The European Journal of Development Research

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 314–329 | Cite as

Innovation Diffusion in Conservation Agriculture: A Network Approach

  • Julio Díaz-José
  • Roberto Rendón-Medel
  • Bram Govaerts
  • Jorge Aguilar-Ávila
  • Manrrubio Muñoz-Rodriguez
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

While discussions promoting networks as a means of enhancing innovation have increased in the past decade, methods for analysing real-world networks for developing countries remain largely undeveloped. In this study, data from stakeholders involved in conservation agriculture (CA) were used to analyse innovations and innovators using a network approach. Results indicate that farmers learn mainly from other farmers, whereas practices are learned from different sources or pathways and adopted step by step. CA is not a package and principles are applied depending on the local context. Actors in the network play different roles in knowledge creation and acquisition. A distinction can be made between prescribed networks where formal relations and vertical structures predominate, and emerging networks based mainly on informal relations and a horizontal knowledge structure. The main conclusion is that applying network analysis helps to identify key stakeholders and facilitate assertive and effective network orchestration.

Keywords

innovation networks conservation agriculture social network analysis network orchestration Mexico 

Abstract

Tandis que le nombre des discussions mettant en avant les réseaux comme moyen de booster l’innovation s’est accru ces dix dernières années, les méthodes d’analyse pour les réseaux réels des pays en développement restent sous-développées. Dans cette étude, les données des acteurs impliqués dans l’Agriculture de Conservation (AC) sont utilisées pour analyser les innovations et innovateurs qui utilisent une approche réseau. Les résultats montrent que les fermiers apprennent essentiellement d’autres fermiers, alors que les pratiques agricoles de conservation sont apprises à partir de différentes sources ou cheminements et sont adoptées pas à pas. L’AC n’est pas un tout uniforme et les principes sont appliqués selon le contexte local. Les acteurs du réseau jouent des rôles différents quant à la création et l’acquisition du savoir. On peut faire une distinction entre les réseaux prescrits où les relations formelles et les structures verticales prédominent, et les réseaux émergents, basés essentiellement sur des relations informelles et sur une structure horizontale du savoir. La conclusion principale est que l’application de l’analyse réseau aide à identifier les acteurs clés et favorise une orchestration de réseau assurée et efficace.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was carried out under the project “Mapeo de Redes de Innovación – TTF 2013-019” by the Center of Economic, Social and Technological Research on Agribusiness and World Agriculture (CIESTAAM) in collaboration with International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT). Financial support of the Mexico’s Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fisheries, and Food (SAGARPA) is acknowledged, as well as two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

References

  1. Andersson, J.A. and D’Souza, S. (2014) From adoption claims to understanding farmers and contexts: A literature review of conservation agriculture (CA) adoption among smallholder farmers in Southern Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 187: 116–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bonacich, P. and Lloyd, P. (2001) Eigenvector-like measures of centrality for asymmetric relations. Social Networks 23 (3): 191–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borgatti, S. (2005) Centrality and network flow. Social Networks 27 (1): 55–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borgatti, S. (2006) Identifying sets of key players in a social network. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory 12 (1): 21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, M.E. and Funk, C.C. (2008) Food security under climate change. Science 319 (5863): 580–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burt, R.S. (1987) Social contagion and innovation: Cohesion versus structural equivalence. American Journal of Sociology 92 (6): 1287–1335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Butts, C.T. (2010) sna: Tools for social network analysis. R package version 2.2–0, http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=sna, accessed 24 May 2013.
  8. Chilton, M.A. and Bloodgood, J.M. (2008) The dimensions of tacit & explicit knowledge: A description and measure. International Journal of Knowledge Management 4 (2): 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Conley, T. and Udry, C. (2001) Social learning through networks: The adoption of new agricultural technologies in Ghana. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83 (3): 668–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Csardi, G. and Nepusz, T. (2012) The igraph software package for complex network research, http://igraph.sf.net, accessed 13 May 2013.
  11. Ekboir, J.M., Muñoz, M., Aguilar, J., Rendón, R., García, J. and Altamirano, R. (2006) On the Uneven Distribution of Innovative Capabilities and Why that Matters for Research, Extension and Development Policies. Washington DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). ISNAR, Discussion Paper 7, 23 pp.Google Scholar
  12. Freeman, C. (1991) Networks of innovators: A synthesis of research issues. Research Policy 20 (5): 499–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Freeman, L.C. (1978) Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks 1 (3): 215–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Friedrich, T. and Kassam, A. (2009) Adoption of conservation agriculture technologies: Constraints and opportunities. In: Proceedings of the 4th World Congress on Conservation Agriculture; 4-7 February, New Delhi, India: Lead Papers, pp. 257–264.Google Scholar
  15. Gershon, F., Just, R.E. and Zilberman, D. (1985) Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries: A survey. Economic Development and Cultural Change 33 (2): 255–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Granovetter, M.S. (1973) The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 78 (6): 1360–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gupta, R. and Seth, A. (2007) A review of resource conserving technologies for sustainable management of the rice – Wheat cropping systems of the Indo-Gangetic plains (IGP). Crop Protection 26 (3): 436–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hadjikhani, A. and Thilenius, P. (2005) The impact of horizontal and vertical connections on relationships’ commitment and trust. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 20 (3): 136–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hanneman, R.A. and Riddle, M. (eds.) (2005) Introduction to Social Network Methods. Riverside, CA: University of California.Google Scholar
  20. Hermans, F., Stuiver, M., Beers, P.J. and Kok, K. (2013) The distribution of roles and functions for upscaling and outscaling innovations in agricultural innovation systems. Agricultural Systems 115: 117–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hobbs, P.R. (2007) Conservation agriculture: What is it and why is it important for future sustainable food production? The Journal of Agricultural Science 145 (2): 127–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hobbs, P.R., Sayre, K. and Gupta, R. (2008) The role of conservation agriculture in sustainable agriculture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 363 (1491): 543–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Howells, J. (2006) Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy 35 (5): 715–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ibarra, H. (1992) Structural alignments, individual strategies, and managerial action: Elements toward a network theory of getting things done. In: N. Nohria and R.G. Eccles (eds.) Networks and Organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  25. Iyengar, R., Van den Bulte, C. and Valente, T.W. (2011) Opinion, leadership and social contagion in new product diffusion. Marketing Science 30 (2): 195–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jackson, M.O. (2011) An overview of social networks and economic applications. In: A.B. Jess Benhabib and O.J. Matthew (eds.) Handbook of Social Economics. North-Holland, the Netherlands: Elsevier B.V. Chapter 12.Google Scholar
  27. Jackson, M.O. and Yariv, L. (2011) Diffusion, strategic interaction, and social structure. In: A.B. Jess Benhabib and O.J. Matthew (eds.) Handbook of Social Economics. North-Holland, the Netherlands: Elsevier B.V. Chapter 14, pp. 645–678.Google Scholar
  28. Jensen, M.B., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E. and Lundval, B.Å. (2007) Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation. Research Policy 36 (5): 680–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Johansen, C., Haque, M.E., Bell, R.W., Thierfelder, C. and Esdaile, R.J. (2012) Conservation agriculture for small holder rainfed farming: Opportunities and constraints of new mechanized seeding systems. Field Crops Research 132: 18–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Joyce, K.E., Laurienti, P.J., Burdette, J.H. and Hayasaca, S. (2010) A new measure of centrality for brain networks. PLoS ONE 5 (8): e12200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kassam, A., Friedrich, T., Shaxson, F. and Pretty, J. (2009) The spread of conservation agriculture: Justification, sustainability and uptake. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 7 (4): 292–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kennel, C.F. (2013) Knowledge action networks and regional climate change adaptation. Technovation 33 (4–5): 107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kienzler, K.M. et al. (2012) Conservation agriculture in Central Asia – What do we know and where do we go from here? Field Crops Research 132: 95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kirkegaard, J.A., Conyers, M.K., Hunt, J.R., Kirkby, C.A., Watt, M. and Rebetzke, G.J. (2014) Sense and nonsense in conservation agriculture: Principles, pragmatism and productivity in Australian mixed farming systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 187: 133–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Klerkx, L. and Aarts, N. (2013) The interaction of multiple champions in orchestrating innovation networks: Conflicts and complementarities. Technovation 33 (6–7): 193–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Klerkx, L. and Leeuwis, C. (2008) Matching demand and supply in the agricultural knowledge infrastructure: Experiences with innovation intermediaries. Food Policy 33 (3): 260–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lahmar, R. (2010) Adoption of conservation agriculture in Europe: Lessons of the KASSA project. Land Use Policy 27 (1): 4–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Laik, R. et al. (2014) Integration of conservation agriculture with best management practices for improving system performance of the rice – Wheat rotation in the Eastern Indo-Gangetic plains of India. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 195: 68–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lieberman, E., Hauert, C. and Nowak, M.A. (2005) Evolutionary dynamics on graphs. Nature 433 (7023): 312–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lobell, D. and Burke, M. (2010) Economic impacts of climate change on agriculture to 2030. In: M.P. Reynolds (ed.) Climate Change and Crop Production. Wallingford, UK: CABI, v.1, pp. 38–49.Google Scholar
  41. Maertens, A. and Barrett, C.B. (2012) Measuring social networks’ effects on agricultural technology adoption. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 95 (2): 353–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Marcoux, M. and Lusseau, D. (2013) Network modularity promotes cooperation. Journal of Theoretical Biology 324: 103–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Matuschke, I. and Qaim, M. (2009) The impact of social networks on hybrid seed adoption in India. Agricultural Economics 40 (5): 493–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Monge, M., Hartwich, F. and Halgin, D. (2008) How Change Agents and Social Capital Influence Adoption of Innovations among Small Farmers: Evidence from Social Networks in Rural Bolivia. Washington DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Discussion Paper 00761.Google Scholar
  45. Newman, M. (2006) Modularity and community structure in networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103 (23): 8577–8582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nowak, M.A. and Highfield, R. (2011) Super Cooperators: Altruism, Evolution, and Why We Need Each Other to Succeed. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  47. Nyblom, J., Borgatti, S., Roslakka, J. and Salo, M.A. (2003) Statistical analysis of network data – An application to diffusion of innovation. Social Networks 25 (2): 175–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. OECD (1999) Managing National Innovation Systems. Paris, France: OECD, p. 188.Google Scholar
  49. Pretty, J. (2008) Agricultural sustainability: Concepts, principles and evidence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 363 (1491): 447–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Reynolds, M.P., Hellin, J., Govaerts, B., Kosina, P., Sonder, K. and Braun, H. (2012) Global crop improvement networks to bridge technology gaps. Journal of Experimental Botany 63 (1): 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rogers, E.M. (1995) Diffusion of Innovations, 4th edn. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  52. Scopel, E. et al. (2013) Conservation agriculture cropping systems in temperate and tropical conditions, performances and impacts: A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 33 (1): 113–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Scott, J. (2000) Social Network Analysis: A Handbook. London; Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  54. Smits, R. and Kuhlmann, S. (2004) The rise of systemic instruments in innovation policy. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy 1 (1/2): 4–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Spielman, D.J., Ekboir, J. and Davis, K. (2009) The art and science of innovation systems inquiry: Applications to Sub-Saharan African agriculture. Technology in Society 31 (4): 399–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Spielman, D., Davis, K., Negash, M. and Ayele, G. (2011) Rural innovation systems and networks: Findings from a study of Ethiopian smallholders. Agriculture and Human Values 28 (2): 195–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stoneman, P. and Diederen, P. (1994) Technology diffusion and public policy. The Economic Journal 104 (425): 918–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Strang, D. and Meyer, J. (1993) Institutional conditions for diffusion. Theory and Society 22 (4): 487–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Thierfelder, C., Mwila, M. and Rusinamhodzi, L. (2013) Conservation agriculture in eastern and southern provinces of Zambia: Long-term effects on soil quality and maize productivity. Soil and Tillage Research 126: 246–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Thierfelder, C. and Wall, P.C. (2011) Reducing the risk of crop failure for smallholder farmers in Africa through the adoption of conservation agriculture. In: A. Bationo, B. Waswa, J.M. Okeyo, F. Maina, and J.M. Kihara (eds.) Innovations as Key to the Green Revolution in Africa. The Netherlands: Springer, pp. 1269–1277.Google Scholar
  61. Valente, T.W. (2012) Network interventions. Science 337 (6090): 49–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Valente, T.W. (1996) Social network thresholds in the diffusion of innovations. Social Networks 18 (1): 69–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Valente, T.W., Coronges, K., Lakon, C. and Costenbader, E. (2008) How correlated are network centrality measures? Connect (Tor), NIHPA Manuscripts 28 (1): 16–26.Google Scholar
  64. Valente, T.W. and Fujimoto, K. (2010) Bridging: Locating critical connectors in a network. Social Networks 32 (3): 212–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wasserman, S. and Faust, K. (1994) Social Network Analysis, Methods and Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press, p. 857.Google Scholar
  66. Wejnert, B. (2002) Integrating models of diffusion of innovations: A conceptual framework. Annual Review of Sociology 28 (1): 297–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wejnert, C. (2010) Social network analysis with respondent-driven sampling data: A study of racial integration on campus. Social Networks 32 (2): 112–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wenger, E., McDermott, R.A. and Snyder, W. (2002) Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  69. Wickham, H. (ed.) (2009) ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Young, H.P. (2009) Innovation diffusion in heterogeneous populations: Contagion, social influence, and social learning. The American Economic Review 99 (5): 1899–1924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julio Díaz-José
    • 1
  • Roberto Rendón-Medel
    • 2
  • Bram Govaerts
    • 3
  • Jorge Aguilar-Ávila
    • 2
  • Manrrubio Muñoz-Rodriguez
    • 2
  1. 1.Cornell International Institute for Food, Agriculture and Development (CIIFAD), Cornell UniversityIthaca, New YorkUSA
  2. 2.Center of Economic, Social and Technological Research on Agribusiness and World Agriculture (CIESTAAM), Universidad Autónoma ChapingoMéxico
  3. 3.International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT)México

Personalised recommendations