YOU ARE DOWNLOADING DOCUMENT

Please tick the box to continue:

Transcript
Page 1: Towards predicting rates of adoption and compliance in ... · motivation of farmers to consider adopting the innovation. This would require knowledge of the root cause of the lack

Waikato Regional Council Technical Report 2017/05 

Towards predicting rates of adoption and compliance in farming: motivation, complexity and stickiness www.waikatoregion.govt.nz  ISSN 2230‐4355 (Print)  ISSN 2230‐4363 (Online)

Page 2: Towards predicting rates of adoption and compliance in ... · motivation of farmers to consider adopting the innovation. This would require knowledge of the root cause of the lack

Prepared by: Dr Geoff Kaine and Dr Vic Wright Geoff Kaine Research  For: Waikato Regional Council Private Bag 3038 Waikato Mail Centre HAMILTON 3240  August 2015   Document #: 9834604 

Page 3: Towards predicting rates of adoption and compliance in ... · motivation of farmers to consider adopting the innovation. This would require knowledge of the root cause of the lack

Doc # 9834604   

Peer reviewed by: Date  June 2016 Blair Keenan 

Approved for release by: Date  February 2017 Ruth Buckingham 

         

Disclaimer 

This technical report has been prepared for the use of Waikato Regional Council as a reference document and as such does not constitute Council’s policy.   Council requests that if excerpts or inferences are drawn from this document for further use by individuals or organisations, due care should be taken to ensure that the appropriate context has been preserved, and is accurately reflected and referenced in any subsequent spoken or written communication.  While  Waikato Regional Council  has exercised all reasonable skill and care in controlling the contents of this report, Council accepts no liability in contract, tort or otherwise, for any loss, damage, injury or expense (whether direct, indirect or consequential) arising out of the provision of this information or its use by you or any other party. 

Page 4: Towards predicting rates of adoption and compliance in ... · motivation of farmers to consider adopting the innovation. This would require knowledge of the root cause of the lack

Doc #9834604 

Page 5: Towards predicting rates of adoption and compliance in ... · motivation of farmers to consider adopting the innovation. This would require knowledge of the root cause of the lack

Towardspredictingratesofadoptionandcompliancein

farming:motivation,complexityandstickiness

DrGeoffKaineandDrVicWright

Page 6: Towards predicting rates of adoption and compliance in ... · motivation of farmers to consider adopting the innovation. This would require knowledge of the root cause of the lack

2

AuthorsDrGeoffKaineandDrVicWrightGeoffKaineResearchHamilton,NewZealandAugust2015AcknowledgementsWewouldliketothankJustineYoungandhercolleaguesatWaikatoRegionalCouncilfortheirsupport,adviceandassistance. OurthanksalsogotoBlairKeenanatWaikatoRegionalCouncilforreviewingthispaper.Imagecourtesyofxedos4atFreeDigitalPhotos.netDisclaimer:Theauthorhaspreparedthisreportforthesoleuseoftheclientsandfortheintendedpurposesstatedbetweenbothparties.Othersmaynotrelyuponthisreportwithoutthewrittenagreementoftheauthorandtheclients.Nopartofthisreportmaybecopiedorduplicatedwithouttheexpresspermissionoftheauthorortheclients.Theauthorhasexerciseddueandcustomarycareinconductingthisresearch.Nootherwarranty,expressorimpliedismadeinrelationtotheconductoftheauthorsorthecontentofthisreport.Thereforetheauthordoesnotassumeanyliabilityforanylossresultingfromerrors,omissionsormisrepresentationsmadebyothers.Anyrecommendationsoropinionsorfindingsstatedinthisreportarebasedonthecircumstancesandfactsatthetimetheresearchwasconducted.Anychangesinthecircumstancesandfactsonwhichthereportisbasedmayaffectthefindingsandrecommendationspresented.

Page 7: Towards predicting rates of adoption and compliance in ... · motivation of farmers to consider adopting the innovation. This would require knowledge of the root cause of the lack

3

Towardspredictingratesofadoptionandcompliancein

farming:motivation,complexityandstickiness

Introduction

Predictingtheextentandrateofadoptionbyfarmersofagriculturalinnovations

iscentraltoassessingthebenefitstobehadfromresearch,marketingand

extensionprogrammes.Itisalsocrucialtoassessingiffarmersmayresist

policiescompellingtheadoption,orabandonment,ofparticularagricultural

technologiesandpractices.

Predictingratesofadoption,orcompliance,andhowtheymightbeinfluenced,

requiresanin‐depth,detailedunderstandingoftheadoptionprocess.After

reviewingtheliteraturesonconsumerandorganisationalpurchasing,Wright

(2011)arguedthataprudentapproachtomodellingadoptiondecisionsby

farmerswouldbetoassumethefulloperationofthemostextensiveofconsumer

decision‐makingmodelsand,therefore,thedual‐processmodelofconsumer

decisionmakingproposedbyBagozzi(2006a,b)wouldbemostsuitable.

Wright(2011)alsoobservedthattheadoptionofmorecomplexinnovations

mightbeexpectedtoinvolvegreatereffortandrisk.Thereforethefactorsthat

mightinfluencethemotivationtoconsideradoptingagriculturalinnovations

mightvarydependingonthecomplexityoftheinnovation.Thesamecouldbe

saidinregardtochangingfarmpracticesandtechnologiesgenerally.This

observation,then,suggestedthataclassificationofagriculturalinnovations,or

changesinfarmpracticesandtechnologies,intotypesrangingfromsimple

throughcomplexwouldbeusefultotheextentthatthesetypesinfluencethe

intensityofmotivationrequiredtotakeaction.

Inthispaperwedescribeanapproachtopredictingratesofadoptionand

compliancewithrespecttotheagriculturaltechnologiesandpractices.The

Page 8: Towards predicting rates of adoption and compliance in ... · motivation of farmers to consider adopting the innovation. This would require knowledge of the root cause of the lack

4

approachdrawsonthedual‐processmodelofconsumerdecision‐makinganda

methodforclassifyinginnovationsinfarmsystems.

Inthenextsectionthedual‐processmodelofconsumerdecision‐making

proposedbyBagozzi(2006a)isdescribed.Thisisfollowedbyadescriptionof

theclassificationofinnovationsproposedbyHendersonandClark(1990).More

detaileddescriptionsmaybefoundinWright(2011)andKaineetal.(2008),

respectively.TheadaptationoftheHendersonandClark(1990)classificationto

changingfarmpracticesandtechnologiesisthenexplained.Thewayinwhich

thetypesofinnovationsthatthesechangesrepresentinfluencefarmers’

motivationtochangepracticesandtechnologiesisthenconsidered.Asmall,

pilotapplicationoftheapproachisbrieflyreported.

Theimplicationsoftheapproachforpredictingratesofadoptionofinnovations,

andtheroleofincentivesandextensionininfluencingthoserates,arediscussed

usingtheeconomicconceptofstickiness(BallandMankiw1994;Szulanski

1996;Ogawa1998;Sims1998;BilsandKlenow2004;MankiwandReis2006).

Theimplicationsoftheapproachforpredictingratesofcompliancewithpolicies

compellingtheuse,orabandonment,offarmpracticesandtechnologiesarealso

considered.Particularattentionispaidtotheimplicationswithrespecttothe

intensityofoppositiontosuchpoliciesandtheroleofincentivesandextension

ininfluencingthatopposition,againusingtheeconomicconceptofstickiness.

Inthefollowingtheterm‘adoption’maybetakentoincludecommencingtheuse

ofanypracticeortechnology(innovativeorotherwise)and,implicitly,the

abandonmentofapracticeortechnology.

Page 9: Towards predicting rates of adoption and compliance in ... · motivation of farmers to consider adopting the innovation. This would require knowledge of the root cause of the lack

5

TheDual‐Processmodelofadoption1

Adoptioninvolvesbothadecisiontoadopt,whichisintention,andthe

translationofthatintentionintobehaviour,whichmaynotoccur(Bagozziand

Lee1999).Theconceptof'goalstriving'wasdevelopedtolinkintentionwith

behaviour(Bagozzi2007;BagozziandDholakia1999;BagozziandLee1999).

Consequently,thedual‐processmodelofconsumerresponsetoinnovations

proposedbyBagozzi(2006a)hastwocomponents:goalsettingandgoalstriving.

Goalsettingdescribestheprocessofdecidingtoadopt;goalstrivingdescribes

theprocessofadopting.

Thegoalsettingprocessprovidesafoundationforidentifyingwhenmotivation,

andthefactorsthatinfluencemotivation,delayadoption.Thisprocessclarifies

thepotentialfortheadoptionofapparentlybeneficialinnovationstobedelayed

byalackofmotivation.Thegoalstrivingprocessprovidesafoundationfor

identifyingwhenitisimplementationofthedecisiontoadoptthatdelays

adoption.

Goalsetting

Thedual‐processmodelisshowninidealisedforminFigure1.Inthemodelthe

firstprocesstriggeredbyawarenessofanopportunitytoachieveagoalisa

sequenceofreflective,deliberativeprocesses:consider‐imagine‐appraise‐decide

(Bagozzi2006a).Thisprocessdeterminesthedegreeofinterestthedecision‐

makerhasinachievingagoal,thatis,goaldesire.Insufficientinteresthaltsany

movetotheconsciousformationanduseofattitudesandnorms.Thegreaterthe

timeandeffortenvisagedinadoptinganinnovation,thegreatergoaldesiremust

betoprovokemovementbeyondgoaldesiretogoalintention.Goaldesire

determineswhetheragoalacceptedasworthyofpossiblepursuit.

1ThematerialinthissectionisdrawnfromWright(2011),Kaineetal.(2012).

Page 10: Towards predicting rates of adoption and compliance in ... · motivation of farmers to consider adopting the innovation. This would require knowledge of the root cause of the lack

6

FigureOne:KeyvariablesandprocessesinConsumerAction

Source:Bagozzi(2006a:15)

Page 11: Towards predicting rates of adoption and compliance in ... · motivation of farmers to consider adopting the innovation. This would require knowledge of the root cause of the lack

7

Bagozzi(2006a)proposesfiveelementsintheconsider‐imagine‐appraise‐

decideprocess.Twooftheseelementsaretheemotionsthatresultfrom

imaginingsuccessandfailureandtheassociatedpersonalemotional

consequencesinachievingtherelevantgoal.Thesearetermedpositiveand

negativeanticipatedemotions,respectively.Theseemotionscouldinclude

happiness,excitementandprideordisappointment,angerandsadness.So,for

example,successfuladoptionofanewtechnologymaybeassociatedwith

happinessandexcitement.Conversely,theforcedabandonmentofavaluedfarm

practicemaybeassociatedwithfrustrationandanger.Thelikelihoodofsuccess

orfailureisnotconsideredwithanticipatedemotions.

Anothertwoelementsintheconsider‐imagine‐appraise‐decideprocessare

termedanticipatoryemotions.Theseemotionscanalsobepositiveornegative

andareemotionalresponsestotheprospectofafutureevent.Theemotions

involvedarehopeandfearanddependinpartontheperceivedprobabilityofan

event,thatis,successorfailure,occurring(Wright2011).Inourcontext

anticipatedemotionsconcernfeelingsabouttheconsequencesthatwouldflow

fromsuccessfullychangingfarmtechnologyorpractice(orfailingto),

anticipatoryemotionsconcernfeelingsaboutthechancesofsuccess(orfailure).

Thefinalelementintheconsider‐imagine‐appraise‐decideprocessisaffect

towardsthemeansofstrivingforthegoal.Thisisthepersonalemotionalappeal

ofthemethods,processes,actionsandsoonrequiredtopursuethegoal(Bagozzi

2006a).Thesemaybefavourable,orunfavourable,dependingoncircumstances.

Theconsider‐imagine‐appraise‐decideprocessleadstoacceptanceorrejection

ofthegoalasabasisforactingornot.

Anumberofpersonalitytraitsmayinfluencegoaldesireincluding:self‐efficacy,

responseefficacy,andcausalandresponsibilityattributionprocesses(Bandura

1997).Self‐efficacyandresponseefficacywillimpactonanticipatoryemotions

whileresponsibilityattributionwillimpactonanticipatedemotions(Wright

2011).

Page 12: Towards predicting rates of adoption and compliance in ... · motivation of farmers to consider adopting the innovation. This would require knowledge of the root cause of the lack

8

Movingthoughthemodel,goaldesiremustbeconvertedintosomegoal

intention,acommitmenttoacttoachievethegoal.Thishappensthroughthe

interactionofgoaldesirewithself‐regulatoryprocesses,thatis,theinteraction

ofgoaldesirewiththedecision‐makersevaluativeandmoralstandardsthat

governwhotheyareorwanttobe(Bagozzi2006a).Theinteractionofthese

standardswithgoaldesirescanleadtoanintentiontopursuethegoal,

cancellationofthegoal,orpostponementofgoalimplementation(Wright2011).

Thiscommitmentorintentionmustthenbetranslatedintoasetofspecific

behavioursoractionstobeimplemented.Thisistermedbehaviouraldesire.The

factorsthatmoderatethetranslationofgoalintentionintoasetofactionsthe

decision‐makerismotivatedtoperformareattitudetowardstheact,socialand

subjectivenormsandperceivedbehaviouralcontrol(FishbeinandAjzen1975;

Ajzen2001;2002).

Justasgoaldesiremustbetranslatedintoagoalintention,behaviouraldesire

mustbetranslatedintospecificbehaviouralintentions.Aswasthecasewiththe

translationofgoaldesireintogoalintention,thetransformationofbehavioural

desireintobehaviouralintentionismoderatedbyself‐regulation,thatis,the

decision‐maker’sevaluativeandmoralstandardsthatgovernwhotheyareor

wanttobe(Bagozzi2006a).Thetranslationofbehaviouraldesireinto

behaviouralintentionmayalsobemoderatedbyperceptionsofbehavioural

controlsuchasself‐efficacy.

Finally,theprocessofgoalsettinghasthepotentialtobecomplexanditerative,

whichmeanstheprocesscantakesometime.Actionwillnotproceeduntilthe

processofdecidinghasrunitscourse(Wright2011).

Goalstriving

Typically,thepredictionsfrommodelsofconsumerbehaviourhavebeenlimited

topredictingbehaviouralintention.Thislimitationisbasedontheexpectation

thatactualandintendedbehaviourarehighlycorrelated(BagozziandLee1999).

Page 13: Towards predicting rates of adoption and compliance in ... · motivation of farmers to consider adopting the innovation. This would require knowledge of the root cause of the lack

9

Unfortunately,thisisnotalwaysthecase.Inthedual‐processmodelthefactors

thatinfluencethelinkbetweenintendedandactualbehaviourareconsidered

explicitlyinthegoalstrivingcomponentofthemodel.Explicitconsiderationof

thesefactorsisparticularlyimportant,notonlyinforecastingratesofadoption

butalsoinhighlightingwhatopportunities,ifany,theremaybetoinfluencethis

rate.

Thefirststageingoalstrivingisthechoiceofhowthebehaviouralintentionwill

befulfilled.Alternativemeansbywhichthismaybedoneareevaluatedinterms

ofself‐efficacy,outcomeexpectancyandaffect,whichislikeordislikeofameans

(Wright2011).

Thesecondstageisactionplanning.This‘involvesdecisionsastowhen,where,

howandhowlongtoact.Inthisstagesituationalcuesforthetimingofspecific

actionsarecontemplated’(Wright2011:18).Thethirdstageingoalstrivingis

trying,thatis,theimplementationoftheplan,whichisthecommencementof

actioninpursuitofthegoal.

Thefourthstageconsistsofthecontrolprocessesexercisedovertheplanned

actionssuchastrackingprogress,identifyingopportunitiesandhindrancesand

revisingplansaccordingly,maintainingcommitmentandreconsideringgoals,

means,plansandactionsinthelightofexperience.Appraisalsofprogresswill

leadtoaffectiveresponses.Forexample,positiveaffectwillevokeanintentionto

staythecourse.Anegativeaffectmayevokegreatereffort.Alternatively,itmay

resultinchangesingoals,aredefinitionofsuccessorfailureorabandonmentof

goalstriving(Bagozzi2006b).

Thefinalstageistheoutcome:adoption,trialorfailuretoadopt,whichwill

generateemotions.Astheyareexperienced,outcomeswillfeedbacktoinfluence

goalsettingforsubsequentinnovations.

Page 14: Towards predicting rates of adoption and compliance in ... · motivation of farmers to consider adopting the innovation. This would require knowledge of the root cause of the lack

10

Typesofagriculturalinnovations2

Theeffortandtimeinvolvedinadoptingcomplexagriculturalinnovationswillbe

greaterthanforlesscomplexinnovations.Consequently,theintensityofthe

motivationneededtoadoptcomplexinnovationscanbeexpectedtobegreater

thanthatneededforsimplerinnovations.Animportantstep,then,inusingthe

dual‐processmodeltopredicttherateofadoptionofagriculturalinnovationsor

non‐compliance,wouldbetolinkdifferencesinthestrengthofanticipated

emotions,anticipatoryemotionsandaffecttowardsmeanswiththecomplexity

ofagriculturalinnovations.Suchalinkrequiresarigorousmethodfor

characterizingthecomplexityofinnovations.Thereareavarietyofmethodsfor

doingso.

Wright(2011)suggestedHendersonandClark’s(1990)frameworkfor

classifyingproductchangesintotypesofinnovations,whichwasadaptedfor

innovationstoagriculturalsystemsbyKaineetal.(2008),wasthemostsuitable

inthiscontext.TheusefulnessoftheclassificationdevelopedbyHendersonand

Clark(1990)iswhatitrevealsaboutthemagnitudeoftheimpactofadoption(or

abandonment)ofatechnologyorpracticeintermsofdisruptiontosystem

activity,thedestructionofcompetencies,andtheneedfornewskillsand

knowledge.SeeKaineetal.(2008)formoredetail.

Inthissectionwebrieflydescribetheframeworkforclassifyinginnovationsinto

fourgenerictypesandsummarisetheadaptationoftheframeworktoclassifying

innovationsinagriculturalsystems.

Classificationofinnovations

HendersonandClark(1990)proposedthataproductcouldbeconceivedofasa

system–acollectionofcomponentsthatarelinkedtogether.Theydefinedthe

componentsofaproductasthephysicallydistinctpartsofaproduct.Howthe

componentsarelinkedtogethertoenabletheproducttofunctionisthe

architectureoftheproduct.Consequently,productinnovationcanbe

2ThematerialinthissectionisdrawnfromKaineetal.(2008;2012).

Page 15: Towards predicting rates of adoption and compliance in ... · motivation of farmers to consider adopting the innovation. This would require knowledge of the root cause of the lack

11

conceptualisedaschangestocomponents,thelinkagesbetweenthem,orboth.

Theythensuggestedthatinnovationscouldbecategorisedintofourtypesof

increasingcomplexity:incremental,modular,architecturalorradical,depending

onthedegreeofchangeintroducedintothecomponentsandthelinkages

betweenthem(seeFigure2).

Incrementalinnovationsintroducerelativelymodestchangestothecomponents

ofaproductleavingthelinksbetweencomponents,thatis,theproduct

architecture,largelyunchanged(HendersonandClark1990).Incremental

innovationsexploitthepotentialofanestablisheddesignandtendtobuildon

existingskillsandknowledge.

Modularinnovationsintroducerelativelysubstantialchangestothecomponents

ofaproductinthatatleastsomeexistingcomponentsbecomeobsoletebecause

thenewcomponentsarebasedonnewdesignconcepts(HendersonandClark

1990).Generallyspeaking,thearchitecturelinkingthecomponentstogether

remainslargelyunchangedwithmodularinnovation.

Newskills,competencies,andprocessesmayberequiredtomanufactureand

installthenewcomponents.Consequentlymodularinnovationsmayenhanceor

destroycompetencedependingonthehistoryofthespecificorganisation

(Gatignonetal.2002).

HendersonandClark(1990)defineanarchitecturalinnovationaschangingthe

waythecomponentsinasystemlinktogether.Generallyspeaking,architectural

innovationsentailrelativelyminorchangesinthecomponents.Knowledgeabout

thewaycomponentslinktogetherbecomesembeddedintheorganisational

procedures,processesandstructuresovertime(HendersonandClark1990).

Consequently,architecturalinnovationshavebeenshowntocreateserious

disruptionstoorganisationsbecausetheyrequirechangesintheoperating

procedures,processesandstructuresoftheorganisations,aswellasthe

acquisitionofnewskillsandcompetencies.

Page 16: Towards predicting rates of adoption and compliance in ... · motivation of farmers to consider adopting the innovation. This would require knowledge of the root cause of the lack

12

FigureTwo:Idealisedmapofthefourtypesofinnovations

Source:HendersonandClark(1990)

MajorArchitecturalChange

MinorArchitecturalChange

MajorComponentChange

MinorComponentChange

MODULAR INCREMENTAL

RADICAL ARCHITECTURAL

Page 17: Towards predicting rates of adoption and compliance in ... · motivation of farmers to consider adopting the innovation. This would require knowledge of the root cause of the lack

13

Finally,radicalinnovationsinvolveanewsetofdesignconceptsthatare

embodiedinnewcomponentsthatarelinkedtogetherusinganewarchitecture

(HendersonandClark1990).Radicalinnovationsarebasedoncompletely

differentscientificandengineeringprinciplestotheprinciplesthatwereusedin

theproductstheysupersede.Withradicalinnovationsmanyareasof

organisationalknowledgeandcompetencearerenderedirrelevant,

consequentlyanorganisationmayhavetoconsidernewwaysofthinkingto

adoptaradicalproductinnovation(Smith2000).

Classificationofagriculturalinnovations

Kaineetal.(2008)adaptedthesystemsapproachofHendersonandClark(1990)

toclassifydifferentkindsofinnovationsinagriculturalsystems.Theychose

innovationstoafarmsub‐systemastheunitofanalysis.Afarmsub‐systemisa

setofcomponentsthatlinktogetherinaspecificwaytoperformafunction

(Kaineetal.2008).Thecomponentsofafarmsub‐systemarethephysically

distinctelementsofthesub‐system.Thecomponentsofafarmsub‐systemmay

includetechnology,techniquesandpractices.Thearchitectureofthesub‐system

describeshowthecomponentsarearrangedorlinkedtogethertoenablethe

sub‐systemtofunction.

Differentfarmsub‐systemsaredesignedtoperformfundamentallydifferent

functions.Forexample,apressureirrigationsystemisagenericdescriptionofa

sub‐systemthatdistributeswatertoplantsusingmechanicalenergy.Integrated

pestmanagementisagenericdescriptionofasub‐systemformanagingpests

anddiseasesbasedontheuseofbeneficialinsectsandspecies‐specific

chemicals.Othersub‐systemsincludeanimalhealth,feedmanagementand

breedingmanagement.

Differentsub‐systemconceptshavedifferentarchitecturesandsoare

underpinnedbydifferentarchitecturalprinciples.Forexample,theprinciplethat

watermovesdownhillundertheinfluenceofgravityunderpinsthearrangement

ofcomponentsinafloodirrigationsub‐system.Incontrast,theprinciplethat

Page 18: Towards predicting rates of adoption and compliance in ... · motivation of farmers to consider adopting the innovation. This would require knowledge of the root cause of the lack

14

watermovesfromanareaofhightolowpressureunderpinsthearrangementof

thecomponentsinasprinklerirrigationsub‐system.

Theextentofchangetothecomponentsandarchitectureofafarmsub‐system

provideabasisforclassifyinginnovationsinfarmsub‐systemintothefourtypes

ofinnovation:incremental,modular,architecturalandradical.

Crouch(1981)observedthatfarmsconsistofhierarchiesofinter‐relatedsub‐

systems.Thedifferenttypesofinnovationcanbeexpectedtohavedifferent

effectsontheinteractionsbetweensub‐systems,witharchitecturalandradical

innovationshavinggreatereffectsthanincrementalormodular.Consequently,

dependingonthetypeofinnovation,incorporatingnewtechnologiesor

practicesintoafarmsub‐systemwillrequireknowledgeaboutthesub‐systemto

bechanged,andknowledgeabouthowtorealignothersub‐systemsto

accommodatethatchange.

Kaineetal.(2008)proposedthattheadoptionofeachtypeofinnovationcould

beexpectedtomeanthatdifferentskillsandcompetencieswillbeneededwith

respectto(i)thesub‐systemitself,(ii)theinteractionsbetweensub‐systems

and,(iii)planningtheimplementationoftheinnovation.Thismeansthat

qualitativedifferencescanbeexpectedinthetimeandeffortinvolvedin

implementingthefourdifferenttypesofinnovations,andthattherewillbe

differencesintherateofadoption(orabandonment)ofthedifferenttypesasa

result.

Atthispointitisworthnotingthereislikelytobesymmetryinthecomplexityof

practicesandtechnologieswhenitcomestocompulsorilyabandoningthem.A

technologyorpracticethatwas,forexample,anincrementalinnovationina

farmsub‐systemwhenadoptedwillmostlikelybeanincrementalinnovation

whenabandoned,providedthefarmerreturnstothetechnologiesorpractices

thatweresuperseded.Thefarmer’sfamiliaritywiththetechnologyorpractice

maymeantheycanabandonitrathermorequicklythantheyadoptedit.The

potentialforthiseffectincreaseswiththecomplexityofthetechnologyor

Page 19: Towards predicting rates of adoption and compliance in ... · motivation of farmers to consider adopting the innovation. This would require knowledge of the root cause of the lack

15

practice.If,however,thefarmeradoptssomeothertechnologyorpracticein

preferencetothosethatweresupersededthenthetypeofinnovationtothefarm

sub‐systemthatabandonmententailsmayquitedifferenttothatentailedin

adoption.

Returningtothedual‐processmodel,anticipatedemotionswereidentifiedas

potentiallyimportantdeterminantsofgoaldesire.Itmaybethecasethatthereis

limitedemotionalcontentassociatedwithincrementalandmodularinnovations.

Ifso,goaldesireinrelationtoincrementalandmodularinnovationswould

dependmainlyonthefarmers’perceptionsofthetimepathandreliabilityofthe

costsandbenefitsofchangingfarmpracticeortechnology(Wright2011).

Incontrast,itmaybethecasethatimaginedgoalachievementandgoalfailure

havesignificantemotionalcontentwitharchitecturalandradicalinnovations.If

thisisthecase,thentherelativestrengthofpositiveandnegativeanticipated

emotionswillstronglyinfluencegoaldesire.Theanticipatoryemotionsofhope

andfear,andrelatedfactorssuchasperceivedbehaviouralcontroland

anticipateddifficultiesinstrivingarealsolikelytostronglyaffectgoaldesire

witharchitecturalandradicalinnovations.

Inshort,bothanticipatedandanticipatoryemotionsmayplayasubstantialrole

inchangingfarmpracticesandtechnologieswhenthesechangescanbe

characterisedasarchitecturalandradicalbecauseoftheircomplexity;notleast

becauseofthechallengestheymayposetofarmercompetence.Thesamemay

besaidforaffecttowardsthemeans.Thissuggeststhatthedivisionofchangesin

farmingsub‐systemsintoincremental,modular,architecturalandradical

innovationscouldbemostinformativeaboutratesofadoptionandcompliance.

Anapplication

Kaineetal.(2012)conductedasmallpilotstudyintothedual‐processmodeland

theclassificationofinnovationstocroppingsub‐systemsinnorthernVictoria.

Kaineetal.(2012)foundthatanticipatedemotions,anticipatoryemotionsand

affecttowardsmeanswerepresentintheadoptionprocessforbothsimple

Page 20: Towards predicting rates of adoption and compliance in ... · motivation of farmers to consider adopting the innovation. This would require knowledge of the root cause of the lack

16

innovationssuchaschangingwheatvarietyandmorecomplexinnovationssuch

asstubbleretentionanddirectdrilling.Theyalsofoundtherelativestrengthof

theseemotionalfactorsincreasewiththecomplexityofinnovations.Thisis

consistentwiththepropositionthattheadoptionofmorecomplexinnovations

requirescorrespondinglygreaterlevelsofmotivationthanlesscomplex

innovations.

Theyalsofoundrelationshipsbetweenthetypeofinnovationandtheneedfor

newskillsanddecisioneffort.Theyalsofoundthatmorecomplexinnovations

wereevaluatedforasignificantlylongerperiodthansimplerinnovationsprior

toadoption.Alloftheseresultswereconsistentwiththeliteratureandhighlight

thattherateofadoptionofcomplexinnovationswillbeinherentlyslower,on

average,thantherateofadoptionofsimplerinnovations(Kaineetal.2012).

Kaineetal.(2012)foundthatcurrentskills,knowledgeandexperiencewere

usefulintheadoptionofcomplexaswellassimpleinnovationsinfarming.

Significantpositivecorrelationswerefoundbetweentheimpactofthe

innovationonthearchitectureofthefarmsystem,theusefulnessofcurrent

skills,currentknowledgeandexperience,anddecisioneffort.Thissuggeststhat

currentknowledgeandexperienceisvitalinthetaskofrealigningfarmsub‐

systemswhenintegratingmorecomplexinnovationsintoafarmsystem.

Thoughnotthefocusoftheirstudy,Kaineetal.(2012)classifiedavarietyof

innovationsthatfarmerscharacterisedassimpleorcomplexintoincremental,

modular,architecturalandradicalcategoriesbasedonfarmers’assessmentsof

thenoveltyofthepracticeortechnology,andtheirimpactonsystem

architecture(seeFigure3)3.Withoneexception,thereisapositiveassociation

betweenfarmer’sratingsofthenoveltyofinnovationsandtheircharacterisation

ofinnovationsassimpleorcomplex.However,theassociationbetweentheir

ratingsofthedegreeofchangeintherelationshipsbetweencomponentsand

theircharacterisationofinnovationsassimpleorcomplexwasweak.

3Theangleoftheaxesisanartifactoftheprogrammeusedtomaptheinnovations,inprinciplethemapcanberotatedtoalignwiththeidealisedmapinfigure2.

Page 21: Towards predicting rates of adoption and compliance in ... · motivation of farmers to consider adopting the innovation. This would require knowledge of the root cause of the lack

17

FigureThree:Classificationofcroppinginnovations(redsimple,bluecomplex)

Source:Kaineetal.(2012)

Page 22: Towards predicting rates of adoption and compliance in ... · motivation of farmers to consider adopting the innovation. This would require knowledge of the root cause of the lack

18

ThecorrespondencebetweenthetypesofinnovationasmeasuredbyKaineetal.

(2012)andfarmers’characterisationswaspromisingenoughtosuggestthat

thereismeritindevelopingscalestomeasurecomponentandrelationship

changeinfarmsub‐systems.

Overall,Kaineetal.(2012)concludedthatthedual‐processmodelofBagozzi

(2006a),inconjunctionwiththeinnovationclassificationofHendersonand

Clark(1990),showedpromiseasameansforpredictingtherateofadoptionof

agriculturalinnovationsandforprovidingguidanceastohowratesmaybestbe

influenced.

Discussion

ThefindingsofKaineetal.(2012)supportthepropositionthattheadoptionof

morecomplexinnovationsrequiresgreaterdecision‐makermotivation,timeand

effortthansimpleinnovations.Theadoptionofmorecomplexinnovationstakes

longersimplybecausetheyareinherentlymoredifficulttounderstandandto

integrateintothefarmsystem.Thegreatertimeandeffortinvolvedinadopting

morecomplexinnovationsmeanstheiradoptionisalsomoresusceptibleto

delaybecauseofinsufficientmotivation.Inotherwords,complexinnovations

areintrinsically‘stickier’(BallandMankiw1994;Szulanski1996;Ogawa1998;

Sims1998;BilsandKlenow2004;MankiwandReis2006)thansimple

innovations;farmerswillbemoreresistanttoadopting(orbeingcompelledto

abandon)complexinnovationsthansimplerinnovations.

Thesefindingshaveimportantimplicationsforpoliciesintendedtopromote

changeinfarmingtechnologiesandpractices.Fromtheperspectiveofvoluntary

change,differencesinthe‘stickiness’ofinnovationstranslatesintodifferencesin

therateoftheiradoption,andthepotentialforincentivesandextensionto

influencethatrate(seeFigure4).

Forexample,simpleinnovationsrequireverylittlelearningtoimplement.By

definition,thefarmsystemisvirtuallyunchangedbysimpleinnovationsandthe

farmeralreadypossessestheknowledgeandskillsneededtoimplementthem.

Page 23: Towards predicting rates of adoption and compliance in ... · motivation of farmers to consider adopting the innovation. This would require knowledge of the root cause of the lack

19

FigureFour:Stickinessintherateofadoptionofinnovations

Largeimprovementinrelativeadvantage

Smallimprovementinrelativeadvantage

ComplexinnovationSimpleinnovation

STALLED SYRUPY

SLUGGISH SWIFT

Page 24: Towards predicting rates of adoption and compliance in ... · motivation of farmers to consider adopting the innovation. This would require knowledge of the root cause of the lack

20

Differencesintherateofadoptionofsimpleinnovationswillmostlikelyreflect

differencesintherelativeadvantagetheyoffer:thatis,theirsuperiorityover

currenttechnologyorpractice.Inthesecircumstancestheroleforextensionis

limitedtoraisingawarenessofthepractice.Therateofadoptionofsimple

innovationsislikelytobequitesensitivetotheprovisionofincentivesbecause

simpleinnovationsarerelativelyinexpensiveandlowrisk.Therateofadoption

ofsimpleinnovationswithalargerelativeadvantagewillbe‘swift’.Therateof

adoptionofsimpleinnovationswithasmallrelativeadvantagewillbeslower;

theyare‘syrupy’.

Theadoptionofcomplexinnovationsrequirestheacquisitionofnewknowledge

andskillsbythefarmerandentailsplanningandmakingsubstantialchangesto

thefarmsystem.Differencesintherateofadoptionofcomplexinnovationswill

reflectdifferencesinthetimeandeffortinvolved,aswellasdifferencesinthe

relativeadvantagetheyoffer.Complexinnovationswithalargerelative

advantageare‘sluggish’:theirrateofadoptionwillbeslow.Therateofadoption

ofcomplexinnovationswithasmallrelativeadvantagewillbeevenslower;they

mayevenbe‘stalled’permanently.

Theremaybeanimportantroleforextensioninreducingtheeffortfarmers

mustdevotetosearchingforinformationon,andtolearningabout,complex

innovations,andacquiringtheknowledgeandskillsneededtoimplementthem.

Extensionmayalsoincreasetherateofadoptionifitispossibletoincreasethe

motivationoffarmerstoconsideradoptingtheinnovation.Thiswouldrequire

knowledgeoftherootcauseofthelackofmotivation.Therateofadoptionof

complexinnovationsislikelytobequiteinsensitivetotheprovisionof

incentives,unlessthoseincentivescoveramajorproportionofthecostof

adoptingtheinnovation.

Fromtheperspectiveofcompulsorychangevariationsinthe‘stickiness’of

practicesandtechnologiestranslateintodifferencesintherateofcompliance,

differencesinthelikelihoodandintensityofoppositiontothepolicy,differences

Page 25: Towards predicting rates of adoption and compliance in ... · motivation of farmers to consider adopting the innovation. This would require knowledge of the root cause of the lack

21

inapparentcompliance,anddifferencesinthepotentialforincentivesand

extensiontoinfluencecompliance(seeFigure5).

Withregardtosimplepracticesandtechnologies,therateofcompliancewitha

policycompellingtheiruse(ortheirabandonment)islikelytobehighwhilethe

likelihoodandintensityofoppositiontothepolicyislikelytobelow.Thiswillbe

especiallysoiftherelativeadvantageofthechangeinpracticeortechnologyis

small.Inthesecircumstancestheroleforextensionislikelytobelimitedlargely

toraisingawarenessofthepolicy.

Compliancewithrespecttochangingsimplepracticesandtechnologieswitha

smalllossinrelativeadvantageislikelytobehighand‘swift’.Compliancewith

respecttochangingsimplepracticesandtechnologieswithalargerlossin

relativeadvantagemaybehigh,eventually,butcouldhappenmoreslowly,tobe

more‘syrupy’.Thegreaterthelossinrelativeadvantagethegreaterthe

motivationtodelaycompliance.Therateofcomplianceanddegreeofopposition

tothepolicyislikelytobequitesensitivetotheprovisionofincentives,

particularlywherethechangeinpracticeortechnologyentailsasubstantialloss

inrelativeadvantage.

Withregardtochangingcomplexpracticesandtechnologiestherateof

compliancewithapolicycompellingtheiruse(ortheirabandonment)islikelyto

belowerthanwithsimplepracticesandtechnologies.Furthermore,the

likelihoodandintensityofoppositiontothepolicyislikelytobehigh.Thiswill

beespeciallysoifthelossinrelativeadvantageofthechangeinpracticeor

technologyislarge.

Compliancewithrespecttochangingcomplexpracticesandtechnologieswitha

smalllossinrelativeadvantageislikelytobemoderatebut‘sluggish’.

Compliancewithrespecttochangingcomplexpracticesandtechnologieswitha

largelossinrelativeadvantagewillbelowand‘stalled’.

Page 26: Towards predicting rates of adoption and compliance in ... · motivation of farmers to consider adopting the innovation. This would require knowledge of the root cause of the lack

22

FigureFive:Stickinessandcomplianceintheuseorabandonmentofpractices

andtechnologies

Largelossinrelativeadvantage

Smalllossinrelativeadvantage

ComplexinnovationSimpleinnovation

SLUGGISH SWIFT

STALLED SYRUPY

Page 27: Towards predicting rates of adoption and compliance in ... · motivation of farmers to consider adopting the innovation. This would require knowledge of the root cause of the lack

23

Inthesecircumstancestheroleforextensionappearsproblematic.Wherethe

changeinpracticeortechnologyentailsasubstantialchangeinrelative

advantagetherateofnon‐complianceanddegreeofoppositiontothepolicyis

likelytobequiteinsensitivetotheprovisionofincentives.Thismaybethecase

evenwhereincentivesrepresentasubstantialproportionofthecostofchanging

practiceortechnology.Thereasonisthat,returningtothedual‐processmodel,

changingcomplextechnologiesorpracticesrequiresahighdegreeofmotivation;

thisentailsasubstantialemotionalinvestmentintermsofanticipatoryand

anticipatedemotions,andaffecttowardsmeans.

Thegreatertheemotionalinvestmentinadoptingacomplexinnovation,andthe

relativeadvantageitoffered,thecorrespondinglystrongertheresistanceto

abandoningtheinnovationwillbe,andthegreaterthelikelihoodofoutrage.

Relatedly,whereapolicycompelsadoptionofacomplexpracticeortechnology,

thegreatertheemotionalinvestmentinadoptingthatinnovation,andthe

smallertherelativeadvantageitoffers,thecorrespondinglystrongerthe

resistancetousingtheinnovationwillbe,andthegreaterthelikelihoodof

outrage.

Inthesecircumstancesfarmerswillseektoblockormodifythepolicy,ordelay

itsimplementation.Theywillseekwaysofcomplyingwiththeletterofthepolicy

whileavoidingcomplyingwithitsintent(KaineandHigson2006).Rigorous

enforcement,includingpunitivesanctions,maybetheonlymeansof

substantiallyimprovingcomplianceinthissituation.

Conclusion

Inthispaperanapproachtopredictingtherateofadoptionofagricultural

innovationshasbeendescribed.Theapproachappliesequallytopredictingrates

ofnon‐compliancewithpoliciesprescribingtheuse,orabandonment,of

particularagriculturalpracticesandtechnologies.Theapproachdrawsonthe

dual‐processmodelofconsumerdecision‐makingandamethodforclassifying

innovationsinfarmsystems.Apilotapplicationhasshownthattheapproach

hasmerit.

Page 28: Towards predicting rates of adoption and compliance in ... · motivation of farmers to consider adopting the innovation. This would require knowledge of the root cause of the lack

24

References

Ajzen,I.2001,'Natureandoperationofattitudes,'AnnualReviewofPsychology,52:27‐28.Ajzen,I.2002,'Perceivedbehavioralcontrol,self‐efficacy,locusofcontrol,andthetheoryofplannedbehavior,'JournalofAppliedSocialPsychology,32:665‐683.Bagozzi,R.P.2006a,'ConsumerAction:Automaticity,PurposivenessandSelf‐Regulation'inMalhotra,N.K.(ed.),ReviewofMarketingResearch,Volume2,M.E.Sharpe,NewYork,3‐42.Bagozzi,R.P.2006b,'Explainingconsumerbehaviorandconsumeraction:Fromfragmentationtounity',SeoulJournalofBusiness,12(2):111‐143.Bagozzi,R.P.2007,'ThelegacyoftheTechnologyAcceptanceModelandaproposalforaparadigmshift',JournaloftheAssociationforInformationSystems8(4):243‐254.Bagozzi,R.P.andDholakia,U.1999,'Goalsettingandgoalstrivinginconsumerbehavior',TheJournalofMarketing63(FundamentalIssuesandDirectionsforMarketing):19‐32.Bagozzi,R.P.andLee,K‐H.1999,'Consumerresistanceto,andacceptanceof,innovations',AdvancesinConsumerResearch26:218‐225.Ball,L.,Mankiw,N.G.1994,‘Asticky‐pricemanifesto’,Carnegie‐RochesterConferenceSeriesonPublicPolicy,Volume41(December):127‐151,Bandura,A.1997,Self‐Efficacy:theExerciseofControl,W.H.FreemanNewYork.Fishbein,M.andI.Ajzen1975,Belief,Attitude,Intention,andBehavior:AnIntroductiontoTheoryandResearch,Addison‐WesleyReading,MA.Bils,M.andKlenov,P.J.(2004).SomeEvidenceontheImportanceofStickyPrices’,JournalofPoliticalEconomy,112(5):947–985.Crouch,B.R.1981,'InnovationandFarmDevelopment:AMulti‐dimensionalModel,'inExtensionEducationandRuralDevelopment,edsB.R.CrouchandS.Chamala,Brisbane,WileyandSons,Brisbane.Gatignon,H.,Tushman,M.L,Smith,WandAnderson,P.(2002).‘AStructuralApproachtoAssessingInnovation:ConstructDevelopmentofInnovationLocus,TypeandCharacteristics’.ManagementScience,48(9):1103‐1122.Henderson,R.M.andClark,K.B.1990,'Architecturalinnovation:Thereconfigurationofexistingproducttechnologiesandthefailureofestablishedfirms',AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,35(1):9‐27.

Page 29: Towards predicting rates of adoption and compliance in ... · motivation of farmers to consider adopting the innovation. This would require knowledge of the root cause of the lack

25

Kaine,G.andHigson,M.2006,UnderstandingVarietyinLandholders'ResponsestoResourcePolicy,AustralasianAgribusinessReview,14,Paper6Kaine,G.,Hill,M.andRowbottom,B.2008,TypesofAgriculturalInnovationsandtheDesignofExtensionPrograms,PracticeChangeResearchWorkingPaper02‐08,DepartmentofPrimaryIndustries,Tatura,VictoriaKaine,G.,Longley,S.,Seymour,E.andWright,V.2012,TheRateofAdoptionofAgriculturalInnovations,ServiceDesignResearchWorkingPaper02‐12DepartmentofPrimaryIndustries,Tatura,VictoriaMankiwN.G.,ReisR.2006,‘Pervasivestickiness’,AmericanEconomicReview,96(2):164‐169.Ogawa,S.,1998,‘Doesstickyinformationaffectthelocusofinnovation?EvidencefromtheJapaneseconvenience‐storeindustry’,ResearchPolicy,26(7–8):777‐790.Sims,C.A.,1998,Stickiness,Carnegie‐RochesterConferenceSeriesonPublicPolicy,Volume49,December:317‐356.Smith,K.2000,‘Innovationasasystemicphenomenon:rethinkingtheroleofpolicy.EnterpriseandInnovationManagement,1(1):73‐702.Szulanski,G.,1996,‘ExploringInternalStickiness:ImpedimentstotheTransferofBestPracticeWithintheFirm’,StrategicManagementJournal,17(SpecialIssue:KnowledgeandtheFirm):27‐43.Wright,V.2011,RatesofAdoption:TheDiffusionofAgriculturalInnovations,ServiceDesignResearchWorkingPaper 06‐11,VictorianDepartmentofPrimaryIndustries,Tatura,Victoria.


Related Documents