Participatory technology development for agroforestry extension: an innovation-decision approach

In order to facilitate Participatory Technology Development (PTD) in African agriculture, extensionists and scientists must collaborate with local innovators to optimise (where necessary) and disseminate their innovations. This literature review proposes a conceptual model for PTD in which technology is developed in the context of an adoption cycle. Building on an innovation-decision approach, the characteristics of innovations that achieve widespread uptake are identified. The link between these characteristics and livelihood constraints and strategies, capital assets and the role of communication is emphasised. Although the agroforestry innovation-decision process occurs in the absence of external intervention, by understanding the characteristics of adoptable innovations in the context of adoption behaviour, it may be possible to identify new roles for extensionists and scientists. They may be able to facilitate PTD through the identification of innovators and their innovations, optimise and adapt innovations with reference to the proposed model, and disseminate innovations to other smallholders who may benefit from them.

[1]  John Sherington,et al.  Participatory research methods—Implementation, effectiveness and institutional context , 1997 .

[2]  J. Alavalapati,et al.  Adoption of agroforestry practices: a case study from Andhra Pradesh, India , 1995, Agroforestry Systems.

[3]  P. Lazarsfeld,et al.  Friendship as Social process: a substantive and methodological analysis , 1964 .

[4]  C. Mitchell,et al.  Classifying tree planters and non planters in a subsistence farming system using a discriminant analytical approach , 2001, Agroforestry Systems.

[5]  D. Young,et al.  How Do Farmers Who Adopt Multiple Conservation Practices Differ From Their Neighbors , 2003 .

[6]  A. Filius.  Factors changing farmers' willingness to grow trees in Gunung Kidul (Java, Indonesia). , 1997 .

[7]  J. Chianu,et al.  Determinants of farmers’ decision to adopt or not adopt inorganic fertilizer in the savannas of northern Nigeria , 2005, Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems.

[8]  M. Cernea.  A sociological framework : policy, environment, and the social actors for tree planting , 1992 .

[9]  S. Vosti,et al.  Policy issues in agroforestry: technology adoption and regional integration in the western Brazilian Amazon , 2004, Agroforestry Systems.

[10]  P. T. Evans.  Designing agroforestry innovations to increase their adoptability: a case study from Paraguay. , 1988 .

[11]  G. Thapa,et al.  Adoption of agroforestry in the hills of Nepal: a logistic regression analysis , 2002 .

[12]  P. Dewees.  Trees on Farms in Malawi: Private Investment, Public Policy and Farmer Choice , 1995 .

[13]  S. Fujisaka,et al.  From forest to agroforest and logger to agroforester: a case study , 1991, Agroforestry Systems.

[14]  J. Kamp,et al.  Joining farmers' experiments : experiences in participatory technology development , 1991 .

[15]  C. Ashley.  Applying Livelihood Approaches to Natural Resource Management Initiatives: Experiences in Namibia and Kenya , 2000 .

[16]  Tim Phipps,et al.  Factors Affecting the Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Practices , 1993, Agricultural and Resource Economics Review.

[17]  L. G. Tornatzky,et al.  Innovation characteristics and innovation adoption-implementation: A meta-analysis of findings , 1982, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[18]  D. Pannell,et al.  Social and economic challenges in the development of complex farming systems , 1999, Agroforestry Systems.

[19]  S. Snapp,et al.  Organic matter technologies for integrated nutrient management in smallholder cropping systems of southern Africa , 1998 .

[20]  Mark S. Granovetter.  The Strength of Weak Ties , 1973, American Journal of Sociology.

[21]  D. A. Gilmour,et al.  Not seeing the trees for the forest: a re-appraisal of the deforestation crisis in two hill districts of Nepal , 1988 .

[22]  D. Mercer,et al.  Socioeconomic research in agroforestry: progress, prospects, priorities , 2004, Agroforestry Systems.

[23]  I. Boz,et al.  Factors influencing the adoption of maize in Kahramanmaras province of Turkey , 2005 .

[24]  Ariel Dinar,et al.  Innovations on Family Farms: The Nazareth Region in Israel , 1992 .

[25]  R. Edwards,et al.  A note on the effect of farmer mental health on adoption: The case of agri-environment schemes , 2006 .

[26]  M. Koike,et al.  Understanding why farmers plant trees in the homestead agroforestry in Bangladesh , 2000, Agroforestry Systems.

[27]  J. Raintree.  Strategies for enhancing the adoptability of agroforestry innovations , 1983, Agroforestry Systems.

[28]  C. Miles,et al.  Factors Influencing Farmers' Adoption of Kalima Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Variety in Malawi , 2004 .

[29]  D. Carney,et al.  Sustainable rural livelihoods: what contribution can we make? Papers presented at the Department for International Development's Natural Resources Advisers' Conference, July 1998. , 1998 .

[30]  M. Jacobson,et al.  A case for consumer-driven extension programming: agroforestry adoption potential in Pennsylvania , 2006, Agroforestry Systems.

[31]  S. Franzel,et al.  ADOPTION POTENTIAL OF HEDGEROW INTERCROPPING IN MAIZE-BASED CROPPING SYSTEMS IN THE HIGHLANDS OF WESTERN KENYA 2. ECONOMIC AND FARMERS' EVALUATION , 1997, Experimental Agriculture.

[32]  H. P. Binswanger.  Attitudes toward risk: Experimental measurement in rural india , 1980 .

[33]  Bin Wu,et al.  Social connectedness in marginal rural China: The case of farmer innovation circles in Zhidan, north Shaanxi , 2004 .

[34]  L. H. Reeves,et al.  Reducing financial risk in agroforestry planning: a case study in Costa Rica , 2004, Agroforestry Systems.

[35]  S. Hossain,et al.  Patterns and determinants of adoption of farm practices: Some evidence from Bangladesh , 1992 .