IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v104y2021ics0264837721000831.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Factors associated with farmers’ use of fee-for-service advisors in a privatized agricultural extension system

Author

Listed:
  • Nettle, R.
  • Morton, J.M.
  • McDonald, N.
  • Suryana, M.
  • Birch, D.
  • Nyengo, K.
  • Mbuli, M.
  • Ayre, M.
  • King, B.
  • Paschen, J.-A.
  • Reichelt, N.

Abstract

The privatization of agricultural advisory and extension services in many countries and the associated pluralism of service providers has renewed interest in farmers’ use of fee-for-service advisors. Understanding farmers’ use of advisory services is important, given the role such services are expected to play in helping farmers address critical environmental and sustainability challenges. This paper aims to identify factors associated with farmers’ use of fee-for service advisors and bring fresh conceptualization to this topic. Drawing on concepts from service ecosystems in agricultural innovation and using the theory of planned behavior to define a plausible directed acyclic graph, we conducted a cross-sectional study of 1003 Australian farmers and their use of fee-for service advisors, analyzing data using generalized ordinal logistic regression models. We defined three categories: farmers who used fee-for-service advisors as their main source of advice (‘main source'), farmers who used them but did not consider them their main source of advice (‘non-main source’), and farmers who did not use them (‘non-user’). The factors most strongly associated with use of fee-for-service advisors (both as 'main source' and 'non-main source') were: the farm being in a growth/expanding business stage; behavioral beliefs that paying for advice provides control and helps identify new opportunities in farming; endorsement of paying for advice from others in the farm business and farmer peers; attitudes relating to the benefit and value for money from advice; and perceived behavioral control related to confidence in accessing advice. These findings can inform strategies to enable use of fee-for-service advisors. For example, they highlight the need to increase the social acceptance of paying for advice and to assist advisors to better articulate the value of their services in terms that farmers view as important. Currently, mechanisms for professionalizing and certifying advisory services are a focus for policy makers in enabling farmers’ use of advisors. Our findings indicate that these mechanisms on their own would not necessarily lead to greater use of fee-for-service advice, because use is also based on several social and attitudinal factors in addition to perception of quality. Greater emphasis on the social and attitudinal factors found in this study is required when developing strategies to enable the use of fee-for-service advisors.

Suggested Citation

  • Nettle, R. & Morton, J.M. & McDonald, N. & Suryana, M. & Birch, D. & Nyengo, K. & Mbuli, M. & Ayre, M. & King, B. & Paschen, J.-A. & Reichelt, N., 2021. "Factors associated with farmers’ use of fee-for-service advisors in a privatized agricultural extension system," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:104:y:2021:i:c:s0264837721000831
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105360
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837721000831
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105360?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Garth John Holloway & Simeon K. Ehui, 2001. "Demand, Supply and Willingness-to-Pay for Extension Services in an Emerging-Market Setting," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(3), pages 764-768.
    2. Irwa Issa & Ulrich Hamm, 2017. "Adoption of Organic Farming as an Opportunity for Syrian Farmers of Fresh Fruit and Vegetables: An Application of the Theory of Planned Behaviour and Structural Equation Modelling," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-22, November.
    3. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    4. Daxini, Amar & O'Donoghue, Cathal & Ryan, Mary & Barnes, Andrew & Buckley, Cathal & Daly, Karen, 2018. "Which factors influence farmers’ intentions to adopt nutrient management planning?," 92nd Annual Conference, April 16-18, 2018, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 273498, Agricultural Economics Society.
    5. Hunt, Warren & Birch, Colin & Vanclay, Frank & Coutts, Jeff, 2014. "Recommendations arising from an analysis of changes to the Australian agricultural research, development and extension system," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 129-141.
    6. Hite, Diane & Hudson, Darren & Intarapapong, Walaiporn, 2002. "Willingness To Pay For Water Quality Improvements: The Case Of Precision Application Technology," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 27(2), pages 1-17, December.
    7. Julie Ingram, 2008. "Agronomist–farmer knowledge encounters: an analysis of knowledge exchange in the context of best management practices in England," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 25(3), pages 405-418, September.
    8. Isabella Gidarakou & Eleni Dimopoulou & Rania Lagogianni & Spyridoula Sotiropoulou, 2008. "Young Women and Agriculture," Contributions to Economics, in: Harry Coccossis & Yannis Psycharis (ed.), Regional Analysis and Policy, pages 355-374, Springer.
    9. Mullen, John D. & Vernon, Don & Fishpool, Ken I., 2000. "Agricultural extension policy in Australia: public funding and market failure," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 44(4), pages 1-17.
    10. Alexandratos, Nikos & Bruinsma, Jelle, 2012. "World agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 revision," ESA Working Papers 288998, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Agricultural Development Economics Division (ESA).
    11. Labarthe, Pierre & Laurent, Catherine, 2013. "Privatization of agricultural extension services in the EU: Towards a lack of adequate knowledge for small-scale farms?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 240-252.
    12. Spash, Clive L. & Urama, Kevin & Burton, Rob & Kenyon, Wendy & Shannon, Peter & Hill, Gary, 2009. "Motives behind willingness to pay for improving biodiversity in a water ecosystem: Economics, ethics and social psychology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 955-964, February.
    13. George B. Frisvold & Kathleen Fernicola & Mark Langworthy, 2001. "Market Returns, Infrastructure and the Supply and Demand for Extension Services," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(3), pages 758-763.
    14. Hyland, John J. & Heanue, Kevin & McKillop, Jessica & Micha, Evgenia, 2018. "Factors influencing dairy farmers’ adoption of best management grazing practices," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 562-571.
    15. Prosh, Allen L. & Jose, H. Douglas, 2003. "Management Advisory Groups for the Changing Agriculture Structure," 14th Congress, Perth, Western Australia, August 10-15, 2003 24332, International Farm Management Association.
    16. Daxini, Amar & O'Donoghue, Cathal & Ryan, Mary & Barnes, Andrew & Buckley, Cathal & Daly, Karen, 2018. "Which factors influence farmers’ intentions to adopt nutrient management planning?," 92nd Annual Conference, April 16-18, 2018, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 273494, Agricultural Economics Society.
    17. Klerkx, Laurens & Leeuwis, Cees, 2008. "Matching demand and supply in the agricultural knowledge infrastructure: Experiences with innovation intermediaries," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 260-276, June.
    18. Pigford, Ashlee-Ann E. & Hickey, Gordon M. & Klerkx, Laurens, 2018. "Beyond agricultural innovation systems? Exploring an agricultural innovation ecosystems approach for niche design and development in sustainability transitions," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 116-121.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Liangzhen Zang & Yahua Wang & Jinkai Ke & Yiqing Su, 2022. "What Drives Smallholders to Utilize Socialized Agricultural Services for Farmland Scale Management? Insights from the Perspective of Collective Action," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-25, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Daxini, Amar & O’Donoghue, Cathal & Ryan, Mary & Buckley, Cathal & Barnes, Andrew P., 2018. "Factors influencing farmers' intentions to adopt nutrient management planning: accounting for heterogeneity," 166th Seminar, August 30-31, 2018, Galway, West of Ireland 276183, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Yang, Xin & Zhou, Xiaohe & Deng, Xiangzheng, 2022. "Modeling farmers’ adoption of low-carbon agricultural technology in Jianghan Plain, China: An examination of the theory of planned behavior," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    3. Li, Fuduo & Zhang, Kangjie & Ren, Jing & Yin, Changbin & Zhang, Yang & Nie, Jun, 2021. "Driving mechanism for farmers to adopt improved agricultural systems in China: The case of rice-green manure crops rotation system," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    4. Labarthe, Pierre & Laurent, Catherine, 2013. "Privatization of agricultural extension services in the EU: Towards a lack of adequate knowledge for small-scale farms?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 240-252.
    5. Pathak, Santosh & Wang, Hua & Adusumilli, Naveen C., 2021. "Quantifying the dynamics of agricultural conservation practices in the Delta region," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313916, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Daxini, Amar & Ryan, Mary & O’Donoghue, Cathal & Barnes, Andrew P., 2019. "Understanding farmers’ intentions to follow a nutrient management plan using the theory of planned behaviour," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 428-437.
    7. Coyne, L & Kendall, H & Hansda, R & Reed, M.S. & Williams, D.J.L., 2021. "Identifying economic and societal drivers of engagement in agri-environmental schemes for English dairy producers," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    8. Murat Okumah & Ata Senior Yeboah & Elias Nkiaka & Richard Apatewen Azerigyik, 2019. "What Determines Behaviours Towards Water Resources Management in a Rural Context? Results of a Quantitative Study," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-19, June.
    9. Julie Ingram & Jane Mills & Jasmine E. Black & Charlotte-Anne Chivers & José A. Aznar-Sánchez & Annemie Elsen & Magdalena Frac & Belén López-Felices & Paula Mayer-Gruner & Kamilla Skaalsveen & Jannes , 2022. "Do Agricultural Advisory Services in Europe Have the Capacity to Support the Transition to Healthy Soils?," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-26, April.
    10. Ju Hyoung Han & Andy S. Choi & Chi-Ok Oh, 2018. "The Effects of Environmental Value Orientations and Experience-Use History on the Conservation Value of a National Park," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-17, September.
    11. Okumah, Murat & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Chapman, Pippa J. & Novo, Paula & Cassidy, Rachel & Lyon, Christopher & Higgins, Alex & Doody, Donnacha, 2021. "The role of experiential learning in the adoption of best land management practices," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    12. Jane Mills & Peter Gaskell & Julie Ingram & Janet Dwyer & Matt Reed & Christopher Short, 2017. "Engaging farmers in environmental management through a better understanding of behaviour," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(2), pages 283-299, June.
    13. Jane Musole Kwenye & Xiaoting Hou Jones & Alan Renwick, 2023. "Understanding Land-Use Trade-off Decision Making Using the Analytical Hierarchy Process: Insights from Agricultural Land Managers in Zambia," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-19, February.
    14. Wakita, Kazumi & Kurokura, Hisashi & Oishi, Taro & Shen, Zhonghua & Furuya, Ken, 2019. "Exploring the effect of psychometric variables on willingness to pay for marine ecosystem services: A survey in Japan," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 130-138.
    15. Carlos Jurado-Rivas & Marcelino Sánchez-Rivero, 2019. "Willingness to Pay for More Sustainable Tourism Destinations in World Heritage Cities: The Case of Caceres, Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-21, October.
    16. Alex Koutsouris, 2012. "Exploring the emerging facilitation and brokerage roles for agricultural extension education," Working Papers 2012-4, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.
    17. Alan Renwick & Robyn Dynes & Paul Johnstone & Warren King & Lania Holt & Jemma Penelope, 2019. "Challenges and Opportunities for Land Use Transformation: Insights from the Central Plains Water Scheme in New Zealand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-18, September.
    18. Suriansyah & Nurliza & Eva Dolorosa & Rosyadi & Denah Suswati, 2024. "Intention to Transition: Natural Rubber Smallholders Navigating the Risks of Farming," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-16, February.
    19. Zhong, Shen & Li, Junwei & Chen, Xi & Wen, Hongmei, 2022. "A multi-hierarchy meta-frontier approach for measuring green total factor productivity: An application of pig breeding in China," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    20. Godwin Kofi Vondolia & Håkan Eggert & Ståle Navrud & Jesper Stage, 2014. "What do respondents bring to contingent valuation? A comparison of monetary and labour payment vehicles," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(3), pages 253-267, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:104:y:2021:i:c:s0264837721000831. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.