Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders
D. J. Pannell A F G , G. R. Marshall B , N. Barr C F , A. Curtis D , F. Vanclay E and R. Wilkinson C FA School of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia.
B Institute for Rural Futures, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia.
C Department of Primary Industries, Bendigo, Vic. 3554, Australia.
D Faculty of Science and Agriculture, Charles Sturt University, Albury, NSW 2640, Australia.
E Tasmanian Institute of Agricultural Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tas. 7001, Australia.
F Cooperative Research Centre for Plant-Based Management of Dryland Salinity, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia.
G Corresponding author. Email: david.pannell@uwa.edu.au
Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 46(11) 1407-1424 https://doi.org/10.1071/EA05037
Submitted: 14 February 2005 Accepted: 9 March 2006 Published: 9 October 2006
Abstract
Research on the adoption of rural innovations is reviewed and interpreted through a cross-disciplinary lens to provide practical guidance for research, extension and policy relating to conservation practices. Adoption of innovations by landholders is presented as a dynamic learning process. Adoption depends on a range of personal, social, cultural and economic factors, as well as on characteristics of the innovation itself. Adoption occurs when the landholder perceives that the innovation in question will enhance the achievement of their personal goals. A range of goals is identifiable among landholders, including economic, social and environmental goals. Innovations are more likely to be adopted when they have a high ‘relative advantage’ (perceived superiority to the idea or practice that it supersedes), and when they are readily trialable (easy to test and learn about before adoption). Non-adoption or low adoption of a number of conservation practices is readily explicable in terms of their failure to provide a relative advantage (particularly in economic terms) or a range of difficulties that landholders may have in trialing them.
Additional keywords: agriculture, economics, extension, innovation, learning, natural resource management, personality, policy, psychology, social issues, sociology, trials.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful for the reviewer comments received, and to Amabel Fulton and Sally Marsh for their detailed and insightful suggestions. Funders who have contributed directly or indirectly to the preparation of this review include Land and Water Australia, the Australian Research Council, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Grains Research and Development Corporation, and the CRC for Plant-Based Management of Dryland Salinity.
Abadi Ghadim AK, Pannell DJ
(1999) A conceptual framework of adoption of an agricultural innovation. Agricultural Economics 21, 145–154.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
(verified 21 September 2006)
Marsh SP, Pannell DJ
(2000) Agricultural extension policy in Australia: the good, the bad and the misguided. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 44, 605–627.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Marsh S,
Pannell D, Lindner R
(2000) The impact of agricultural extension on adoption and diffusion of lupins as a new crop in Western Australia. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 40, 571–583.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Marsh SP,
Burton MP, Pannell DJ
(2006) Understanding farmers’ monitoring of water tables for salinity management. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 46, 1113–1122.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Marshall GR
(2004a) From words to deeds: enforcing farmers’ conservation cost-sharing commitments. Journal of Rural Studies 20, 157–167.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Marshall GR
(2004b) Farmers cooperating in the commons? A study of collective action in salinity management. Ecological Economics 51, 271–286.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Mesiti L, Vanclay F
(2006) Specifying the farming styles in viticulture. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 46, 585–593.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Mullen JD,
Vernon D, Fishpool KI
(2000) Agricultural extension policy in Australia: public funding and market failure. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 44, 629–645.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ohlmer B,
Olson K, Brehmer B
(1998) Understanding farmers’ decision making processes and improving managerial assistance. Journal of Agricultural Economics 18, 273–290.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ostrom E
(1998) A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action. American Political Science Review 92, 1–22.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Pannell DJ
(1996) Lessons from a decade of whole-farm modelling in Western Australia. Review of Agricultural Economics 18, 373–383.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Pannell DJ
(1999) Social and economic challenges in the development of complex farming systems. Agroforestry Systems 45, 395–409.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Pannell DJ
(2001a) Dryland salinity: economic, scientific, social and policy dimensions. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 45, 517–546.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Pannell DJ,
McFarlane DJ, Ferdowsian R
(2001) Rethinking the externality issue for dryland salinity in Western Australia. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 45, 459–475.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Rahm MR, Huffman WE
(1984) The adoption of reduced tillage: the role of human capital and other variables. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66, 405–412.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ridley AM, Pannell DJ
(2005) The role of plants and plant-based R&D in managing dryland salinity in Australia. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 45, 1341–1355.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ruttan VW
(1996) What happened to technology adoption–diffusion research? Sociologia Ruralis 36, 51–73.
Shampine A
(1998) Compensating for information externalities in technology diffusion models. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80, 337–346.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Shapiro BI,
Brorsen BW, Doster DH
(1992) Adoption of double-cropping soyabean and wheat. Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics 24, 33–40.
Shrapnel M, Davie J
(2001) The influence of personality in determining farmer responsiveness to risk. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 7, 167–178.
Sinden JA, King DA
(1990) Adoption of soil conservation measures in Manilla Shire, New South Wales. Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics 58, 179–192.
Sobels J,
Curtis A, Lockie S
(2001) The role of Landcare networks in rural Australia: exploring the contribution of social capital. Journal of Rural Studies 17, 265–276.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Tonks I
(1983) Bayesian learning and the optimal investment decision of the firm. Economic Journal 93, 87–98.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Tsur Y,
Sternberg M, Hochman E
(1990) Dynamic modelling of innovation process adoption with risk aversion and learning. Oxford Economic Papers 42, 336–355.
Vanclay F
(2002) Conceptualising social impacts. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 22, 183–211.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Vanclay F
(2004) Social principles for agricultural extension to assist in the promotion of natural resource management. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 44, 213–222.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Vanclay F,
Mesiti L, Howden P
(1998) Styles of farming and farming subcultures: Appropriate concepts for Australian rural sociology? Rural Society 8, 85–107.
Vanclay F,
Howden P,
Mesiti L, Glyde S
(2006) The social and intellectual construction of farming styles. Sociologia Ruralis 46, 61–82..
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |