systems research - the IDRC Digital Library - International ...

whose goals nln counter to the objectives of the RIARS, and of the farmers
themselves, who continuously modify the technologies?
Farmers were classified according to the degree of technology adoption,
using a single criterion (croppin8 intensity). This classification of the degree of
adoption allowed technological innovations from various sources to be considered.
Biggs (1989) called this a nlulti'~le sorcrce of innovatio~z r?zodel that describes
agricultural research and diffusion processes in the context of the historical,
political, economic, agroclimatic, and institutional setting in which technological
changes take place.
The sample consisted of 105 farmers randomly selected from two villages and
monitored for crop years 1989-91. Three farmers dropped out of the project;
therefore, 102 farmers were used in the analysis. The farmers were classified
according to degree of adoption using total cropping intensity of the farm (CI): low
adopter < 1.3, medium adopter 1.3-1.7, and high adopter > 1.7.
The observed cropping intensities ranged from a low intensity of 0.75 (some
parts of the farm were not cultivated for at least one agricultural cycle) to a high
intensity of 3.00. A cut-off C1 of < 1.30 (based on 2-yr averages) defined low
technology adopters. The cut-off C1 was determined from a frequency distribution
and a subjective judgment of the amount of land allocated by farmers to the new
technologies (cropping patterns). A 30% increase in cropping intensity after about
5 yr of exposure to the newr technologies is considered low. A 70% increase in C1 is
considered high given the climatic situations that prevailed during the study period
(i.e., late onset of rainfall and waterlogging during planting season).
It was assumed that adoption of the rice - rice or mungbean - rice cropping
patterns, in addition to the intensive maize-based cropping systems of their upland
areas, was a sufficient condition to classify farmers as technology adopters The
intuitive appeal of this approach was based on the argument that farmers who were
not totally convinced of the qualities of the introduced technologies would not
allocate all of their land holdings. The other extremes were that a fully convinced
farmer would allocate all his kind; whereas, an unconvinced farmer would continue
to follow traditional technology. A farmer's perception of the soilndness of a
technoloby can, therefore, be nieasured to a large extent by the amount of land
allocated to the new technoloky.
Other component technologies that are included with the introduced patterns
were not included as criteria. This was not meant to disregard their critical
contribution to the tot;il perfor~nance of the technology. In fact, their noninclusion
was meant to avoid the effects of other exogenous variables on the question of
adoption. For example, if a farmer failed to apply the correct level of fertilizer, this
does not imply that the farmer was not convinced of its expected benefits, but
perhaps was unable to afford the input cost. Similarly, a fariner might not apply the
optimum mix of inputs to a plot if less profit was expected (e.g., in an area that is
likely to be adversely affected by flood or drought). Also, farmers whose established
crop(s) are affected by drought or tlood will not apply their remaining inputs to
minimize profit losses. All of these are rational management decisions that could