi

onan

dC

omm

unic

atio

nP

rogr

amm

esfo

rL

andu

sers

Org

anis

atio

n(s)

Pro

gram

/Act

ivit

yD

escr

ipti

on

SBS

IAM

AL

tdE

stab

lishm

ent

and

mai

nten

ance

oflo

cal/r

egio

nal

For

mat

ion

ofin

depe

nden

tgr

oups

oflo

cal

land

user

ssh

arin

gkn

owle

dge

mer

chan

dise

rs

Mon

sant

oC

ompa

nyC

entr

esof

Exc

elle

nce

and

Gre

enSt

ripe

sP

rogr

amm

esE

ncou

ragi

ngth

ead

opti

onof

sust

aina

ble

crop

ping

and

reve

geta

tion

prac

tice

sac

ross

the

Uni

ted

Stat

es

Var

ious

Con

sult

ants

Far

mM

anag

emen

t50

0E

xam

ple

ofef

fect

ive

land

user

-led

orga

nisa

tion

cond

ucti

ngon

-far

mre

sear

chin

Aus

tral

ia

Bir

chip

Cro

ppin

gIn

depe

nden

tF

ield

Tri

als

Exa

mpl

eof

effe

ctiv

ela

ndus

er-l

edor

gani

sati

onco

nduc

ting

on-f

arm

rese

arch

Gro

upin

Aus

tral

ia

Eld

ers

Pty

Ltd

Eld

ers

Bus

hT

eleg

raph

Inte

rnet

acce

ssto

alim

ited

rang

eof

agri

cult

ural

acti

viti

es/a

dvic

ean

dw

hole

farm

man

agem

ent

advi

cein

Aus

tral

ia

Kon

dini

nG

roup

Gen

eral

tech

nica

lan

dm

anag

emen

tad

vice

rela

ting

toA

ustr

alia

nru

ral

cons

ulti

ngco

mpa

ny;P

rovi

des

focu

sed

info

rmat

ion

via

its

sust

aina

ble

land

use

Far

mL

ine

serv

ice

(an

info

rmat

ion

serv

ice

for

land

user

acce

ss)

Has

sall

Ass

ocia

tes

Gen

eral

tech

nica

lan

dm

anag

emen

tad

vice

rela

ting

toIn

tern

atio

nal

rura

lan

dna

tura

lre

sour

ceco

nsul

ting

com

pany

sust

aina

ble

land

use

NF

F(A

ustr

alia

)T

heF

arm

wid

eP

rogr

amIn

tern

et“c

lear

ingh

ouse

”an

ddi

scus

sion

foru

mon

agri

cult

ural

acti

viti

esin

clud

ing

adop

tion

ofsu

stai

nabl

epr

acti

ces

Rur

alP

ress

Pty

Ltd

Gen

eral

info

rmat

ion

Aco

mm

only

used

sour

ceof

info

rmat

ion

for

land

user

san

dex

tens

ion

agen

tsin

Aus

tral

ia

Abb

revi

atio

n:N

FF

5N

atio

nal

Far

mer

’sF

eder

atio

n(s

ee[6

5]);

SBS

IAM

AL

td5

larg

eru

ral

mer

chan

dise

rin

Aus

tral

ia.

220 T. F. GUERIN

(Table 3). In one particular private extension program in rural Australia, Farm Manage-ment 500 (FM500), a number of organisations now work in a partnership to demonstrateinnovations in conservation practices [42]. The organisation is extremely diverse with17 independent consulting firms acting as the service providers. These cooperatingorganisations include equipment and seed companies, general agricultural merchandis-ers, and extension agents. FM500 also draws upon the knowledge of university research-ers, as well as soil and water conservation groups. FM500 aims to accelerate the adoptionof better business practices by rural landusers, by fostering open and interactive landusergroup meetings. All members share ideas and experiences so as to recognise and developskills, values, self-worth and, at the same time, enhance the landuser’s incomes. FM500seeks to provide landusers with a mix of information, planning concepts and strategiesthat they would not otherwise get from traditional service providers, such as governmentextension agents. A mixture of landuser subscriptions, agribusiness partnerships andgovernment training grants provides the financial resources for the project [42].

In 1997, Monsanto created Centres of Excellence across the Midwest of the UnitedStates [43]. The purpose of these new centres has been to develop and refine viableconservation tillage systems at the local landuser level. The goal is to utilise large-scale,farm-sized research areas to develop and demonstrate practices that can be adoptedby landusers to increase productivity while saving natural resources. The Centres ofExcellence display 3- to 5-year demonstration projects involving conservation tillage[43]. In addition, they serve as local solution centres for:

• Generating data comparing the benefits of conservation tillage versus conven-tional tillage

• Developing alternative conservation tillage practices• Demonstrating, training and educating landusers, merchandisers, crop consul-

tants, academics, and other influential parties on the benefits of conservationtillage practices

• Providing solutions to overcome local agronomic barriers• Establishing local partnerships with boards of directors of various organisations

to get community involvement

The Birchip Cropping Group (BCG), established in 1993, is a group of Australianlandusers, agribusinesses and government representatives who work together to under-take independent trial work and communicate better farming practices to the widerlandusing community [44]. The organisation now provides a strong link between farmers,governmental and agribusiness research and extension in major cropping areas of South-eastern Australia. The BCG believe they are uniquely situated to communicate andtransfer information to landusers because they are landusers and they know the landmanagement problems in their own geographical area. They are accepted as beingindependent and through membership, public field days, seminars, research and fielddemonstrations, radio and now the Internet, they are able to reach a large proportionof the landusing community. This landuser-led organisation has had a large impact onon-farm research in the grain growing areas of Southeastern Australia, and has provideda focus so that government and NGO funds can be spent more effectively. The BCGhas over 350 landuser members, and numerous sponsors and each year the BCG preparesand distributes 5000 copies of its trial findings to local landusers [44].


INFORMATION MANAGEMENT AND COMMUNICATION IS CRITICAL TO THE

ADOPTION PROCESS

An important aspect in the adoption process is the identification and use of appro-priate communication channels. For example, it is unlikely that the use of mass mediain land management extension can replace personal contact between extension agentsand target groups or individual landusers. Mass media may make this work easier,broaden the range of people addressed, and can, therefore, be a great help in extensionwork because they enable the individual extension agent to operate more effectively.They also provide a way of making it easier for the target group or individual landuserto absorb information [3]. If an innovation is complex and its cost and expected returnsare difficult to identify, and the adoption challenges the landuser’s belief, then, thecommunication from researcher to extension agent and ultimately to landuser must beextremely clear or adoption is unlikely to occur.

With electronic communications, information access is becoming less significant asa constraint to the adoption of innovations. The telephone, while providing landuserswith immediate information regarding a problem, has its limitations. Even though thecost 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 avail-able; unavailability may lead to the “telephone tag” syndrome of two people continuallytrying to return calls, but never making the contact. Some of the main forms of electroniccommunications that are used are the Internet, electronic mail, and electronic bulletinboards, and video conferencing. In Mid 1999, only 30% of rural landusers in Australiawere connected to the Internet, and this group of landusers are mainly using the Internetas a passive source of information [45], so the potential of this form of communicationfor technology transfer and adoption is still a long way from being realised. Videoconferencing has not been a major contributor to communication in recent years andthis has been due to its high cost, which is prohibitive to the majority of landusers.

ONGOING ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Landusers need continual access to information and in this regard extension agentshave an important role as “knowledge navigators.” More experienced landusers mayneed specialised information, while those operating a diversified landuse system mayneed a complex mix of information. Electronic networks should prove beneficial in thetransfer of research that is relevant to Australian landusers. LandcareNET, an electronicnetwork for Landcare groups across Australia, is an example [3, 46]. This system hasbecome important in technology adoption by both disseminating useful knowledge thatalready exists, and providing research findings as they are required. This latter aspectis of considerable value as it should help reduce the problem of “information overload,”where too much information is provided to the landuser. Surveys can be conductedusing the Internet to determine the interest areas and needs of landusers who haveaccess to the Internet. Such information access should improve the interaction betweenlandusers, extension agents, and scientists. By determining the gaps in landusers’ knowl-edge, through the use of surveys on the Internet, extension agents can focus their timespent in personal contact clarifying landusers’ needs [3]. Specialised Internet discussiongroups or mailing lists, similar to the LandcareNET program previously described, haveincreased substantially in the past five years. In addition to professional and non-commercial Internet discussion groups, a range of agricultural merchandisers now pro-vide homepages on the Internet, providing information and discussion forums for theirlanduser clients and often these are free of charge. Information that was once available

222 T. F. GUERIN

only in a printed form is now becoming available on the Internet, but it should berecognised that much of this information currently available is still difficult to accessby landusers as recently reported by Grove [45]. Landusers need to be guided throughthe mass of information on the Internet, and colleagues, close contacts or commercialmerchandisers who are willing to invest time with the landuser, are in an ideal positionto do this.

Computerised expert systems via the Internet show potential for improving thequality and efficiency of landuse extension services by making vital expertise availableto extension agents when and where it is needed [3, 47, 48]. Such systems can providesolutions for many current extension problems such as delayed decision time, whichcan be costly to landusers. They can also provide solutions to the problem of extensionagents being bombarded with increasing amounts of information. Assisted by suchsystems, extension agents can solve problems that are out of their areas of specialisation.Lack of human resources is another problem addressed by such systems because govern-ment Departments of Agriculture can rarely afford to employ a full range of experts[3]. The concern with these systems, however, is that the information can be very difficultto extract, and without a “knowledge navigator” providing personal interaction, thevalue of the information is likely to be greatly limited.

Since 1995, The Kondinin Group’s FarmLine service, based in Australia, has pro-vided land management information from a wide variety of sources including otherlandusers, agriculture departments, research groups and published materials from acrossAustralia and overseas. The service also provides specific industry contacts and theKondinin Group’s own independent research. FarmLine is a commercial operation,open to all, but is provided at a reduced cost to Kondinin Group members (subscribers)[49]. The service can largely reduce the frustration currently faced by landusers andLandcare groups in searching for relevant information and details about techniquesother groups are using to solve similar land management problems. In terms of usage,more than 5000 landusers across Australia have used the resource since its launch inApril 1995, and there are on average, 19 inquires a day (from across Australia) andmore than 10,000 inquiries in two years, indicating the usefulness of the resource [49].

ROLE OF THE MEDIA AND THE RURAL PRESS IN LANDUSER DECISION MAKING

Anderson [50] reported that advice from extension agents is only one source ofinformation among many used by landusers in decision making. Ratings of the relativeimportance of information sources showed that landusers regarded other landusers asthe most important source (85% of the sample of landusers); the second was reading(excluding state Department of Agriculture Publications) (78%). The third was stateDepartment of Agriculture publications (60%) and extension agents were rated sixth(59%) [50]. Rural newspapers, journals and magazines are the specific means wherebylandusers find out about innovations. Weiss [51] indicated that the majority of landuseextension agents (200 respondents) in a survey in Australia used non-scientific journalsand magazines as the sources of information which they most commonly referred to.Only 25% of these publications were claimed to be “relied” upon by the respondentsand other scientific sources such as agricultural science journals would need to be referredto for more reliable information [51]. Hayman [52] has indicated that governmentdepartments, various private sources and mass media are the most important sourcesof technical information for a key group of salinity extension agents in Australia, andalso that extension agents talking to groups of landusers was the most common means


for imparting advice. Group workshops, demonstrations and TV commercials were alsoimportant; surveys were the least beneficial of all mechanisms used [52].

EXPLAINING THE INNOVATION

Printed information in rural publications, including newspapers, is a key source ofland management advice (Table 4). One constraint in this regard that is of particularimportance in the transfer of innovations to landusers is the lack of training and familiar-ity that many journalists have with environmental management and related technologies.Pickering [33], who claimed that only few journalists have studied any science sincehigh school, suggested that there may be difficulties in persuading some journalists towrite on technical or scientific topics. Furthermore, he indicated that this may also meanthat when interviewing scientists, they will often pretend to understand material thatactually confuses them.

Journalists are also restricted in what they write by their audience. Thus, even ifthey do understand the complex issues themselves, they are restricted to writing ingeneral terms for a wider audience. It is therefore important for scientists to limit thevolume and complexity of material presented to journalists writing articles for landusers,and to present it clearly. Pickering [33] believed that the most important constraints inthe communication process are those that are imposed by the methodology used by thescientists or the scientists’ perceptions of how their information should be disseminated,or what scientists need to do to achieve professional recognition (as described earlier).

CREDIBILITY AND THE EXTENSION AGENT

In the classical diffusion model [8], the extension agent is a mediator in communicat-ing innovations. The definition of an extension agent however, needs to be broadenedto encompass a variety of people working in a range of roles. The role of extensionagent for a number of professionals involved in landuse management, may only representone of their working roles. For example, a marketing person in a rural merchandisingcompany may need to spend a large portion of their time advising farmers on the useof a particular product, and how it integrates with the farmer’s existing landuse system.

Extension agents are seldom responsible for developing innovations, but they mustbe capable of interpreting the complexities of scientific jargon in terms, which arefamiliar to landusers. Extension agents achieve their objectives through numerous mech-anisms, and tend not to rely on any single mechanism. This is highlighted through thedistribution of mechanisms used by extension agents in salinity management in Australia(Table 4) [52]. To work successfully with landusers, extension agents must respectfarmers or landusers skills and knowledge, and adjust to their situation rather thanexpecting the landuser always to look up to them. First and foremost extension agentsmust have an empathy with the landusers. Extension agents need to have credibilitywith the landusers and must be competent. Underlying these issues is the necessity forthe extension agent to take on the role of a leader and this is an ongoing process. Todo this, the extension agent must connect or arrive at “human contact” with the landuserclients. They must also master the context in which the landusers are working in,understanding trends, and the broad concerns in the landuser’s community. Theseattributes of credibility can be highlighted as follows:

• Empathise with landusers and their needs• Make recommendations that are feasible in the particular economic, technical,

and social context

224 T. F. GUERIN

• Have an overall knowledge of the environment and its management (understandthe “big picture”)

• Maintain a practical approach to problem solving• Understand and work within the social norms of the landusing community• Make recommendations visible• Have experience in the application of new practices• Be well informed on the latest developments in land management• Be accessible to the landuser• Be unbiased, honest, trustworthy, maintain confidentially, and be reliable

Developing credibility with landusers is one of the most important factors determin-ing the success of extension agents. When this is gained, extension agents are able totransfer innovations and secure adoption at a considerably higher level [3].

An effective extension agent will also help not only to change and increase therates of adoption of new (appropriate) technologies, but also to reinforce those currentpractices of the landuser that are beneficial. The extension agent should help the landuserabandon inappropriate ways and technologies which will hinder the landuser’s progress.

DIS-ADOPTION

While it is reasonable to say that the key observable effect of the extension agentpassing on information to landusers is (or at least should be) on the ground action, thisis not always the case (Fig. 2). New information often leads to increased interest amonglandusers, which in turn can lead to further seeking of solutions. Extension agentsshould however, be aware that the provision of information can also lead to concernand confusion among landusers (Fig. 2). Discontinuation or ‘dis-adoption’ of technolo-gies can also occur. Cary [53] showed that for every two landusers in northeast Victoria,Australia, who had successfully adopted conservation tillage practices, there was onelanduser who had abandoned it. Those landusers who had given up the practice believedtheir soil was unsuitable because with direct drilling, the soil crusted over the top layers.Since fewer wheat seedlings broke through, early growth was poor and yields werelower. The landusers who experienced these particular problems believed cultivationwas necessary to provide a permeable seedbed. It is, therefore, insufficient for extension

TABLE 4Key Mechanisms for the Transfer of Information from Extension Agents to Landusers and

the Communitya

Mechanism Response (%)

Talking to groups 9.4Conferences 8.0Mass media 8.0Training and information days 6.5“Farm walks” and field days 6.5Reports and published papers 6.5Personal contacts 6.5Newsletters 6.5Otherb 42.1

a This was from discussions with extension agents in New South Wales, Australia that focused on soil salinityproblems [52].

b These included e-mail, fax, mail, demonstration sites, manuals, surveys, and videos (all with responses,6.5%).


agents to have given information or even created an interest in an innovation. They mustfollow through the entire adoption-decision process to ensure that adoption is sustained.

The “right” advice may not be acted upon if the landusers being addressed haveno awareness of the problem. Extension agents may have a difficulty even in creatingan awareness of the environmental problems among individuals or target groups. Inmany cases, however, the landusers have well founded reasons of their own for rejectingan innovation [2, 53] and the extension agent must carefully examine such reasonsfor rejection.

PAYING FOR TECHNICAL AND MANAGEMENT ADVICE

Landusers require specialised advice to maintain high productivity (if they arefarming the land) and at the same time, aiming to develop a sustainable ecosystem. InAustralia, the government funds only a relatively small number of extension agents.State and federal agricultural extension agents exist mainly in the larger capital citiesand carry out administrative and legislative tasks, although some of these staff are basedat regional research facilities. However, there are now very few regional agronomy staffemployed by the state government. Their roles have, in the main, been taken over byindustry, including private consultants and rural merchandisers. Publicly funded exten-sion has therefore decreased as funds have declined, and this has continued sharplysince the earlier discussion highlighted this trend [3]. In Australia, all state departmentsof agriculture are moving towards a “market-driven” or “client-driven” philosophy ofservice provision. They have explicitly stated objectives of being responsive to theexpressed needs of their clients, and some are setting up formal links with industry toattempt to ensure that industry needs are met [41]. For example, within AgricultureWestern Australia (WA) there now exists a range of formalised “industry partnerships”attached to it major programs. The Cereals Partnership Group, for example, consistsof four farmers, three processors, two private consultants with marketing expertise, andthe Agriculture WA program manager for the Cereals Program [41]. These partnershipshave a direct input into the strategic planning process to assess industry priorities,formulate the strategic plan and define the program operations. Similar formalisedarrangements are being instigated in some, but not all, other states of Australia [41].

User-pays and cost-recovery procedures are now replacing public extension. Thismeans that only landusers in groups who request help are likely to be visited bygovernment funded extension agents. The role of commercial organisations in extension,though often underestimated up until recently, is now the major provider of extensionservices. Private sector involvement in advisory services has increased several-fold inrecent years to the stage where, in almost all rural districts in Australia, there are moreprivate sector extension agents than are employed by the government.

The largest group of private sector extension agents includes those employed byrural merchandisers, who have traditionally provided a range of products and relatedservices. Merchandisers are increasingly becoming involved with a broader range ofactivities: selling inputs, providing extension and marketing the final product [41]. Theyare moving towards providing a total farm service. The change in services provided byagribusiness reflects a desire by both parties (i.e., business and farmers) to find waysof minimising risks in the increasingly market-oriented and deregulated agriculturalindustry. The new services include access to advice and up-to-date information, guaran-teed delivery of products of a specified quality and fixed product prices [41]. Merchandis-ers are employing agronomists with a specific focus of providing extension advice [37].These companies may be involved from the time the landusers plan to buy a property,

226 T. F. GUERIN

where they advise on crops, animal enterprises, and landuse in general. They are alsoinvolved with conservation research pertinent to the areas that they cover. Examples ofthese larger companies in Australia are SBS-IAMA, Elders Pty Ltd, Pivot, Westfarmers-Dalgety, Combined Rural Traders, and the larger number of stock and station agencies.Rural merchandisers have seized on this need of landusers, turning it into an opportunityto add value to the products they sell.

Other sources of advice about innovations in environmental management are likelyto become increasingly important. It is evident from the shift from government fundingto the current commercial advisory climate that participatory groups appear to beeffective and these are described in later sections. Pol [54] claims that the cost ofproviding extension services by agricultural retail merchandisers is recouped throughadditional sales, or, on occasions by charging fees. There is now a trend for corporationsto take the lead in providing up to date information on innovations for landusers. Inrural Australia, some of the larger commercial technology transfer programs havebecome widespread including FM 500 and the Birchip Cropping Group; each programaddresses whole farm issues, including those relating to environmental management,in specific industry segments. There is also a trend for rural research and developmentcorporations to move more funding into the private sector, particularly in areas of cropand animal production [54], which is an area that has relatively large potential forenvironmental impact.

Emerging Model of Technology Transfer and Adoption

CLASSICAL APPROACHES TO EXTENSION

Common tools used in extension research have included the use of questionnaires,trials and demonstrations, site budgets and cost-benefit analyses, yield extrapolationsfrom experiment stations, field days, informal site visits and formal interviews. Themost common tool has been the use of questionnaires [8]. The adoption or non-adoptionof a particular innovation is correlated with a wide range of variables such as age, levelof education and socioeconomic status, and constraints are then identified from thesignificant correlations found [8, 55]. The benefits of the questionnaire approach are that:

• Large numbers of landusers can be surveyed• Statistical analysis can be performed with quantitative data for testing various

hypotheses• 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• Extension agents can 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 empiricalstudies previously reviewed [2, 3, 56] and a very comprehensive study by Reeve andBlack [19] focusing on rural environmental issues in Australia.

As illustrated in Fig. 1, innovative landusers or opinion leaders have direct contactwith researchers, have trials on their land and quickly put research into practice anddiffuse the findings to other landusers who have contact with them. A limitation of theclassical diffusion model is that it predicts that the majority of landusers would preferto wait for an opinion leader to invest in and test an innovation before these landusersdo so themselves. They do this in order to avoid taking any risks that they may experience


if they were to adopt immediately. So the classical diffusion model relies on the identifi-cation of opinion leaders who are instrumental in further diffusing innovations to otherlandusers [8]. The classical diffusion model, however, has been based on the belief thatthe causes of poor landuse management are essentially technological in their origin.Further, the model does not take into account cross-cultural differences, nor does itconsider the social context in which landusers operate, and that for some innovations,clear-cut stages in adoption are absent. Rather, the classical diffusion model assumesthat awareness of a new and relevant innovation is sufficient reason for landusers toadopt [3]. In Australia, these limitations are now clearly evident.

ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO THE CLASSICAL DIFFUSION MODEL

Participatory approaches and their variants (viz. Participatory Action Research, orPAR, Rapid Rural Appraisal, or RRA, Participatory Rural Appraisal, or PRA, farmer-first, bottom-up and farmer-driven approaches) have been suggested as improved ap-proaches for the adoption of innovations [2, 3, 57, 58]. Participatory approaches involvelandusers in the research process from the initial design of the project, through datagathering and analysis, to the drawing of final conclusions and the development ofrecommendations arising from the research (refer to the long thin arrows on Fig. 1).In this approach, groups of landusers, extension agents and scientists aim to work closelyto achieve the needs of landusers, the wider community and the environment.

Participatory approaches recognise the fact that although scientists are in a poten-tially strong position to demonstrate the benefits of adopting because of their intimateknowledge of the innovations, landusers should be directly involved in research so asto make the innovation appropriate to their site-specific needs. Group meetings forman important part of such approaches. This is especially true for (but not limited to)small-scale landusers who are involved in joint-farm operations or agricultural co-operatives and can easily compare and share their experiences of technology transfer.

Participatory approaches complement the classical diffusion model and can beconsidered as a further development of the convergent form of the classical model,where landusers, scientists, and extension agents create and share information to helpthemselves in reaching a common understanding of the problem. In Australia, a partici-patory approach is only beginning to be tested. A recent example of the application ofthis approach to extension has been through the establishment of the Landcare program[13]. The perceived benefits of such approaches are as follows:

• Groups accelerate attitude change and the development of more appropriateland management innovations.

• Such approaches assert that attitude changes create the prerequisite for behav-ioural change.

• They recognise that landusers should take responsibility for their own destiny,and to participate to enhance their understanding and commitment to developingsolutions and decision making. This is based on the findings that people arecommitted to a decision or activity in direct proportion to their planning in, orinfluence on, that decision [59]. In addition, Rhoades [60, 61] claimed that landus-ers are experts in defining their problems and therefore should have input directlyinto research.

• Limited extension resources can be more efficiently utilised in servicing groups.This is particularly the case in land management extension in Australia, wherethe government does not have the resources to deal with such wide spreadenvironmental conservation issues on its own. Some of the key issues in this area

228 T. F. GUERIN

are soil and water pollution from agricultural chemicals; salination of water andsoil; soil acidification; declining soil structure; insect resistance; and reducedwater quality.

• Local landuser groups can more readily access agribusinesses (rural merchandis-ers) and consultants than individuals.

Campbell and Junor [12] reviewed studies conducted in 1990 and 1991 addressingAustralian landusers. Of the 3000 landusers surveyed, 23% were found to be involvedin Landcare groups. In the year 2000, one in every three farmers is involved. Thisindicates that participatory approaches have had a wide impact, particularly as theywere only formally introduced into land management extension in Australia in the late1980s. It is evident that rural merchandisers are encouraging the formation of groupsfor information transfer, usually involving an opinion leader [37].

LIMITATIONS TO PARTICIPATORY APPROACHES

Widespread demonstration of the effectiveness of participatory approaches has yetto occur in developed countries such as Australia. These approaches have been criticisedin that they can be perceived to be distracting to researchers, who should be focusingtheir efforts on developing technologies. If an innovation has been developed in a wellthought-out way, then landusers will adopt it because they will see its relevance. Afurther criticism of these approaches is that trained extension agents may provide lessinput into landuse operations. This may be detrimental to the continual back-up supportthat landusers need if they are to maintain the adoption of an innovation. There is alsothe perceived problem that when involved in participatory groups, landusers may keepinformation exclusively within their groups, and also become distracted with other issuesthat are peripheral to the original reason that the groups were formed. Some of theperceived limitations to the various participatory approaches, which involve landusergroups, have been listed as follows;

• To involve scientists in extension distracts these scientists from their primaryrole of research.

• As participatory groups assume more responsibility, government extension agentswill have less input into extension.

• Landuser groups that were originally established for a specific purpose couldbecome distracted from their original reasons for forming the groups.

• Groups are also contributing to the fragmentation of knowledge. When groupsof landusers are established, these can exhibit varying degrees of closure, so thatinformation entering these groups, or knowledge produced within them, is likelyto remain within the groups and not pass immediately to the wider landusingcommunity. This claim was based on a study of landusing groups in Australia,and therefore highlights a potential problem with an approach to extension thatinvolves the formation of groups.

• There are also difficulties in getting out to landusers, particularly in geographicallyspread countries, where distances are great.

• Although widespread, the effectiveness of such approaches across a wider spec-trum of enterprises needs to be further validated, and the relative rates of adoptionof those landusers involved and those not involved in Landcare programmes,should be determined.

• For landusers this can mean a plethora of groups, often with high participationcosts and possibly a low pay-off, or at least one that is potentially difficult to


determine. The concerns of members of groups include those of participationcosts and conflicting objectives.

• Enormous amounts of farmer knowledge are being generated, but generallythere is poor documentation, collation and dissemination in a wide frameworkbeyond the group [41]. Information flow beyond groups is, on the whole, lacking.This is one of the problems faced by the Landcare program, where farmer groupsoften work on problems in comparative isolation, with the assistance of relativelyinexperienced project officers. The inexperience of many public-sector extensionpersonnel working in public-good areas of extension is a consequence of the lossof experienced personnel to the private sector during the restructuring of public-private extension in Australia [41].

• Group-based extension, appears to have many advantages because of its emphasison adult learning principles and encouragement of producer “ownership” of bothproblems and solutions [41]. Important issues that need to be addressed, especiallyrelate to (a) its effectiveness in all situations, (b) its sustainability, and (c) itsability to involve all who need to be involved.

• Participatory approaches to extension assume that landusers want to be involvedin the research that is applicable to them, but it should not be assumed thatlandusers necessarily want to be involved. Other researchers have providedevidence that landusers prefer informal oral sources, channels mainly with exten-sion agents, farm demonstrations, and communication and informal visits to otherlandusers’ operations.

Also, as Pannell [7] points out, it appears that there has been excessive optimismin Australia about the extent to which the NLP approach can solve the problems ofrisk and uncertainty, especially for the difficult problem of dryland salinity. In particular,it seems unlikely that Landcare groups could do much to address the following problemsof; (i) the contribution of externalities to high uncertainty, (ii) the contribution ofheterogeneity (in the trial areas) to high uncertainty, (iii) long time scales for trials,(iv) cases where the minimum scale needed for trials is large, (v) low observability ofsome trial impacts, (vi) the high cost of ceasing a trial, and (vii) low covariance of thebehaviour of the innovation with traditional practices. In the final point here (vii),for soil conservation practices, each observation of the trial’s impacts is an isolatedobservation, often poorly correlated with other observations of events on the farm forexample, liming to reduce soil acidity, and tree planting to reduce salinity [41].

AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO EXTENSION AND ADOPTION

Increasingly, the broader landusing communities and other stakeholders (refer tothe overall model in Fig. 1) have become involved in the application of sustainable landmanagement practices. There has also been a developing focus on group-based activities,although as Marsh and Pannell [41] indicate, most government agencies still claim (orconcede, depending on their philosophy) that they will still be doing “some” one-to-one extension. In Australia, there has been a proliferation of groups focussing on bothtechnology transfer issues (such as the well branded programs of Target 10, TopCrop,Beefcheque, Right Rotations) [41] and those dealing more with awareness and manage-ment/lifeskills education (such as FM500, and NLP). The group focus of agriculturalextension is only partly a response to agency cutbacks. It also represents a change inphilosophical approach to extension; from the linear model of technology transfer toan appreciation of what has been termed the agricultural knowledge and informationsystem or AKIS [62]. The change embraces principles of adult learning, action learning

230 T. F. GUERIN

and participative processes, typified by, for example, the Participative model. An exten-sion philosophy based on the AKIS concept emphasises and values the knowledgepossessed by and flowing between all the players in the agricultural industry: farmers,departments of agriculture, consultants, agribusiness, and rural communities [41]. Withthis emphasis, it is appropriate that farmers should have more control over the informa-tion that they need and want and how it should be delivered. Groups are seen as themore appropriate medium to work in under this “demand-pull” (as opposed to “science-push”) model of extension, with the extension officer often playing a role of facilitator[41]. Doyle [63] has recently described the concept of network analysis in agriculturalextension, based on the AKIS concept, adding a very useful dimension to the emergingintegrated model illustrated in Fig. 1. He argues that scientists, extension agents, consul-tants and landusers are all participants in a single knowledge and information system.Each participant is seen as a network member. Each person in the network has a profileof contacts. In the network analysis, information is collated from each member on theoccupation of the people that they contact, the frequency of contact and how influentialthe contacted person is and subjects discussed. From this base information, a series ofsocial networks can be quantified, one for each subject area. A typical analysis willoften show that particular individuals (akin to the “opinion leader” already discussed)will be a major source of information for landusers in their community. The networkanalysis also provides information on the dynamics of the opinion leaders, and othersin the network, by indicating directions of flows of information. In those communitieswhere it is found that there is a predominant one-way flow of information, then extensionagents should work at ways of increasing the number of two-way interactions [63].

An example of wider stakeholder involvement in technology transfer and adoptionis that of Greening Australia, which is a national, community organisation that helpsthe Australian landusing community to conserve and plant native trees, shrubs, andgrasses [64]. It is a non-profit community based organisation which forms a federationof similar organisations throughout the country and is now internationally recognised.On World Environment Day 1998, Greening Australia was inducted into the UnitedNations Global 500 Roll of Honour, awarded to individuals and organisations foroutstanding achievement in the protection of the environment. Greening Australia workswith landusers, community groups, land management agencies, schools and individuals tohelp meet the challenge of protecting and restoring local native vegetation. GreeningAustralia is funded from contracts with public and private agencies, corporate sponsor-ship membership fees and product sales. Funding is used to support local communitybased projects [64].

Greening Australia works with the community and local, state and federal govern-ments to:

• Protect remnant vegetation• Protect biodiversity• Repair and prevent land degradation• Improve water quality• Provide habitat and food for native fauna

With support from the Departments of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry, andother government agencies, Greening Australia helps landusers to manage trees onfarms for profit. Farm forestry can provide timber and non-timber products including oils,seeds and nuts, and shelter for livestock. These forests conserve biodiversity, lower watertables, and subsequently reducing soil salinity. Greening Australia also works with


councils, coalitions of councils, and the Australian Local Government Association toidentify, map and assess the health of trees, shrubs and grasses and such local “greening”plans balance development and conservation. Greening Australia also operates seed-banks, seed orchards and nurseries independently and with other organisations [64].

Another example of wider stakeholder involvement in technology transfer andadoption is from the United States called Operation Green Stripe. This is an education/conservation program which is commercially supported [43]. Through Operation GreenStripe, farmers are encouraged to establish vegetative buffers between their fields andsurface water supplies. Cooperating agricultural merchandisers provide free grass seedfor the “stripes,” and the Monsanto Company provides educational grants to FutureFarmers of America (FFA) chapters based on the number of farmers the studentsrecruit. Vegetative buffer stripes serve as filters to trap soil sediment and agriculturalchemicals, which helps keep streams and rivers free from silt. These vegetation barriersalso provide a habitat for wildlife and help maintain the integrity of stream and riverbanks [43].

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS FROM CHANGES OCCURRING IN EXTENSION

PRACTICE IN AUSTRALIA

The loss of expertise in extension and especially research from the public sectorfollowing state department restructures is likely to have far-reaching repercussions.Research and development corporations are actively seeking private-sector researchand funding bodies are questioning the infrastructure costs and “in-kind” contributionestimates of state departments of agriculture, universities and government researchbodies such as the Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organisation(CSIRO). It seems likely that this will result (at least in the short term) in a drop inthe percentage of farmer-levied research funds going to public-sector research agencies.Marsh and Pannell [41] claim that it is possible that there will be a serious loss to topresearchers out of agriculture to overseas or other industries. The public sector, however,is still responsible for a great deal of the generation of new information, and ruralconsultants are concerned that cutbacks and losses from state departments would haveimpacts on information flows to extension providers [41]. Whether the private sectorcan replace public-sector research in land management is still unsure and will requirea substantial transition period, with many rural consultants indicating their concernthat they are under-resourced compared to public-sector institutions. There is alreadysubstantial research capability in the private sector in some areas where the publicsector has also had significant involvement but other issues arise when these areasare totally in the hands of the private sector. These include issues of quality control,fragmentation of information and the availability of information. Research conductedat major public-sector institutions is subject to peer review. As Marsh and Pannell [41]indicate, there are justifiable concerns that private-sector research is not subject to thesame type of critical review. It is often argued in defence that agribusiness has itsprofessional integrity and reputation to maintain and is unlikely to make unwarrantedrecommendations.

Fragmentation of information flows can occur as agricultural research and extensionis privatised. There is evidence that this is occurring in Australia as an increasing amountof agricultural research is conducted for private clients, with results either unavailablefor more general use or, alternatively, having a charge attached to their wider dissemina-tion. It is possible that this will lead to greater duplication of research and a failure torecognise that individual research topics often contribute to overall areas of knowledge.

232 T. F. GUERIN

Concerns regarding the availability of information as more research is conducted bythe private sector and public-sector research providers are encouraged to establish andprotect intellectual property rights [41]. The potential for market failure is furtherenhanced because, whereas some information can be clearly seen as a private good(e.g., specific veterinary advice), other information is clearly a public good (e.g., large-scale catchment hydrology information). Clearly there is a considerable amount ofindistinct ground in the middle. Agricultural information often does not fit neatly intounchanging public/private good categories.

If landuse extension is to become dependent on commercial priorities then therewill be examples where the directions pursued are not economically efficient from thepoint of view of society as a whole, or are contrary to other goals related to socialwelfare or the environment.

Conclusions and Areas for Further ResearchIt is now evident the classical diffusion model no longer adequately describes

the technology transfer and adoption activities important to landusers. Participatoryapproaches, including landuser-led research, have become increasingly important in thisregard. A further addition to the existing models of extension is the recognition of thecritical importance of networks between individuals in a landusing community and thisis becoming the current functional model of technology transfer and adoption. Suchnetworks most accurately describe what is actually involved in technology transfer andadoption and this is shown in Fig. 1. It should be recognised that the stakeholdersrepresented in this model include only a few of those actually involved in any onecommunity and only one possible configuration of interactions.

There are numerous reasons why landusers do not always adopt innovations. Thereasons for non-adoption were identified in the following broad groupings as (i) personalattributes of the landusers, including individual goals and attitudes to risk, (ii) problemswith the innovation and the technology developers, and (iii) problems in the transferand adoption process, particularly the importance of trialing and the role of extensionagents. The relative importance of each of these aspects needs to be considered on acase-by-case basis when examining the reasons for non-adoption. The major models oftechnology transfer and adoption in land management were identified as the classicaldiffusion model and the participatory model. The concept of an integrated model wasintroduced, which recognizes the critical importance of social networks, including theinvolvement of commercial organisations and community groups in the technologytransfer and adoption process.

The future challenges for extension agents and others involved in land managementrelate to improving the effectiveness of extension, with the limited funding available,and ensuring that those technologies adopted will lead to long term sustainability oflandusing systems. These are discussed in the following.

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF EXTENSION

From current research and recent reviews of predominantly Australian origin, ahigh priority needs to be given to the involvement of landusers in the development ofinnovations, along with better training of extension agents, and to enhance knowledgeof landusers’ needs by extension agents and scientists. Further implementation of partici-patory approaches and the acknowledgement of the importance of networks in landuseresearch and extension may achieve this. There are many examples of the effectivenessof such approaches to extension in developing countries. However, further research


TABLE 5Identifying and Overcoming Barriers to Technology Transfer and Adoption as Evaluated by Salinity

Extension Agentsa

Barriers to Adoption Overcoming Barriers

Slow rate of change in landusers Training of landusers on accepting change;understanding that there are rarely immediateanswers and results; not all landusers will be reached

More mass media contact and professionalcommunicators

Lack of resources to provide adequate Further government funding requiredtraining of extension agents

Bureaucracy in government funded extension Greater government commitment requiredagent institutions; lack of cooperationbetween departments within institutions;policies can undermine work

Inconsistencies between methods of extension Acknowledge that further research required(e.g., one-on-one vs. group)

Difficulties in getting work done and reaching Ongoing prioritising of work on regional basis;all landusers knowing critical salinity levels with various

ecosystemsInformation overload Improved access to quality information; there is a need

for further field kits and information packages

a These extension agents were based in New South Wales, Australia [52].

needs to be conducted to determine their effectiveness in developed countries. Muchspeculation exists in Australia as to the effectiveness of participatory approaches, butfew data exist to support these assertions.

From the current study, recommendations for future research into the adoption ofinnovations in environmental management have been made. Some of the barriers toadoption and ways of overcoming these have been identified by extension agents inAustralia, and these are highlighted in Table 5 [52].

The key recommendations are as follows;

• The objective measurement and comparison of the effectiveness of participatoryapproaches to extension and the classical diffusion model could be conducted,particularly those impinging on the quality of environment. There are likely tobe relative merits of both participatory approaches and the classical diffusionmodel to extension for different landusing communities. There is evidence thatboth extension approaches may be effective and that neither is necessarily betterthan the other in all circumstances. These assertions could be tested.

• Rates of adoption of specific innovations by various groups of landusers havenot been widely documented in developed countries. According to the classicaldiffusion model, landusers can be classified into subgroups of adopters. Thereis value in targeting these subgroups and gathering data on the rates of adoptionby each of these groups with the aim of assisting extension agents in targetinglanduser groups. It is recommended that research be initiated that assesses innova-tiveness other than those used in the classical diffusion model.

• The effectiveness of the different forms of media (including mass media) availableto landusers also needs to be studied in further detail to provide extension agentswith clearer directions as to the usefulness of the various media. Extensionresearch has demonstrated the importance of rural publications, however updated

234 T. F. GUERIN

research over a wider range of landusers is required to determine whether shifts ininformation sources are occurring within the landusing community. Furthermore,there would be value in knowing what groups and proportions of landusers arepaying for advice so that commercial technology transfer could be further focusedand enhanced.

• Organisations that fund rural and other landuse research should continue toensure that all funded projects address the transfer and subsequent adoption offindings. A detailed analysis of the effectiveness of this concept is warranted andwould provide a useful way of ensuring that scientists are involved in the extensionprocess, and that benefit-cost ratios for research are maximised.

• Quantifying the contribution of commercial activities on technology transferand adoption in landuse management so as non-commercial extension can bebetter utilised.

• Understanding the barriers to the transfer and adoption of innovations that bringabout long term improvements for the landuser (i.e., sustainable innovations)compared with innovations that are adopted for economic reasons only.

ADOPTION OF SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES

The above six areas relate to the effectiveness of the technology transfer andadoption processes. What is becoming increasingly clear is the need for an improvementin the understanding of the impediments to the adoption of sustainable technologiesand practices over those yielding economic benefits only. We know that innovationsare usually adopted because of either their direct commercial value, or because theyare designed to maintain long-term productivity of the resource in question. However,innovations will not be adopted if they are perceived to be unprofitable, risky, not easilyintegrated into existing landuse practices, or too complex for the landuser to understand.One of the problems in this regard, is that the results or impacts of adoption are notalways readily observable. For example, advice to change or minimise the use of particu-lar chemicals, or change irrigation practices (that can have off-site environmental im-pacts), is less likely to be readily adopted since their impact can be difficult to observe.On the other hand, technologies for the conservation of soil are generally readilyobservable and landusers can usually make a clear connection between adopting andimproved productivity. There is also the problem of investment (emotional, intellectual,and financial) in well accepted “old” technology. For example, many farmers were stillwidely using soil tilling implements that pulverised the soil as recently as 20–30 yearsago because these implements appeared to be “doing the job” (of preparing the soilfor seeding). Another example is when an irrigation system (and/or practice) is workingefficiently, it can be difficult to see the need to re-engineer its construction and operation,when it is found that the irrigation tail water is causing downstream pollution in anearby river.

Landusers are generally aware of the environmental impacts of their activities.Translating these concerns of landusers, regarding the sustainability of their landuseactivities, into action, is a key challenge for extension agents. The task for extensionagents is therefore, to influence landusers to adopt sustainable practices over practicesthat yield short term gains only, using those resources and involving the wide range ofstakeholders available to them.

The insights, perspectives, and valuable contributions of Brendan J. Guerin andLouise J. Guerin are kindly acknowledged.


References1. Altham, W. J., and Guerin, T. F.: Environmental Self-Regulation and Sustainable Economic Growth: The

Seamless Web Framework, Eco-Management and Audit 6(2), 61–75 (1999).2. Vanclay, F., and Lawrence, G.: Farmer Rationality and the Adoption of Environmentally Sound Farming

Practices: A Critique of the Assumptions of Traditional Agricultural Extension, European Journal ofAgricultural Education and Extension 1(1), 59–90 (1994).

3. Guerin, L. J., and Guerin, T. F.: Constraints to the Adoption of Agricultural and Environmental Innovationsand Technologies: A Review, Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 34, 549–571 (1994).

4. Bangura, A. M.: Farmer Motivation Patterns in Participating in Adaptive Crop Research Trials/Demonstra-tions in Sierra Leone, Dissertation Abstracts 44/03A, 864 (1983).

5. Chamala, S.: Adoption Processes and Extension Strategies for Conservation Farming, in Tillage: NewDirections in Australian Agriculture, P. S. Cornish and J. E. Pratley, eds., Inkata Press; Melbourne, Australia,1987, pp. 400–419.

6. Jedlicka, A. D.: Risk-Taking in Rural Development, Desarrollo Rural en las Americas 11(1), 50–51 (1979).7. Pannell, D. J.: , in: 43rd Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.

Christchurch, New Zealand, URL http://www.general.uwa.edu.au/u/dpannell/dpap9901f.htm. (1999).8. Rogers, E. M.: Diffusion of Innovations. 3rd ed., The Free Press, New York, NY, 1983, p. 453.9. Von Fleckenstein, F.: Are Innovativeness Scales Useful?, Rural Sociology 39(2), 257–260 (1974).

10. Guerin, L. J., and Guerin, T. F.: An Application of Adaption-Innovation Theory to Bioremediation, inMonitoring and Verification of Bioremediation, R. E. Hinchee, G. S. Douglas, and S. K. Ong, eds., BattellePress, OH, 1995, 175–183.

11. Kolb, D.: Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice-Hall,New York, NY, 1984.

12. Campbell, A., and Junor, B.: Land Management Extension in the ’90’s: Evolution or Emasculation,Australian Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 5(2), 16–23 (1992).

13. The National Landcare Program (NLP), 1999, URL http://www.dpie.gov.au/agfor/landcare/nlp.html.14. Cary, J. W., Wilkinson, R. L., and Ewers, C. R.: Caring for Soil on Cropping Lands. School of Agriculture

and Forestry, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia, Report, 1989.15. Drost, D., Long, G., Wilson, D., Miller, B., and Campbell, W.: Barriers to Adopting Sustainable Agricultural

Practices (1996), URL http://www.joe.org/joe/1996december/a1991.html.16. Itharat, C.: Adoption of Agricultural Innovations: An Analysis of Socioeconomic Characteristics, Personal-

ity Variables, and Communications Behaviour in the Northeastern Region of Thailand, Dissertation Ab-stracts 42/02A, 507 (1980).

17. Anderson, A. M.: Processes and Implications of Knowledge Transmission in Australian Agricultural Exten-sion (Unpublished Report). Department of Communication, School of Management, Hawkesbury Agricul-tural College, Australia, 1982.

18. Warner, R. E.: Factors Affecting the Adoption of Wildlife Conservation Practices by East-Central IllinoisFarmers and Their Educational Implications, Dissertation Abstracts 42/07A, 2978 (1981).

19. Reeve, I. J., and Black, A. W.: Australian Farmers’ Attitudes to Rural Environmental Issues. The RuralDevelopment Centre, Department of Sociology, University of New England Press, Armidale, New SouthWales, 1993, p. 137.

20. Swindale, L. D.: Problems and Concepts of Agrotechnology Transfer within the Tropics, in: InternationalSymposium on Development and Transfer of Technology for Rainfed Agriculture and the SAT Farmer.International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru, India. pp.73–81, 1979.

21. Anonymous: Organochlorine Residues-Strategies for Management and Research in Australian Agriculture.Proceedings of Conference, Primary Tasks, September 15–18, Ballarat, Australia, 1991.

22. Guerin, T. F., and Kennedy, I. R.: Reducing the Environmental Residues from Agricultural Chemicals,Agricultural Science 4, 44–48 (1991).

23. Guerin, T. F., and Kennedy, I. R.: The biodegradation of endosulfan in cotton growing soils, The AustralianCotton Grower 12, 12–15 (1991).

24. Guerin, T. F.: Natural Attenuation of a Low Mobility Chlorinated Insecticide in Low-Level and High-Level Contaminated Soil: A Feasibility Study, Remediation 9(4), 51–63 (1999).

25. Toffolon, R.: Preventing Endosulfan Residues in Stock and Fodder. 1998, URL http://www.agric.nsw.gov.au/ap/Avcc/dai26.htm.

26. Schulze, R.: International Cotton Advisory Committee—Country Reports. 1997, URL http://www.icac.org/icac/cottoninfo/research/countries.pdf.

236 T. F. GUERIN

27. Frank, B. R.: Adoption of Innovations in the North Queensland Beef Industry. III: Implications forExtension management, Agricultural Systems 55, 347–358 (1997).

28. Tucker, M., and Napier, T. L.: Perceptions of Risk Associated with Use of Farm Chemicals: Implicationsfor Conservation Initiatives, Environmental Management 22, 575–587 (1998).

29. Sinden, J. A., and King, D. A.: Adoption of Soil Conservation Measures in Manilla Shire, New SouthWales, Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics 58(2–3), 179–192 (1990).

30. Barr, N. F., and Cary, J. W.: Greening of a Brown Land: An Australian Search for Sustainable Land Use.Macmillan, Melbourne, Australia, 1992.

31. Martin, R. J., McMillan, M. G., and Cook, J. B.: Survey of Farm Management Practices of the NorthernWheat Belt of New South Wales, Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 28,499–509 (1988).

32. Bardsley, J. B.: Farmers’ Assessment of Information and Its Sources. School of Agriculture and Forrestry,The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia, 1982.

33. Pickering, S.: Scientists Communicating to the Press, Agricultural Science 5(3), 41–44 (1992).34. Ojiambo, J. B.: Communication of Agricultural Information Between Research Scientists, Extension Per-

sonnel and Farmers in Kenya, Dissertation Abstracts 50/08A,2286 (1989).35. Clunies-Ross, T.: Agricultural Change and the Politics of Organic Farming, Dissertation Abstracts 52/01B,

1 (1990).36. Diallo, I.: An Assessment of Farmers’ Attitudes and Experiences under No-Till Corn Production System

in Baltimore County, Maryland, Dissertation Abstracts 45/05B, 1329 (1983).37. Cotton, R.: Official Opening Address, in: Agri-industry. A Great Investment. Australian Institute of Agricul-

tural Science and Technology, Melbourne, Australia, 1997, pp. 2–4.38. Australian Rural Research in Progress (ARRIP): 1994–1999, URL http://www.infoscan.com/au/arrip.39. Keen, M., and Stocklmayer, S.: Communicating Research-An Overview of Communication Efforts of Rural

Industry Research Funding Bodies. 1999, URL http://www.rirdc.gov.au/reports/HCC/ANU-26A.doc.40. Petheram, R. J.: Review of Evaluation in Agricultural Extension. 1998, URL http://www.rirdc.gov.au/reports/

HCC/VCA-3A.doc.41. Marsh, S. P., and Pannell, D. J.: in: 41st Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource

Economics Society. Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia. 1997, http://www.general.uwa.edu.au/u/dpannell/dpap986f.htm.

42. McCarthy, M.: Farm Management 500 Homepage. 1999, URL http://www.fm500.com.au/index.html.43. Monsanto: Monsanto - Conservation and the Environment. 1999, URL http://www.farmsource.com/Conser-

vation/Conservation.asp.44. Birchip Cropping Group (BCG): 1999, URL http://www.bcg.org.au.45. Grove, J.: Farmers and the Internet. 1999, URL http://www.rirdc.gov.au/pub/shortreps/sr58.htm.46. Hawkins, H. S., and Rimmington, G.: LandcareNet—A New Medium for Exchange of Agricultural Informa-

tion, in Technology Transfer-Harnessing Information for a Smarter Agriculture (Abstract Proceedings). TheAustralian Institute of Agricultural Science, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, 1992.

47. Gillard, P.: in: Techology Transfer—Harnessing Information for a Smarter Agriculture (Abstract Proceed-ings). The Australian Institute of Agricultural Science, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, 1992.

48. Gillard, P.: Expert Systems Used to Disseminate Complex Information in Agriculture and Horticulture. 1999,URL http://www.attar.com/pages/case_tz.htm.

49. Kondinin: FarmLine, 1999, URL http://www.kondinin.com.au.50. Anderson, A. M.: Farmers’ Expectations and Use of Agricultural Extension Services (Unpublished Report).

Department of Communication School of Management and Human Development, Hawkesbury Agricul-tural College, Hawkesbury, New South Wales, Australia, 1981.

51. Weiss, V.: The CRC for Soil and Land Managements’ Agricultural Adviser Survey Results, AgriculturalScience 7(4), 33–35 (1994).

52. Hayman, G.: Tools to Investigate and Plan for Improved Environmental of Dryland Salinity—Summary ofresults from the Dubbo Workshop. Salt Action, 1997.

53. Cary, J. W.: Belief and Behaviour to Improved Land Management, in: People Protecting Their Land—Proceedings 7th International Soil Conservation Organisation Conference. Department of Conservationand Land Management, Sydney, September 30–October 2, 1992.

54. Pol, E.: Agri-Infrastructure: Are We Doing Enough? in: Agri-Industry. A Great Investment. AustralianInstitute of Agricultural Science and Technology, Melbourne, Australia, 1997, pp. 34–36.

55. Rogers, E. M., and Shoemaker, F. F.: Communication of Innovations: A Cross-Cultural Approach. 2nded., The Free Press and London-Collier-Macmillan, New York, NY, 1971.

56. Buttel, F. H., Larson, O. F., and Gillespie, G. W.: The Sociology of Agriculture. Greenwood Press, NewYork, 1990, p. 212.


57. Martin, A., and Sherrington, J.: Participatory Research Methods-Implementation, Effectiveness and Institu-tional Context, Agricultural Systems 55(2), 195–216 (1997).

58. Blaikie, P., Brown, K., Stocking, M., Tang, L., Dixon, P., and Sillitoe, P.: Knowledge in Action: LocalKnowledge as a Development Resource and Barriers to Its Incorporation in Natural Resource Researchand Development, Agricultural Systems 55(2), 217–237 (1997).

59. Knowles, M.: The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species. 2nd ed., Gulf Publishing Company, Houston,TX, 1978.

60. Rhoades, R. E.: The Coming Revolution in Methods for Rural Development Research. in Asian Trainingof Trainers on Farm Diagnostic Skills. R. E. Rhoades, V. N. Sandoval, and C. P. Bayalumun, eds., U.P.L.B.:Philippines, 1990, pp. 112–126.

61. Rhoades, R. E.: Models, Means and Methods: Retinking Rural Development Research, in Asian Trainingof Trainers on Farm Diagnostic Skills. R. E. Rhoades, V. N. Sandoval, and C. P. Bayalumun, eds. U.P.L.B.:Philippines, 1990, pp. 10–14.

62. Roling, N. G.: Extension Science, Information Systems in Agricultural Development. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, UK, 1988.

63. Doyle, B.: Network Analysis in Agricultural Extension, University of New England Research Note99(2),1–2 (1999).

64. Anonymous: Greening Australia, 1999, URL http://www.greeningaustralia.org.au.65. National Farmer’s Federation: NFF—Farmwide Program, 1999, URL http://www.farmwide.com.au.

Manuscript accepted 1 October 1999

Date post:	27-Jul-2015
Category:	Technology
Upload:	turlough-guerin
View:	67 times
Download:	1 times