Understanding Practice Change by Rural Landholders

www.RuralPracticeChange.org

Department ofPrimary Industries

Understanding Practice Change by Rural Landholders

David PannellARC Federation Fellow

School of Agricultural and Resource EconomicsUniversity of Western Australia



Key points

Practice change depends on: The human dimension (learning, social

processes, goals, perceptions, …) The technologies (relative advantage, trialability)

Each practice has its own unique adoption story

For policy, extension and research, it pays to anticipate adoptability



The human dimension

The innovative practice


At the individual level

It’s a learning process Initially uncertainty is high

e.g. about a new pasture plant’s response to climate, soils, pests, weeds, inputs, grazing, etc.

Over time, learning uncertainty falls

Subjective perceptions – it’s personal


Learning process - stages

Awareness of problem or opportunity

Non-trial evaluation Trial evaluation Adoption (or not) Review and modification Disadoption

Continuum

Process is never complete


Social factors influence adoption

Related to communication, trust, credibility Social networks Physical proximity Extension Ethnic/cultural divisions

Related to benefits from adopting the practice Off-farm income Property size Age/education Reason for holding land Goals


A variety of goals

(i) material wealth & financial security

(ii) environmental protection and enhancement

(iii) social approval and acceptance(iv) personal integrity, ethics(v) balance of work and lifestyle


Categories of adopters

Kernal of truth But given too

much emphasis Don’t forget

the practices An individual could be

Early adopter for a new crop variety Laggard for a new pasture species

Innovators Early adopters

Early majority

Late majority

Laggards

2.5% 13.5% 34% 34% 16%

Rogers' adopter categories



The human dimension

The innovative practice


Characteristics ofpractices

Relativeadvantage

Trialability


Relative advantage Economic benefits

Profitability of practice Farming systems effects Adjustment cost Riskiness Compatibility Complexity Opportunity cost

Compatibility with Beliefs/values Family goals Self image Brand preference

Environmental Values of landholder Threats Benefits of practice


PERCENT FARMERS IN SHIRE GROWING LUPINS

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92

YEAR

PE

RC

EN

TAG

E O

F

FA

RM

ER

S.

CHAPMAN

WONGAN

WYALKATCHEM

CORRIGIN

LAKE GRACE

Relative advantage driving peak adoption


‘Convenience agriculture’ More management demands Less time available The challenge for

‘inconvenient’ agricultural practices

e.g. Intensive livestock systems?


Characteristics ofpractices

Relativeadvantage

Trialability


Trialability

How easy is it to get over the learning hump?


Factors reduce value of trialling

Observability low or costly Highly novel new practice

Previous experience not transferable

Long time scales Survey of farmers in Upper Kent, 1997 Of the farmers who invested in Landcare (e.g.

drainage, trees, lucerne) less than half had observed any benefit



Each practice has its own adoption story

Influential factors Time frame Groups of adopters and non-adopters


Factors influencing no-till adoption

Higher education Participation in extension activities Use of paid consultant Years since first awareness of nearby no-till

adopter Occurrence of a very dry year Fall in price of glyphosate Location (region/state) & average rainfall Effectiveness of pre-emergent herbicide

(trifluralin) Soil-moisture-conservation & seeding timeliness NOT SIGNIFICANT: Erosion risk; soil conservation benefits; Landcare

82% of decisions correctly predicted Source: D’ Emden et al. 2006


Factors influencing IWM adoption

Higher use of extension Higher education Lower discount rate for future returns Perception of higher ryegrass control (efficacy) Perception of higher economic value of practices Perception of longer time until new herbicide Uncertainty of when new herbicide will be

available Higher proportion of the farm cropped The resistance status of the farm 86% of decisions correctly predicted Source: Llewellyn et al. 2006


It pays to anticipate adoptability

Researchers Target research effort to practices and

technologies with better prospects



Extension Sustained adoption requires relative advantage Ignoring that threatens credibility



Policy Anticipate adoptability when considering policy

responses (what mechanism, if any) Non-adoption is generally for good reasons,

especially if it persists


Key points

Practice change depends on: The human dimension (learning, social

processes, goals, perceptions, …) The technologies (relative advantage, trialability)

Each practice has its own unique adoption story

For policy, extension and research, it pays to anticipate adoptability

Education

Understanding Practice Change by Rural Landholders