Cambridge Journal Environmental Conservation

Summary
There are numerous reasons why land users do not al-
ways adopt innovations even though all evidence may
suggest that they should. The purpose of this study was
to review the literature in the field of extension and
technology transfer drawing upon the rural sector pri-
marily in Australia. Australia is now recognized as a
worldleaderinadoptingnewtechnologyandideas,par-
ticularly those relating to the management of the
physical environment but there has been little assess-
mentofthecircumstancesandconstraintssurrounding
this adoption. The reasons for non-adoption range
from complexity of the technology, land user’s beliefs
and opinions towards the innovation, attitude to risk
and conflicting information. For different land-use en-
terprises and innovations, different constraints will
apply and it is argued that these are in three broad cat-
egories, characterized by: the land user and the
adoption process; the characteristics of, and issues as-
sociated with the developers of, the innovation; and the
role of extension agents and the transfer process. It is
apparent from the changing nature of technology
transfer that commercial organizations have assumed
a leading role in this field and land users are being rec-
ognized as key stakeholders in both the adoption and
technology development processes. The study, how-
ever, reveals a shortage of data on the effectiveness of
corporations and other commercial organizations in
the technology transfer and adoption processes.
Keywords: technology transfer, environmental management,
extension, adoption, land user perception, commercial exten-
sion
Introduction
Theroleoftechnologyadoptioninenvironmentalmanagement
is increasingly becoming a key issue for natural resource users.
Central to effective environmental management is the timely
adoptionofappropriatetechnology(Altham&Guerin1999).It
is well recognized, however, that appropriate technologies are
not always adopted, even where the need is obvious.
Technology transfer (or extension in a rural context) in-
volves 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 trans-
ferred knowledge about an innovation, and is the end product
of extension. From previous studies in land-use extension, it
is evident that non-adoption is a multi-factorial problem
(Guerin & Guerin 1994; Vanclay & Lawrence 1994) and that
different land-use enterprises and innovations will differ in
the constraints that apply. These constraints can be organized
into three broad categories. The first is characterized by the
land user and consists of factors such as personality, education
level, and degree of motivation. The second emphasizes 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 the current paper is to discuss the constraints to
adoption, drawing largely on experience within Australia, and
particularly to identify developments in commercial extension
practice which was highlighted as an emerging paradigm six
yearsago(Guerin&Guerin1994).Afurtheraimistohighlight
areasforpracticalapplicationandfutureresearch.Specifically,
the paper highlights the key models of technology transfer and
adoption, and how the above three types of constraints impact
on technology transfer and adoption. The paper also intro-
duces the important issue of the role of commercial and
community organizations, and how these are extending the
current model of technology transfer and adoption.
In the context of this paper, the environment is defined as
the physical natural environment in which land users work. It
includes soil, water, air and the biological environment and
the interaction between these components. Much of the dis-
cussion on soil and water relates to the rural context where
soil is used for crop and pasture production. However, the
discussion is relevant to other (non-rural) activities involving
the management of soil and water and their protection.
Constraints relating to the land user and the adoption
process
Personal attributes of the land user influence the adoption of
innovations
Understanding your learning style is fundamental to the
process of change. Individual land users will approach prob-
lem solving and learning in different ways, depending on
An Australian perspective on the constraints to the transfer and adoption
of innovations in land management
TURLOUGH F. GUERIN*
Environmental Adviser, 14 Scotts Road, Suite 19-07 Far East Plaza, Republic of Singapore 228213
Date submitted: 26 October 1998 Date accepted: 28 September1999
Environmental Conservation 26 (4): 289–304 © 1999 Foundation for Environmental Conservation
* Correspondence: Dr Turlough F. Guerin e-mail: turloughg@
hotmail.com Forwarding address in 2000: 190 Grabben Gullen Rd,
Crookwell NSW 2583, Australia

what is effective for them. Other personal attributes of the
land user include beliefs, values and fears and are all factors
that affect land users’ attitudes.
Bangura (1983) found that the best predictor of adoption
was the land user’s individual goals, whereas a weak relation-
ship was found between land user motivation and adoption.
The land user’s socio-economic status and economic con-
straints determined land user motivation. It has been noted
that any model of adoption must include the motivations of
the land user and these include the income and capital gains,
as well as the stewardship motive of passing a productive re-
source on to future generations. Since beliefs underlie
attitudes towards various practices, it is expected that par-
ticular practices will be difficult to change. In relation to soil
conservation practices, it can be inferred that property lo-
cation and property size can affect goal setting, which in turn
are positively related to the adoption of innovations (Chamala
1987).
Negative experiences in the past with the introduction of
new technology can cause land users to reject innovations in-
discriminately in the present. This emotional response is
similar to the psychological phenomenon of ‘learned help-
lessness’. For example, in some land users there seems to
exist a learned helplessness effect where the adoption of inno-
vation by land users in the past may not have made any
difference to their particular land-use practices. Thus, land
users have learnt that their adoption behaviour does not mat-
ter and that nothing they do makes a difference to the level of
production (Guerin & Guerin 1994). The land user needs to
recognize 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 in-
dividual, that may make adoption ineffective. Rather than
dwell on the negative experience, the land user should seek
out advice and assistance from others to address the issue at
hand.
A land user’s positive attitude to change is one of the main
reasons for the adoption of an innovation (Chamala 1987). An
openness to change and to adopting a new concept, where
there is a benefit for the land user, 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 are important
Taking risks, by necessity, means thinking and actively be-
having differently to the social norms. If a person or a
group of people do not understand the nature of the risks
involved with an innovation that they may be considering,
it is more likely that they will resist change. People are
more likely to take a calculated risk if they understand the
circumstances associated with that risk and can compare
the new alternative with the ‘old’ technology, and conse-
quently determine whether or not the new alternative is
better ( Jedlicka 1979).
If an extension agent suggests to land users that a particu-
lar innovation could improve productivity, yet 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 predict
that conservative attitudes will predominate, and adoption
will be less likely. Here, the extension agent or source of
knowledge needs to be clear and influential in their dealings
with the land user, though logic on its own is unlikely to
bring about the adoption.
Attitudes to risk are subjective and will, therefore, vary
between individuals. Individual land users typically will re-
duce the risk by choosing enterprises which are reliable for
their own location (Guerin & Guerin 1994). As Vanclay and
Lawrence (1994) have discussed, conflicting information
from numerous sources (including scientists, literature,
green movements and extension agents) regarding an inno-
vation can be a rational limitation to adoption. If uncertainty
in an innovation prevails, and the innovation is not adopted,
then this is a rational management decision.
One of the key activities an extension agent can do for a land
user who 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.
Years of experience in land management can influence adoption
Itharat (1980) proposed that land users who are older, have
more years of land-use experience and who have a larger
amount of land used for production, are more innovative. In
an Australian study, Anderson (1982) has shown that the age
of 40–50 years tends to be associated with the ‘progressive
land user’, or ‘opinion leader’. However, Warner (1981)
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
land users surveyed (Campbell & Junor 1992). Reeve and
Black (1993) have demonstrated that the greater the number
of years in adulthood a person has been involved in land-use
in Australia, the more positive their attitude towards; (i)
using agricultural chemicals, (ii) believing profit from land-
use 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 land users of age Ն
60 years have more favourable attitudes towards additional
environmental policies to safeguard the environment, than
those who are young (Յ 30 years). 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 prac-
tices would be beneficial or profitable. In addition, those
approaching retirement were unlikely to risk learning and ap-
plying new production practices, especially if there were
added costs with adoption (Drost et al. 1996). It therefore ap-
pears that there is no clear correlation between land users’ age
290 T.F. Guerin

and adoption and this is an area for further investigation and
clarification, particularly now we have an aging population.
Land user’s attitudes may be modified
For adoption to occur, it is necessary that land users’ adverse
attitudes to an innovation change. Once the innovation is per-
ceived as profitable, appropriate, having an acceptable level of
risk, being compatible with the land user’s goals, and being
easily integrated into existing farm practices, then the inno-
vation should be adopted relatively quickly (Guerin &
Guerin 1994).
Although land user behaviour may be modified, attempts
at changing or modifying individual styles will not be perma-
nent. The classical diffusion model is illustrated
(simplistically) by the left to right flow of information in
Figure 1 (refer to large arrow), from scientist, extension
agent, opinion leader then through to land users. 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 amongst indi-
vidual opinion leaders and land users, from ‘innovators’ to
‘laggards’ (Rogers 1983). This has proven to be a very useful
predictor of adoption behaviour, and it has been widely used
in developing nations. However, Von Fleckenstein (1974),
studying a group of Thai land users, has shown that general
groupings of ‘innovator’ types were meaningless, since there
were particular land users who only adopted specific innova-
tions. There are other scales that describe individual
cognitive styles including the Kirton Adoption-Innovation
inventory, which is a continuum, along which individuals lie,
depending on whether they are adaptive (continuous cogni-
tive approach; ‘works within existing paradigm’) or
innovative (discontinuous cognitive approach; ‘works to the
edge of a paradigm’). Such scales may prove valuable in fu-
ture extension and research programmes and these particular
scales have been described elsewhere (Guerin & Guerin
1995) and would complement the use of the Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator (MBTI) which is used commonly in leader-
ship development and ‘working together’ programmes in the
primary (and other) industries. For extension agents aiming
Technology transfer in environmental management 291
Figure 1 The major models and key constraints to the transfer of environmental management innovations.

to bring about a behavioural change at the individual, or
group level, individual styles of the potential adopters could
be considered as a key part of extension. Understanding the
cognitive styles of individual land users or landusing com-
munities, is likely to assist extension agents in focusing on the
most appropriate means to ‘package’ technologies and infor-
mation, and therefore be more effective in their work.
The land users’ socio-economic environment
‘Opinion leaders’, or those individuals in a community that
influence the behaviours of other community members, have
an important influence on land users in their adoption de-
cisions. They uphold or create new norms in a community
which influence the behaviour of other land users. It is im-
portant for extension agents to locate 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 adop-
tion. The land user must be able to see the financial benefits
of adoption in addition to the long-term benefits of maintain-
ing productivity. Such long-term benefits have been
demonstrated by the adoption of innovations in land man-
agement in the Landcare Program in Australia (Campbell &
Junor 1992). Landcare is a community based approach to en-
hancing the long-term productivity of natural resources in
Australia. There are now more than 4500 Landcare groups
across Australia and approximately one in every three
farmers is a member of a Landcare group. The National
Landcare Program (NLP) supports collective action by com-
munities to sustainably manage the environment and natural
resources in partnership with the Australian government.
The NLP also supports an expansion of property manage-
ment planning to give land users improved natural resource
and business management skills (NLP 1999).
It is also likely that adoption will not occur if a large gain
is not expected by the land user. Presumably a large gain is
needed to compensate for the risk involved. The innovation
may provide a minimum level of improvement in pro-
ductivity; however it must be seen to be a substantial
improvement. In a study of conservation cropping in north-
ern Victoria, Australia, a steady increase in the use of direct
drilling and minimum-tillage cropping was reported during
the 1980s (Cary et al. 1989). The key advantage, which con-
vinced land users to bring these innovations into practice,
was the lower crop-growing costs, which were clearly dem-
onstrated 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 (Cary
et al. 1989). Many land users are now being forced to reap-
praise the traditional systems of conventional cultivation due
to the high costs of equipment and fuel, and the increasing
cost and scarcity of labour (Cary et al. 1989). This could,
however, be offset by higher chemical costs with the adoption
of reduced tillage systems. Minimizing financial risk was an
important factor in adopting sustainable practices in rural
Utah (Drost et al. 1996).
Constraints related to the nature of the innovation
and its developers
Innovations can be too complex
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 (1983) found that
land users prefer to adopt those innovations that satisfy their
security needs, are less complex, require less time to use and
are less labour-demanding; these can be communicated easily
and in a short time.
Swindale (1979) suggests that an innovation that can be
readily transferred from technology developers, and which is
appropriate for the land user’s needs, may not be accepted by
the land user because it is not understood. This is the case es-
pecially for complex innovations that evolve from
multi-disciplinary efforts. Therefore, an innovation may
prove inappropriate if the information gathered about land
users’ needs and resources is not applicable or is inaccurate.
Lack of knowledge about an innovation can limit its adop-
tion but this does not necessarily correlate with the extent or
nature of a land user’s education. Vanclay and Lawrence
(1994) describe a related phenomenon, called intellectual out-
lay, which relates to the knowledge base of the individual
land user, rather than to an objective measure of innovation
complexity. Such intellectual outlay can be considered as an
implementation cost as the land user may need to invest con-
siderable amounts of time in learning about the new
innovation.
In Australia, land management recommendations on graz-
ing properties contaminated with chlorinated insecticides
(specifically dieldrin and DDT) have been widely adopted, as
evident from the low number of contaminated meat viola-
tions reported since the initial detection of residues in export
beef in 1987 (Anon. 1991). Contamination of Australian beef
with these insecticides provided an example of how special-
ized and simple information about agricultural chemicals and
land management was required by extension agents and land
users to offset contamination of livestock grazing on con-
taminated pastures and soils. During the period of major beef
contamination problems in Australia during the late 1980s,
there was widespread adoption of recommendations made by
the various State Departments of Agriculture (Anon. 1991).
This widespread adoption indicates their low degree of com-
plexity and their perceived relevance to productivity of the
main land-use. These recommendations have been to tem-
porarily move contaminated livestock onto uncontaminated
land for periods of 6–10 months, change from meat produc-
tion to other practices and return any remaining stocks of the
chemicals that were responsible for the contamination. More
292 T.F. Guerin

innovative land-uses by contaminated landholders have been
to raise horses, production of goat fibre and extraction of sand
from below contaminated depths (Anon. 1991). Although
these organochlorine soil contaminants cause the following
problems; (i) are only slowly degraded in the environment
(Guerin & Kennedy 1991a, b) and therefore leave residues,
(ii) they can accumulate in the food chain, in particular in
birds, and (iii) can be toxic to a range of organisms, these
were not the reasons why the affected land users adopted the
recommended practices. These particular land users adopted
these practices because they saw the economic disadvantages
of non-adoption. Recent beef contamination problems in
Australia during 1998–99 involving endosulfan, a different
type of organochlorine insecticide to dieldrin and DDT, but
one that degrades at a faster rate in soil (Guerin 1999), indi-
cate that this type of contamination problem can still occur
on occasions (Toffolon 1998). Such livestock contamination
is likely to be an ongoing land management problem, at least
intermittently, as the range of chemicals tested and the sensi-
tivity of the analytical procedures used, increases.
Not all environmental management recommendations are
accepted and adopted
Not all recommendations to adopt practices which are de-
signed to conserve natural resources are likely to be readily
adopted. A case in point is the prevention of contamination of
soils and water with agricultural chemicals. It is relatively
easy for a land user to see the benefits of stopping a practice
which is affecting productivity directly, such as grazing con-
taminated land and pasture, however it is more difficult for
the land user to see how preventing pollution of land and
water, particularly off the farm, would benefit productivity
on their own farm. In the event of off-site environmental ef-
fects from an on-site practice, there is a need for the
government to provide incentives for the adoption of sound
environmental practices (Reeve & Black 1993) and this issue
of externalities is further discussed in Altham and Guerin
(1999).
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
land user perceptions of environmental problems are already
at a high level (Schulze 1997). 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.
Land users 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 land users who
have adopted this advice. The extent of adoption of this ad-
vice has been measured relatively easily in that fish kills result
if chemicals are released to the waterways in any significant
quantity. In the Australian cotton industry, where the total
number of land users is relatively low (c. 1200; Schulze 1997)
compared to the remainder of the rural sector (1%), it is
likely that peer group pressure will be important in changing
land users’ attitudes to environmental problems and environ-
mental 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 respondents), who provide advice on environmental
management and related technologies, in conjunction with
the industry’s own technology transfer programmes (Schulze
1997). 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 land users in
various agricultural industries throughout the world.
In an Australia-wide survey prepared for policymaking
bodies, the majority of the farming community showed a
‘high level’ of concern for the environment and a substantial
degree of support for environmentally related policy instru-
ments (Reeve & Black 1993). Amongst the respondents (n ϭ
2000, response rate of 57%), there was majority support for
the following;
• more testing of produce for chemical residues
• more penalties against those land users whose produce
contains such residues
• having buffer zones around towns where there is a con-
siderable use of crop spraying
• zoning of poor or marginal country to show what types of
land-use shall be permitted
• requiring environmental impact statements before under-
taking 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 prop-
erties
• educating land users about damage done by selected land-
use practices
• providing financial incentives to encourage the use of soil
improving practices such as rotation, stubble retention
and deep ripping.
Frank (1997) indicated that selected Australian land users
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 de-
sirable, profitable and suitable. This finding indicates that the
land users’ lifestyle needs to be taken into account when ex-
tension agents make adoption recommendations.
In a recent study to assess perceptions of risk associated
with use of farm chemicals in central Ohio, farmers (n ϭ 245)
were asked to evaluate the level of risk to the environment
(amongst other factors) associated with use of agricultural
chemicals. The study findings revealed that respondents per-

ceived that the use of farm chemicals posed little or no threat
in this regard (Tucker & Napier 1998). These findings sug-
gest that land users from different regions are likely to have
different perceptions of the environmental impacts of agri-
cultural chemicals. As a consequence, different groups will
require information to be targeted at them in ways that will
enable the groups concerned to gain understanding of the en-
vironmental implications of agricultural chemical use. A
‘one-size-fits-all’ approach is unlikely to be effective for the
extension agent when making recommendations. This high-
lights the importance of carefully packaging information to
the target audience.
Land users will consider an innovation in the light of its
advantages and perceived benefits relative to those of the
innovation it replaces. The adopters’ perceptions of an inno-
vation 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 prof-
itability, safety or security, enhanced social standing, or of
self-esteem. In a study of the adoption of soil conservation
practices, Sinden and King (1990) found that the economic
measures of land condition, namely annual crop yield and
livestock carrying capacity, influenced adoption. This pro-
vides further evidence that the economic paradigm is a useful
model of land user adoption behaviour.
The major determinants of the adoption of a soil conser-
vation 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, in-
dependently of expectations about the profitability of this
innovation (Barr & Cary 1992). Another example is the adop-
tion of crop varieties by land users. In New South Wales,
Australia, Martin et al. (1988) showed that wheat cultivars
that were grown in a particular season corresponded closely
to those recommended by the State Department of
Agriculture; only one case (n ϭ 50) of growth of the non-rec-
ommended cultivar was encountered amongst the group.
Bardsley (1982) indicated that the reasons land users do not
adopt recommended crop varieties are that they are offered
no clear improvement over those already existing, and that
they may have strong ties with the existing variety. In a sur-
vey by Martin et al. (1988), the herbicide chlorsulfuron was
also quickly adopted; innovations were readily adopted be-
cause of their clear advantages over existing practices, their
compatibility with other practices on the farm, their high
level of perceived impact and low degree of complexity.
The innovation should be relevant
Not all land users adopt all the innovations related to their ac-
tivities that are available to them. Land users select from the
range of practices developed, those that are consistent with
their needs, socio-economic status and attitudes toward dif-
ferent practices (Chamala 1987). Land users have to make
many decisions during the land-use production cycle, keep-
ing potential problems and alternate solutions in view. Some
of these decisions are for immediate survival, while others are
made in view of anticipated long-term benefits (Chamala
1987). It is now widely recognized by extension agents that a
mix of relevant information needs to be provided to land
users, if the agents are to be effective.
Scientists need to focus on the land user’s needs
Scientists have often been criticized for lacking the skills
necessary for implementing their innovations (Pickering
1992). They tend to rely on the written word for their infor-
mation and subsequent dissemination of their findings. Land
users (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 land users will be automati-
cally filled by the land users or extension agents (Pickering
1992). Land users 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 season-specific, and
which is often difficult to integrate into existing work prac-
tices. It is likely that land users tend to localize their
knowledge of farming operations, while researchers tend to
generalize their knowledge for dissemination.
To ensure effective adoption, scientists should acquire in-
formation about land user practices, and this may be through
formal and informal sources. According to Ojiambo (1989),
personal communication with immediate colleagues is the
most frequently used source. Scientists should consider how
their innovations will be perceived by the land user and
whether the innovations are likely to be successful in im-
proving productivity when implemented under site-specific
conditions. Scientists therefore need to understand problems
with existing innovations in order to develop effective new
innovations (Guerin & Guerin 1994). There is now emerging
evidence that scientists in Australia are taking a more proac-
tive role in the development of solutions for land users,
particularly through their involvement in the commercial ex-
tension programmes described in Table 1.
Clunies-Ross (1990) has suggested that adoption is more
likely to occur where there is a problem with existing innova-
tions than as the result of new scientific findings.
Conservation tillage is a case in point. Diallo (1983) showed
that the most important reason for adopting no-till practices
was soil conservation, followed by energy and time savings.
The tangible benefits to the land user were observed as a re-
duction in soil erosion and fuel expenses. It is critical that
technology providers ensure the innovations they are recom-
mending 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 that land users want to know the results in the
294 T.F. Guerin

first place. There is evidence in Australia that extension is in-
creasingly being incorporated into research projects,
including the grains, horticulture and dairy research corpora-
tions. Cotton (1997) argues, however, that one of Australia’s
key rural research and development corporations allocates
only 6% of its total budget to specific communication pro-
jects. Cotton (1997) also argues that there is insufficient
exploitation of existing technologies across the rural sector
and that research results are often not ‘packaged’ appropri-
ately for the end-user. Nevertheless, since this issue of
incorporating an extension and adoption component into
funded rural research projects in Australia was discussed
five years ago (Guerin & Guerin 1994), there have been at
least 10 projects funded in the area of sustainable land-use
practices in Australia that include such components into the
research (ARRIP 1999).
Constraints relating to the communication and
transfer process
Demonstrations and field trials
Field demonstrations are akin to ‘prototyping’ a technology
or process. Traditionally, field demonstrations and trials were
conducted by government agencies (Guerin & Guerin 1994).
The field trial objectively demonstrated the appropriateness
of the technology, process or innovation. The land users need
to understand the benefits and the drawbacks of the inno-
vation and to know what modifications and adaptations are
likely to be needed for implementing the innovation to their
own environmental problem. The results of some research
are easily observed, and are therefore easier to communicate,
and innovations such as these are more likely to be adopted.
It is recognized that some innovations do not lend themselves
readily to communication and this is one of the most common
reasons for non-adoption (Guerin & Guerin 1994). This
should not be a problem, however, if professional communi-
cators prepare the information. Lack of perceived results of
innovations has also been shown to limit the motivation of
some land users. Demonstrations of innovations, however,
can greatly improve their perceived benefits. Demonstrations
can take the form of field days, on-farm demonstrations or
visits to other land users who have successfully adopted the
innovations involved. The formation of participatory groups
in the Australian National Landcare Program has closely in-
volved the landusing community and has helped all involved
understand the need to prevent and overcome problems of
land degradation (NLP 1999). This approach of establishing
land user groups has worked well in promoting change in
land management practices in Australia. Such groups have
now largely shifted the provision of demonstrations and field
trials from government agencies to the land user groups
themselves. These groups usually involve a range of stake-
holders and have strong involvement from, and are often led
by commercial organizations. Table 1 describes a number of
such programmes and activities involving demonstrations
and field trials.
Table 1 Examples of commercial extension and communication programmes for land users.
Organization(s) Programme/Activity Description
SBS IAMA Ltd Establishment and maintenance of Formation of independent groups of local land users sharing
local/regional merchandisers knowledge
Monsanto Company Centres of Excellence and Green Stripes Encouraging the adoption of sustainable cropping and
Programmes revegetation practices across the US
Various Consultants Farm Management 500 Example of effective land user-led organization conducting
on-farm research in Australia
Birchip Cropping Group Independent Field Trials Example of effective land user-led organization conducting
on-farm research in Australia
Elders Pty Ltd Whole farm management Advice on whole farm management in Australia mainly
and service provider through retailing activities
Kondinin Group General environmental technical and Australian rural consulting company; provides focused
management advice information via its FarmLine service (an information
service for land user access)
Hassall and Associates General environmental technical and International rural and natural resource consulting company
management advice
NFF (Australia)a The Farmwide Program Internet ‘clearing house’ and discussion forum on
agricultural activities including adoption of sustainable
practices
Rural Press Pty Ltd General environmental technical and ‘Hardcopy’ information and internet access on a range of
management advice agricultural activities/advice in Australia
a National Farmer’s Federation (NFF 1999).

Commerciallyfundeddemonstrationsitesforconservationpractices
There are now numerous examples of commercially funded
demonstration sites for conservation practices though there is
relatively little published on these activities. In one particular
private extension programme in rural Australia, Farm
Management 500 (FM500), a number of organizations now
work in a partnership to demonstrate innovations in conser-
vation practices (McCarthy 1999). The organization is
extremely diverse with 17 independent consulting firms act-
ing as the service providers. These cooperating organizations
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 land users, by
fostering open and interactive land user group meetings. All
members share ideas and experiences so as to recognize and
develop skills, values, self-worth and, at the same time, en-
hance the land users’ incomes. FM500 seeks to provide land
users with a mix of information, planning concepts and strat-
egies that they would not otherwise get from traditional
service providers, such as government extension agents. A
mixture of land user subscriptions, agribusiness partnerships
and government training grants provides the financial re-
sources for the project (McCarthy 1999).
In 1997, Monsanto created Centres of Excellence
across the Midwest of the USA (Monsanto 1999). The pur-
pose of these new centres has been to develop and refine
viable conservation tillage systems at the local land user level.
The goal is to utilize large-scale, farm-sized research areas to
develop and demonstrate practices that can be adopted by
land users to increase productivity while saving natural re-
sources. The Centres of Excellence display 3- to 5-year
demonstration projects involving conservation tillage
(Monsanto 1999). 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 land users, mer-
chandisers, 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 organizations to get community involvement.
The Birchip Cropping Group (BCG), established in 1993, is
a group of Australian land users, agribusinesses and govern-
ment representatives who work together to undertake
independent trial work and communicate better farming
practices to the wider landusing community (BCG 1999).
The organization now provides a strong link between
farmers, governmental and agribusiness research and exten-
sion in major cropping areas of South-eastern Australia. The
BCG believe they are uniquely situated to communicate and
transfer information to land users because they are land users
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, re-
search and field demonstrations, radio and now the Internet,
they are able to reach a large proportion of the landusing
community. This land user-led organization has had a large
impact on on-farm research in the grain growing areas of
South-eastern Australia, and has provided a focus so that
government and NGO funds can be spent more effectively.
The BCG has over 350 land user members and numerous
sponsors, and each year the BCG prepares and distributes
5000 copies of its trial findings to local land users (BCG
1999).
Information management and communication is critical to the
adoption process
An important aspect in the adoption process is the identifi-
cation and use of appropriate communication. 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 land users. Mass
media may make this work easier, broaden the range of
people addressed, and can, therefore, be a great help in ex-
tension 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 land user
to absorb information (Guerin & Guerin 1994). If an inno-
vation is complex and its cost and expected returns are
difficult to identify, and the adoption challenges the land
user’s belief, then the communication from researcher to ex-
tension agent to land user 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 in-
novations. The telephone, while providing land users with
immediate information regarding a problem, has its limi-
tations. Even though the cost of long-distance telephone calls
has decreased, the telephone can still intimidate many
people. Also, telephone communication depends on the per-
son who is being called being available; unavailability may
lead to the ‘telephone tag’ syndrome of two people continual-
ly trying to return calls, but never making contact. Some of
the main forms of electronic communications that are
used are the Internet, electronic mail, electronic bulletin
boards, and video conferencing. In mid 1999, only 30% of
rural land users in Australia were connected to the Internet,
and this group of land users are mainly using the Internet as
a passive source of information (Grove 1999), so the potential
of this form of communication for technology transfer
and adoption is still a long way from being realized.
Video conferencing has not been a major contributor to com-
munication in recent years and this has been due to its
high cost, which is prohibitive to the majority of land
users.
296 T.F. Guerin

Ongoing access to information is required
Land users need continual access to information and in this
regard extension agents have an important role as ‘knowledge
navigators’. More experienced land users may need special-
ized information, while those operating a diversified land-use
system may need a complex mix of information. Electronic
networks should prove beneficial in the transfer of research
that is relevant to Australian land users. LandcareNET, an
electronic network for LandCare groups across Australia, is
an example (Hawkins & Rimmington 1992; Guerin & Guerin
1994). This system has become important in technology
adoption by both disseminating useful knowledge that al-
ready 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 land user.
Surveys can be conducted using the Internet to determine
the interest areas and needs of land users who have access to
it. Such information access should improve the interaction
between land users, extension agents and scientists. By deter-
mining the gaps in land users’ knowledge, through the use of
surveys on the Internet, extension agents can focus their time
spent in personal contact clarifying land users’ needs (Guerin
& Guerin 1994). Specialized Internet discussion groups or
mailing lists, similar to the LandcareNET programme pre-
viously described, have increased substantially in the past five
years. In addition to professional and non-commercial
Internet discussion groups, a range of agricultural merchan-
disers now provide homepages on the Internet, which
provide information and discussion fora for their land user
clients, and often these are free of charge. Information that
was once only available in printed form is now becoming
available on the Internet, but it should be recognized that
much of the information currently available is still difficult to
access by land users as recently reported by Grove (1999).
Computerized expert systems via the Internet show po-
tential for improving the quality and efficiency of land-use
extension services by making vital expertise available to ex-
tension agents when and where it is needed (Gillard 1992;
Guerin & Guerin 1994; Gillard 1999). Such systems can pro-
vide solutions for many current extension problems such as
delayed decision time, which can be costly to land users.
They can also provide solutions to the problem of extension
agents being bombarded with increasing amounts of infor-
mation. Assisted by such systems, extension agents can solve
problems that are out of their areas of specialization. Lack of
human resources is another problem addressed by such sys-
tems because government Departments of Agriculture can
rarely afford to employ a full range of experts (Guerin &
Guerin 1994). The concern with these systems, however, is
that the information can be very difficult to extract, and with-
out a ‘knowledge navigator’ providing personal interaction,
the value of the information will be greatly limited.
Since 1995, the Kondinin Group’s FarmLine service,
based in Australia, has provided land management infor-
mation from a wide variety of sources including other land
users, agriculture departments, research groups and pub-
lished 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 re-
duced cost to Kondinin Group members (subscribers)
(Kondinin 1999). The service can largely reduce the frus-
tration currently faced by land users and Landcare groups in
searching for relevant information and details about tech-
niques other groups are using to solve similar land
management problems. In terms of usage, more than 5000
land users across Australia have used the resource since its
launch in April 1995, and there are on average, 19 inquiries a
day (from across Australia) and more than 10 000 inquiries in
two years, indicating the usefulness of the resource
(Kondinin 1999).
The media and the rural press are influential in land user
decision-making
Anderson (1981) reported that advice from extension agents
is only one source of information amongst many used by land
users in decision-making. Ratings of the importance of infor-
mation sources showed that land users regarded other land
users as the most important source (85% of respondents); the
second was reading (excluding state Department of
Agriculture Publications) (78% of respondents). Third was
state Department of Agriculture publications (60% of re-
spondents); extension agents were rated sixth (59% of
respondents) (Anderson 1981). Rural newspapers, journals
and magazines are the specific means whereby land users find
out about innovations. Weiss (1994) indicated that the ma-
jority of land-use extension agents (n ϭ 200) in Australia
used non-scientific journals and magazines as the sources of
information to which they most commonly referred. Only
25% of these publications were claimed to be ‘relied’ upon by
the respondents, and other scientific sources such as agricul-
tural science journals would need to be referred to for more
reliable information (Weiss 1994).
Explanations of innovations should be clear
Printed information in rural publications is a key source of
land management advice. One constraint in this regard, of
particular importance in the transfer of innovations to land
users, is the lack of training and familiarity that many jour-
nalists have with environmental management and related
technologies. Pickering (1992), who claimed that few journal-
ists 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 indi-
cated 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 wide audience. It is therefore important for scien-

tists to limit the volume and complexity of material presented
to journalists who are writing articles for land users, and to
present it clearly. Pickering (1992) believed that the most im-
portant 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 pro-
fessional recognition.
Extension agents need to have credibility
In the classical diffusion model (Rogers 1983), the extension
agent is a mediator in communicating innovations. 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 land users. To
work successfully with land users, they must respect their
skills and knowledge, and adjust to their situation rather than
expecting the land user always to look up to them: the agents
must have an empathy with the land users. An effective ex-
tension agent will help not only to change and increase rates
of adoption of new technologies, but also to reinforce those
current practices of the land user that are beneficial.
Extension agents need to have credibility with the land users
and must be competent. These attributes of credibility can be
highlighted as follows:
• Maintain a practical approach to problem solving
• Make recommendations that are feasible in the particular
economic, technical and social context
• Make recommendations visible
• Have experience in the application of new practices
• Be well informed on the latest developments in land man-
agement
• Have an overall knowledge of the environment and its
management (understand the ‘big picture’)
• Know the trends within environmental management and
technology
• Be accessible to the land user
• Be unbiased, honest, trustworthy and reliable
• Maintain confidentiality
• Empathize with land users and their needs
• Understand and work within the social norms of the
landusing community.
Developing credibility with land users is one of the
most important influences on the success of extension
agents. When this is gained, extension agents are able to
transfer innovations and secure adoption at a considerably
higher level (Guerin & Guerin 1994; Hayman 1997).
Hayman (1997) has indicated that government depart-
ments, 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 ex-
tension agents talking to groups of land users was the most
common means for imparting advice. Group workshops,
demonstrations and TV commercials were also important;
surveys were the least beneficial of all mechanisms used
(Hayman 1997).
Dis-adoption can occur
Discontinuation or ‘dis-adoption’ of technologies can occur.
Cary (1992) showed that for every two land users in north-
east Victoria, Australia, who had successfully adopted
conservation tillage practices, there was one land user who
had abandoned it. Those land users who had given up the
practice believed their soil was unsuitable because with direct
drilling, the soil crusted over in the top layers. Because fewer
wheat seedlings broke through, early growth was poor and
yields were lower. The land users who experienced these par-
ticular problems believed cultivation was necessary to
provide a permeable seedbed. It is, therefore, insufficient for
extension 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 main-
tained.
The ‘right’ advice may not be acted upon if the land users
addressed have no awareness of the problem. Extension
agents may have a difficulty in even creating an awareness of
environmental problems in the target group. In many cases,
however, the land users have well-founded reasons for reject-
ing an innovation (Cary 1992; Vanclay & Lawrence 1994) and
the extension agent must examine these in detail to appreci-
ate the reasons for rejection.
Land users are paying for technical and management advice
Land users require specialized advice to maintain high pro-
ductivity (if they are farming the land and at the same time,
aiming to develop a sustainable ecosystem). In Australia, the
government funds a relatively small proportion 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 governments.
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. This type of extension has continued to de-
cline sharply since the earlier discussion by Guerin and
Guerin (1994) highlighted this trend. User-pays and cost-re-
covery procedures are now replacing it. This means that only
land users in groups who request help are likely to be visited
by government funded extension agents. The role of com-
mercial organizations in extension, while often
underestimated, is now the major provider of extension ser-
vices. 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 govern-
ment. The largest group of private sector extension agents
includes those employed by rural merchandisers, who have
traditionally provided a range of products and related ser-
298 T.F. Guerin

vices. Merchandisers are employing agronomists with the
specific focus of providing extension advice (Cotton 1997).
These companies may be involved from the time the land
users plan to buy a property, where they advise on crops, ani-
mal enterprises and land-use 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,
Westfarmers-Dalgety, Combined Rural Traders, and the
large number of stock and station agencies. Rural merchan-
disers have seized on this need of land users, turning it into
an opportunity to add value to the products they sell.
Other sources of advice about innovations in environmen-
tal 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 (1997) claims that the cost of providing exten-
sion 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 pro-
viding up-to-date information on innovations for land users.
In rural Australia, some of the larger commercial technology
transfer programmes have become widespread including
Farm Management 500 and the Birchip Cropping Group
(Table 1); each programme addresses whole farm issues, in-
cluding those relating to environmental management, in
specific industry segments. There is also a trend for rural re-
search and development corporations to move more funding
into the private sector, particularly in areas of crop and ani-
mal production (Pol 1997), which is an area that has a
relatively large potential for environmental impact.
Towards an integrated model of technology transfer
and adoption
Classical approaches
Common tools used in extension research have included the
use of questionnaires, trials and demonstrations, site budgets
and cost-benefit analyses, yield extrapolations from experi-
ment stations, field days, informal site visits and formal
interviews. The most common tool has been the use of ques-
tionnaires (Rogers 1983). The adoption or non-adoption of a
particular innovation is correlated with a wide range of vari-
ables such as age, level of education and socio-economic
status, and constraints are then identified from the significant
correlations found (Rogers & Shoemaker 1971; Rogers 1983).
The benefits of the questionnaire approach are that:
• Large numbers of land users can be surveyed
• Statistical analysis can be performed on quantitative data
for the testing of various hypotheses
• Generalizations can be made as to the reasons for non-
adoption (from these analyses)
• Data collected in the questionnaires are often substantiat-
ed 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 (Buttel
et al. 1990; Guerin & Guerin 1994; Vanclay & Lawrence
1994) and a very comprehensive study by Reeve and Black
(1993) focusing on rural environmental issues in Australia.
As illustrated in Figure 1, innovative land users (opinion
leaders) have direct contact with researchers, have trials on
their land and quickly put research into practice and diffuse
the findings to other land users who have contact with them.
A limitation of the classical diffusion model is that it predicts
that the majority of land users would prefer to wait for an
opinion leader to invest in and test an innovation before they
do so themselves. They do this in order to avoid taking any
risks that they may experience if they were to adopt immedi-
ately. So the classical diffusion model relies on the
identification of opinion leaders who are instrumental in fur-
ther diffusing innovations to other land users (Rogers 1983).
The classical diffusion model, however, has been based on
the belief that the causes of poor land-use 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 land users oper-
ate, and that for some innovations, clear-cut stages in
adoption are absent. Rather, the classical diffusion model as-
sumes that awareness of a new and relevant innovation is
sufficient reason for land users to adopt (Guerin & Guerin
1994). In Australia, these limitations are now clearly evident.
There are alternative approaches to the classical diffusion model
Rhoades (1990a, b) criticized over-reliance on the question-
naire as the primary means of obtaining information. He
indicated that what people say is not necessarily what they
do, and that the results obtained are culturally and time-
bound and the context of a particular land-use is not
revealed. The person asking the questions introduces a bias,
since deference and untrue answers may be given. These crit-
icisms are based on case studies conducted in developing
countries (Rhoades 1990b), therefore there are cross-cultural
barriers to their interpretation in terms of Australia and other
developed countries. Rhoades (1990b) described the necessity
for a greater diversity of methods to be applied in extension
research, all of which should be based on greater land user
participation and empowerment.
Participatory approaches and their variants (viz.
Participatory Action Research, or PAR, Rapid Rural
Appraisal, or RRA, Participatory Rural Appraisal, or PRA,
farmer-first, bottom-up and farmer-driven approaches) have
been suggested as improved approaches for the adoption of
innovations (Guerin & Guerin 1994; Vanclay & Lawrence
1994; Blaikie et al. 1997; Martin & Sherrington 1997).
Participatory approaches involve land users 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 Figure 1). In this
approach, groups of land users, extension agents and scien-
tists aim to work closely to achieve the needs of land users,
the wider community and the environment.
Participatory approaches recognize that scientists are in a
potentially strong position to demonstrate the benefits of
adopting because of their intimate knowledge of the innova-
tions, but also recognizes that land users should be directly
involved in research that is appropriate to their site-specific
needs. Group meetings form an important part of such ap-
proaches. This is especially true for (but not limited to)
small-scale land users who engage in joint-farm operations,
or belong to agricultural cooperatives, and can easily compare
progress. There, members of the group can readily compare
their experiences of technology transfer.
Participatory approaches complement the classical dif-
fusion model and may be considered as a further development
of the convergent form of the classical model, where land
users, scientists and extension agents create and share infor-
mation to help themselves reach a common understanding of
the problem. In Australia, a participatory approach is only be-
ginning to be tested. A recent example of the application of
this approach to extension has been through the establish-
ment of the Landcare Program (NLP 1999). 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 lead to be-
havioural change (I suggest that although attitude change
is a prerequisite for behavioural change, behavioural
change does not automatically follow on from attitude
change).
• Such approaches have developed to recognize the needs of
land users to become involved directly in taking responsi-
bility for their own destiny, and to participate to enhance
their understanding and commitment to developing sol-
utions and decision-making. This is based on the findings
that people are committed to a decision or activity in di-
rect proportion to their planning in, or influence on, that
decision (Knowles 1978). In addition, Rhoades (1990b)
claimed that land users are experts in defining their prob-
lems and therefore should have direct input into research.
• Limited extension resources can be more efficiently uti-
lized in servicing groups. This is particularly the case in
land management extension in Australia, where the gov-
ernment does not have the resources to deal with such
widespread environmental conservation issues on its own.
Some of the key issues in this area are soil and water pol-
lution from agricultural chemicals; salination of water and
soil; soil acidification; declining soil structure; insect re-
sistance; and reduced water quality.
• Local land user groups can more readily access agribusi-
nesses (rural merchandisers) and consultants than
individuals.
Campbell and Junor (1992) reviewed studies conducted in
1990 and 1991 addressing Australian land users. Of the 3000
land users surveyed, 24% were found to be involved in
Landcare groups. This indicates that participatory ap-
proaches 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 merchan-
disers are encouraging the formation of groups for
information transfer, usually involving an opinion leader
(Cotton 1997).
There are limitations to participatory approaches
Widespread demonstration of the effectiveness of participa-
tory approaches has yet to occur in developed countries such
as Australia. These approaches have been criticized 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 land users will adopt it because they will see its rel-
evance. A further criticism of these approaches is that trained
extension agents may provide less input into land-use opera-
tions. This may be detrimental to the continual back-up
support that land users need, if they are to maintain the adop-
tion of an innovation. There is also the perceived problem
that when involved in participatory groups, land users 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
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, gov-
ernment extension agents will have less input into
extension.
• Land user groups that were originally established for a
specific purpose could become distracted from their orig-
inal reasons for forming the groups.
• When groups of land users 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 im-
mediately 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.
• Participatory approaches to extension assume that land
users want to be involved in the research that is applicable
to them, but it should not be assumed that land users
necessarily want to be involved. Other researchers have
provided evidence that land users prefer informal oral
sources, interaction mainly with extension agents, farm
demonstrations, and communication and informal visits to
other land users’ operations.
• There are also difficulties in getting out to land users, par-
300 T.F. Guerin

ticularly in geographically spread countries, where dis-
tances are great.
• Although widespread, the effectiveness of such ap-
proaches across a wider spectrum of enterprises needs to
be further validated, and the relative rates of adoption of
those land users involved and those not involved in
LandCare programmes, should be determined.
An integrated approach to extension and adoption
Increasingly, the broader landusing communities and other
stakeholders (refer to the overall model in Figure 1) have be-
come involved in the application of sustainable land
management practices. For example, Greening Australia is a
national, community organization that helps the Australian
landusing community to conserve and plant native trees,
shrubs and grasses (Anon. 1999). It is a non-profit com-
munity-based organization which forms a federation of
similar organizations throughout the country and is now in-
ternationally recognized. On World Environment Day 1998,
Greening Australia was inducted into the United Nations
Global 500 Roll of Honour, awarded to individuals and or-
ganizations for outstanding achievement in the protection of
the environment. Greening Australia works with land users,
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, cor-
porate sponsorship membership fees and product sales.
Funding is used to support local community-based projects
(Anon. 1999).
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 land users to manage trees on farms
for profit. Farm forestry can provide timber and non-timber
products including oils, seeds and nuts, and shelter for live-
stock. These forests conserve biodiversity, lower water tables,
and subsequently reduce soil salinity. Greening Australia also
works with 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 organizations
(Anon. 1999).
Another example of wider stakeholder involvement in
technology transfer and adoption is from the USA called
Operation Green Stripe. This is an education/conservation
programme which is commercially supported (Monsanto
1999). Through Operation Green Stripe, farmers are encour-
aged to establish vegetative buffers between their fields and
surfacewatersupplies.Cooperatingagriculturalmerchandisers
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 bar-
riers also provide a habitat for wildlife and help maintain the
integrity of stream and river banks (Monsanto 1999).
Doyle (1999) has recently described the concept of net-
work analysis in agricultural extension, adding a very useful
dimension to form the integrated model described in Figure
1. He argues that scientists, extension agents, consultants and
land users are all participants in a single knowledge and in-
formation 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 sub-
ject 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 land users in their
community. The network analysis also provides information
on the dynamics of the opinion leaders, and others in the net-
work, by indicating directions of flows of information. In
those communities where it is found that there is a predomi-
nant one-way flow of information, then extension agents
should work at ways of increasing the number of two-way in-
teractions (Doyle 1999).
It is now evident the classical diffusion model no longer
adequately describes the technology transfer and adoption
activities important to land users. Participatory approaches,
including land user-led research, have become increasingly
important in this regard. A further addition to the participa-
tory model 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 de-
scribe the actual concept involved in technology transfer and
adoption and this is shown in Figure 1. It should be recog-
nized 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.
Conclusions and areas for further research
Improving the effectiveness of extension
From current research and recent reviews of predominantly
Australian origin, a high priority needs to be given to the in-
volvement of land users in the development of innovations, as
well as better training of extension agents, and to the en-

hancement of knowledge of land users’ needs by extension
agents and scientists. Further implementation of participa-
tory approaches and the acknowledgement of the importance
of networks in land-use research and extension may achieve
this. There are many examples of the effectiveness of such
approaches to extension in developing countries. However,
further research needs to be conducted to determine their ef-
fectiveness in developed countries. Much speculation exists
in Australia as to the effectiveness of participatory ap-
proaches, but few data exist to support these assertions.
From the current study, recommendations for further re-
search into the adoption of innovations in environmental
management have been made. In summary these are as fol-
lows:
• Extension research should be conducted that quantifies
the rates of adoption of various technologies in a wide
range of landusing communities, particularly those im-
pinging on the quality of environment.
• The objective measurement and comparison of the effec-
tiveness of participatory approaches to extension with the
classical diffusion model could be conducted. There are
likely to be relative merits of both participatory ap-
proaches 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 circum-
stances. These assertions could be tested.
• Rates of adoption of specific innovations by various groups
of land users have not been widely documented in devel-
oped countries. According to the classical diffusion model,
land users can be classified into subgroups of adopters.
There would be 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 fur-
ther targeting land users. It is recommended that research
be initiated that assesses innovativeness of individuals
other than those used in the classical diffusion model.
• The effectiveness of the different forms of media (includ-
ing mass media) available to land users 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 research over a wider
range of land users is required to determine whether shifts
in information sources are occurring within the landusing
community. Furthermore, there would be value in know-
ing what groups and proportions of land users are paying
for advice so that commercial technology transfer could be
further focused and enhanced.
• Organizations that fund rural and other land-use research
should continue to ensure that all funded projects address
the transfer and subsequent adoption of findings. A de-
tailed analysis of the effectiveness of this concept of the
follow through of adoption is warranted and would pro-
vide a useful way of ensuring that scientists are involved in
the extension process, and that benefit–cost ratios for re-
search are maximized.
• Understanding the constraints facing an aging population
of land users. At the current time there is little conclusive
information on the constraints related to such a population
of land users.
• Quantifying the contribution of commercial activities on
technology transfer and adoption in land-use management
so that non-commercial extension can be better utilized.
• Understanding the barriers to the transfer and adoption of
innovations that bring about long-term improvements for
the land user (i.e. sustainable innovations) compared with
innovations that are adopted for economic reasons only.
Adoption of sustainable practices
The above eight areas relate to the effectiveness of the tech-
nology 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 sus-
tainable 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 land-use practices, or too com-
plex for the land user to understand. One of the problems in
this regard is that the results of adoption are not always read-
ily observable. For example, advice to change or minimize
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 ob-
serve. On the other hand, technologies for the conservation of
soil are generally readily observable and land users can
usually make a clear connection between adoption and im-
proved 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 pulverized the soil as re-
cently 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 prac-
tice) 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.
Land users are generally aware of the environmental
impacts of their activities. Translating these concerns of
land users, regarding the sustainability of their land-use
activities, into action is a key challenge for extension
agents. The task for extension agents is, therefore, to in-
fluence land users to adopt sustainable practices over
practices that yield short-term gains only, using the
limited financial resources available to them and involving
the wide range of stakeholders in their particular land
users’ community.
302 T.F. Guerin

Acknowledgements
The contributions of Brendan J. Guerin and Louise J.
Guerin are kindly acknowledged.
References
Altham, W.J. & Guerin, T.F. (1999) Environmental self-regulation
and sustainable economic growth: the seamless web framework.
Eco-Management and Audit 6: 61–75.
Anderson, A.M. (1981) Farmers’ expectations and use of agricul-
tural extension services. Unpublished report, Department of
Communication, School of Management and Human
Development, Hawkesbury Agricultural College, Hawkesbury,
NSW, Australia: 112 pp.
Anderson, A.M. (1982) Processes and implications of knowledge
transmission in Australian agricultural extension. Unpublished
report, Department of Communication, School of Management,
Hawkesbury Agricultural College. Hawkesbury, NSW, Australia:
140 pp.
Anon. (1991) Organochlorine Residues-Strategies for Management and
Research in Australian Agriculture. Proceedings of Conference,
September 15–18, Ballarat, Australia: Primary Tasks: 151 pp.
Anon. (1999) Greening Australia [WWW document]. URL
http://www.greeningaustralia.org.au
ARRIP (1999) Australian rural research in progress (ARRIP)
[WWW document]. URL http://www.infoscan.com.au/
arrip
Bangura, A.M. (1983) Farmer motivation patterns in participating
in adaptive crop research trials/demonstrations in Sierra Leone.
Dissertation Abstracts 44/03A: 864.
Bardsley, J.B. (1982) Farmers’ assessment of information and its
sources. Unpublished report, School of Agriculture and Forestry,
The University of Melbourne: 191 pp.
Barr, N.F. & Cary, J.W. (1992) Greening of a Brown Land: an
Australian Search for Sustainable Land Use. Melbourne:
Macmillan: 343 pp.
BCG (1999) Birchip Cropping Group (BCG). [WWW document].
URL http://www.bcg.org.au
Blaikie, P., Brown, K., Stocking, M., Tang, L., Dixon, P. &
Sillitoe, P. (1997) Knowledge in action: local knowledge as a de-
velopment resource and barriers to its incorporation in natural
resource research and development. Agricultural Systems 55:
217–37.
Buttel, F.H., Larson, O.F. & Gillespie, G.W. (1990) The Sociology
of Agriculture. New York: Greenwood Press: 263 pp.
Campbell, A. & Junor, B. (1992) Land management extension in the
’90’s: evolution or emasculation. Australian Journal of Soil and
Water Conservation 5: 16–23.
Cary, J.W. (1992) Belief and behaviour to improved land manage-
ment. In: People Protecting their Land – Proceedings 7th
International Soil Conservation Organisation Conference,
September 30–2 October. Department of Conservation and Land
Management, Sydney, Australia.
Cary, J.W., Wilkinson, R.L. & Ewers, C.R. (1989) Caring for soil on
cropping lands. Unpublished report, School of Agriculture and
Forestry, University of Melbourne: 29 pp.
Chamala, S. (1987) Adoption processes and extension strategies for
conservation farming. In: Tillage: New Directions in Australian
Agriculture, ed. P.S. Cornish & J.E. Pratley, pp. 400–19.
Melbourne: Inkata Press.
Clunies-Ross, T. (1990) Agricultural change and the politics of or-
ganic farming. Dissertation Abstracts 52/01B: 1.
Cotton, R. (1997) Ofﬁcial opening. In: Agri-industry. A Great
Investment, pp. 2–4. Annual conference of the Australian Institute
of Agricultural Science and Technology, Melbourne, Australia.
Diallo, I. (1983) An assessment of farmers’ attitudes and experiences
under no-till corn production system in Baltimore county,
Maryland. Dissertation Abstracts 45/05B: 1329.
Doyle, B. (1999) Network analysis in agricultural extension.
University of New England Research Note 99: 1–2.
Drost, D., Long, G., Wilson, D., Miller, B. & Campbell, W. (1996)
Barriers to adopting sustainable agricultural practices. [WWW
document]. URL http://www.joe.org/joe/1996december/
a1991.html
Frank, B.R. (1997) Adoption of innovations in the north
Queensland beef industry. III: implications for extension man-
agement. Agricultural Systems 55: 347–58.
Gillard, P. (1992) Expert systems for delivering advice to farmers in
Tasmania. In: Technology Transfer-Harnessing Information for a
Smarter Agriculture (Abstract Proceedings). The Australian
Institute of Agricultural Science, Hobart, Tasmania.
Gillard, P. (1999) Expert systems used to disseminate complex in-
formation in agriculture and horticulture. [WWW document].
URL http://www.attar.com/pages/case_tz.html
Grove, J. (1999) Farmers and the Internet. [WWW document].
URL http://www.rirdc.gov.au/pub/shortreps/sr58.html
Guerin, L.J. & Guerin, T.F. (1994) Constraints to the adoption of
agricultural and environmental innovations and technologies: a
review. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 34: 549–71.
Guerin, L.J. & Guerin, T.F. (1995) An application of
Adaption–Innovation Theory to bioremediation. In: Monitoring
and Veriﬁcation of Bioremediation, ed. R.E. Hinchee, G.S.
Douglas & S.K. Ong, pp. 175–83. Ohio: Battelle Press.
Guerin, T.F. (1999) Natural attenuation of a low mobility chlori-
nated insecticide in low-level and high-level contaminated soil: a
feasibility study. Remediation 9: 51–63.
Guerin, T.F. & Kennedy, I.R. (1991a) Reducing the environmental
residues from agricultural chemicals. Agricultural Science 4: 44–8.
Guerin, T.F. & Kennedy, I.R. (1991b) The biodegradation of endo-
sulfan in cotton growing soils. The Australian Cotton Grower 12:
12–15.
Hawkins, H.S. & Rimmington, G. (1992) LandcareNET – a New
Medium for Exchange of Agricultural Information. Technology
Transfer–Harnessing Information for a Smarter Agriculture
(Abstract Proceedings), The Australian Institute of Agricultural
Science, Hobart, Tasmania.
Hayman, G. (1997) Tools to investigate and plan for improved en-
vironmental dryland salinity. Summary of results from the
Dubbo Workshop. Salt Action (a NSW Agriculture extension
program; http://www.agric.nsw.gov.au/general/centres/yanco/
saltaction.html). Unpublished report, Dubbo, Australia.
Itharat, C. (1980) Adoption of agricultural innovations: an analysis
of socioeconomic characteristics, personality variables, and com-
munications behaviour in the northeastern region of Thailand.
Dissertation Abstracts 42/02A: 507.
Jedlicka, A.D. (1979) Risk-taking in rural development. Desarrollo
Rural en las Americas 11: 50–1.
Knowles, M. (1978) The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species.
Houston: Gulf Publishing Company: 293 pp.
Kondinin (1999) The FarmLine Program. [WWW document].
URL http://www.kondinin.com.au

Martin, A. & Sherrington, J. (1997) Participatory research methods
– implementation, effectiveness and institutional context.
Agricultural Systems 55: 195–216.
Martin, R.J., McMillan, M.G. & Cook, J.B. (1988) Survey of farm
management practices of the northern wheat belt of New South
Wales. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 28:
499–509.
McCarthy, M. (1999) Farm Management 500 Homepage. [WWW
document]. URL http://www.fm500.com.au/index.html
Monsanto (1999) Monsanto – conservation and the environment.
[WWW document]. URL http://www.farmsource.com/
Conservation/Conservation.asp
NFF (1999) National Farmer’s Federation (NFF) – Farmwide
Program. [WWW document]. URL http://www.farmwide.
com.au
NLP (1999) The National Landcare Program (NLP). [WWW docu-
ment]. URL http://www.dpie.gov.au/agfor/landcare/nlp.html
Ojiambo, J.B. (1989) Communication of agricultural information
between research scientists, extension personnel and farmers in
Kenya. Dissertation Abstracts 50/08A: 2286.
Pickering, S. (1992) Scientists communicating to the press.
Agricultural Science 5: 41–4.
Pol, E. (1997) Agri-infrastructure – are we doing enough? In: Agri-
industry. A Great Investment, pp. 34–6. Australian Institute of
Agricultural Science and Technology, Melbourne, Australia.
Reeve, I.J. & Black, A.W. (1993) Australian Farmers’ Attitudes to
Rural Environmental Issues. The Rural Development Centre,
Department of Sociology, University of New England. Armidale,
NSW, Australia: New England Press: 137 pp.
Rhoades, R.E. (1990a) Models, means and methods: rethinking
rural development research. In: Asian Training of Trainers on
Farm Diagnostic Skills, ed. R.E. Rhoades, V.N. Sandoval & C.P.
Bayalumun, pp. 10–14. The Philippines: University of
Philippines Los Banos.
Rhoades, R.E. (1990b) The coming revolution in the methods for
rural development research. In: Asian Training of Trainers on
Farm Diagnostic Skills, ed. R.E. Rhoades, V.N. Sandoval & C.P.
Bayalumun, pp. 112–26. The Philippines: University of
Philippines Los Banos.
Rogers, E.M. (1983) Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free
Press: 453 pp.
Rogers, E.M. & Shoemaker, F.F. (1971) Communication of
Innovations: a Cross-Cultural Approach. New York: The Free
Press and London: Collier-Macmillan: 476 pp.
Schulze, R. (1997) International Cotton Advisory Committee –
country reports. [WWW document]. URL http://
www.icac.org/icac/cottoninfo/research/countries.pdf
Sinden, J.A. & King, D.A. (1990) Adoption of soil conservation
measures in Manilla Shire, New South Wales. Review of
Marketing and Agricultural Economics 58: 179–92.
Swindale, L.D. (1979) Problems and Concepts of Agrotechnology
Transfer within the Tropics, pp. 73–81. 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.
Toffolon, R. (1998) Preventing endosulfan residues in stock and
fodder. [WWW document]. URL http://www.agric.
nsw.gov.au/ap/Avcc/dai26.html
Tucker, M. & Napier, T.L. (1998) Perceptions of risk associated
with use of farm chemicals: implications for conservation initia-
tives. Environmental Management 22: 575–87.
Vanclay, F. & Lawrence, G. (1994) Farmer rationality and the adop-
tion of environmentally sound farming practices: a critique of the
assumptions of traditional agricultural extension. European
Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 1: 59–90.
Von Fleckenstein, F. (1974) Are innovativeness scales useful? Rural
Sociology 39: 257–60.
Warner, R.E. (1981) Factors affecting the adoption of wildlife
conservation practices by east-central Illinois farmers and
their educational implications. Dissertation Abstracts 42/07A:
2978.
Weiss, V. (1994) The CRC for soil and land management’s agricul-
tural adviser survey results. Agricultural Science 7: 33–5.
304 T.F. Guerin

Cambridge Journal Environmental Conservation

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to Cambridge Journal Environmental Conservation

Similar to Cambridge Journal Environmental Conservation (20)

More from Turlough Guerin GAICD FGIA

More from Turlough Guerin GAICD FGIA (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Cambridge Journal Environmental Conservation