Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Innovation Diffusion in Conservation Agriculture: A Network Approach

  • Original Article
  • Published:
The European Journal of Development Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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 via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. SNA is used to analyse ties between actors, and the patterns and implications of these ties within a social structure.

  2. Contagion: people adopt when they come into contact with others who have already adopted; social influence: people adopt when enough people in the group have adopted; social learning: people adopt once they see enough empirical evidence to convince them that an innovation is worth adopting; see Young (2009).

  3. MasAgro, an initiative of Mexico’s Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fisheries and Food (SAGARPA) and the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), brings together national and international organizations in partnership with innovative Mexican farmers to obtain higher and more stable crop yields.

  4. Trust Funds for Rural Development (FIRA) is a second-tier development bank that offers credit and guarantees, training, technical assistance and technology-transfer support to the agriculture, livestock, fishing, forestry and agribusiness sectors in Mexico.

  5. The systemic instruments of innovation are actors and/or institutions that construct and organize the systems of innovation, and provide technological platforms for learning and experimentation, as well as infrastructure. Moreover, they promote demand articulation, market strategy and development vision; see Smits and Kuhlmann (2004).

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonacich, P. and Lloyd, P. (2001) Eigenvector-like measures of centrality for asymmetric relations. Social Networks 23 (3): 191–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti, S. (2005) Centrality and network flow. Social Networks 27 (1): 55–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti, S. (2006) Identifying sets of key players in a social network. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory 12 (1): 21–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M.E. and Funk, C.C. (2008) Food security under climate change. Science 319 (5863): 580–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R.S. (1987) Social contagion and innovation: Cohesion versus structural equivalence. American Journal of Sociology 92 (6): 1287–1335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Csardi, G. and Nepusz, T. (2012) The igraph software package for complex network research, http://igraph.sf.net, accessed 13 May 2013.

  • 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.

  • Freeman, C. (1991) Networks of innovators: A synthesis of research issues. Research Policy 20 (5): 499–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, L.C. (1978) Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks 1 (3): 215–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M.S. (1973) The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 78 (6): 1360–1380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanneman, R.A. and Riddle, M. (eds.) (2005) Introduction to Social Network Methods. Riverside, CA: University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howells, J. (2006) Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy 35 (5): 715–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennel, C.F. (2013) Knowledge action networks and regional climate change adaptation. Technovation 33 (4–5): 107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klerkx, L. and Aarts, N. (2013) The interaction of multiple champions in orchestrating innovation networks: Conflicts and complementarities. Technovation 33 (6–7): 193–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lahmar, R. (2010) Adoption of conservation agriculture in Europe: Lessons of the KASSA project. Land Use Policy 27 (1): 4–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman, E., Hauert, C. and Nowak, M.A. (2005) Evolutionary dynamics on graphs. Nature 433 (7023): 312–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Maertens, A. and Barrett, C.B. (2012) Measuring social networks’ effects on agricultural technology adoption. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 95 (2): 353–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcoux, M. and Lusseau, D. (2013) Network modularity promotes cooperation. Journal of Theoretical Biology 324: 103–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matuschke, I. and Qaim, M. (2009) The impact of social networks on hybrid seed adoption in India. Agricultural Economics 40 (5): 493–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (1999) Managing National Innovation Systems. Paris, France: OECD, p. 188.

  • Pretty, J. (2008) Agricultural sustainability: Concepts, principles and evidence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 363 (1491): 447–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E.M. (1995) Diffusion of Innovations, 4th edn. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. (2000) Social Network Analysis: A Handbook. London; Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoneman, P. and Diederen, P. (1994) Technology diffusion and public policy. The Economic Journal 104 (425): 918–930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strang, D. and Meyer, J. (1993) Institutional conditions for diffusion. Theory and Society 22 (4): 487–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Valente, T.W. (2012) Network interventions. Science 337 (6090): 49–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valente, T.W. (1996) Social network thresholds in the diffusion of innovations. Social Networks 18 (1): 69–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Valente, T.W. and Fujimoto, K. (2010) Bridging: Locating critical connectors in a network. Social Networks 32 (3): 212–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman, S. and Faust, K. (1994) Social Network Analysis, Methods and Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press, p. 857.

  • Wejnert, B. (2002) Integrating models of diffusion of innovations: A conceptual framework. Annual Review of Sociology 28 (1): 297–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wejnert, C. (2010) Social network analysis with respondent-driven sampling data: A study of racial integration on campus. Social Networks 32 (2): 112–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Wickham, H. (ed.) (2009) ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Young, H.P. (2009) Innovation diffusion in heterogeneous populations: Contagion, social influence, and social learning. The American Economic Review 99 (5): 1899–1924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cornell International Institute for Food, Agriculture and Development (CIIFAD), Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA

    Julio Díaz-José

  2. Center of Economic, Social and Technological Research on Agribusiness and World Agriculture (CIESTAAM), Universidad Autónoma Chapingo, México

    Roberto Rendón-Medel, Jorge Aguilar-Ávila & Manrrubio Muñoz-Rodriguez

  3. International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), México

    Bram Govaerts

Authors
  1. Julio Díaz-José
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Roberto Rendón-Medel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bram Govaerts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jorge Aguilar-Ávila
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Manrrubio Muñoz-Rodriguez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roberto Rendón-Medel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Díaz-José, J., Rendón-Medel, R., Govaerts, B. et al. Innovation Diffusion in Conservation Agriculture: A Network Approach. Eur J Dev Res 28, 314–329 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1057/ejdr.2015.9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ejdr.2015.9

Keywords

Search

Navigation