Adoption pathway analysis: Representing the dynamics and diversity of adoption for agricultural practices

Abstract

CONTEXTScholars have argued that empirical studies of adoption in agriculture should consider adoption as a dynamic process rather than a binary choice, but many empirical studies continue to be based on cross-sectional surveys in which adoption is treated binarily. In general, surveys put more emphasis on investigating adoption drivers (i.e. independent variables) at the expense of defining complete adoption measures (i.e. dependent variables). SIGNIFICANCEOur approach provides a method for adoption research with a highly informative way to unpack the diversity of dynamic adoption pathways for agricultural practices, addressing the current imbalance in survey design that puts more emphasis on potential drivers of adoption at the expense of adoption measures. We discuss the potential uses of adoption pathways analysis to agricultural researchers and extension agents, and its potential to contribute to better explaining past adoption or predicting future adoption.

Factors influencing intention to apply spatial approaches to on-farm experimentation: insights from the Australian winegrape sector

“…Learning and awareness can be precursors to adoption of technology. Several studies have suggested that adoption of a practice is not a one-off event or a linear process, but often occurs in a stepwise and dynamic manner (Abadi Ghadim and Pannell 1999 ; Montes de Oca Munguia et al 2021 ; Pannell et al 2006 ). Through a series of testing and learning activities, farmers reduce their uncertainties about a practice and improve their skills for applying it to their own farming systems (Pannell et al 2006 ).…”

“…In-depth understanding of such perceptions and intentions was deemed important to help improve the strip approach and support its adoption. There are various theories for examining factors influencing the adoption of technology or the process of adoption, such as the diffusion of innovations (Rogers 2003 ); the capability, opportunity, motivation, and behavior model (Michie et al 2011 ); and adoption pathway analysis (Montes de Oca Munguia et al 2021 ). However, we considered them not suitable for this study because, for example, they are focused on technologies of interest or different stages of adoption.…”

The old, the new, or the old made new? Everyday counter-narratives of the so-called fourth agricultural revolution

“…Rather, non-linear agricultural innovation can proceed in different ways. For example, technologies could be implemented on-farm, but quickly disadopted, before becoming useful again at a later date (de Oca Munguia et al 2021 ). Technologies could break, fall into disrepair, be disregarded (Schaffer 2011 ) or they could be given a new life through the process of retro-innovation (Zagata et al 2020 ) or micro-invention (van der Veen 2010 ).…”

Science communication and engagement in adaptive farm-systems research: a case study of flexible milking research in New Zealand

“…Adoption of major farming-system changes often does not follow a linear profile (Kuehne et al 2017). There are a range of pathways that farmers may follow that can involve awareness building, trialling, adoption, non-adoption, or dis-adoption (Montes de Oca Munguia et al 2021). Within this, farmers are constantly dealing with imperfect information and uncertainty in decision-making (Chavas and Nauges 2020;Eastwood and Renwick 2020).…”