Why do farmers adopt green innovations?

4 downloads 8417 Views 137KB Size Report
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] ( ... cover, limited mechanical traffic over agricultural soils, drip irrigation, conservation tillage ...
Why do farmers adopt green innovations? Development of a new scale

Evagelos D. Lioutas Dr, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, School of Agriculture, University Campus, P.C. 54124, Thessaloniki-Greece, e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] (corresponding author)

Dimitrios Triantafillou Professor, TEI Central Macedonia, Department of Logistics e-mail: [email protected]

Dimitrios Aidonis Lecturer, TEI Central Macedonia, Department of Logistics e-mail: [email protected]

Dimitris Folinas Assistant Professor, TEI Central Macedonia, Department of Logistics email: [email protected]

Introduction In his very influential work, Rogers (1962) described diffusion of innovations as a process by which a new idea or product is communicated within a social system. Roger’s way of thinking inspired many researchers from diverse backgrounds to examine how innovations are diffused and what leads to the adoption of an innovation. A few years later, Vanclay and Lawrence (1994) - dealing with the issue of environmental innovations - emphasized on the dimension of farmers’ rational thinking that guides the adoption decision process. Other scholars (Mzoughi, 2011; Cary and Wilkinson, 1997) add the dimension of farmers’ environmental orientation. However, to date, there exists no a broadly accepted measure for the assessment of the factors that lead to the adoption of green innovations by farmers. In this work, we

present the preliminary development of a measure of motives behind the adoption of green innovations.

Method In a first step, we developed a scale consisting of 18 items referring to potential motives for the adoption of green farming practices. These items completed the statement “I decided to adopt green practices... .” A four-point scale, ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 4 (very true), was used. For the analysis we used data from a sample of 213 farmers (82.6% men; mean age: 31 years). All surveyed farmers have adopted one or more green practices (1.99 on average) during the last five years (e.g., notillage, integrated crop management, utilization of cover crops to produce the residue cover, limited mechanical traffic over agricultural soils, drip irrigation, conservation tillage, and high precision systems).

Results To examine the factorial structure of the scale, we conducted a factor analysis with varimax rotation. The analysis revealed five distinct factors, which cumulatively account for 78.3% of the total variance. The first factor was labeled “Adaptation” (M=2.72, S.D.=0.81) and contains five items (e.g., “because people around me did the same”) that reflect farmers’ decision to adopt the innovation in order to be adapted to the social process of innovation diffusion. The next factor (Environmental concern) includes four items (such as “to contribute to the protection of natural resources”) that relate to farmers’ environmental awareness and their willingness to reduce the environmental impact of their farming practices. This factor has the lowest mean score (M=2.57, S.D.=0.84). The third factor (Convenience; M=2.78, S.D.=0.85) consists of three items (e.g., “because I thought it would be easy to deal with it”) associated with the ease of the implementation of innovation. The fourth factor (Economic incentives) includes three items (e.g., “to reduce the production cost”) that refer to the economic reasons that lead to the adoption decision. This sub-scale has the higher mean score (M=2.80, S.D.=0.89). The fifth factor was labeled “Need for change,” and contains three items (e.g., “because I felt the need to do something new”) that concern the intrinsic motivation to engage in new practices or ideas (M=2.70, S.D.=0.84). Cronbach’s alphas for the five sub-scales are quite satisfactory,

ranging from 0.84 to 0.91; whereas test-retest reliability of the measure is high, since in all cases - values of Pearson’s coefficients were above the value of 0.7. Bivariate analyses indicate that the number of green innovations adopted by farmers positively correlates with the sub-scales “Convenience” (r=0.22, p=0.001) and “Economic incentives” (r=0.18, p=0.007). On the other hand, the adoption speed is positively associated with the sub-scales “Economic incentives” (r=0.22, p=0.003) and “Environmental concern” (r=0.16, p=0.035), but - as it was expected - is negatively correlated with the sub-scale “Adaptation” (r=-0.14, p=0.047). Moreover, when age is controlled, the correlation between farmers’ need for change and adoption speed is also significant.

Conclusion Our analysis identified five factors that influence farmers’ decision process to adopt a green innovation. The factor “Adaptation” refers to the social influences that affect the adoption decision. The factors “Economic incentives” and “Convenience” concern farmers’ expectations about the value of the innovation in question. As it was expected, the adoption decision is also influenced by individuals’ environmental concern. Nevertheless, the analysis revealed that persons’ innate need for change affect their decision to adopt green innovations, indicating that the adoption decision has also a psychological construct. In general, this scale can be used by innovation scholars in various disciplines and domains.

Acknowledgment This research has been co-financed by the European Union (European Social FundESF) and Greek national funds through the Operational Program “Education and Lifelong Learning” of the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF)-Research Funding Program: THALES, Investing in knowledge society through the European Social Fund (No. OPS 379411).

References Cary, J. W., and R. L. Wilkinson. 1997. “Perceived Profitability and Farmers’ Conservation Behaviour.” Journal of Agricultural Economics 48 (1‐3): 13-21. doi: 10.1111/j.1477-9552.1997.tb01127.x.

Mzoughi, N. 2011. “Farmers Adoption of Integrated Crop Protection and Organic Farming: Do Moral and Social Concerns Matter?” Ecological Economics 70 (8): 1536-1545. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.03.016. Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press Vanclay, F., and G. Lawrence. 1994. “Farmer Rationality and the Adoption of Environmentally Sound Practices: A Critique of the Assumptions of Traditional Agricultural Extension.” European Journal of Agricultural Education & Extension 1 (1): 59-90. doi: 10.1080/13892249485300061.