Overcoming the Constraints to the Adoption of Sustainable Land Management Practices in Australia

Overcoming the Constraints to the Adoption of Sustainable Land Management Practices in Australia TURLOUGH F. GUERIN

ABSTRACT There are numerous reasons why landusers do not always adopt innovations. For different landuse enterprises and for different innovations, different constraints will apply and these can be organised into three broad categories. The first is characterised by the landuser and the adoption process. The second emphasises the characteristics of the innovation itself and issues associated with the developers of the innovation. The third area deals with the role of extension agents and the transfer process. It is apparent that technology transfer and adoption in sustainable landuse is largely being led by commercial organisations. Landusers are being recognised as key stakeholders in both the adoption and technology development processes. Furthermore, community groups and a range of government and NGOs are becoming involved as major stakeholders in the transfer and adoption of sustainable landuse practices. The study, however, reveals a shortage of data on the effectiveness of corporations and other commercial organisations on the technology transfer and adoption processes. Future research is needed on the following: understanding the effectiveness of group-based approaches to technology transfer and adoption; determining and predicting rates of adoption of sustainable practices; the ongoing effectiveness of different forms of media; evaluating existing efforts of technology transfer and adoption particularly related to land management practices; and understanding the constraints to adoption associated with an aging landusing population.  2000 Elsevier Science Inc.

Introduction The role of technology adoption in environmental management is increasingly becoming a key issue for natural resource users. Central to effective environmental management is the timely adoption of appropriate technology [1]. However, appropriate technologies are not always adopted, even where the need for these technologies is clear. Technology transfer (or extension in a rural context) involves the moving of technical knowledge, ideas, services, inventions and products from the origin of their development (or other location), to where they can be put into use. Technology adoption is the implementation of this transferred knowledge about an innovation, and is the end product of extension. TURLOUGH F. GUERIN is an international Environmental & Business Adviser working in the United States and the Republic of Singapore and is based in Australia. Correspondence: Dr. T. F. Guerin’s forwarding address in 2000 is 190 Grabben Gullen Rd, Crookwell NSW 2583, Australia. E-mail: [email protected].

Technological Forecasting and Social Change 65, 205–237 (2000)  2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010

0040-1625/99/$–see front matter PII S0040-1625(99)00090-6

206

T. F. GUERIN

From previous studies in landuse extension, it is evident that non-adoption is a multi-factorial problem [2, 3]. For different landuse enterprises and for different innovations, different constraints will apply. These constraints can be organised into three broad categories. The first is characterised by the landuser and consists of factors such as personality, education level, and degree of motivation. The second emphasises the characteristics of the innovation itself and issues associated with the developers of the innovation. The third area deals with the role of extension agents and the transfer process. The aim of this article is to discuss the constraints to technology transfer and adoption of sustainable land management practices, drawing largely on experience within Australia. A further aim is to highlight areas for practical application and future research. Specifically, this article highlights the key models of technology transfer and adoption, and how the major types of constraints impact these. The article also introduces the important issue of the role of commercial and community organisations, and how these are extending the current model of technology transfer and adoption of sustainable landuse management.

Constraints Relating to the Landuser and the Adoption Process The wide range of studies carried out in landuse extension reveal that non-adoption is a multi-faceted issue. For different enterprises and for different innovation, different constraints apply. However, in the current study, it was found that personal attributes of the landuser were common to the majority of extension studies. These attributes are addressed in the following sub-sections. LANDUSERS GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Goals and objectives of the landuser are critical factors in explaining why individuals do not adopt innovations. These goals and objectives may not necessarily be conspicuous but rather may be unspoken, and possibly even subconconscious. Bangura [4] found that the best predictor of adoption was the landuser’s individual goals, whereas a weak relationship was found between landuser motivation and adoption. The landuser’s socioeconomic status and economic constraints can also determine landuser motivation. Any model of adoption must incorporate the motivations of the landuser and these include the income and capital gains as well as the stewardship motive of passing a productive resource on to future generations. Since beliefs underlie attitudes towards various practices, it is expected that particular practices will be difficult to change. In relation to soil conservation practices, it can be inferred that the size and location of property can affect goal setting which, in turn, are positively related to the adoption of innovations [5]. Negative experiences in the past with the introduction of new technology can cause landusers to reject innovations indiscriminately in the present. This emotional response is similar to the psychological phenomenon of “learned helplessness.” For example, among some landusers there seems to exist a learned helplessness effect where the adoption of innovation by landusers in the past may not have made any difference to their particular landuse practices. Thus, landusers have realized that their adoption behaviour does not matter and that nothing they do makes a difference to the level of production on their properties [3]. The landuser needs to recognise that not all their decisions are going to be the right ones at that particular point in time, and that there will be reasons beyond the scope, and even understanding of the individual, that may make adoption ineffective. Rather than dwell on the negative experience, the landuser

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

207

should seek out advice and assistance from others to address the issue at hand. The extension agent needs to be sensitive to this issue. A landuser’s attitude to change is one of the main reasons for the adoption of an innovation [5]. An openness to change and to adopt a new concept, where there is a benefit for the landuser, the wider community, and the environment, is an attribute of an opinion leader in land management. Equally important however, is being prepared to abandon old ways that do not enhance the management of the natural resources. ATTITUDES TOWARDS RISK AND UNCERTAINTY

Taking risks, by necessity, means thinking and actively behaving differently to the social norms. If an individual or a group does not have a clear idea about the nature of the risks involved with an innovation that they may consider for adoption, it is more likely that there will be resistance to change. People are more likely to take a calculated risk if they understand well the risk associated with the innovation, can consider such risk in the new alternative compared with that of the “old” technology, and consequently determine whether or not the new alternative is better [6]. If an extension agent, who suggests to landusers that a particular innovation could improve productivity, is unable to explain how much the innovation will cost, how to use it, and what benefits can be expected from its use, one can expect that conservative attitudes will predominate. In this case, less or no adoption of the innovation is likely. Here, the extension agent or source of knowledge needs to be clear and influential in their dealings with the landuser, though logic on its own is unlikely to bring about the adoption. Attitudes to risk are subjective and will, therefore, vary between individuals. Individual landusers typically will reduce the risk by choosing enterprises which are reliable for their own location [3]. As Vanclay and Lawrence [2] have discussed, conflicting information regarding an innovation from various sources (e.g., scientists, literature, green groups, and extension agents), can be an understandable limitation to adoption. If uncertainty prevails over an innovation and the innovation is not adopted as a result, then, this is a rational management decision. One of the key activities an extension agent can do for a landuser that is risk averse with respect to a new technology or concept, is to encourage that individual to trial the technology or concept themselves or become involved with groups (from the same industry or sector) that are attempting the same. Trialing however, must be done effectively. The landuser may experience difficulties that they attribute to the technology but which are actually a result of ineffectual implementation. The extension agent needs to be sensitive to this issue and act in a way that ensures the landuser will be in a position to have confidence in the technology if indeed it does perform well. Pannell [7] argues that uncertainty, particularly as it relates to the income of the landuser, has been under-recognised as an impediment to the adoption of innovative land conservation practices. High levels of uncertainty inhibit adoption because (a) most farmers are psychologically averse to risk and uncertainty, (b) uncertainty leaves room for misunderstanding and misperceptions about the innovation and (c) in some cases there can be an option value from not trialing. Pannell [7] emphasises that adoption is a process involving collection, integration and evaluation of new information, which leads to reduction in uncertainty over time. LANDUSER’S ATTITUDES AND LEARNING STYLES

For adoption to occur, it is necessary to change the landusers’ adverse attitudes towards an innovation. Once the innovation is perceived as profitable, appropriate, having an acceptable level of risk, being compatible with the landuser’s goals, and being

208

T. F. GUERIN TABLE 1 Questions that Extension Agents and Landusers Should Ask Themselves

Extension Agent How do I perform?

Landuser a

How do I learn?

a

What personal attributes are limiting my ability as a leader, particularly in developing influence amongst my landuser “clients”?

Have I implemented the trial properly? What mistakes do I typically make when attempting to implement a new technology or concept?

Have I looked outside my immediate field for new technology developments?

Based on my experiences to date, would I go into the practices I am now in (or use the technologies that I have)? What should I abandon?

Have I found a balance between introducing change and maintaining continuity among my landuser clients?

What are the consequences of adopting the innovation?

Have I followed through on earlier advice and encouraged ongoing adoption of appropriate technologies?

Have I budgeted for change? (to ensure I can be ready to adopt new innovations as they become available)

a Extension agents and landusers ultimately need to ask both these questions of themselves in order to be effective in their own work.

easily integrated into existing farm practices, then the innovation tends to be adopted relatively quickly [3]. Of key importance is the way individuals take in information and get things done: that is, how do we learn and how do we perform? Landusers needs to focus on how they learn, whereas extension agents need to know how they perform. Understanding the first question, of how one learns, is fundamental to the process of change. Individual landusers will approach problem solving and learning in different ways, depending on what is effective for them. A fundamental way of answering this question is to ask oneself whether one learns by listening, reading, or through pictures/visualizing. One of the tasks of the extension agent should then be to aim to understand the way in which they themselves and their landuser clients learn. The extension agent should also encourage the landusers to understand and explore their own learning styles. Understanding the cognitive styles of individual landusers or individuals in landuser groups, is likely to assist extension agents focus on the most appropriate means to “package” and deliver new technologies and information, and therefore be more effective in their work. The second question, “How do I perform?,” is particularly important for the extension agent as they need to understand how they best communicate concepts and ideas. People do not often know how they best do this, and understanding this requires personal evaluation and commitment. Some individuals are good writers whereas others perform best through oral communication. By understanding one’s own strength in this regard makes for much greater interpersonal effectiveness. Clearly, in many cases, it will be important for the extension agent to provide a mix of written, pictorial and oral advice to explain an innovation and its benefits. Such self-knowledge allows the extension agent to tailor packages of information most effectively. Indeed there are numerous other questions that both extension agents and landusers need to ask themselves and some of these are highlighted in Table 1. Although landuser’s behaviour may be modified, attempts at changing or modifying individual styles will not be permanent. The classical diffusion model is illustrated

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

209

(simplistically) by the left to right flow of information in Fig. 1 (refer to large arrow), from scientist, extension agent, opinion leader then through to landusers. This model, where there is an extension agent transferring information from technology developers (or scientists) to the endusers, assumes that there are broad groups of styles among individual opinion leaders and landusers, from “innovators” to “laggards” [8]. This has proven to be a very useful predictor of adoption behaviour, and it has been widely used in developing nations. However, Von Fleckenstein [9] has shown that general groupings of “innovator” types were meaningless, since there were particular landusers who only adopted specific innovations. In expanding on this issue of “innovator” types among the landuser community, it is of value understanding the meaning of cognitive style. Cognitive styles are personality traits, where these traits are variables or dimensions along which individuals differ. Cognitive style has been defined as consistent individual differences in preferred ways of organising information. It refers to the manner or mode of cognition, that is, the way in which a person thinks, approaches problems, or adopts strategies to solve problems. It has been found to be independent of levels of ability, skills, intelligence, and levels of cognitive complexity. It has also been found to be stable over time and situations, and, as a consequence, remains largely unresponsive to specific training. Cognitive style also influences attitudes, values, and social interaction, all of which are important in group dynamics. Examples of tools that provide a measure of cognitive style include the Kirton Adoption-Innovation inventory, which is a continuum, along which individuals lie, depending on whether they are adaptive (continuous cognitive approach; “works within existing paradigm”) or innovative (discontinuous cognitive approach; “works to the edge of a paradigm”). Such scales may prove valuable in future extension and research programmes and have been described in detail elsewhere [10]. Such adaption-innovation scales would complement the widely used Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (Table 2). Another useful tool for measuring individual style is the Kolb Learning Style Grid [11], which measures learning style, and which is also commonly used in teamwork programmes. For extension agents who aim to bring about a behavioural change at the individual or group level, understanding and utilising the styles of the potential adopters could be a key part of extension. The Belbin Team Roles are another means for gaining greater understanding of team dynamics and this is also briefly introduced in Table 2 [11]. Understanding one’s own cognitive and learning style, and sharing this with others, helps provides insights into improving individual and group effectiveness. THE LANDUSERS’ SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

The role of leadership is critical to understanding the adoption of innovations in sustainable landuse. This is important in both terms of the landusers as well the extension agents (the latter is discussed later in the paper). “Opinion leaders,” or those individuals in a community that influence the behaviours of other community members, have an important influence on landusers in their adoption decisions. They uphold or create new norms in a community, which influence the behaviour of other landusers. It is important for extension agents to identify opinion leaders and gain their approval and confidence by providing them with information on new environmental management innovations. A landusing community lacking such a leader will be slower to adopt than those communities that have opinion leaders. The initial (capital) and sustaining (operating) costs of an innovation are another important aspect influencing its adoption. The landuser must be able to see the financial benefits of adoption in addition to the long-term benefits of maintaining productivity.

Fig. 1. An Integrated Approach to the Transfer of Environmental Management Innovations.

210 T. F. GUERIN

Belbin Team Roles

Kolb Learning Styles Grid

Kirton AdaptionInnovation Inventory

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

Tool Psychological types develop as people direct their energy toward one of each pair of the opposites (Sensing or Intuition, Thinking or Feeling, Extraversion or Introversion). Because one of each pair is preferred and used more often, psychological type theory predicts that the preference will become more reliable and better developed. This habitual use of preferences leads to fundamental differences between people and to predictable patterns of behavior. When the mind is active, people are doing one of two things: perceiving (taking in information) or judging (organising and prioritising information to arrive at decisions). Though everyone uses these mental processes, people are born with preferences for how they will use them. There are two different ways that people perceive and judge: Perception may be by Sensing or Intuition and judgement by Thinking or Feeling. Attitudes or orientations that individuals take towards the world are measured as either Extraversion or Introversion. At the basis of adaption-innovation theory exists a dimension “adaption” and “innovation” where the two are extremes of a bipolar dimension. Individuals can be located at any point along this dimension and this adaptive-innovative individual style is normally distributed in the population. When confronted with a problem, adaptors turn to conventional ways and group consensus; innovators attempt to restructure problems by approaching them from a new angle. Innovators prefer to generate new and different solutions to problems, which disrupts rather than preserves the familiar patterns in which problems exist. Both types can have equal levels of creativity [10]. Kolb [11] proposes a theory of experiential learning that involves four principal stages: concrete experiences (CE), reflective observation (RO), abstract conceptualization (AC), and active experimentation (AE). The CE/AC and AE/RO dimensions are polar opposites as far as learning styles are concerned and Kolb postulates four types of learners (divergers, assimilators, convergers, and accommodators) depending upon their position on these two dimensions. Explains preference for team roles, especially as they highlight positive and problematic aspects of each role, enables teams to look at gaps and consequences of balance in their team. Roles are Shaper, Coordinator, Team Worker, Completer Finisher, Implementer, Resource Investigator, Innovator (or ‘plant’), and Monitor Evaluator.

Explanation

Assisting extension agents and landusers to better understand the way in which their team works

Specifically for understanding individual learning styles

Understanding cognitive styles of individuals in a group setting

Helps one understand temperaments, preferences, and to assist in predicting behaviour of individuals

Implications

TABLE 2 Examples of Tools for Assisting Extension Agents and Landusers to Increase Their Personal and Interpersonal Effectiveness

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 211

212

T. F. GUERIN

Such long-term benefits have been demonstrated by the adoption of innovations under land management in the National Landcare Program (NLP) in Australia [12]. The NLP is a community based approach to enhancing the long-term productivity of natural resources in Australia. There are now more than 4,500 Landcare groups across Australia and approximately one in every three farmers is a member of a Landcare group. The NLP supports collective action by communities to sustainably manage the environment and natural resources in partnership with the Australian government. The NLP also supports an expansion of property management planning to give landusers improved natural resource and business management skills [13]. It is also likely that adoption will not occur if a large gain (i.e., in economic return or other measure of value to the landuser) is not expected by the landuser to compensate for taking the risk. The following example illustrates the point. In a study of conservation cropping in northern Victoria, Australia, a steady increase in the use of direct drilling and minimum-tillage cropping was reported during the 1980s [14]. The key advantage, which convinced landusers to bring these innovations into practice, was the lower cropgrowing costs, which were clearly demonstrated in terms of savings of time and fuel. Although improved soil structure resulted in higher yields, this in itself has not led to increases in adoption; yield increases need to be converted to profit increases before adoption is secured [14]. Many landusers are now being forced to reappraise the traditional systems of conventional cultivation due to the high costs of equipment and fuel, and the increasing cost and scarcity of labour [14]. This relative cost disadvantage of conventional cultivation could, however, be offset by higher chemical costs associated with the adoption of reduced tillage systems. Minimising financial risk was an important factor in adopting sustainable practices in rural Utah [15]. YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AND ITS INFLUENCE ON ADOPTION

Itharat [16] proposed that landusers, who are older, with more years of landuse experience and who have a larger amount of land used for production, are more innovative. In an Australian study, Anderson [17] has shown that the age of 40–50 years tends to be associated with the “progressive landuser,” which has also been termed as the “opinion leader” in this article. However, Warner [18] found that early adopters tended to be relatively young, and those who have used the land for fewer years and have smaller areas of land. Adopters of land management practices in Australia tended to be younger than the mean age of the landusers surveyed [12]. In an Australian study, Reeve and Black [19] demonstrated that the greater the number of years a person has been involved in landuse practices, while in adulthood, the more positive their attitude towards: (i) using agricultural chemicals, (ii) believing profit from landuse is more important than the environment; and (iii) a reluctance to draw upon outside expertise. Of interest in Reeve and Black’s (1993) study was that landusers of age ⭓60yrs have more favorable attitudes towards additional environmental policies to safeguard the environment, that those who are young (⭐30yrs). In a study in rural Utah, older farmers were more resistant to adoption of low-input practices and perceived them to be unfeasible or impractical. Many felt the change to sustainable practices may not occur in their lifetimes and questioned whether sustainable practices would be beneficial or profitable. In addition, those approaching retirement were unlikely to risk learning and applying new production practices, especially if there were added costs or risks with adoption [15]. It therefore appears that there is no clear correlation between landusers’ age and adoption and this is an area for further investigation and clarification, particularly now we have an aging population.

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

213

Constraints Related to the Nature of the Innovation and Its Developers COMPLEXITY OF INNOVATIONS

Innovations that are simple and relatively easy to understand are more likely to be adopted than those that are complex. Simple innovations include recommendations to change crop cultivars or to use a new chemical. Bangura [4] found that landusers prefer to adopt those innovations that satisfy their security needs, are less complex, require less time to use, and are less labour-demanding. Innovations of these types can be communicated easily and in a short time. Swindale [20] suggests that an innovation, though can be readily transferred from technology developers and is appropriate for the landuser’s needs, may still not be accepted by the landuser as long as its attributes (including integration with existing landuse and management) are not understood. This is the case especially for complex innovations that evolve from multi-disciplinary efforts. Therefore, an innovation may prove to be inappropriate if the information gathered about landusers’ needs and resources is either inapplicable or is inaccurate. A lack of knowledge about an innovation can limit its adoption but this does not necessarily correlate with the extent or nature of the landuser’s education. Vanclay and Lawrence [2] describe a related phenomenon, called intellectual outlay, which relates to the knowledge base on the individual landuser, rather than to an objective measure of innovation complexity. Such intellectual outlay can be considered as an implementation cost as the landuser may need to invest considerable amounts of time in learning about the new innovation, devoting time and other resources to adoption. Trialing of the technology will be part of this implementation cost. In Australia, land management recommendations on grazing lands contaminated with chlorinated insecticides (specifically dieldrin and DDT) have been widely adopted. This is evident from the low number of contaminated meat violations reported since the initial detection of these chemical residues in export beef in 1987 [21]. Contamination of Australian beef with these insecticides provided an example of how specialised and simple information about agricultural chemicals and land management is required by extension agents and landusers to offset contamination of livestock grazing on contaminated pastures and soils. During the period of major beef contamination problems in Australian during the late 1980s, there was widespread adoption recommendations made by the government Department of Agriculture in various States [21]. This widespread adoption indicates their low degree of complexity and their perceived relevance to productivity of the main landuse. These recommendations have been to temporarily move contaminated livestock into uncontaminated land for periods of 6–10 months, change from meat production to other practices and return any remaining stocks of the chemicals that were responsible for the contamination. More innovative land uses by contaminated land holders have been to raise horses, goat fibre production and sand extraction from beneath contaminated depths [21]. Although these soil contaminants are (i) only slowly degraded in the environment [22, 23], (ii) can accumulate in the food chain, and (iii) can be toxic to a range of organisms, none of these were the reason why the affected landusers adopted the recommended practices. These particular landusers adopted these practices because they saw the economic disadvantages in nonadoption. Recent beef contamination problems in Australia during 1998–1999 involving endosulfan, a different type of organochlorine insecticide to dieldrin and DDT, but one that degrades at a faster rate in soil [24], indicate that this type of contamination problem can still occur on occasions [25]. Such livestock contamination is likely to be an ongoing

214

T. F. GUERIN

Fig. 2. Consequences of Salinity Extension Agents Transferring Information.

land management problem, at least intermittently, as the range of chemicals tested and the sensitivity of the analytical procedures used increases. ACCEPTANCE AND ADOPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

Not all recommended practices, which are designed to conserve natural resources, are likely to be readily adopted. A case in point is the practice for the prevention of contamination of soils and water from agricultural chemicals. It is relatively easy for a landuser to see the benefits of stopping a practice which is affecting productivity directly, such as grazing contaminated land and pasture, however, it is more difficult for the landuser to see how preventing pollution of land and water, particularly off the farm, would benefit their productivity. In the event of off-site environmental effects from an on-site practice, there is a need for the government to provide incentives for the adoption of sound environmental practices [19] and this issue of externalities is further discussed in Altham and Guerin [1]. With salt affected landusers in Australia, it has been shown that while in the majority of cases the extension agent’s transfer of information leads to “on the ground action,” that is not always the case (Fig. 2). The cotton growing industry in Australia, which depends on the strategic use of agricultural chemicals, including large quantities of endosulfan, is in a different category because landuser perceptions of environmental problems are already at a high level [26]. General recommendations that have been made to cotton growers by the New South Wales Department of Agriculture include the advice to use all chemicals with extreme care, not to use particular chemicals near waterways, and to retain irrigation tail water on their properties for a minimum period prior to its release off-farm. Landusers have also been recommended to retain storm water and other field run-off on their properties in addition to advice regarding the safe disposal of various chemical wastes. The extension of these recommendations has been successful as indicated by the vast majority of landusers who have adopted this advice. The extent of adoption of this advice has been measured relatively easily in that fish kills results if chemicals are

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

215

released to the waterways in any significant quantity (though chronic effects are not readily observed). In the Australian cotton industry, where the total number of landusers is relatively low (1,200 cotton growers) [26] compared to the remainder of the rural sector (1% of total Australian farming population), it is likely that peer group pressure will be important in changing landusers’ attitudes to environmental problems and environmental innovations. Further evidence is required to determine whether this is in fact one of the explanations for the perceived innovativeness of smaller landusing groups. Most cotton growers use commercial extension agents (86% of all cotton growers), who provide advice on environmental management and related technologies, in conjunction with the industry’s own technology transfer programmes [26]. It is likely that the use of endosulfan will continue as long as it is still registered for its various agricultural uses, and while it is a key component of integrated pest management strategies. Such strategies are used by numerous landusers in various agricultural industries throughout the world. In an Australia-wide survey prepared for policy making bodies, the majority of the farming community showed a “high level” of concern for the environment and a substantial degree of support for environment-related policy instruments [19]. Among the survey respondents of 2000 (with a response rate of 57%), there was a majority support for the following actions for environmental resource conservation; • • • • • • • •

More testing of produce for chemical residues More penalties against those landusers whose produce contains such residues Having buffer zones around towns where there is considerable crop spraying Zoning of poor or marginal country to show what types of landuse shall be permitted Requiring environmental impact statements before undertaking large developments such as feed lots or major land clearing Using satellite photography and remote sensing to monitor whether land degradation is occurring on individual properties Educating landusers about damage done by selected landuse practices Providing financial incentives to encourage the use of soil improving practices such as rotation, stubble retention and deep ripping

Frank [27] indicated that selected Australian landusers choose to maintain a medium level of adoption behaviour in harmony with their physical environment, rather than adopt innovations which scientists have implicitly perceived as desirable, profitable and suitable. This finding indicates that the landusers lifestyle needs to be taken into account when extension agents make adoption recommendations. In a recent survey to assess perceptions of risk associated with use of farm chemicals in central Ohio, the sample farmers (245) were asked to evaluate the level of risk to the environment (among other factors) associated with use of agricultural chemicals. The study findings revealed that respondents perceived that the use of farm chemicals posed little or no treat in this regard [28]. These findings suggest that landusers from different regions are likely to have different perceptions of the environmental impacts of agricultural chemicals. As a consequence, different groups will require information to be targeted to them in ways that will enable the groups to gain greater understanding of the environmental implications of agricultural chemical use. A “one-size-fits-all” approach is unlikely to be effective for the extension agent when making recommendations. This highlights the importance of carefully packaging information to the target audience.

216

T. F. GUERIN

Landusers will consider an innovation in the light of its advantages and perceived benefits relative to those of the innovation that it replaces. The adopters’ perceptions of an innovation may be influenced by various factors, including their social or economic position and the message of the extension agent. The advantage(s) may be expressed in terms of profitability, safety or security, enhanced social standing, or of self-esteem. In a study of the adoption of soil conservation practices, Sinden and King [29] found that the economic measures of land condition, namely annual crop yield and livestock carrying capacity, influence the adoption. This provides further evidence that the economic paradigm is a useful model of landuser adoption behaviour. The major determinants affecting the adoption of a soil conservation practice are the attributes of the practice itself. A case in point is that there is little evidence that beliefs about soil salinity control alone influence the rate of pasture sowing, independently of expectations about the profitability of this innovation [30]. Another example is the adoption of crop varieties by landusers. Martin et al. [31] showed in the context of New South Wales, Australia, that wheat cultivars that were grown in a particular season corresponded closely to those recommended by the State Department of Agriculture; only one case of the 50 surveyed reported the use of a non-recommended cultivar. Bardsley [32] indicated that the reasons landusers do not adopt recommended crop varieties are that they are offered no clear improvement over those existing, and that they may have strong ties with the existing variety. In a survey by Martin et al. [31], the herbicide chlorsulfuron was also quickly adopted; innovations were readily adopted because of their clear advantages over existing practices, their compatibility with other practices on the farm, their high degree of observability of the benefits and low degree of complexity. RELEVANCE OF THE INNOVATION

Not all landusers adopt all the innovations that are made available to them. They select those practices that are consistent with their attitudes, needs, and socio-economic status [5]. Landusers have to make many decisions during the production cycle, keeping both potential problems and alternate solutions in their view. Some of these decisions are for immediate survival (economic benefit), while others are made in view of anticipated long-term benefits [5] and this issue is further discussed later. It is now widely recognised by extension agents that a mix of relevant information needs to be provided to landusers, if the agents are to be effective. ATTITUDES OF SCIENTISTS

Scientists have often been criticised for lacking the skills necessary for implementing their innovations [33]. They tend to rely on the written word for their information and subsequent dissemination of their findings. Landusers (particularly farmers), on the other hand, rely mostly on visual and verbal messages in acquiring knowledge, though (as mentioned earlier in this article) this will vary from individual to individual. Scientists often assume that the gap between themselves and landusers will be automatically filled by the landusers or extension agents [33]. Landusers are often expected to be able to fully understand the various aspects of the new innovations, and interpret complex environmental interactions, which can be different from those associated with the previous innovations that may have been employed. Limited adoption of land management research has been caused, at least in part, by presentation of research findings in a general form which is not site- and seasonspecific, and which is often difficult to integrate into existing work practices. It is likely

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

217

that landusers tend to localise their knowledge of farming operations, while researchers tend to generalise their knowledge for dissemination. To ensure effective adoption, scientists should acquire information about landuser practices, and this may be through both formal and informal sources. According to Ojiambo [34], personal communication with immediate colleagues is the most frequently used source. Scientists should consider how their innovations will be perceived by the landuser and whether the innovations are likely to be successful in improving productivity when implemented under site-specific conditions. Scientists therefore need to understand problems with existing innovations in order to develop effective new innovations [3]. There is now emerging evidence that scientists in Australia are taking a more proactive role in the development of solutions for landusers, particularly through their involvement in the commercial extension programmes. Clunies-Ross [35] has suggested that adoption is more likely to occur where there is a problem with existing innovations than as the result of new scientific findings. Conservation tillage is a case in point. Diallo [36] showed that the most important reasons for adopting no-till practices was soil conservation, followed by energy and time savings. The tangible benefits to the landuser were observed as a reduction in soil erosion and fuel expenses. It is critical for the technology providers to ensure that the innovations they are recommending are the most appropriate for the problem at hand. Effective research should, therefore, include an extension component, which starts at the design stage of the research, by making sure in the first place what the landusers want to know from the research. There is evidence in Australia that extension is increasingly being incorporated into research projects, including those of the grains, horticulture, dairy research corporations and Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC). Cotton [37] argues, however, that one of the Australia’s key rural research and development corporations still allocates ⬍10% of its total budget to specific communication and extension projects. Cotton [37] also argues that there is insufficient exploitation of existing technologies across the rural sector and that research results are often not “packaged” appropriately for the enduser. Nevertheless, since this issue of incorporating an extension and adoption component into funded rural research projects in Australia was discussed five years ago [3], there have been at least 10 projects related to natural resource conservation that have been specifically funded in Australia with this extension and adoption component included [38]. Recent developments in ensuring scientists incorporate an extension component into their research projects include an initiative by the RIRDC in Australia that involves the scientists describing the communication process to be used prior to receiving funds for the proposed research. In general, there are still few formally articulated communication requirements (in sponsored research), and almost no rigorous evaluation procedures presently being applied [39]. The trend in Australia in this regard is toward the researchers building strong partnerships with stakeholders, making these researchers responsive to the stakeholder’s needs, with the role of the scientist and the overall communication of science, being minimised [39]. In a recent review on evaluating the effectiveness of extension, there was a difficulty in finding well-documented examples of programme evaluation in Australia [40]. However, the published literature on evaluation covers just one part of the “lived experience” of applied evaluation: only the information that authors choose to write about comes into the public domain; other potentially valuable information often remains unrecorded and hidden. It could well be that practitioners do not fully realise the value of their experiences for others in similar situations [40].

218

T. F. GUERIN

Research and development corporations are increasingly and actively courting private-sector research [41]. At the Annual Conference of the Australian Accredited Agricultural Consultants (AAAC) held in Canberra in August 1996, consultants were urged by the research and development corporations to apply for research funds [41]. The Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC), for example, saw a major opportunity for consultants to play a role under their new emphasis of commissioning and negotiating research. They saw consultants as having an advantage under the new emphasis because they were used to doing jobs for an outcome rather than a salary. They also perceive consultants as having better links to farmers, especially opinion leaders, and so being capable of more focused research. Scientists have a need for their research findings to be recognised by other scientists in their field. This fact should not be overlooked. It is a reality that there is usually little incentive for scientists to write for a farmer audience, as such publications derive little academic merit to the scientist and give them little recognition amongst their peers. Effective scientists will have communication specialists that are able to write for a wide audience and in particular landusers. This issue underlies many of the current problems of lack of relevance of scientific research to on the ground problems that landusers have.

Constraints Relating to the Communication and Transfer Process DEMONSTRATIONS AND FIELD TRIALS

Field demonstrations are akin to “prototyping” a technology or process. The field trial objectively demonstrated the appropriateness of the technology, process, or innovation. Traditionally, field demonstrations and trials were conducted by government agencies [3]. The landusers need to understand the benefits and the drawbacks of the innovation and to know what modifications and adaptations are likely to be needed for implementing the innovation to their own environmental problem and trials help achieve this. The results of some research are easily observed, and are therefore easier to communicate and innovations with a high degree of observability are more likely to be adopted. It is recognised that some innovations do not lend themselves readily to communication and this is one of the most common reasons for non-adoption [3]. This should not be a problem, however, if professional communicators prepare the information. Lack of observability of the results of innovations, has also been shown to limit the motivation of some landusers. Demonstrations of innovations, however, can greatly improve their observability. Demonstrations can take the form of field days, on-farm demonstrations, or visits to other landusers who have successfully adopted the innovations involved. The formation of participatory groups in the Australian National Landcare Program has closely involved the landusing community and has helped all involved understand the need to prevent and overcome problems of land degradation [13]. This approach of establishing landuser groups has worked well in promoting change in land management practices in Australia and has now largely moved the provision of demonstrations and field trials from government agencies to landuser groups and commercial organisations involving the properties of the landuser’s themselves. Table 3 describes a number of such programs and activities involving demonstrations and field trials [65]. COMMERCIALLY FUNDED DEMONSTRATION SITES FOR SUSTAINABLE LAND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

There are now numerous examples of commercially funded demonstration sites for conservation practices though there is relatively little published on these activities

Centres of Excellence and Green Stripes Programmes Farm Management 500 Independent Field Trials Elders Bush Telegraph General technical and management advice relating to sustainable land use General technical and management advice relating to sustainable land use The Farmwide Program General information

Monsanto Company

Various Consultants

Birchip Cropping Group

Elders Pty Ltd

Kondinin Group

Hassall Associates

NFF (Australia)

Rural Press Pty Ltd

Description

A commonly used source of information for landusers and extension agents in Australia

Internet “clearinghouse” and discussion forum on agricultural activities including adoption of sustainable practices

International rural and natural resource consulting company

Australian rural consulting company; Provides focused information via its FarmLine service (an information service for landuser access)

Internet access to a limited range of agricultural activities/advice and whole farm management advice in Australia

Example of effective landuser-led organisation conducting on-farm research in Australia

Example of effective landuser-led organisation conducting on-farm research in Australia

Encouraging the adoption of sustainable cropping and revegetation practices across the United States

Formation of independent groups of local landusers sharing knowledge

Abbreviation: NFF ⫽ National Farmer’s Federation (see [65]); SBS IAMA Ltd ⫽ large rural merchandiser in Australia.

Establishment and maintenance of local/regional merchandisers

Program/Activity

SBS IAMA Ltd

Organisation(s)

TABLE 3 Examples of Commercial Extension and Communication Programmes for Landusers

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 219

220

T. F. GUERIN

(Table 3). In one particular private extension program in rural Australia, Farm Management 500 (FM500), a number of organisations now work in a partnership to demonstrate innovations in conservation practices [42]. The organisation is extremely diverse with 17 independent consulting firms acting as the service providers. These cooperating organisations include equipment and seed companies, general agricultural merchandisers, and extension agents. FM500 also draws upon the knowledge of university researchers, as well as soil and water conservation groups. FM500 aims to accelerate the adoption of better business practices by rural landusers, by fostering open and interactive landuser group meetings. All members share ideas and experiences so as to recognise and develop skills, values, self-worth and, at the same time, enhance the landuser’s incomes. FM500 seeks to provide landusers with a mix of information, planning concepts and strategies that they would not otherwise get from traditional service providers, such as government extension agents. A mixture of landuser subscriptions, agribusiness partnerships and government training grants provides the financial resources for the project [42]. In 1997, Monsanto created Centres of Excellence across the Midwest of the United States [43]. The purpose of these new centres has been to develop and refine viable conservation tillage systems at the local landuser level. The goal is to utilise large-scale, farm-sized research areas to develop and demonstrate practices that can be adopted by landusers to increase productivity while saving natural resources. The Centres of Excellence display 3- to 5-year demonstration projects involving conservation tillage [43]. In addition, they serve as local solution centres for: • Generating data comparing the benefits of conservation tillage versus conventional tillage • Developing alternative conservation tillage practices • Demonstrating, training and educating landusers, merchandisers, crop consultants, academics, and other influential parties on the benefits of conservation tillage practices • Providing solutions to overcome local agronomic barriers • Establishing local partnerships with boards of directors of various organisations to get community involvement The Birchip Cropping Group (BCG), established in 1993, is a group of Australian landusers, agribusinesses and government representatives who work together to undertake independent trial work and communicate better farming practices to the wider landusing community [44]. The organisation now provides a strong link between farmers, governmental and agribusiness research and extension in major cropping areas of Southeastern Australia. The BCG believe they are uniquely situated to communicate and transfer information to landusers because they are landusers and they know the land management problems in their own geographical area. They are accepted as being independent and through membership, public field days, seminars, research and field demonstrations, radio and now the Internet, they are able to reach a large proportion of the landusing community. This landuser-led organisation has had a large impact on on-farm research in the grain growing areas of Southeastern Australia, and has provided a focus so that government and NGO funds can be spent more effectively. The BCG has over 350 landuser members, and numerous sponsors and each year the BCG prepares and distributes 5000 copies of its trial findings to local landusers [44].

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

221

INFORMATION MANAGEMENT AND COMMUNICATION IS CRITICAL TO THE ADOPTION PROCESS

An important aspect in the adoption process is the identification and use of appropriate communication channels. For example, it is unlikely that the use of mass media in land management extension can replace personal contact between extension agents and target groups or individual landusers. Mass media may make this work easier, broaden the range of people addressed, and can, therefore, be a great help in extension work because they enable the individual extension agent to operate more effectively. They also provide a way of making it easier for the target group or individual landuser to absorb information [3]. If an innovation is complex and its cost and expected returns are difficult to identify, and the adoption challenges the landuser’s belief, then, the communication from researcher to extension agent and ultimately to landuser must be extremely clear or adoption is unlikely to occur. With electronic communications, information access is becoming less significant as a constraint to the adoption of innovations. The telephone, while providing landusers with immediate information regarding a problem, has its limitations. Even though the cost of long-distance telephone calls has decreased, it can still intimidate many people. Also, telephone communication depends on the person who is being called to be available; unavailability may lead to the “telephone tag” syndrome of two people continually trying to return calls, but never making the contact. Some of the main forms of electronic communications that are used are the Internet, electronic mail, and electronic bulletin boards, and video conferencing. In Mid 1999, only 30% of rural landusers in Australia were connected to the Internet, and this group of landusers are mainly using the Internet as a passive source of information [45], so the potential of this form of communication for technology transfer and adoption is still a long way from being realised. Video conferencing has not been a major contributor to communication in recent years and this has been due to its high cost, which is prohibitive to the majority of landusers. ONGOING ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Landusers need continual access to information and in this regard extension agents have an important role as “knowledge navigators.” More experienced landusers may need specialised information, while those operating a diversified landuse system may need a complex mix of information. Electronic networks should prove beneficial in the transfer of research that is relevant to Australian landusers. LandcareNET, an electronic network for Landcare groups across Australia, is an example [3, 46]. This system has become important in technology adoption by both disseminating useful knowledge that already exists, and providing research findings as they are required. This latter aspect is of considerable value as it should help reduce the problem of “information overload,” where too much information is provided to the landuser. Surveys can be conducted using the Internet to determine the interest areas and needs of landusers who have access to the Internet. Such information access should improve the interaction between landusers, extension agents, and scientists. By determining the gaps in landusers’ knowledge, through the use of surveys on the Internet, extension agents can focus their time spent in personal contact clarifying landusers’ needs [3]. Specialised Internet discussion groups or mailing lists, similar to the LandcareNET program previously described, have increased substantially in the past five years. In addition to professional and noncommercial Internet discussion groups, a range of agricultural merchandisers now provide homepages on the Internet, providing information and discussion forums for their landuser clients and often these are free of charge. Information that was once available

222

T. F. GUERIN

only in a printed form is now becoming available on the Internet, but it should be recognised that much of this information currently available is still difficult to access by landusers as recently reported by Grove [45]. Landusers need to be guided through the mass of information on the Internet, and colleagues, close contacts or commercial merchandisers who are willing to invest time with the landuser, are in an ideal position to do this. Computerised expert systems via the Internet show potential for improving the quality and efficiency of landuse extension services by making vital expertise available to extension agents when and where it is needed [3, 47, 48]. Such systems can provide solutions for many current extension problems such as delayed decision time, which can be costly to landusers. They can also provide solutions to the problem of extension agents being bombarded with increasing amounts of information. Assisted by such systems, extension agents can solve problems that are out of their areas of specialisation. Lack of human resources is another problem addressed by such systems because government Departments of Agriculture can rarely afford to employ a full range of experts [3]. The concern with these systems, however, is that the information can be very difficult to extract, and without a “knowledge navigator” providing personal interaction, the value of the information is likely to be greatly limited. Since 1995, The Kondinin Group’s FarmLine service, based in Australia, has provided land management information from a wide variety of sources including other landusers, agriculture departments, research groups and published materials from across Australia and overseas. The service also provides specific industry contacts and the Kondinin Group’s own independent research. FarmLine is a commercial operation, open to all, but is provided at a reduced cost to Kondinin Group members (subscribers) [49]. The service can largely reduce the frustration currently faced by landusers and Landcare groups in searching for relevant information and details about techniques other groups are using to solve similar land management problems. In terms of usage, more than 5000 landusers across Australia have used the resource since its launch in April 1995, and there are on average, 19 inquires a day (from across Australia) and more than 10,000 inquiries in two years, indicating the usefulness of the resource [49]. ROLE OF THE MEDIA AND THE RURAL PRESS IN LANDUSER DECISION MAKING

Anderson [50] reported that advice from extension agents is only one source of information among many used by landusers in decision making. Ratings of the relative importance of information sources showed that landusers regarded other landusers as the most important source (85% of the sample of landusers); the second was reading (excluding state Department of Agriculture Publications) (78%). The third was state Department of Agriculture publications (60%) and extension agents were rated sixth (59%) [50]. Rural newspapers, journals and magazines are the specific means whereby landusers find out about innovations. Weiss [51] indicated that the majority of landuse extension agents (200 respondents) in a survey in Australia used non-scientific journals and magazines as the sources of information which they most commonly referred to. Only 25% of these publications were claimed to be “relied” upon by the respondents and other scientific sources such as agricultural science journals would need to be referred to for more reliable information [51]. Hayman [52] has indicated that government departments, various private sources and mass media are the most important sources of technical information for a key group of salinity extension agents in Australia, and also that extension agents talking to groups of landusers was the most common means

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

223

for imparting advice. Group workshops, demonstrations and TV commercials were also important; surveys were the least beneficial of all mechanisms used [52]. EXPLAINING THE INNOVATION

Printed information in rural publications, including newspapers, is a key source of land management advice (Table 4). One constraint in this regard that is of particular importance in the transfer of innovations to landusers is the lack of training and familiarity that many journalists have with environmental management and related technologies. Pickering [33], who claimed that only few journalists have studied any science since high school, suggested that there may be difficulties in persuading some journalists to write on technical or scientific topics. Furthermore, he indicated that this may also mean that when interviewing scientists, they will often pretend to understand material that actually confuses them. Journalists are also restricted in what they write by their audience. Thus, even if they do understand the complex issues themselves, they are restricted to writing in general terms for a wider audience. It is therefore important for scientists to limit the volume and complexity of material presented to journalists writing articles for landusers, and to present it clearly. Pickering [33] believed that the most important constraints in the communication process are those that are imposed by the methodology used by the scientists or the scientists’ perceptions of how their information should be disseminated, or what scientists need to do to achieve professional recognition (as described earlier). CREDIBILITY AND THE EXTENSION AGENT

In the classical diffusion model [8], the extension agent is a mediator in communicating innovations. The definition of an extension agent however, needs to be broadened to encompass a variety of people working in a range of roles. The role of extension agent for a number of professionals involved in landuse management, may only represent one of their working roles. For example, a marketing person in a rural merchandising company may need to spend a large portion of their time advising farmers on the use of a particular product, and how it integrates with the farmer’s existing landuse system. Extension agents are seldom responsible for developing innovations, but they must be capable of interpreting the complexities of scientific jargon in terms, which are familiar to landusers. Extension agents achieve their objectives through numerous mechanisms, and tend not to rely on any single mechanism. This is highlighted through the distribution of mechanisms used by extension agents in salinity management in Australia (Table 4) [52]. To work successfully with landusers, extension agents must respect farmers or landusers skills and knowledge, and adjust to their situation rather than expecting the landuser always to look up to them. First and foremost extension agents must have an empathy with the landusers. Extension agents need to have credibility with the landusers and must be competent. Underlying these issues is the necessity for the extension agent to take on the role of a leader and this is an ongoing process. To do this, the extension agent must connect or arrive at “human contact” with the landuser clients. They must also master the context in which the landusers are working in, understanding trends, and the broad concerns in the landuser’s community. These attributes of credibility can be highlighted as follows: • Empathise with landusers and their needs • Make recommendations that are feasible in the particular economic, technical, and social context

224

T. F. GUERIN

• Have an overall knowledge of the environment and its management (understand the “big picture”) • Maintain a practical approach to problem solving • Understand and work within the social norms of the landusing community • Make recommendations visible • Have experience in the application of new practices • Be well informed on the latest developments in land management • Be accessible to the landuser • Be unbiased, honest, trustworthy, maintain confidentially, and be reliable Developing credibility with landusers is one of the most important factors determining the success of extension agents. When this is gained, extension agents are able to transfer innovations and secure adoption at a considerably higher level [3]. An effective extension agent will also help not only to change and increase the rates of adoption of new (appropriate) technologies, but also to reinforce those current practices of the landuser that are beneficial. The extension agent should help the landuser abandon inappropriate ways and technologies which will hinder the landuser’s progress. DIS-ADOPTION

While it is reasonable to say that the key observable effect of the extension agent passing on information to landusers is (or at least should be) on the ground action, this is not always the case (Fig. 2). New information often leads to increased interest among landusers, which in turn can lead to further seeking of solutions. Extension agents should however, be aware that the provision of information can also lead to concern and confusion among landusers (Fig. 2). Discontinuation or ‘dis-adoption’ of technologies can also occur. Cary [53] showed that for every two landusers in northeast Victoria, Australia, who had successfully adopted conservation tillage practices, there was one landuser who had abandoned it. Those landusers who had given up the practice believed their soil was unsuitable because with direct drilling, the soil crusted over the top layers. Since fewer wheat seedlings broke through, early growth was poor and yields were lower. The landusers who experienced these particular problems believed cultivation was necessary to provide a permeable seedbed. It is, therefore, insufficient for extension

TABLE 4 Key Mechanisms for the Transfer of Information from Extension Agents to Landusers and the Communitya Mechanism Talking to groups Conferences Mass media Training and information days “Farm walks” and field days Reports and published papers Personal contacts Newsletters Otherb

Response (%) 9.4 8.0 8.0 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 42.1

a This was from discussions with extension agents in New South Wales, Australia that focused on soil salinity problems [52]. b These included e-mail, fax, mail, demonstration sites, manuals, surveys, and videos (all with responses ⬍6.5%).

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

225

agents to have given information or even created an interest in an innovation. They must follow through the entire adoption-decision process to ensure that adoption is sustained. The “right” advice may not be acted upon if the landusers being addressed have no awareness of the problem. Extension agents may have a difficulty even in creating an awareness of the environmental problems among individuals or target groups. In many cases, however, the landusers have well founded reasons of their own for rejecting an innovation [2, 53] and the extension agent must carefully examine such reasons for rejection. PAYING FOR TECHNICAL AND MANAGEMENT ADVICE

Landusers require specialised advice to maintain high productivity (if they are farming the land) and at the same time, aiming to develop a sustainable ecosystem. In Australia, the government funds only a relatively small number of extension agents. State and federal agricultural extension agents exist mainly in the larger capital cities and carry out administrative and legislative tasks, although some of these staff are based at regional research facilities. However, there are now very few regional agronomy staff employed by the state government. Their roles have, in the main, been taken over by industry, including private consultants and rural merchandisers. Publicly funded extension has therefore decreased as funds have declined, and this has continued sharply since the earlier discussion highlighted this trend [3]. In Australia, all state departments of agriculture are moving towards a “market-driven” or “client-driven” philosophy of service provision. They have explicitly stated objectives of being responsive to the expressed needs of their clients, and some are setting up formal links with industry to attempt to ensure that industry needs are met [41]. For example, within Agriculture Western Australia (WA) there now exists a range of formalised “industry partnerships” attached to it major programs. The Cereals Partnership Group, for example, consists of four farmers, three processors, two private consultants with marketing expertise, and the Agriculture WA program manager for the Cereals Program [41]. These partnerships have a direct input into the strategic planning process to assess industry priorities, formulate the strategic plan and define the program operations. Similar formalised arrangements are being instigated in some, but not all, other states of Australia [41]. User-pays and cost-recovery procedures are now replacing public extension. This means that only landusers in groups who request help are likely to be visited by government funded extension agents. The role of commercial organisations in extension, though often underestimated up until recently, is now the major provider of extension services. Private sector involvement in advisory services has increased several-fold in recent years to the stage where, in almost all rural districts in Australia, there are more private sector extension agents than are employed by the government. The largest group of private sector extension agents includes those employed by rural merchandisers, who have traditionally provided a range of products and related services. Merchandisers are increasingly becoming involved with a broader range of activities: selling inputs, providing extension and marketing the final product [41]. They are moving towards providing a total farm service. The change in services provided by agribusiness reflects a desire by both parties (i.e., business and farmers) to find ways of minimising risks in the increasingly market-oriented and deregulated agricultural industry. The new services include access to advice and up-to-date information, guaranteed delivery of products of a specified quality and fixed product prices [41]. Merchandisers are employing agronomists with a specific focus of providing extension advice [37]. These companies may be involved from the time the landusers plan to buy a property,

226

T. F. GUERIN

where they advise on crops, animal enterprises, and landuse in general. They are also involved with conservation research pertinent to the areas that they cover. Examples of these larger companies in Australia are SBS-IAMA, Elders Pty Ltd, Pivot, WestfarmersDalgety, Combined Rural Traders, and the larger number of stock and station agencies. Rural merchandisers have seized on this need of landusers, turning it into an opportunity to add value to the products they sell. Other sources of advice about innovations in environmental management are likely to become increasingly important. It is evident from the shift from government funding to the current commercial advisory climate that participatory groups appear to be effective and these are described in later sections. Pol [54] claims that the cost of providing extension services by agricultural retail merchandisers is recouped through additional sales, or, on occasions by charging fees. There is now a trend for corporations to take the lead in providing up to date information on innovations for landusers. In rural Australia, some of the larger commercial technology transfer programs have become widespread including FM 500 and the Birchip Cropping Group; each program addresses whole farm issues, including those relating to environmental management, in specific industry segments. There is also a trend for rural research and development corporations to move more funding into the private sector, particularly in areas of crop and animal production [54], which is an area that has relatively large potential for environmental impact.

Emerging Model of Technology Transfer and Adoption CLASSICAL APPROACHES TO EXTENSION

Common tools used in extension research have included the use of questionnaires, trials and demonstrations, site budgets and cost-benefit analyses, yield extrapolations from experiment stations, field days, informal site visits and formal interviews. The most common tool has been the use of questionnaires [8]. The adoption or non-adoption of a particular innovation is correlated with a wide range of variables such as age, level of education and socioeconomic status, and constraints are then identified from the significant correlations found [8, 55]. The benefits of the questionnaire approach are that: • Large numbers of landusers can be surveyed • Statistical analysis can be performed with quantitative data for testing various hypotheses • Generalisations can be made as to the reasons for non-adoption • Data collected in the questionnaires are often substantiated or complemented with informal or formal interviews • Extension agents can then use this information to focus on the likely problems limiting adoption The success of this approach has been documented in the vast number of empirical studies previously reviewed [2, 3, 56] and a very comprehensive study by Reeve and Black [19] focusing on rural environmental issues in Australia. As illustrated in Fig. 1, innovative landusers or opinion leaders have direct contact with researchers, have trials on their land and quickly put research into practice and diffuse the findings to other landusers who have contact with them. A limitation of the classical diffusion model is that it predicts that the majority of landusers would prefer to wait for an opinion leader to invest in and test an innovation before these landusers do so themselves. They do this in order to avoid taking any risks that they may experience

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

227

if they were to adopt immediately. So the classical diffusion model relies on the identification of opinion leaders who are instrumental in further diffusing innovations to other landusers [8]. The classical diffusion model, however, has been based on the belief that the causes of poor landuse management are essentially technological in their origin. Further, the model does not take into account cross-cultural differences, nor does it consider the social context in which landusers operate, and that for some innovations, clear-cut stages in adoption are absent. Rather, the classical diffusion model assumes that awareness of a new and relevant innovation is sufficient reason for landusers to adopt [3]. In Australia, these limitations are now clearly evident. ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO THE CLASSICAL DIFFUSION MODEL

Participatory approaches and their variants (viz. Participatory Action Research, or PAR, Rapid Rural Appraisal, or RRA, Participatory Rural Appraisal, or PRA, farmerfirst, bottom-up and farmer-driven approaches) have been suggested as improved approaches for the adoption of innovations [2, 3, 57, 58]. Participatory approaches involve landusers in the research process from the initial design of the project, through data gathering and analysis, to the drawing of final conclusions and the development of recommendations arising from the research (refer to the long thin arrows on Fig. 1). In this approach, groups of landusers, extension agents and scientists aim to work closely to achieve the needs of landusers, the wider community and the environment. Participatory approaches recognise the fact that although scientists are in a potentially strong position to demonstrate the benefits of adopting because of their intimate knowledge of the innovations, landusers should be directly involved in research so as to make the innovation appropriate to their site-specific needs. Group meetings form an important part of such approaches. This is especially true for (but not limited to) small-scale landusers who are involved in joint-farm operations or agricultural cooperatives and can easily compare and share their experiences of technology transfer. Participatory approaches complement the classical diffusion model and can be considered as a further development of the convergent form of the classical model, where landusers, scientists, and extension agents create and share information to help themselves in reaching a common understanding of the problem. In Australia, a participatory approach is only beginning to be tested. A recent example of the application of this approach to extension has been through the establishment of the Landcare program [13]. The perceived benefits of such approaches are as follows: • Groups accelerate attitude change and the development of more appropriate land management innovations. • Such approaches assert that attitude changes create the prerequisite for behavioural change. • They recognise that landusers should take responsibility for their own destiny, and to participate to enhance their understanding and commitment to developing solutions and decision making. This is based on the findings that people are committed to a decision or activity in direct proportion to their planning in, or influence on, that decision [59]. In addition, Rhoades [60, 61] claimed that landusers are experts in defining their problems and therefore should have input directly into research. • Limited extension resources can be more efficiently utilised in servicing groups. This is particularly the case in land management extension in Australia, where the government does not have the resources to deal with such wide spread environmental conservation issues on its own. Some of the key issues in this area

228

T. F. GUERIN

are soil and water pollution from agricultural chemicals; salination of water and soil; soil acidification; declining soil structure; insect resistance; and reduced water quality. • Local landuser groups can more readily access agribusinesses (rural merchandisers) and consultants than individuals. Campbell and Junor [12] reviewed studies conducted in 1990 and 1991 addressing Australian landusers. Of the 3000 landusers surveyed, 23% were found to be involved in Landcare groups. In the year 2000, one in every three farmers is involved. This indicates that participatory approaches have had a wide impact, particularly as they were only formally introduced into land management extension in Australia in the late 1980s. It is evident that rural merchandisers are encouraging the formation of groups for information transfer, usually involving an opinion leader [37]. LIMITATIONS TO PARTICIPATORY APPROACHES

Widespread demonstration of the effectiveness of participatory approaches has yet to occur in developed countries such as Australia. These approaches have been criticised in that they can be perceived to be distracting to researchers, who should be focusing their efforts on developing technologies. If an innovation has been developed in a well thought-out way, then landusers will adopt it because they will see its relevance. A further criticism of these approaches is that trained extension agents may provide less input into landuse operations. This may be detrimental to the continual back-up support that landusers need if they are to maintain the adoption of an innovation. There is also the perceived problem that when involved in participatory groups, landusers may keep information exclusively within their groups, and also become distracted with other issues that are peripheral to the original reason that the groups were formed. Some of the perceived limitations to the various participatory approaches, which involve landuser groups, have been listed as follows; • To involve scientists in extension distracts these scientists from their primary role of research. • As participatory groups assume more responsibility, government extension agents will have less input into extension. • Landuser groups that were originally established for a specific purpose could become distracted from their original reasons for forming the groups. • Groups are also contributing to the fragmentation of knowledge. When groups of landusers are established, these can exhibit varying degrees of closure, so that information entering these groups, or knowledge produced within them, is likely to remain within the groups and not pass immediately to the wider landusing community. This claim was based on a study of landusing groups in Australia, and therefore highlights a potential problem with an approach to extension that involves the formation of groups. • There are also difficulties in getting out to landusers, particularly in geographically spread countries, where distances are great. • Although widespread, the effectiveness of such approaches across a wider spectrum of enterprises needs to be further validated, and the relative rates of adoption of those landusers involved and those not involved in Landcare programmes, should be determined. • For landusers this can mean a plethora of groups, often with high participation costs and possibly a low pay-off, or at least one that is potentially difficult to

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

229

determine. The concerns of members of groups include those of participation costs and conflicting objectives. • Enormous amounts of farmer knowledge are being generated, but generally there is poor documentation, collation and dissemination in a wide framework beyond the group [41]. Information flow beyond groups is, on the whole, lacking. This is one of the problems faced by the Landcare program, where farmer groups often work on problems in comparative isolation, with the assistance of relatively inexperienced project officers. The inexperience of many public-sector extension personnel working in public-good areas of extension is a consequence of the loss of experienced personnel to the private sector during the restructuring of publicprivate extension in Australia [41]. • Group-based extension, appears to have many advantages because of its emphasis on adult learning principles and encouragement of producer “ownership” of both problems and solutions [41]. Important issues that need to be addressed, especially relate to (a) its effectiveness in all situations, (b) its sustainability, and (c) its ability to involve all who need to be involved. • Participatory approaches to extension assume that landusers want to be involved in the research that is applicable to them, but it should not be assumed that landusers necessarily want to be involved. Other researchers have provided evidence that landusers prefer informal oral sources, channels mainly with extension agents, farm demonstrations, and communication and informal visits to other landusers’ operations. Also, as Pannell [7] points out, it appears that there has been excessive optimism in Australia about the extent to which the NLP approach can solve the problems of risk and uncertainty, especially for the difficult problem of dryland salinity. In particular, it seems unlikely that Landcare groups could do much to address the following problems of; (i) the contribution of externalities to high uncertainty, (ii) the contribution of heterogeneity (in the trial areas) to high uncertainty, (iii) long time scales for trials, (iv) cases where the minimum scale needed for trials is large, (v) low observability of some trial impacts, (vi) the high cost of ceasing a trial, and (vii) low covariance of the behaviour of the innovation with traditional practices. In the final point here (vii), for soil conservation practices, each observation of the trial’s impacts is an isolated observation, often poorly correlated with other observations of events on the farm for example, liming to reduce soil acidity, and tree planting to reduce salinity [41]. AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO EXTENSION AND ADOPTION

Increasingly, the broader landusing communities and other stakeholders (refer to the overall model in Fig. 1) have become involved in the application of sustainable land management practices. There has also been a developing focus on group-based activities, although as Marsh and Pannell [41] indicate, most government agencies still claim (or concede, depending on their philosophy) that they will still be doing “some” one-toone extension. In Australia, there has been a proliferation of groups focussing on both technology transfer issues (such as the well branded programs of Target 10, TopCrop, Beefcheque, Right Rotations) [41] and those dealing more with awareness and management/lifeskills education (such as FM500, and NLP). The group focus of agricultural extension is only partly a response to agency cutbacks. It also represents a change in philosophical approach to extension; from the linear model of technology transfer to an appreciation of what has been termed the agricultural knowledge and information system or AKIS [62]. The change embraces principles of adult learning, action learning

230

T. F. GUERIN

and participative processes, typified by, for example, the Participative model. An extension philosophy based on the AKIS concept emphasises and values the knowledge possessed by and flowing between all the players in the agricultural industry: farmers, departments of agriculture, consultants, agribusiness, and rural communities [41]. With this emphasis, it is appropriate that farmers should have more control over the information that they need and want and how it should be delivered. Groups are seen as the more appropriate medium to work in under this “demand-pull” (as opposed to “sciencepush”) model of extension, with the extension officer often playing a role of facilitator [41]. Doyle [63] has recently described the concept of network analysis in agricultural extension, based on the AKIS concept, adding a very useful dimension to the emerging integrated model illustrated in Fig. 1. He argues that scientists, extension agents, consultants and landusers are all participants in a single knowledge and information system. Each participant is seen as a network member. Each person in the network has a profile of contacts. In the network analysis, information is collated from each member on the occupation of the people that they contact, the frequency of contact and how influential the contacted person is and subjects discussed. From this base information, a series of social networks can be quantified, one for each subject area. A typical analysis will often show that particular individuals (akin to the “opinion leader” already discussed) will be a major source of information for landusers in their community. The network analysis also provides information on the dynamics of the opinion leaders, and others in the network, by indicating directions of flows of information. In those communities where it is found that there is a predominant one-way flow of information, then extension agents should work at ways of increasing the number of two-way interactions [63]. An example of wider stakeholder involvement in technology transfer and adoption is that of Greening Australia, which is a national, community organisation that helps the Australian landusing community to conserve and plant native trees, shrubs, and grasses [64]. It is a non-profit community based organisation which forms a federation of similar organisations throughout the country and is now internationally recognised. On World Environment Day 1998, Greening Australia was inducted into the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honour, awarded to individuals and organisations for outstanding achievement in the protection of the environment. Greening Australia works with landusers, community groups, land management agencies, schools and individuals to help meet the challenge of protecting and restoring local native vegetation. Greening Australia is funded from contracts with public and private agencies, corporate sponsorship membership fees and product sales. Funding is used to support local community based projects [64]. Greening Australia works with the community and local, state and federal governments to: • • • • •

Protect remnant vegetation Protect biodiversity Repair and prevent land degradation Improve water quality Provide habitat and food for native fauna

With support from the Departments of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry, and other government agencies, Greening Australia helps landusers to manage trees on farms for profit. Farm forestry can provide timber and non-timber products including oils, seeds and nuts, and shelter for livestock. These forests conserve biodiversity, lower water tables, and subsequently reducing soil salinity. Greening Australia also works with

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

231

councils, coalitions of councils, and the Australian Local Government Association to identify, map and assess the health of trees, shrubs and grasses and such local “greening” plans balance development and conservation. Greening Australia also operates seedbanks, seed orchards and nurseries independently and with other organisations [64]. Another example of wider stakeholder involvement in technology transfer and adoption is from the United States called Operation Green Stripe. This is an education/ conservation program which is commercially supported [43]. Through Operation Green Stripe, farmers are encouraged to establish vegetative buffers between their fields and surface water supplies. Cooperating agricultural merchandisers provide free grass seed for the “stripes,” and the Monsanto Company provides educational grants to Future Farmers of America (FFA) chapters based on the number of farmers the students recruit. Vegetative buffer stripes serve as filters to trap soil sediment and agricultural chemicals, which helps keep streams and rivers free from silt. These vegetation barriers also provide a habitat for wildlife and help maintain the integrity of stream and river banks [43]. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS FROM CHANGES OCCURRING IN EXTENSION PRACTICE IN AUSTRALIA

The loss of expertise in extension and especially research from the public sector following state department restructures is likely to have far-reaching repercussions. Research and development corporations are actively seeking private-sector research and funding bodies are questioning the infrastructure costs and “in-kind” contribution estimates of state departments of agriculture, universities and government research bodies such as the Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). It seems likely that this will result (at least in the short term) in a drop in the percentage of farmer-levied research funds going to public-sector research agencies. Marsh and Pannell [41] claim that it is possible that there will be a serious loss to top researchers out of agriculture to overseas or other industries. The public sector, however, is still responsible for a great deal of the generation of new information, and rural consultants are concerned that cutbacks and losses from state departments would have impacts on information flows to extension providers [41]. Whether the private sector can replace public-sector research in land management is still unsure and will require a substantial transition period, with many rural consultants indicating their concern that they are under-resourced compared to public-sector institutions. There is already substantial research capability in the private sector in some areas where the public sector has also had significant involvement but other issues arise when these areas are totally in the hands of the private sector. These include issues of quality control, fragmentation of information and the availability of information. Research conducted at major public-sector institutions is subject to peer review. As Marsh and Pannell [41] indicate, there are justifiable concerns that private-sector research is not subject to the same type of critical review. It is often argued in defence that agribusiness has its professional integrity and reputation to maintain and is unlikely to make unwarranted recommendations. Fragmentation of information flows can occur as agricultural research and extension is privatised. There is evidence that this is occurring in Australia as an increasing amount of agricultural research is conducted for private clients, with results either unavailable for more general use or, alternatively, having a charge attached to their wider dissemination. It is possible that this will lead to greater duplication of research and a failure to recognise that individual research topics often contribute to overall areas of knowledge.

232

T. F. GUERIN

Concerns regarding the availability of information as more research is conducted by the private sector and public-sector research providers are encouraged to establish and protect intellectual property rights [41]. The potential for market failure is further enhanced because, whereas some information can be clearly seen as a private good (e.g., specific veterinary advice), other information is clearly a public good (e.g., largescale catchment hydrology information). Clearly there is a considerable amount of indistinct ground in the middle. Agricultural information often does not fit neatly into unchanging public/private good categories. If landuse extension is to become dependent on commercial priorities then there will be examples where the directions pursued are not economically efficient from the point of view of society as a whole, or are contrary to other goals related to social welfare or the environment.

Conclusions and Areas for Further Research It is now evident the classical diffusion model no longer adequately describes the technology transfer and adoption activities important to landusers. Participatory approaches, including landuser-led research, have become increasingly important in this regard. A further addition to the existing models of extension is the recognition of the critical importance of networks between individuals in a landusing community and this is becoming the current functional model of technology transfer and adoption. Such networks most accurately describe what is actually involved in technology transfer and adoption and this is shown in Fig. 1. It should be recognised that the stakeholders represented in this model include only a few of those actually involved in any one community and only one possible configuration of interactions. There are numerous reasons why landusers do not always adopt innovations. The reasons for non-adoption were identified in the following broad groupings as (i) personal attributes of the landusers, including individual goals and attitudes to risk, (ii) problems with the innovation and the technology developers, and (iii) problems in the transfer and adoption process, particularly the importance of trialing and the role of extension agents. The relative importance of each of these aspects needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis when examining the reasons for non-adoption. The major models of technology transfer and adoption in land management were identified as the classical diffusion model and the participatory model. The concept of an integrated model was introduced, which recognizes the critical importance of social networks, including the involvement of commercial organisations and community groups in the technology transfer and adoption process. The future challenges for extension agents and others involved in land management relate to improving the effectiveness of extension, with the limited funding available, and ensuring that those technologies adopted will lead to long term sustainability of landusing systems. These are discussed in the following. IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF EXTENSION

From current research and recent reviews of predominantly Australian origin, a high priority needs to be given to the involvement of landusers in the development of innovations, along with better training of extension agents, and to enhance knowledge of landusers’ needs by extension agents and scientists. Further implementation of participatory approaches and the acknowledgement of the importance of networks in landuse research and extension may achieve this. There are many examples of the effectiveness of such approaches to extension in developing countries. However, further research

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

233

TABLE 5 Identifying and Overcoming Barriers to Technology Transfer and Adoption as Evaluated by Salinity Extension Agentsa Barriers to Adoption Slow rate of change in landusers

Lack of resources to provide adequate training of extension agents Bureaucracy in government funded extension agent institutions; lack of cooperation between departments within institutions; policies can undermine work Inconsistencies between methods of extension (e.g., one-on-one vs. group) Difficulties in getting work done and reaching all landusers Information overload a

Overcoming Barriers Training of landusers on accepting change; understanding that there are rarely immediate answers and results; not all landusers will be reached More mass media contact and professional communicators Further government funding required Greater government commitment required

Acknowledge that further research required Ongoing prioritising of work on regional basis; knowing critical salinity levels with various ecosystems Improved access to quality information; there is a need for further field kits and information packages

These extension agents were based in New South Wales, Australia [52].

needs to be conducted to determine their effectiveness in developed countries. Much speculation exists in Australia as to the effectiveness of participatory approaches, but few data exist to support these assertions. From the current study, recommendations for future research into the adoption of innovations in environmental management have been made. Some of the barriers to adoption and ways of overcoming these have been identified by extension agents in Australia, and these are highlighted in Table 5 [52]. The key recommendations are as follows; • The objective measurement and comparison of the effectiveness of participatory approaches to extension and the classical diffusion model could be conducted, particularly those impinging on the quality of environment. There are likely to be relative merits of both participatory approaches and the classical diffusion model to extension for different landusing communities. There is evidence that both extension approaches may be effective and that neither is necessarily better than the other in all circumstances. These assertions could be tested. • Rates of adoption of specific innovations by various groups of landusers have not been widely documented in developed countries. According to the classical diffusion model, landusers can be classified into subgroups of adopters. There is value in targeting these subgroups and gathering data on the rates of adoption by each of these groups with the aim of assisting extension agents in targeting landuser groups. It is recommended that research be initiated that assesses innovativeness other than those used in the classical diffusion model. • The effectiveness of the different forms of media (including mass media) available to landusers also needs to be studied in further detail to provide extension agents with clearer directions as to the usefulness of the various media. Extension research has demonstrated the importance of rural publications, however updated

234

T. F. GUERIN

research over a wider range of landusers is required to determine whether shifts in information sources are occurring within the landusing community. Furthermore, there would be value in knowing what groups and proportions of landusers are paying for advice so that commercial technology transfer could be further focused and enhanced. • Organisations that fund rural and other landuse research should continue to ensure that all funded projects address the transfer and subsequent adoption of findings. A detailed analysis of the effectiveness of this concept is warranted and would provide a useful way of ensuring that scientists are involved in the extension process, and that benefit-cost ratios for research are maximised. • Quantifying the contribution of commercial activities on technology transfer and adoption in landuse management so as non-commercial extension can be better utilised. • Understanding the barriers to the transfer and adoption of innovations that bring about long term improvements for the landuser (i.e., sustainable innovations) compared with innovations that are adopted for economic reasons only. ADOPTION OF SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES

The above six areas relate to the effectiveness of the technology transfer and adoption processes. What is becoming increasingly clear is the need for an improvement in the understanding of the impediments to the adoption of sustainable technologies and practices over those yielding economic benefits only. We know that innovations are usually adopted because of either their direct commercial value, or because they are designed to maintain long-term productivity of the resource in question. However, innovations will not be adopted if they are perceived to be unprofitable, risky, not easily integrated into existing landuse practices, or too complex for the landuser to understand. One of the problems in this regard, is that the results or impacts of adoption are not always readily observable. For example, advice to change or minimise the use of particular chemicals, or change irrigation practices (that can have off-site environmental impacts), is less likely to be readily adopted since their impact can be difficult to observe. On the other hand, technologies for the conservation of soil are generally readily observable and landusers can usually make a clear connection between adopting and improved productivity. There is also the problem of investment (emotional, intellectual, and financial) in well accepted “old” technology. For example, many farmers were still widely using soil tilling implements that pulverised the soil as recently as 20–30 years ago because these implements appeared to be “doing the job” (of preparing the soil for seeding). Another example is when an irrigation system (and/or practice) is working efficiently, it can be difficult to see the need to re-engineer its construction and operation, when it is found that the irrigation tail water is causing downstream pollution in a nearby river. Landusers are generally aware of the environmental impacts of their activities. Translating these concerns of landusers, regarding the sustainability of their landuse activities, into action, is a key challenge for extension agents. The task for extension agents is therefore, to influence landusers to adopt sustainable practices over practices that yield short term gains only, using those resources and involving the wide range of stakeholders available to them. The insights, perspectives, and valuable contributions of Brendan J. Guerin and Louise J. Guerin are kindly acknowledged.

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

235

References 1. Altham, W. J., and Guerin, T. F.: Environmental Self-Regulation and Sustainable Economic Growth: The Seamless Web Framework, Eco-Management and Audit 6(2), 61–75 (1999). 2. Vanclay, F., and Lawrence, G.: Farmer Rationality and the Adoption of Environmentally Sound Farming Practices: A Critique of the Assumptions of Traditional Agricultural Extension, European Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 1(1), 59–90 (1994). 3. Guerin, L. J., and Guerin, T. F.: Constraints to the Adoption of Agricultural and Environmental Innovations and Technologies: A Review, Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 34, 549–571 (1994). 4. Bangura, A. M.: Farmer Motivation Patterns in Participating in Adaptive Crop Research Trials/Demonstrations in Sierra Leone, Dissertation Abstracts 44/03A, 864 (1983). 5. Chamala, S.: Adoption Processes and Extension Strategies for Conservation Farming, in Tillage: New Directions in Australian Agriculture, P. S. Cornish and J. E. Pratley, eds., Inkata Press; Melbourne, Australia, 1987, pp. 400–419. 6. Jedlicka, A. D.: Risk-Taking in Rural Development, Desarrollo Rural en las Americas 11(1), 50–51 (1979). 7. Pannell, D. J.: , in: 43rd Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society. Christchurch, New Zealand, URL http://www.general.uwa.edu.au/u/dpannell/dpap9901f.htm. (1999). 8. Rogers, E. M.: Diffusion of Innovations. 3rd ed., The Free Press, New York, NY, 1983, p. 453. 9. Von Fleckenstein, F.: Are Innovativeness Scales Useful?, Rural Sociology 39(2), 257–260 (1974). 10. Guerin, L. J., and Guerin, T. F.: An Application of Adaption-Innovation Theory to Bioremediation, in Monitoring and Verification of Bioremediation, R. E. Hinchee, G. S. Douglas, and S. K. Ong, eds., Battelle Press, OH, 1995, 175–183. 11. Kolb, D.: Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice-Hall, New York, NY, 1984. 12. Campbell, A., and Junor, B.: Land Management Extension in the ’90’s: Evolution or Emasculation, Australian Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 5(2), 16–23 (1992). 13. The National Landcare Program (NLP), 1999, URL http://www.dpie.gov.au/agfor/landcare/nlp.html. 14. Cary, J. W., Wilkinson, R. L., and Ewers, C. R.: Caring for Soil on Cropping Lands. School of Agriculture and Forestry, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia, Report, 1989. 15. Drost, D., Long, G., Wilson, D., Miller, B., and Campbell, W.: Barriers to Adopting Sustainable Agricultural Practices (1996), URL http://www.joe.org/joe/1996december/a1991.html. 16. Itharat, C.: Adoption of Agricultural Innovations: An Analysis of Socioeconomic Characteristics, Personality Variables, and Communications Behaviour in the Northeastern Region of Thailand, Dissertation Abstracts 42/02A, 507 (1980). 17. Anderson, A. M.: Processes and Implications of Knowledge Transmission in Australian Agricultural Extension (Unpublished Report). Department of Communication, School of Management, Hawkesbury Agricultural College, Australia, 1982. 18. Warner, R. E.: Factors Affecting the Adoption of Wildlife Conservation Practices by East-Central Illinois Farmers and Their Educational Implications, Dissertation Abstracts 42/07A, 2978 (1981). 19. Reeve, I. J., and Black, A. W.: Australian Farmers’ Attitudes to Rural Environmental Issues. The Rural Development Centre, Department of Sociology, University of New England Press, Armidale, New South Wales, 1993, p. 137. 20. Swindale, L. D.: Problems and Concepts of Agrotechnology Transfer within the Tropics, in: International Symposium on Development and Transfer of Technology for Rainfed Agriculture and the SAT Farmer. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru, India. pp. 73–81, 1979. 21. Anonymous: Organochlorine Residues-Strategies for Management and Research in Australian Agriculture. Proceedings of Conference, Primary Tasks, September 15–18, Ballarat, Australia, 1991. 22. Guerin, T. F., and Kennedy, I. R.: Reducing the Environmental Residues from Agricultural Chemicals, Agricultural Science 4, 44–48 (1991). 23. Guerin, T. F., and Kennedy, I. R.: The biodegradation of endosulfan in cotton growing soils, The Australian Cotton Grower 12, 12–15 (1991). 24. Guerin, T. F.: Natural Attenuation of a Low Mobility Chlorinated Insecticide in Low-Level and HighLevel Contaminated Soil: A Feasibility Study, Remediation 9(4), 51–63 (1999). 25. Toffolon, R.: Preventing Endosulfan Residues in Stock and Fodder. 1998, URL http://www.agric.nsw.gov.au/ ap/Avcc/dai26.htm. 26. Schulze, R.: International Cotton Advisory Committee—Country Reports. 1997, URL http://www.icac.org/ icac/cottoninfo/research/countries.pdf.

236

T. F. GUERIN

27. Frank, B. R.: Adoption of Innovations in the North Queensland Beef Industry. III: Implications for Extension management, Agricultural Systems 55, 347–358 (1997). 28. Tucker, M., and Napier, T. L.: Perceptions of Risk Associated with Use of Farm Chemicals: Implications for Conservation Initiatives, Environmental Management 22, 575–587 (1998). 29. Sinden, J. A., and King, D. A.: Adoption of Soil Conservation Measures in Manilla Shire, New South Wales, Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics 58(2–3), 179–192 (1990). 30. Barr, N. F., and Cary, J. W.: Greening of a Brown Land: An Australian Search for Sustainable Land Use. Macmillan, Melbourne, Australia, 1992. 31. Martin, R. J., McMillan, M. G., and Cook, J. B.: Survey of Farm Management Practices of the Northern Wheat Belt of New South Wales, Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 28,499–509 (1988). 32. Bardsley, J. B.: Farmers’ Assessment of Information and Its Sources. School of Agriculture and Forrestry, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia, 1982. 33. Pickering, S.: Scientists Communicating to the Press, Agricultural Science 5(3), 41–44 (1992). 34. Ojiambo, J. B.: Communication of Agricultural Information Between Research Scientists, Extension Personnel and Farmers in Kenya, Dissertation Abstracts 50/08A,2286 (1989). 35. Clunies-Ross, T.: Agricultural Change and the Politics of Organic Farming, Dissertation Abstracts 52/01B, 1 (1990). 36. Diallo, I.: An Assessment of Farmers’ Attitudes and Experiences under No-Till Corn Production System in Baltimore County, Maryland, Dissertation Abstracts 45/05B, 1329 (1983). 37. Cotton, R.: Official Opening Address, in: Agri-industry. A Great Investment. Australian Institute of Agricultural Science and Technology, Melbourne, Australia, 1997, pp. 2–4. 38. Australian Rural Research in Progress (ARRIP): 1994–1999, URL http://www.infoscan.com/au/arrip. 39. Keen, M., and Stocklmayer, S.: Communicating Research-An Overview of Communication Efforts of Rural Industry Research Funding Bodies. 1999, URL http://www.rirdc.gov.au/reports/HCC/ANU-26A.doc. 40. Petheram, R. J.: Review of Evaluation in Agricultural Extension. 1998, URL http://www.rirdc.gov.au/reports/ HCC/VCA-3A.doc. 41. Marsh, S. P., and Pannell, D. J.: in: 41st Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society. Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia. 1997, http://www.general.uwa.edu.au/u/dpannell/ dpap986f.htm. 42. McCarthy, M.: Farm Management 500 Homepage. 1999, URL http://www.fm500.com.au/index.html. 43. Monsanto: Monsanto - Conservation and the Environment. 1999, URL http://www.farmsource.com/Conservation/Conservation.asp. 44. Birchip Cropping Group (BCG): 1999, URL http://www.bcg.org.au. 45. Grove, J.: Farmers and the Internet. 1999, URL http://www.rirdc.gov.au/pub/shortreps/sr58.htm. 46. Hawkins, H. S., and Rimmington, G.: LandcareNet—A New Medium for Exchange of Agricultural Information, in Technology Transfer-Harnessing Information for a Smarter Agriculture (Abstract Proceedings). The Australian Institute of Agricultural Science, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, 1992. 47. Gillard, P.: in: Techology Transfer—Harnessing Information for a Smarter Agriculture (Abstract Proceedings). The Australian Institute of Agricultural Science, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, 1992. 48. Gillard, P.: Expert Systems Used to Disseminate Complex Information in Agriculture and Horticulture. 1999, URL http://www.attar.com/pages/case_tz.htm. 49. Kondinin: FarmLine, 1999, URL http://www.kondinin.com.au. 50. Anderson, A. M.: Farmers’ Expectations and Use of Agricultural Extension Services (Unpublished Report). Department of Communication School of Management and Human Development, Hawkesbury Agricultural College, Hawkesbury, New South Wales, Australia, 1981. 51. Weiss, V.: The CRC for Soil and Land Managements’ Agricultural Adviser Survey Results, Agricultural Science 7(4), 33–35 (1994). 52. Hayman, G.: Tools to Investigate and Plan for Improved Environmental of Dryland Salinity—Summary of results from the Dubbo Workshop. Salt Action, 1997. 53. Cary, J. W.: Belief and Behaviour to Improved Land Management, in: People Protecting Their Land— Proceedings 7th International Soil Conservation Organisation Conference. Department of Conservation and Land Management, Sydney, September 30–October 2, 1992. 54. Pol, E.: Agri-Infrastructure: Are We Doing Enough? in: Agri-Industry. A Great Investment. Australian Institute of Agricultural Science and Technology, Melbourne, Australia, 1997, pp. 34–36. 55. Rogers, E. M., and Shoemaker, F. F.: Communication of Innovations: A Cross-Cultural Approach. 2nd ed., The Free Press and London-Collier-Macmillan, New York, NY, 1971. 56. Buttel, F. H., Larson, O. F., and Gillespie, G. W.: The Sociology of Agriculture. Greenwood Press, New York, 1990, p. 212.

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

237

57. Martin, A., and Sherrington, J.: Participatory Research Methods-Implementation, Effectiveness and Institutional Context, Agricultural Systems 55(2), 195–216 (1997). 58. Blaikie, P., Brown, K., Stocking, M., Tang, L., Dixon, P., and Sillitoe, P.: Knowledge in Action: Local Knowledge as a Development Resource and Barriers to Its Incorporation in Natural Resource Research and Development, Agricultural Systems 55(2), 217–237 (1997). 59. Knowles, M.: The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species. 2nd ed., Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, TX, 1978. 60. Rhoades, R. E.: The Coming Revolution in Methods for Rural Development Research. in Asian Training of Trainers on Farm Diagnostic Skills. R. E. Rhoades, V. N. Sandoval, and C. P. Bayalumun, eds., U.P.L.B.: Philippines, 1990, pp. 112–126. 61. Rhoades, R. E.: Models, Means and Methods: Retinking Rural Development Research, in Asian Training of Trainers on Farm Diagnostic Skills. R. E. Rhoades, V. N. Sandoval, and C. P. Bayalumun, eds. U.P.L.B.: Philippines, 1990, pp. 10–14. 62. Roling, N. G.: Extension Science, Information Systems in Agricultural Development. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1988. 63. Doyle, B.: Network Analysis in Agricultural Extension, University of New England Research Note 99(2),1–2 (1999). 64. Anonymous: Greening Australia, 1999, URL http://www.greeningaustralia.org.au. 65. National Farmer’s Federation: NFF—Farmwide Program, 1999, URL http://www.farmwide.com.au. Manuscript accepted 1 October 1999