What Can We Learn from Droppers and Non‐adopters About the Role of Advice in Agricultural Innovation?

Lee‐ann Sutherland, Lívia Madureira, Boelie Elzen, Christina Noble, Noemie Bechtet (), Leanne Townsend, Eleni Zarokosta and Pierre Triboulet
Additional contact information
Lee‐ann Sutherland: The James Hutton Institute
Lívia Madureira: Centre for Transdisciplinary Development Studies (CETRAD) - Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro
Boelie Elzen: WUR - Wageningen University and Research [Wageningen]
Christina Noble: The James Hutton Institute
Noemie Bechtet: AGIR - AGroécologie, Innovations, teRritoires - Toulouse INP - Institut National Polytechnique (Toulouse) - UT - Université de Toulouse - INP - PURPAN - Ecole d'Ingénieurs de Purpan - Toulouse INP - Institut National Polytechnique (Toulouse) - UT - Université de Toulouse - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement
Leanne Townsend: The James Hutton Institute
Eleni Zarokosta: Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development - Agricultural University of Athens

Post-Print from HAL

Abstract: In this article we assess the diversity of sources of advice identified by 678 adopters, 295 non-adopters and 107 droppers (or dis-adopters, who have ceased or reduced the use) of agricultural innovations across 13 European countries. For most innovations, the volume and composition of advisory supports (e.g. public advisory services, farm business organisations, NGOs, research and development sector, other farmers), at the whole farm level were similar between adopters, non-adopters and droppers. However, there were significant differences in relation to specific innovations. Farmers adopting digital technologies, soil-improving cropping systems, and common management of natural resources identified more diverse sources when assessing innovations, suggesting that more diverse advisory support supported successful implementation. For new on-farm activities, non-adopters had more varied sources of advice than adopters. This demonstrates that non-adoption can be a well-informed decision. Droppers typically identified fewer sources of advice on an innovation than adopters, particularly in the later stages of the innovation process, suggesting that lack of advice impeded successful implementation. The findings suggest that public funding for advisory services could usefully target emergent gaps: to support the provision of up-to-date advice on topics to farmers who have difficulty accessing advice, and to prevent unnecessary dropping by supporting the implementation of innovations.

Keywords: KNOWLEDGE; SERVICES; FARMERS (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022-04
Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-03730497v1
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Published in EuroChoices, 2022, 21 (1), pp.40-49. ⟨10.1111/1746-692X.12353⟩

Downloads: (external link)
https://hal.science/hal-03730497v1/document (application/pdf)

Related works:
Journal Article: What Can We Learn from Droppers and Non‐adopters About the Role of Advice in Agricultural Innovation? (2022)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:hal:journl:hal-03730497

DOI: 10.1111/1746-692X.12353

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Post-Print from HAL
Bibliographic data for series maintained by CCSD ().