reliance on sources of information for water-saving practices by irrigators in the high plains of...

Jownnl of Rural S~dies. Vol. 7. NO. 4. pp. 41 I-421, 1991 0743-0167/91 $3.00 + 0.00

Printed in Great Britain Pergamon Press plc

Reliance on Sources of Information for Water-saving Practices by Irrigators in the

High Plains of the U.S.A.

David E. Kromm and Stephen E. White Department of Geography, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, U.S.A.

Abstract-Who do farmers trust? Irrigators in the High Plains are confronted with a wide range of information sources with respect to water-saving practices. From a survey of 709 irrigators in 10 countries the most widely accepted sources are identified, regional variability of information is examined, the role of irrigator characteristics on source selection is determined, and the level of association between adoption and source preference is analyzed. Differences in irrigators’ reliance on specific sources are more associated with location than irrigator characteristics. Information sources viewed as important by many irrigators frequently influence adoption decisions less than sources having a wide range of preference among irrigators. Mass media and advisor-oriented sources are much more significantly linked to adoption than inter-personal sources such as friends and neighbors. The three sources that best discriminate adoption behavior are private agricultural consulting firms, unjversity research stations, and trade magazines.

Introduction

Who do farmers trust regarding information about water-saving practices? This question has been approached most frequently in studies investigating the diffusion of an agricultural innovation. As a contribution to this work, we are examining the sources of information that irrigators in the High Plains of the central United States of America look to for knowledge about water-saving practices. We consider four specific questions with respect to sources of information on conserving water, and we discuss the implications of our findings for ground- water management policies. The questions are:

1.

2.

3.

4.

What are the most widely accepted information

sources? Do information sources vary from place to place in the High Plains? Do preferences for information sources change as aquifer, farm, and socio-economic characteristics vary? What sources are most associated with the adoption of specific water-saving practices?

The High Plains-Ogallala region provides an ideal area in which to examine agricultural innovation in conserving water, as it possesses an agribusiness economy that sustains economic activity in the

region, yet is largely based on an essentially non- renewable ground-water resource. Survival of the integrated agribusiness economy depends on continued irrigation. Throughout the six-state, 184- county area ground-water depletion ranks as a critical natural resource issue. Approximately 10 million acres are irrigated, which represents a decline of 20% in a decade. A part of the reduction may be attributed to governmental soil conservation programs removing land from cultivation, but in- adequate ground-water supplies and the increasing cost of lifting water from ever greater depths accounts for much of the reduction in irrigation. The long-term stability of irrigated agriculture will depend on the adoption of water-saving practices, and the specific mix of practices adopted will partially depend on who farmers trust.

The survey

We pursued the issue of information sources as one important element in a larger study of irrigator adoption of water-saving practices in the High Plains (1990a). We surveyed 1750 irrigators (709 returned a completed questionnaire) in 10 counties in the leading irrigation states, Nebraska, Kansas, Okla- homa, and Texas (see Fig. 1: map of the study area). We chose the counties because all are important in

411

412 David E. Kromm and Stephen E. White

HIGH PLAINS SURVEY COUNTIES

Figure 1. Map of the study area.

irrigation, with each having over 70,O~O irrigated acres harvested according to the 1987 U.S. Census of Agriculture. Together, the 10 counties accounted for more than 1,400,OOO irrigated acres harvested. The counties varied in that most were decreasing in irrigation, while a few were stable or slightly expanding. Institutional arrangements significantly differed. Not only was the water law of four states involved, but the degree to which Local management was permitted greatly varied. There are ground- water management districts with meaningful differences in authority in Kansas and Texas, comprehensive natural resource districts in Nebraska, and state control in Oklahoma.

The sample for each county was systematically selected from lists of identifiable irrigators. Lists were provided by the Soil Conservation Service, ground-water districts, natural resource districts, and the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. The sample appears to represent the irrigation population well. The attributes of the respondents were reviewed carefully by knowledgeable

agricultural professionals in the individual counties, and they indicated that respondent characteristics closely matched the irrigator profile in their respect- ive counties. While the characteristics of the respondents are known, there are no socio-economic characteristic summaries for all irrigators with which comparisons can be made.

A 40% response rate is very respectable, given the length and detail of the survey. Most irrigators wholly completed the survey, resulting in relatively few missing values. For example, only 9 (1.3%) irrigators failed to report their age, and just 14 did not specify their level of educational attainment.

Research in agricultural information sources

The study of agricultural information sources is carried out in several disciplines, most notably rural sociology, agricultural economics, and human geography, and most frequently in the context of innovation diffusion. Hagerstrand (1967) pioneered much of this work in geography. He observed that a spatial viewpoint provided much insight into the process by which ideas spread and developed the notion that both physical and social distributions are important when studying the diffusion of an agricultural innovation. Hagerstrand placed much empha- sis on the information factor in creating a func- tionally efficient diffusion mode. While he recog- nized the role of media in accomplishing spatial interaction over distance, he saw the neighborhood as a key to understanding the transfer of ideas. In this formulation, positive individual relationships give rise to information dissemination in a network of social communications. Diffusion occurs in private information fields that ‘can be viewed as centered regions where single individuals, rather than places, establishments, or institutions, act as centers’ (Hagerstrand, 1967).

In his comprehensive review of research on the adoption and diffusion of agricultural practices, Jones presented a three-fold classification of communications channels (Jones, 1967):

(4

(b)

(cl

the mass media, including radio, television, newspapers, magazines and journals, and leaf- lets, brochures, etc., from extension, advisory, and commercial sources; personal contact with advisors or representatives from agricultural extension agencies and commercial firms or quasi-commercial organiz- ations (such as marketing boards), either on a face-to-face individual basis, or in small group situations; and inter-personal contacts between friends and neighbors, usually other farmers.

High Plains Water-saving Practices 413

Our research questions the impact of interpersonal

contacts such as friends, neighbors, and county agricultural agents (representatives of university extension services) on the decision to adopt specific water-saving technologies. Instead, we hypothesize that media and advisor-oriented sources that spread information at a regional scale tend to be more important.

One very important characteristic attributed to adopters is innovativeness. This refers to the relative quickness with which one person adopts an innovation as compared with others in the same system. On the basis of innovativeness, five adopter categories have been identified, and they are referred to as (1) innovators, (2) early adopters, (3) early majority, (4) late majority, and (5) laggards. Rogers (1983) has described the characteristics of each. Innovators are venturesome; they eagerly try new ideas. Innovators play a gatekeeping role in the flow of new ideas into a system. Early adopters are respectable and have a high degree of opinion leadership in their social system. The early majority are deliberate and seldom hold leadership positions, whereas the late majority are skeptical and adopt because of economic necessity and increasing press- ures in their social network to do so. Laggards are not only the last to adopt an innovation, but often do so after it has been superseded by a more recent idea. There is spatial expression as well. As one moves from the innovator to the laggard the source of ideas shrinks from national and even global to the

local (Rogers, 1983).

Jones presents the conventional wisdom so far as the sources of information relied upon by different classes of adopters. Innovators and early adopters make use of the mass media, especially that part which is more scientifically oriented. Professional advisors are important as these people evaluate, try, and adapt the innovation. For a majority of farmers the media is again an important source of initial knowledge. Both early adopters and various advisors become involved in implementation. For the laggards who adopt late in the process, other farmers are probably the main information source. It is generally believed that laggards have minimal contact with professional advisors and other technically competent sources (Jones, 1967). A few individuals, essentially the innovators and early adopters, are influenced by the external media, and they, in turn, influence other members of the social system (Jones, 1%7). In his overview of diffusion concepts and ideas, Rogers quoted Ryan and Gros from their study of hybrid seed corn in writing that ‘the very fact of acceptance by one or more farmers offers new stimulus to the remaining ones’ (Rogers, 1983).

It has been widely assumed that there is a differen- tiation of information as a person moves through a series of stages which collectively form the adoption process. According to this concept, the media creates awareness and interest, while friends and neighbors and agricultural agency professionals, such as extension agents, provide input during the time the potential adopter is evaluating and trying the innovation. Subsequent adoption and continu- ance relies on personal experience. In the words of Carlson and Dillman: ‘Different sources of information become important at different stages of adoption’ (Carlson and Dillman, 1986). In their comprehensive study of communication and use of scientific farm information by farmers in Taiwan, Lionberger and Chang did not find this to be the’ case. They discovered that extension often provided the first information, that other farmers were relied on heavily throughout the entire process, and that mass media served as an additional source during the evaluation and trial stages (Lionberger and Chang, 1968). Based on their study of farmer use of alternative sources of conservation information to control soil loss, Bultena and Hoiberg believe that . . . multiple sources tend to be mobilized through-

out the decision-making process as persons weigh the pros and cons of alternative actions’ (Bultena and Hoiberg, 1986).

The notion of the farmer as an innovator has been explored in many publications. The very idea that one category of adopter is labeled ‘innovator’ demonstrates the point well. Bultena and Hoiberg observe that innovators ‘. . . bypass local information channels and draw upon more geographically remote sources deemed knowledgeable, credible, and current’ (Bultena and Hoiberg, 1986). Lion- berger and Chang wrote that ‘. . researchers and extension workers have sometimes found themselves outpaced by innovative farmers and have found it necessary to make quick adjustments to service them’ (Lionberger and Chang, 1968). One of the reasons farmers rely heavily on their peers is that the information they receive includes ‘. . . the local adaptability of new ideas: how they are likely to fit into one’s farm plans, the likely consequences of their use, both social and economic, and specifics about their actual use’ (Lionberger et al., 1975). It is no surprise that local farmers who have experience using new practices usually enjoy a high level of credibility in the eyes of other nearby farmers. Informal talk among farmers provides an excellent example of the private information field discussed by Hagerstrand.

There is not wide agreement on the importance of information sources in facilitating diffusion. Report- ing on research by Korsching and associates on

4x4 David E. Kromm and Stephen E. White

information dissemination and altering farmers’ conservation opinion and behavior, Bultena and Hoiberg note that ‘although post-test analysis re- vealed that many respondents had seen and/or discussed the information materials, the study failed to show that these materials had any effect upon their subsequent conservation views or behavior’ (Bultena and Hoiberg, 1986). On the other hand, Parent and Lovejoy, in a study of Indiana farmers, found information dissemination boosted problem perception and that perception ‘was a major deter- minant of conservation adoptions’ (Bultena and Ho&erg, 1986).

Numerous studies focus on agricultural information sources. However, only a small percentage deal with information on natural resource conservation, and almost all of these consider soil erosion and its control. We came across no papers that exclusively examined sources of information for water-saving practices that can be adopted by irrigators. At the very best, a few publications look at water conservation along with other resource issues. The paucity of treatment raises questions as to what information sources on water conservation techniques are available to and used by irrigators and how the pattern conforms with that of information sources farmers rely on in soil erosion and other knowledge-based issues important in agriculture. We hope to provide some answers.

Perceived importance of information sources

One question in the survey asked irrigators to evaluate on a five point integer scale the degree to which each of 13 different sources were important for obtaining information about the availability and practicality of specific water-saving practices in their county. A score of one indicated that the source was ‘unimportant’ whereas a five reflected ‘ex- tremely important’. To simplify the analysis, the integer scale responses were collapsed into three categories such that scores of four and five were combined into an ‘important’ source category, a value of three suggested a ‘neutral’ response, while scores of one and two were combined and assumed to indicate a perception that a specific source was ‘unimportant’. The 13 sources were selected based on consultation with water management experts, a literature review, and our interview experiences with irrigators throughout the High Plains region.

The most popular source is the national Soil Conservation Service (SCS), which was perceived as important by 45% of the irrigators, followed closely by university research stations (43%), university extension services (37%) and friends and neighbors

Table 1. Percentage of irrigators identifying a source as important for obtaining information about water-saving

practices _----__-_ _-.- Soil Conservation Service 44.8 University research stations 43.2 University Extension Service 36.8 Friends and Neighbors 35.8 Local ground-water or resource district 34.0

Private agricultural consulting firms 33.0 County Agricultural Agent 32.4 Irrigation equipment dealers 30.9 Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service 30.8 Trade magazines 24.0

Well drillers 23.2 Fertilizer dealers 20.5 Local Irrigators Association 16.4

.~--~-

(36%) (Table 1). Well drillers, fertilizer dealers, trade magazines, and local irrigator associations (lobbying groups for irrigator interests) were each viewed as an important source by less than 25% of the irrigators. Our findings agree with those of other studies that have also found the SCS to be the most reliable source of information for soil erosion pre- vention (Simmons et al., 1988) and tillage practices (Contant. 1988).

Although the SCS proved to be the most popular source, it faiIed to be designated as important by more than one-half of the irrigators who evaluated it. This suggests that irrigators differ greatly among themselves as to the most important sources. How- ever, this is not an unexpected result if we assume from the classic adoption/diffusion model that the role of information sources changes as an irrigator moves through the adoption process (Bultena and Hoiberg, 1986). Irrigators throughout the High Plains have different adopter characteristics and are also in various stages of the adoption process. Thus, innovators and early adopters may tend to rely more on mass media, late adopters on personal contact with advisors and institutions, whereas laggards find that friends and neighbors tend to be more important sources of information in the decision to adopt or reject an innovation (Jones, 1967). Also, the distri- bution of a source throughout the region may not be uniform. For example, local irrigator associations are not present in most locations, while some irrigators do not fall within the bounds of a local ground-water or resource district.

Another portion of the survey asked irrigators to ‘identify your most reliable sources of information on how to most effectively manage your water use’. When presented with the option of listing only a single source, the one most preferred was not the SCS. While it apparently has wide public support ‘across the board’, SCS trailed university extension


services. private agricultural consulting firms, trade

magazines, and local ground-water or resource districts as the most reliable source of information for managing water use (Table 2). Surprisingly, past experience proved to be the most important information source by a significant margin. It would appear that irrigators are learning by trial and error and past success and failure is directing water-saving practice adoption decisions. This supports Nowak’s (1984) argument that a major problem with the classic adoption/diffusion model is the assumption that knowledge flows from the top down when it

clearly also flows in two directions between sources

and adopters.

Table 2. Percentage of irrigators identifying a source as the most reliable source of information for effectively manag-

ing water use ___--.. .~- __ ---.

Past personal experience University Extension Service Private agricultural consulting firm Trade magazines Local ground-water or resource district

-

20.7 12.2 12.2 10.0 Y.5

Soil Conservation Service 7.8 County Agricultural Agent 4.0 Irrigation equipment dealer 3.1 Oniversity research stations 2.8 Monitoring devices 2.8

Friends and neighbors 2.2 Local Irrigator’s Association 1.4 Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service 0.9 Well drillers 0.2 Fertilizer dealers 0.2

Other 10.3 --__ .._-- -_ --~ __._ _~

Friends and neighbors are identified by very few irrigators as the most reliable source, contradicting traditional diffusion research such as that by Hager- strand (1967), which emphasizes the high degree to which local interpersonal contacts (nearest neighbor effects) are influential in adoption decisions. Another source with wide appeal is the university research station which 43% of the respondents evaluated as important. However, it finished as only the ninth most reliable source and was selected by only 2.8% of the respondents. While many sources may contribute important information as perceived by irrigators in aggregate, they may have less impact on adoption decisions than sources that have more extreme variability in their perceived desirability. For example, attitudes about the importance of private agricultural consulting firms are polarized. More irrigators (46.3%) evaluated it as an unimportant source than those who felt it was important (33.0%). Yet more irrigators said it was the most reliable source than any other agency except the university extension service.

Spatial variation of the reliance on information sources

To examine statistically the regional variance in preference for information sources, the three categories of relative importance based on the integer scale were cross-classified with the 10 survey counties for each of the 13 information sources. Chi- squared values were computed for each table to test for variance among the 10 counties (Table 3). Preferences varied significantly at the 0.05 level among the 10 counties for 8 of the 13 information sources. Some of the differences among counties were very large. For example, in Texas, whereas 54.1% of irrigators in Lamb County felt that the university extension service was an important source, only 17.4% in Gaines county felt likewise. This is surprising in that we can assume that irrigators in each county have roughly equivalent access to the same extension service. While 59.1% of Chase County, Nebraska, irrigators identified the natural resource district as important. only 2.3% of Gaines County irrigators did so, which is not unexpected as Gaines County is not within a ground- water or resource district. This emphasizes the lack of a common regional knowledge base.

The importance placed on county agricultural agents ranged from 14.6% to a high of 51.4%. This suggests the role of individuals who can be identified as opinion leaders may be very influential in some counties. Van Es (1984) has noted that ‘. . . certain individuals of a target system are more influential in expediting the diffusion and adoption process. The rate of adoption of an innovation is directly related the extent to which these opinion leaders promote it’. From a different perspective, information sources trusted by individuals make a difference for those who have faith in them. In summary, the reliance on specific sources of information varies regionally throughout the High Plains. The reasons for this variance are associated with the availability of a source, the absence of a common knowledge base, and the activity of local opinion leaders. The role of the potential adopters’ socio-economic characteristics and the environmental characteristics of the region on the perceived importance of sources may also influence regional variability and is explored next.

Irrigator characteristics and information sources

Numerous studies have shown that younger, more educated farmers and operators with larger farms tend to be innovators and adopt soil conservation practices and other farm innovations earlier and more frequently than others (Audivac and Beaulieu,

-.

Tab

le

3.

Sig

nif

ican

t d

iffe

ren

ces

of

pre

fere

nce

s fo

r in

form

atio

n

sou

rces

b

y ir

rig

ato

r ch

arac

teri

stic

s .~

_.._

.-

._-.

.. ..-

.-

.. _.

_.

_ .._

~

-

..-.

Irri

guto

r ch

urac

teri

stic

s

Ittf

orm

ntto

n so

urce

s

Fri

end

s an

d

nei

gh

bo

rs

lrrt

gat

ion

eq

uip

men

t d

eale

rs

Tra

de

mag

azin

es

So

il co

nse

rvat

ion

l

l

*

It I.

Ag

ricu

ltu

ral

Sta

bili

zati

on

an

d

Co

nse

rvat

ion

S

ervi

ce

Co

un

ty

Ag

ricu

ltu

ral

Ag

ent

Un

iver

sity

E

xten

sio

n

Ser

vice

U

niv

ersi

ty

rese

arch

st

atio

n

I. .

. I

**

I. *

I.

l

l

Pri

vate

ag

ricu

ltu

ral

con

sult

ing

fi

rm

l *

l *

l *

l .

Lo

cal

GW

MD

o

r re

sou

rce

dis

tric

t **

l *

.*

1.

Wel

l d

rille

rs

* l *

f.o

cal

Irri

gat

ors

’ A

sso

ciat

ion

s **

l *

*

l

Fer

tiliz

er

dea

lers

**

t.

__

. -.

-

.-..

--

__._

__

~_

_._-

- *

Ch

i-sq

uar

ed

valu

es

arc

sig

nif

ican

t at

th

e 0.

05

leve

l. **

C

hi-

squ

ared

va

lues

ar

c si

gn

ific

ant

at t

he

0.01

le

vel


1986; Brown, 1981; Bultena and Hoiberg, 1986; Van

Es and Tsoukalas, 1987; Jones, 1967; Nowak, 1984; Simmons er al., 1988). Likewise, Kromm and White (1990b) found that younger, more educated irrigators and those with five or more irrigation wells adopt some specific water saving practices more frequently. Several important questions emerge: do socio-economic and farm characteristic differences among irrigators influence the degree to which they perceive the importance of specific information sources? Also, do geohydrologic conditions such as depth to water and saturated thickness of the aquifer constrain the range of adoption options and thus affect the type of information irrigators rely upon? To what degree is irrigator optimism about the economic future and their knowledge of state water laws related to paths they follow to learn about the availability of water-saving practices?

These questions are explored with cross-classification analysis (Table 3). Analysis of chi-squared values suggests that, in general, age, education, and size of farm operation are not significantly associated with the degree of importance attached to most information sources. Location appears to be a more important factor in explaining the variance on which irrigators rely on specific sources. However, differences in education are significantly related to irrigators dependence on four sources. For example, those with a college degree were much more likely to identify private agricultural consulting firms (41.5%) as an important source than irrigators who never completed high school (23.5%). Less-educated farmers preferred fertilizer dealers, well drillers, and the Agriculture Stabilization and Conservation Service (manages national subsidy programs) much more so than did the more educated. Age differences proved significant for two sources, while size of operation (number of wells) was significant for just three sources. Irrigators 55 years and older tended to place greater importance on fertilizer dealers and their local irrigator association than did younger farmers.

Irrigators with five or more wells attributed significantly greater importance to private agricultural consulting firms and irrigation equipment dealers and less importance to the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service than did smaller operators. This finding contradicts the research of Bultena and Hoiberg (1986), who found that the largest operators tended to draw upon public agencies more often, at least for soil erosion technologies. Perhaps the adoption process for water- saving practices varies somewhat from that for soil conservation practices or other agricultural innovations, as there are clearly some differences in the nature of information sources available. Certainly,

the range of institutions by which water is managed varies more across the landscape as do the legal precedents among states and within states that affect the restrictions within which irrigators must operate.

The irrigators’ local geohydrologic conditions were not associated with the importance placed on most sources. The exceptions occurred for irrigators having access to relatively shallow water (less than 1.50 feet below the surface) who preferred the local ground-water or resource district and the county agricultural agent more so than irrigators who must drill more than 150 feet to reach water. As expected, irrigators with the greatest saturated thickness relied more on irrigation dealers. It stands to reason that irrigators who have substantial water are more likely to drill wells and thus have more contact with well drillers.

Attitudes about the economic future of the local region did discriminate the preferences for four sources. Those who felt that the economic future would be better than the present placed more importance on private agricultural consulting firms, trade magazines, and irrigation equipment dealers. Irrigators who felt the economic future would be worse than the present relied more on friends and neighbors.

Over 43% of irrigators who felt that they were knowledgeable about state water laws placed importance on local ground-water or resource districts while only 16% of those who indicated that they were not knowledgeable about water laws did likewise. This difference probably reflects the fact that restrictive management programs of districts must be formulated within the provisions allowed by state statutes. Irrigators in such districts must know the law to comply with the management program. Those more familiar with state water laws also preferred university research stations and local irrigator associations more than other farmers.

The information source for which there was the most disagreement among irrigators with respect to its importance was the private agricultural consulting firm. The profile of the typical irrigator who preferred this source is someone who is optimistic about the economic future of. the local region, more educated, more likely to have a larger operation with both sprinkler and furrow irrigation systems, and more likely to live in Kansas or Nebraska rather than Oklahoma or Texas. The two most preferred sources, the Soil Conservation Service and university extension services, had the smallest level of disagreement among irrigators so far as their importance. These are established institutions serving a broad segment of the farm population.


In summary, irrigator socio-economic and farm characteristics, water law knowledge, economic optimism, and geohydrologic constraints are not associated with preference differences for most information sources. However, differences do exist for some specific sources (in particular private agricultural consulting firms), primarily among irrigators having different levels of education, size of operation, knowledge of water laws, and optimism about the economic future.

Adoption of water saving practices and information

sources

Is the difference that irrigators place on the importance of specific information sources related to actual adoption behavior? Bultena and Hoiberg (1986) noted that there have been few studies that have used information as a variable to explain farmer’s conservation behavior and at best the results are mixed and confusing. To our knowledge, no study has attempted to associate irrigators’ preferences for information sources with their actual adoption of a wide range of water-saving tech-

nologies.

In another study (Kromm and White, 199Ob), the level of irrigators’ adoption of 39 different water saving practices was determined for the 709 irrigators reported on in this article. Table 4 provides the results of cross-tabulating the level of adoption/ non-adoption of the 14 most adopted practices with the level of importance placed on each source of information. Those practices that were adopted by at least 25% of the irrigators are included here. The cross-tabulations produced 182 different 2 (adoption/non-adoption) by 3 (important/neutral/unimportant source) tables.

High levels of importance placed on three sources of information tend to be associated with high levels of adoption. Perceived importance or unimportance of private agricultural consulting firms (significantly different levels of adoption for nine practices), university research stations (seven practices), and trade magazines (seven practices) are the most important indicators of whether or not irrigators actually adopt water-saving practices. These sources are also those identified as the most reliable by irrigators after past personal experience (Table 2). In fourth place is the university extension service which is associated with adoption differences for four practices. This finding does not suggest that other sources are ineffective in encouraging adoption, but it does reveal those sources that appear to make a difference in adoption for some specific water-saving practices. Jones’ (1967) contention that

early adopters tend to rely more on mass media and personal contact with advisors is supported by our findings.

Implications of findings

From this research several ideas emerge which have implications for the understanding of the process of information dissemination and its role in the diffusion of innovation. Our findings suggest that some widely held assumptions should be questioned. Our data do not support the commonly held view that the number of farmers using an information source measures the influence of the source on decision- making. Nor do our findings agree with the notion that characteristics of the farmer and the farm operation largely account for the selection of information sources. Our data further suggest that attributes of the innovation being advocated will play a greater role in diffusion than the agencies promoting the idea, the programs used to spread the information, or other factors usually found in diffusion models. Importantly, media (trade magazine) and advisor-oriented sources (university research stations and private agricultural consulting firms) were more closely associated with adoption behavior than interpersonal contacts.

Information sources that are commonly viewed as important by large numbers of irrigators, such as the soil conservation service, may actually have less impact on adoption decisions than sources for which preferences may vary significantly among irrigators but that are perceived as the most reliable source by a significant minority. State and local management programs designed to encourage water-saving practices may need to recognize the role of trade magazines, university research stations, and private agricultural consulting firms in promoting greater adoption of water conservation technologies.

The variance in preferences for specific information sources is better explained by location than those irrigator and farm characteristics often assumed to be linked to adoption or non-adoption according to the classical model of adoption/diffusion. Part of the locational variance on the reliance of sources is undoubtedly due to a heterogeneous information surface. Access to sources varies depending upon where one lives. The spatial dimension of information availability needs to be explored.

A wide range of water-saving practices are available to irrigators. The role of information sources in encouraging adoption appears to be a function of the types of water-saving practices. For example, some techniques are capital intensive system practices that


sauye8etu apeJl : : (I

sJa[eap wamd!nba uoge8yI

s3sv

sloqq%!au pue spua!Jd

GK+AJi% UO!SUalXa .h!S.Ian!u~ .

13!Jwp 33JnosaJ Jo Jalem-punoJ% 18301

su0y?1s qxeasaJ Ll!sJaAgln :. ..:

a+uas uoyenJasuo3 1~0s

.

.

: *

l

. (I

l

l

l .

.

:

l *

:


require the purchase of new equipment, modifi- cations to the existing irrigation system, or the purchase of an entirely new, more efficient system. Other practices may be field orientated and low cost such as furrow diking or conservation tillage. Still others involve very low cost monitoring techniques such as metering water use, checking soil moisture, or measuring rainfall. Can diffusion models be developed that adequately information sources on the practices in general, or demand different sources making strategies?

tell us about the role of adoption of water-saving do different practices and different decision-

We are uncertain as to what degree the adoption of one practice serves as a barrier to the adoption of another. Irrigators have finite economic resources that they can use to select from a wide range of practices. The adoption of high price and structural options early may preclude the adoption of lower cost (and perhaps more efficient) techniques later. More research is needed to identify the way sources change as farmers acquire specific mixes of water- saving practices. As economics constrain the total number of water-saving practices possible for a particular irrigator, rejection of prior adoptions to accommodate new innovations may be a continuous process that is poorly understood. How do information sources in~uence waves of adoption over the High Plains when each wave consists of a new mix of water-saving practices?

Another important issue is the impact of a continued farm crisis on the adoption of water-saving practices. Murdock et al. (1986) have observed that although the literature suggests that the most innovative operators employ the most advanced technologies and management practices, in the Great Plains they are also, relatively speaking, the farmers who have felt the most severe financiai stress. Thus a continued farm crisis may result in the loss of a disproportionate number of producers who are innovative. Our research, however, has shown that the role of irrigator characteristics on the use of sources and the adoption of water technologies is practice specific and not as important as locational factors. This suggests that water conservation can continue to expand even if continued financial stress forces some ‘innovators’ out of business.

This study has shown that both adoption and the reliance on information sources are regionally biased. Issues such as the degree to which this variance depends on an inertia that is caused by a tradition-bound allegiance to long-term but ‘inap- propriate’ sources of information and whether managers encourage reliance on different sources need to be explored. As is done with technology, can

we view sources as a commodity to be adopted and diffused?

Perhaps it is not reasonable to develop a general adoption/diffusion model for the High Plains region if the variability of legal, institutional, socio- economic, and physical conditions across the region is so complex as to negate the validity of the region- wide assumptions on which such a model may be based. A more complex, disaggregated approach to modeling seems necessary.

References

Audivac, I. and Beaulieu, L.J. (1986) Microcomputers in agriculture: a proposed model to study their diffusion adoption. Rural Sociology 51, 60-77.

Brown, L. (1968) Diffusion Dynamics: a Review and Revision of the Quantitative Theory of the Spatial Diffusion of Znnovutio~, Lund Studies in Geography. The Royal University, Lund.

Brown, L.A. (1981) Innovation Diffusion: a New Perspec- rive. Methuen, London.

Bultena, G.L. and Hoiberg, E.O. (1986) Sources of information and technical assistance for farmers in controlling soil erosion. In Conserving Soil: Insights from Socioeconomic Research, Lovejoy, S.B. and Napier, T.L. (eds). pp. 71-82. Soil Conservation Society of America, Ankeny, Iowa.

Carlson, J.E. and Dillman, D.A., (1986) Early adopters and non-users of no-till in the Pacific Northwest: a comparison. In Conserving Soil: Insights from Socio- economic Research, Lovejoy, S.B. and Napier, T.L. (eds), pp. 83-92. Soil Conservation Society of America, Ankeny, Iowa.

Contant, C.K. (1988) Communicating with farmers: pro- viding useful and reliable sources of information. Paper presented at the Meetings of the Freshwater Foun- dation, St Paul, Minnesota.

Hagerstrand, T. (1967) i~novutio~ Diffusion us a Spatial Process. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Jones, G.E. (1967) The adoption and diffusion of agricultural practices. World Agricuft~ral Economics and Rural Sociology Abstracts 9, l-34.

Kromm. D.E. and White, S.E. (199Oa) Conserving water in the High Plains. Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas.

Kromm, D.E. and White, S.E. (1990b) The adoption of water-saving practices among High Plains irrigators. Paper presented at the Meetings of the Association of American Geographers, Toronto, Canada.

Lionberger. H.F. and Chang, H.C. (1968) Communi- cation and use of scientific farm information by farmers in two Taiwan agricultural villages. Research Bulletin 940, University of Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station, May 1968.

Lionberger. H.F., Chii-Jeng Yeh and Copus, G.D. (1975) Social change in communication structure: comparative study of farmers in two communities. Rural Sociological Sociefy ~onogruph (Number 3).

Murdock, S.H. et al. (1986) The farm crisis in the Great Plains: implication for theory and policy development. Ruraf Sociology S1, 406-435.

Nowak. P.J. (1984) Adoption and diffusion of soil and water conservation practices. In Future Agruxltrcrul


Technology and Resource Conservation, English, B.C., Maetzold, J.A. and Holding, B.R. (eds), pp. 214-237. The Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa.

Rogers, E.M. (1983) Diffusion of Innovarions (3rd Edn). The Free Press, New York.

Simmons, C., Osika, L. and Fund, M. (1988) The Barriers to Soil and Water Conservation: a Kansas Study. Kansas Rurnl Center, Whiting, Kansas.

Van Es, J.C. (1984) Dilemmas in the soil and water conservation behavior of farmers. In Furure Agriculturnl Technology and Resource Conservation, English, B.C., Maetzold, J.A. and Holding, B.R. (eds), pp. 238-253. The Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa.

Van Es, J.C. and Tsoukalas, T. (1987) Kinship arrangements and innovativeness: a comparison of palouse and prairie findings. Rural Sociology 52, 389-397.

reliance on sources of information for water-saving practices by irrigators in the high plains of...

Documents