Social Factors and Selective Technology Adoption: The Case of Integrated Pest Management

The adoption of most introduced technologies is limited and often partial, even when their benefits have been proven through research and experimentation. This study illustrates the extent to which farmers are selective and adaptive in their adoption of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices for pears in California, USA. Adoption was studied in relation to five social factors: education, influence of agricultural extension, market strategy, farm diversity, and farm type (business or family). The incidence of selective adoption can have important consequences for the success or failure of agricultural technologies and should be a subject for adaptive research by social scientists.

[1]  B. Croft,et al.  Apple IPM Implementation in North America , 1984 .

[2]  Seong-Kwae Park,et al.  The economics of IPM in processing tomatoes , 1986 .

[3]  F. Zalom,et al.  Progress report: Vice President's task force on pest control alternatives: Overview , 1990 .

[4]  R. Norgaard.  The Economics of Improving Pesticide Use , 1976 .

[5]  C. Gladwin.  Indigenous knowledge systems, the cognitive revolution, and agricultural decision making , 1989 .

[6]  D. Hall.  The Profitability of Integrated Pest Management: Case Studies for Cotton and Citrus in the San Joaquin Valley , 1977 .

[7]  J. Bentley,et al.  Pests, Peasants, and Publications: Anthropological and Entomological Views of an Integrated Pest Management Program for Small-scale Honduran Farmers , 1991 .

[8]  Christina H. Gladwin,et al.  A View of the Plan Puebla: An Application of Hierarchical Decision Models , 1976 .

[9]  R. Tripp.  Anthropology and On-Farm Research , 1985 .

[10]  W. Goldschmidt.  As You Sow: Three Studies in the Social Consequences of Agribusiness , 1978 .

[11]  D. Horton.  Farming systems research: Twelve lessons from the Mantaro Valley Project , 1986 .

[12]  T. Paine,et al.  Biological control sought for ash whitefly , 1990 .

[13]  J. Kovach,et al.  A survey of the use of IPM by New York apple producers , 1988 .

[14]  Y. Hayami,et al.  Induced Innovation And Agricultural Development , 1977 .

[15]  Donald Winkelmann,et al.  The Adoption of New Maize Technology in Plan Puebla, Mexico , 1976 .

[16]  G. Goodell.  Challenges to International Pest Management Research and Extension in the Third World: Do We Really Want IPM to Work? , 1984 .

[17]  E. Rogers.  Diffusion of Innovations , 1962 .

[18]  E. Rogers,et al.  Reinvention in the Innovation Process , 1980 .

[19]  S. Biggs,et al.  Sources of innovation in agricultural technology , 1981 .

[20]  Derek Byerlee,et al.  Planning technologies appropriate to farmers: Concepts and procedures , 1988 .

[21]  L. George.  Managing bovine pinkeye in beef calves , 1990 .

[22]  S. Franzel.  Modeling Farmers' Decisions in a Farming Systems Research Exercise: The Adoption of an Improved Maize Variety in Kirinyaga District, Kenya , 1984 .

[23]  D. Warren,et al.  Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Development , 1980 .

[24]  C. Wearing.  EVALUATING THE IPM IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS , 1988 .

[25]  J. Grieshop,et al.  Adoption and Diffusion of Integrated Pest Management Innovations in Agriculture , 1988 .

[26]  David Zilberman,et al.  Adoption of Agricultural Innovations in Developing Countries: A Survey , 1985, Economic Development and Cultural Change.