YOU ARE DOWNLOADING DOCUMENT

Please tick the box to continue:

Transcript
  • 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)

  • 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 

  • 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. 

  • Doc #9834604 

  • Towardspredictingratesofadoptionandcomplianceinfarming:motivation,complexityandstickiness

    DrGeoffKaineandDrVicWright

  • 2

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

  • 3

    Towardspredictingratesofadoptionandcompliancein

    farming:motivation,complexityandstickiness

    Introduction

    Predictingtheextentandrateofadoptionbyfarmersofagriculturalinnovationsiscentraltoassessingthebenefitstobehadfromresearch,marketingandextensionprogrammes.Itisalsocrucialtoassessingiffarmersmayresistpoliciescompellingtheadoption,orabandonment,ofparticularagriculturaltechnologiesandpractices.Predictingratesofadoption,orcompliance,andhowtheymightbeinfluenced,requiresanin‐depth,detailedunderstandingoftheadoptionprocess.Afterreviewingtheliteraturesonconsumerandorganisationalpurchasing,Wright(2011)arguedthataprudentapproachtomodellingadoptiondecisionsbyfarmerswouldbetoassumethefulloperationofthemostextensiveofconsumerdecision‐makingmodelsand,therefore,thedual‐processmodelofconsumerdecisionmakingproposedbyBagozzi(2006a,b)wouldbemostsuitable.Wright(2011)alsoobservedthattheadoptionofmorecomplexinnovationsmightbeexpectedtoinvolvegreatereffortandrisk.Thereforethefactorsthatmightinfluencethemotivationtoconsideradoptingagriculturalinnovationsmightvarydependingonthecomplexityoftheinnovation.Thesamecouldbesaidinregardtochangingfarmpracticesandtechnologiesgenerally.Thisobservation,then,suggestedthataclassificationofagriculturalinnovations,orchangesinfarmpracticesandtechnologies,intotypesrangingfromsimplethroughcomplexwouldbeusefultotheextentthatthesetypesinfluencetheintensityofmotivationrequiredtotakeaction.Inthispaperwedescribeanapproachtopredictingratesofadoptionandcompliancewithrespecttotheagriculturaltechnologiesandpractices.The

  • 4

    approachdrawsonthedual‐processmodelofconsumerdecision‐makingandamethodforclassifyinginnovationsinfarmsystems.Inthenextsectionthedual‐processmodelofconsumerdecision‐makingproposedbyBagozzi(2006a)isdescribed.ThisisfollowedbyadescriptionoftheclassificationofinnovationsproposedbyHendersonandClark(1990).MoredetaileddescriptionsmaybefoundinWright(2011)andKaineetal.(2008),respectively.TheadaptationoftheHendersonandClark(1990)classificationtochangingfarmpracticesandtechnologiesisthenexplained.Thewayinwhichthetypesofinnovationsthatthesechangesrepresentinfluencefarmers’motivationtochangepracticesandtechnologiesisthenconsidered.Asmall,pilotapplicationoftheapproachisbrieflyreported.Theimplicationsoftheapproachforpredictingratesofadoptionofinnovations,andtheroleofincentivesandextensionininfluencingthoserates,arediscussedusingtheeconomicconceptofstickiness(BallandMankiw1994;Szulanski1996;Ogawa1998;Sims1998;BilsandKlenow2004;MankiwandReis2006).Theimplicationsoftheapproachforpredictingratesofcompliancewithpoliciescompellingtheuse,orabandonment,offarmpracticesandtechnologiesarealsoconsidered.Particularattentionispaidtotheimplicationswithrespecttotheintensityofoppositiontosuchpoliciesandtheroleofincentivesandextensionininfluencingthatopposition,againusingtheeconomicconceptofstickiness.Inthefollowingtheterm‘adoption’maybetakentoincludecommencingtheuseofanypracticeortechnology(innovativeorotherwise)and,implicitly,theabandonmentofapracticeortechnology.

  • 5

    TheDual‐Processmodelofadoption1

    Adoptioninvolvesbothadecisiontoadopt,whichisintention,andthetranslationofthatintentionintobehaviour,whichmaynotoccur(BagozziandLee1999).Theconceptof'goalstriving'wasdevelopedtolinkintentionwithbehaviour(Bagozzi2007;BagozziandDholakia1999;BagozziandLee1999).Consequently,thedual‐processmodelofconsumerresponsetoinnovationsproposedbyBagozzi(2006a)hastwocomponents:goalsettingandgoalstriving.Goalsettingdescribestheprocessofdecidingtoadopt;goalstrivingdescribestheprocessofadopting.Thegoalsettingprocessprovidesafoundationforidentifyingwhenmotivation,andthefactorsthatinfluencemotivation,delayadoption.Thisprocessclarifiesthepotentialfortheadoptionofapparentlybeneficialinnovationstobedelayedbyalackofmotivation.Thegoalstrivingprocessprovidesafoundationforidentifyingwhenitisimplementationofthedecisiontoadoptthatdelaysadoption.GoalsettingThedual‐processmodelisshowninidealisedforminFigure1.Inthemodelthefirstprocesstriggeredbyawarenessofanopportunitytoachieveagoalisasequenceofreflective,deliberativeprocesses:consider‐imagine‐appraise‐decide(Bagozzi2006a).Thisprocessdeterminesthedegreeofinterestthedecision‐makerhasinachievingagoal,thatis,goaldesire.Insufficientinteresthaltsanymovetotheconsciousformationanduseofattitudesandnorms.Thegreaterthetimeandeffortenvisagedinadoptinganinnovation,thegreatergoaldesiremustbetoprovokemovementbeyondgoaldesiretogoalintention.Goaldesiredetermineswhetheragoalacceptedasworthyofpossiblepursuit.

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

  • 6

    FigureOne:KeyvariablesandprocessesinConsumerAction

    Source:Bagozzi(2006a:15)

  • 7

    Bagozzi(2006a)proposesfiveelementsintheconsider‐imagine‐appraise‐decideprocess.Twooftheseelementsaretheemotionsthatresultfromimaginingsuccessandfailureandtheassociatedpersonalemotionalconsequencesinachievingtherelevantgoal.Thesearetermedpositiveandnegativeanticipatedemotions,respectively.Theseemotionscouldincludehappiness,excitementandprideordisappointment,angerandsadness.So,forexample,successfuladoptionofanewtechnologymaybeassociatedwithhappinessandexcitement.Conversely,theforcedabandonmentofavaluedfarmpracticemaybeassociatedwithfrustrationandanger.Thelikelihoodofsuccessorfailureisnotconsideredwithanticipatedemotions.Anothertwoelementsintheconsider‐imagine‐appraise‐decideprocessaretermedanticipatoryemotions.Theseemotionscanalsobepositiveornegativeandareemotionalresponsestotheprospectofafutureevent.Theemotionsinvolvedarehopeandfearanddependinpartontheperceivedprobabilityofanevent,thatis,successorfailure,occurring(Wright2011).Inourcontextanticipatedemotionsconcernfeelingsabouttheconsequencesthatwouldflowfromsuccessfullychangingfarmtechnologyorpractice(orfailingto),anticipatoryemotionsconcernfeelingsaboutthechancesofsuccess(orfailure).

    Thefinalelementintheconsider‐imagine‐appraise‐decideprocessisaffecttowardsthemeansofstrivingforthegoal.Thisisthepersonalemotionalappealofthemethods,processes,actionsandsoonrequiredtopursuethegoal(Bagozzi2006a).Thesemaybefavourable,orunfavourable,dependingoncircumstances.Theconsider‐imagine‐appraise‐decideprocessleadstoacceptanceorrejectionofthegoalasabasisforactingornot.Anumberofpersonalitytraitsmayinfluencegoaldesireincluding:self‐efficacy,responseefficacy,andcausalandresponsibilityattributionprocesses(Bandura1997).Self‐efficacyandresponseefficacywillimpactonanticipatoryemotionswhileresponsibilityattributionwillimpactonanticipatedemotions(Wright2011).

  • 8

    Movingthoughthemodel,goaldesiremustbeconvertedintosomegoalintention,acommitmenttoacttoachievethegoal.Thishappensthroughtheinteractionofgoaldesirewithself‐regulatoryprocesses,thatis,theinteractionofgoaldesirewiththedecision‐makersevaluativeandmoralstandardsthatgovernwhotheyareorwanttobe(Bagozzi2006a).Theinteractionofthesestandardswithgoaldesirescanleadtoanintentiontopursuethegoal,cancellationofthegoal,orpostponementofgoalimplementation(Wright2011).Thiscommitmentorintentionmustthenbetranslatedintoasetofspecificbehavioursoractionstobeimplemented.Thisistermedbehaviouraldesire.Thefactorsthatmoderatethetranslationofgoalintentionintoasetofactionsthedecision‐makerismotivatedtoperformareattitudetowardstheact,socialandsubjectivenormsandperceivedbehaviouralcontrol(FishbeinandAjzen1975;Ajzen2001;2002).Justasgoaldesiremustbetranslatedintoagoalintention,behaviouraldesiremustbetranslatedintospecificbehaviouralintentions.Aswasthecasewiththetranslationofgoaldesireintogoalintention,thetransformationofbehaviouraldesireintobehaviouralintentionismoderatedbyself‐regulation,thatis,thedecision‐maker’sevaluativeandmoralstandardsthatgovernwhotheyareorwanttobe(Bagozzi2006a).Thetranslationofbehaviouraldesireintobehaviouralintentionmayalsobemoderatedbyperceptionsofbehaviouralcontrolsuchasself‐efficacy.Finally,theprocessofgoalsettinghasthepotentialtobecomplexanditerative,whichmeanstheprocesscantakesometime.Actionwillnotproceeduntiltheprocessofdecidinghasrunitscourse(Wright2011).GoalstrivingTypically,thepredictionsfrommodelsofconsumerbehaviourhavebeenlimitedtopredictingbehaviouralintention.Thislimitationisbasedontheexpectationthatactualandintendedbehaviourarehighlycorrelated(BagozziandLee1999).

  • 9

    Unfortunately,thisisnotalwaysthecase.Inthedual‐processmodelthefactorsthatinfluencethelinkbetweenintendedandactualbehaviourareconsideredexplicitlyinthegoalstrivingcomponentofthemodel.Explicitconsiderationofthesefactorsisparticularlyimportant,notonlyinforecastingratesofadoptionbutalsoinhighlightingwhatopportunities,ifany,theremaybetoinfluencethisrate.Thefirststageingoalstrivingisthechoiceofhowthebehaviouralintentionwillbefulfilled.Alternativemeansbywhichthismaybedoneareevaluatedintermsofself‐efficacy,outcomeexpectancyandaffect,whichislikeordislikeofameans(Wright2011).Thesecondstageisactionplanning.This‘involvesdecisionsastowhen,where,howandhowlongtoact.Inthisstagesituationalcuesforthetimingofspecificactionsarecontemplated’(Wright2011:18).Thethirdstageingoalstrivingistrying,thatis,theimplementationoftheplan,whichisthecommencementofactioninpursuitofthegoal.Thefourthstageconsistsofthecontrolprocessesexercisedovertheplannedactionssuchastrackingprogress,identifyingopportunitiesandhindrancesandrevisingplansaccordingly,maintainingcommitmentandreconsideringgoals,means,plansandactionsinthelightofexperience.Appraisalsofprogresswillleadtoaffectiveresponses.Forexample,positiveaffectwillevokeanintentiontostaythecourse.Anegativeaffectmayevokegreatereffort.Alternatively,itmayresultinchangesingoals,aredefinitionofsuccessorfailureorabandonmentofgoalstriving(Bagozzi2006b).Thefinalstageistheoutcome:adoption,trialorfailuretoadopt,whichwillgenerateemotions.Astheyareexperienced,outcomeswillfeedbacktoinfluencegoalsettingforsubsequentinnovations.

  • 10

    Typesofagriculturalinnovations2

    Theeffortandtimeinvolvedinadoptingcomplexagriculturalinnovationswillbegreaterthanforlesscomplexinnovations.Consequently,theintensityofthemotivationneededtoadoptcomplexinnovationscanbeexpectedtobegreaterthanthatneededforsimplerinnovations.Animportantstep,then,inusingthedual‐processmodeltopredicttherateofadoptionofagriculturalinnovationsornon‐compliance,wouldbetolinkdifferencesinthestrengthofanticipatedemotions,anticipatoryemotionsandaffecttowardsmeanswiththecomplexityofagriculturalinnovations.Suchalinkrequiresarigorousmethodforcharacterizingthecomplexityofinnovations.Thereareavarietyofmethodsfordoingso.Wright(2011)suggestedHendersonandClark’s(1990)frameworkforclassifyingproductchangesintotypesofinnovations,whichwasadaptedforinnovationstoagriculturalsystemsbyKaineetal.(2008),wasthemostsuitableinthiscontext.TheusefulnessoftheclassificationdevelopedbyHendersonandClark(1990)iswhatitrevealsaboutthemagnitudeoftheimpactofadoption(orabandonment)ofatechnologyorpracticeintermsofdisruptiontosystemactivity,thedestructionofcompetencies,andtheneedfornewskillsandknowledge.SeeKaineetal.(2008)formoredetail.Inthissectionwebrieflydescribetheframeworkforclassifyinginnovationsintofourgenerictypesandsummarisetheadaptationoftheframeworktoclassifyinginnovationsinagriculturalsystems.Classificationofinnovations

    HendersonandClark(1990)proposedthataproductcouldbeconceivedofasasystem–acollectionofcomponentsthatarelinkedtogether.Theydefinedthecomponentsofaproductasthephysicallydistinctpartsofaproduct.Howthecomponentsarelinkedtogethertoenabletheproducttofunctionisthearchitectureoftheproduct.Consequently,productinnovationcanbe

    2ThematerialinthissectionisdrawnfromKaineetal.(2008;2012).

  • 11

    conceptualisedaschangestocomponents,thelinkagesbetweenthem,orboth.Theythensuggestedthatinnovationscouldbecategorisedintofourtypesofincreasingcomplexity:incremental,modular,architecturalorradical,dependingonthedegreeofchangeintroducedintothecomponentsandthelinkagesbetweenthem(seeFigure2).Incrementalinnovationsintroducerelativelymodestchangestothecomponentsofaproductleavingthelinksbetweencomponents,thatis,theproductarchitecture,largelyunchanged(HendersonandClark1990).Incrementalinnovationsexploitthepotentialofanestablisheddesignandtendtobuildonexistingskillsandknowledge.Modularinnovationsintroducerelativelysubstantialchangestothecomponentsofaproductinthatatleastsomeexistingcomponentsbecomeobsoletebecausethenewcomponentsarebasedonnewdesignconcepts(HendersonandClark1990).Generallyspeaking,thearchitecturelinkingthecomponentstogetherremainslargelyunchangedwithmodularinnovation.Newskills,competencies,andprocessesmayberequiredtomanufactureandinstallthenewcomponents.Consequentlymodularinnovationsmayenhanceordestroycompetencedependingonthehistoryofthespecificorganisation(Gatignonetal.2002).HendersonandClark(1990)defineanarchitecturalinnovationaschangingthewaythecomponentsinasystemlinktogether.Generallyspeaking,architecturalinnovationsentailrelativelyminorchangesinthecomponents.Knowledgeaboutthewaycomponentslinktogetherbecomesembeddedintheorganisationalprocedures,processesandstructuresovertime(HendersonandClark1990).Consequently,architecturalinnovationshavebeenshowntocreateseriousdisruptionstoorganisationsbecausetheyrequirechangesintheoperatingprocedures,processesandstructuresoftheorganisations,aswellastheacquisitionofnewskillsandcompetencies.

  • 12

    FigureTwo:Idealisedmapofthefourtypesofinnovations

    Source:HendersonandClark(1990)

    MajorArchitecturalChange

    MinorArchitecturalChange

    MajorComponentChange

    MinorComponentChange

    MODULAR INCREMENTAL

    RADICAL ARCHITECTURAL

  • 13

    Finally,radicalinnovationsinvolveanewsetofdesignconceptsthatareembodiedinnewcomponentsthatarelinkedtogetherusinganewarchitecture(HendersonandClark1990).Radicalinnovationsarebasedoncompletelydifferentscientificandengineeringprinciplestotheprinciplesthatwereusedintheproductstheysupersede.Withradicalinnovationsmanyareasoforganisationalknowledgeandcompetencearerenderedirrelevant,consequentlyanorganisationmayhavetoconsidernewwaysofthinkingtoadoptaradicalproductinnovation(Smith2000).ClassificationofagriculturalinnovationsKaineetal.(2008)adaptedthesystemsapproachofHendersonandClark(1990)toclassifydifferentkindsofinnovationsinagriculturalsystems.Theychoseinnovationstoafarmsub‐systemastheunitofanalysis.Afarmsub‐systemisasetofcomponentsthatlinktogetherinaspecificwaytoperformafunction(Kaineetal.2008).Thecomponentsofafarmsub‐systemarethephysicallydistinctelementsofthesub‐system.Thecomponentsofafarmsub‐systemmayincludetechnology,techniquesandpractices.Thearchitectureofthesub‐systemdescribeshowthecomponentsarearrangedorlinkedtogethertoenablethesub‐systemtofunction.Differentfarmsub‐systemsaredesignedtoperformfundamentallydifferentfunctions.Forexample,apressureirrigationsystemisagenericdescriptionofasub‐systemthatdistributeswatertoplantsusingmechanicalenergy.Integratedpestmanagementisagenericdescriptionofasub‐systemformanagingpestsanddiseasesbasedontheuseofbeneficialinsectsandspecies‐specificchemicals.Othersub‐systemsincludeanimalhealth,feedmanagementandbreedingmanagement.Differentsub‐systemconceptshavedifferentarchitecturesandsoareunderpinnedbydifferentarchitecturalprinciples.Forexample,theprinciplethatwatermovesdownhillundertheinfluenceofgravityunderpinsthearrangementofcomponentsinafloodirrigationsub‐system.Incontrast,theprinciplethat

  • 14

    watermovesfromanareaofhightolowpressureunderpinsthearrangementofthecomponentsinasprinklerirrigationsub‐system.Theextentofchangetothecomponentsandarchitectureofafarmsub‐systemprovideabasisforclassifyinginnovationsinfarmsub‐systemintothefourtypesofinnovation:incremental,modular,architecturalandradical.Crouch(1981)observedthatfarmsconsistofhierarchiesofinter‐relatedsub‐systems.Thedifferenttypesofinnovationcanbeexpectedtohavedifferenteffectsontheinteractionsbetweensub‐systems,witharchitecturalandradicalinnovationshavinggreatereffectsthanincrementalormodular.Consequently,dependingonthetypeofinnovation,incorporatingnewtechnologiesorpracticesintoafarmsub‐systemwillrequireknowledgeaboutthesub‐systemtobechanged,andknowledgeabouthowtorealignothersub‐systemstoaccommodatethatchange.Kaineetal.(2008)proposedthattheadoptionofeachtypeofinnovationcouldbeexpectedtomeanthatdifferentskillsandcompetencieswillbeneededwithrespectto(i)thesub‐systemitself,(ii)theinteractionsbetweensub‐systemsand,(iii)planningtheimplementationoftheinnovation.Thismeansthatqualitativedifferencescanbeexpectedinthetimeandeffortinvolvedinimplementingthefourdifferenttypesofinnovations,andthattherewillbedifferencesintherateofadoption(orabandonment)ofthedifferenttypesasaresult.Atthispointitisworthnotingthereislikelytobesymmetryinthecomplexityofpracticesandtechnologieswhenitcomestocompulsorilyabandoningthem.Atechnologyorpracticethatwas,forexample,anincrementalinnovationinafarmsub‐systemwhenadoptedwillmostlikelybeanincrementalinnovationwhenabandoned,providedthefarmerreturnstothetechnologiesorpracticesthatweresuperseded.Thefarmer’sfamiliaritywiththetechnologyorpracticemaymeantheycanabandonitrathermorequicklythantheyadoptedit.Thepotentialforthiseffectincreaseswiththecomplexityofthetechnologyor

  • 15

    practice.If,however,thefarmeradoptssomeothertechnologyorpracticeinpreferencetothosethatweresupersededthenthetypeofinnovationtothefarmsub‐systemthatabandonmententailsmayquitedifferenttothatentailedinadoption.Returningtothedual‐processmodel,anticipatedemotionswereidentifiedaspotentiallyimportantdeterminantsofgoaldesire.Itmaybethecasethatthereislimitedemotionalcontentassociatedwithincrementalandmodularinnovations.Ifso,goaldesireinrelationtoincrementalandmodularinnovationswoulddependmainlyonthefarmers’perceptionsofthetimepathandreliabilityofthecostsandbenefitsofchangingfarmpracticeortechnology(Wright2011).Incontrast,itmaybethecasethatimaginedgoalachievementandgoalfailurehavesignificantemotionalcontentwitharchitecturalandradicalinnovations.Ifthisisthecase,thentherelativestrengthofpositiveandnegativeanticipatedemotionswillstronglyinfluencegoaldesire.Theanticipatoryemotionsofhopeandfear,andrelatedfactorssuchasperceivedbehaviouralcontrolandanticipateddifficultiesinstrivingarealsolikelytostronglyaffectgoaldesirewitharchitecturalandradicalinnovations.Inshort,bothanticipatedandanticipatoryemotionsmayplayasubstantialroleinchangingfarmpracticesandtechnologieswhenthesechangescanbecharacterisedasarchitecturalandradicalbecauseoftheircomplexity;notleastbecauseofthechallengestheymayposetofarmercompetence.Thesamemaybesaidforaffecttowardsthemeans.Thissuggeststhatthedivisionofchangesinfarmingsub‐systemsintoincremental,modular,architecturalandradicalinnovationscouldbemostinformativeaboutratesofadoptionandcompliance.AnapplicationKaineetal.(2012)conductedasmallpilotstudyintothedual‐processmodelandtheclassificationofinnovationstocroppingsub‐systemsinnorthernVictoria.Kaineetal.(2012)foundthatanticipatedemotions,anticipatoryemotionsandaffecttowardsmeanswerepresentintheadoptionprocessforbothsimple

  • 16

    innovationssuchaschangingwheatvarietyandmorecomplexinnovationssuchasstubbleretentionanddirectdrilling.Theyalsofoundtherelativestrengthoftheseemotionalfactorsincreasewiththecomplexityofinnovations.Thisisconsistentwiththepropositionthattheadoptionofmorecomplexinnovationsrequirescorrespondinglygreaterlevelsofmotivationthanlesscomplexinnovations.Theyalsofoundrelationshipsbetweenthetypeofinnovationandtheneedfornewskillsanddecisioneffort.Theyalsofoundthatmorecomplexinnovationswereevaluatedforasignificantlylongerperiodthansimplerinnovationspriortoadoption.Alloftheseresultswereconsistentwiththeliteratureandhighlightthattherateofadoptionofcomplexinnovationswillbeinherentlyslower,onaverage,thantherateofadoptionofsimplerinnovations(Kaineetal.2012).Kaineetal.(2012)foundthatcurrentskills,knowledgeandexperiencewereusefulintheadoptionofcomplexaswellassimpleinnovationsinfarming.Significantpositivecorrelationswerefoundbetweentheimpactoftheinnovationonthearchitectureofthefarmsystem,theusefulnessofcurrentskills,currentknowledgeandexperience,anddecisioneffort.Thissuggeststhatcurrentknowledgeandexperienceisvitalinthetaskofrealigningfarmsub‐systemswhenintegratingmorecomplexinnovationsintoafarmsystem.Thoughnotthefocusoftheirstudy,Kaineetal.(2012)classifiedavarietyofinnovationsthatfarmerscharacterisedassimpleorcomplexintoincremental,modular,architecturalandradicalcategoriesbasedonfarmers’assessmentsofthenoveltyofthepracticeortechnology,andtheirimpactonsystemarchitecture(seeFigure3)3.Withoneexception,thereisapositiveassociationbetweenfarmer’sratingsofthenoveltyofinnovationsandtheircharacterisationofinnovationsassimpleorcomplex.However,theassociationbetweentheirratingsofthedegreeofchangeintherelationshipsbetweencomponentsandtheircharacterisationofinnovationsassimpleorcomplexwasweak.3Theangleoftheaxesisanartifactoftheprogrammeusedtomaptheinnovations,inprinciplethemapcanberotatedtoalignwiththeidealisedmapinfigure2.

  • 17

    FigureThree:Classificationofcroppinginnovations(redsimple,bluecomplex)

    Source:Kaineetal.(2012)

  • 18

    ThecorrespondencebetweenthetypesofinnovationasmeasuredbyKaineetal.(2012)andfarmers’characterisationswaspromisingenoughtosuggestthatthereismeritindevelopingscalestomeasurecomponentandrelationshipchangeinfarmsub‐systems.Overall,Kaineetal.(2012)concludedthatthedual‐processmodelofBagozzi(2006a),inconjunctionwiththeinnovationclassificationofHendersonandClark(1990),showedpromiseasameansforpredictingtherateofadoptionofagriculturalinnovationsandforprovidingguidanceastohowratesmaybestbeinfluenced.

    DiscussionThefindingsofKaineetal.(2012)supportthepropositionthattheadoptionofmorecomplexinnovationsrequiresgreaterdecision‐makermotivation,timeandeffortthansimpleinnovations.Theadoptionofmorecomplexinnovationstakeslongersimplybecausetheyareinherentlymoredifficulttounderstandandtointegrateintothefarmsystem.Thegreatertimeandeffortinvolvedinadoptingmorecomplexinnovationsmeanstheiradoptionisalsomoresusceptibletodelaybecauseofinsufficientmotivation.Inotherwords,complexinnovationsareintrinsically‘stickier’(BallandMankiw1994;Szulanski1996;Ogawa1998;Sims1998;BilsandKlenow2004;MankiwandReis2006)thansimpleinnovations;farmerswillbemoreresistanttoadopting(orbeingcompelledtoabandon)complexinnovationsthansimplerinnovations.Thesefindingshaveimportantimplicationsforpoliciesintendedtopromotechangeinfarmingtechnologiesandpractices.Fromtheperspectiveofvoluntarychange,differencesinthe‘stickiness’ofinnovationstranslatesintodifferencesintherateoftheiradoption,andthepotentialforincentivesandextensiontoinfluencethatrate(seeFigure4).Forexample,simpleinnovationsrequireverylittlelearningtoimplement.Bydefinition,thefarmsystemisvirtuallyunchangedbysimpleinnovationsandthefarmeralreadypossessestheknowledgeandskillsneededtoimplementthem.

  • 19

    FigureFour:Stickinessintherateofadoptionofinnovations

    Largeimprovementinrelativeadvantage

    Smallimprovementinrelativeadvantage

    ComplexinnovationSimpleinnovation

    STALLED SYRUPY

    SLUGGISH SWIFT

  • 20

    Differencesintherateofadoptionofsimpleinnovationswillmostlikelyreflectdifferencesintherelativeadvantagetheyoffer:thatis,theirsuperiorityovercurrenttechnologyorpractice.Inthesecircumstancestheroleforextensionislimitedtoraisingawarenessofthepractice.Therateofadoptionofsimpleinnovationsislikelytobequitesensitivetotheprovisionofincentivesbecausesimpleinnovationsarerelativelyinexpensiveandlowrisk.Therateofadoptionofsimpleinnovationswithalargerelativeadvantagewillbe‘swift’.Therateofadoptionofsimpleinnovationswithasmallrelativeadvantagewillbeslower;theyare‘syrupy’.Theadoptionofcomplexinnovationsrequirestheacquisitionofnewknowledgeandskillsbythefarmerandentailsplanningandmakingsubstantialchangestothefarmsystem.Differencesintherateofadoptionofcomplexinnovationswillreflectdifferencesinthetimeandeffortinvolved,aswellasdifferencesintherelativeadvantagetheyoffer.Complexinnovationswithalargerelativeadvantageare‘sluggish’:theirrateofadoptionwillbeslow.Therateofadoptionofcomplexinnovationswithasmallrelativeadvantagewillbeevenslower;theymayevenbe‘stalled’permanently.Theremaybeanimportantroleforextensioninreducingtheeffortfarmersmustdevotetosearchingforinformationon,andtolearningabout,complexinnovations,andacquiringtheknowledgeandskillsneededtoimplementthem.Extensionmayalsoincreasetherateofadoptionifitispossibletoincreasethemotivationoffarmerstoconsideradoptingtheinnovation.Thiswouldrequireknowledgeoftherootcauseofthelackofmotivation.Therateofadoptionofcomplexinnovationsislikelytobequiteinsensitivetotheprovisionofincentives,unlessthoseincentivescoveramajorproportionofthecostofadoptingtheinnovation.Fromtheperspectiveofcompulsorychangevariationsinthe‘stickiness’ofpracticesandtechnologiestranslateintodifferencesintherateofcompliance,differencesinthelikelihoodandintensityofoppositiontothepolicy,differences

  • 21

    inapparentcompliance,anddifferencesinthepotentialforincentivesandextensiontoinfluencecompliance(seeFigure5).Withregardtosimplepracticesandtechnologies,therateofcompliancewithapolicycompellingtheiruse(ortheirabandonment)islikelytobehighwhilethelikelihoodandintensityofoppositiontothepolicyislikelytobelow.Thiswillbeespeciallysoiftherelativeadvantageofthechangeinpracticeortechnologyissmall.Inthesecircumstancestheroleforextensionislikelytobelimitedlargelytoraisingawarenessofthepolicy.Compliancewithrespecttochangingsimplepracticesandtechnologieswithasmalllossinrelativeadvantageislikelytobehighand‘swift’.Compliancewithrespecttochangingsimplepracticesandtechnologieswithalargerlossinrelativeadvantagemaybehigh,eventually,butcouldhappenmoreslowly,tobemore‘syrupy’.Thegreaterthelossinrelativeadvantagethegreaterthemotivationtodelaycompliance.Therateofcomplianceanddegreeofoppositiontothepolicyislikelytobequitesensitivetotheprovisionofincentives,particularlywherethechangeinpracticeortechnologyentailsasubstantiallossinrelativeadvantage.Withregardtochangingcomplexpracticesandtechnologiestherateofcompliancewithapolicycompellingtheiruse(ortheirabandonment)islikelytobelowerthanwithsimplepracticesandtechnologies.Furthermore,thelikelihoodandintensityofoppositiontothepolicyislikelytobehigh.Thiswillbeespeciallysoifthelossinrelativeadvantageofthechangeinpracticeortechnologyislarge.Compliancewithrespecttochangingcomplexpracticesandtechnologieswithasmalllossinrelativeadvantageislikelytobemoderatebut‘sluggish’.Compliancewithrespecttochangingcomplexpracticesandtechnologieswithalargelossinrelativeadvantagewillbelowand‘stalled’.

  • 22

    FigureFive:Stickinessandcomplianceintheuseorabandonmentofpractices

    andtechnologies

    Largelossinrelativeadvantage

    Smalllossinrelativeadvantage

    ComplexinnovationSimpleinnovation

    SLUGGISH SWIFT

    STALLED SYRUPY

  • 23

    Inthesecircumstancestheroleforextensionappearsproblematic.Wherethechangeinpracticeortechnologyentailsasubstantialchangeinrelativeadvantagetherateofnon‐complianceanddegreeofoppositiontothepolicyislikelytobequiteinsensitivetotheprovisionofincentives.Thismaybethecaseevenwhereincentivesrepresentasubstantialproportionofthecostofchangingpracticeortechnology.Thereasonisthat,returningtothedual‐processmodel,changingcomplextechnologiesorpracticesrequiresahighdegreeofmotivation;thisentailsasubstantialemotionalinvestmentintermsofanticipatoryandanticipatedemotions,andaffecttowardsmeans.Thegreatertheemotionalinvestmentinadoptingacomplexinnovation,andtherelativeadvantageitoffered,thecorrespondinglystrongertheresistancetoabandoningtheinnovationwillbe,andthegreaterthelikelihoodofoutrage.Relatedly,whereapolicycompelsadoptionofacomplexpracticeortechnology,thegreatertheemotionalinvestmentinadoptingthatinnovation,andthesmallertherelativeadvantageitoffers,thecorrespondinglystrongertheresistancetousingtheinnovationwillbe,andthegreaterthelikelihoodofoutrage.Inthesecircumstancesfarmerswillseektoblockormodifythepolicy,ordelayitsimplementation.Theywillseekwaysofcomplyingwiththeletterofthepolicywhileavoidingcomplyingwithitsintent(KaineandHigson2006).Rigorousenforcement,includingpunitivesanctions,maybetheonlymeansofsubstantiallyimprovingcomplianceinthissituation.

    Conclusion

    Inthispaperanapproachtopredictingtherateofadoptionofagriculturalinnovationshasbeendescribed.Theapproachappliesequallytopredictingratesofnon‐compliancewithpoliciesprescribingtheuse,orabandonment,ofparticularagriculturalpracticesandtechnologies.Theapproachdrawsonthedual‐processmodelofconsumerdecision‐makingandamethodforclassifyinginnovationsinfarmsystems.Apilotapplicationhasshownthattheapproachhasmerit.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    IntroductionThe Dual‐Process model of adoptionTypes of agricultural innovationsDiscussionConclusionReferences


Related Documents