What Can We Learn from Droppers and Non‐adopters About the Role of Advice in Agricultural Innovation?

Abstract

SummaryIn this article we assess the diversity of sources of advice identified by 678 adopters, 295 non‐adopters and 107 droppers (or dis‐adopters, who have ceased or reduced the use) of agricultural innovations across 13 European countries. For most innovations, the volume and composition of advisory supports (e.g. public advisory services, farm business organisations, NGOs, research and development sector, other farmers), at the whole farm level were similar between adopters, non‐adopters and droppers. However, there were significant differences in relation to specific innovations. Farmers adopting digital technologies, soil‐improving cropping systems, and common management of natural resources identified more diverse sources when assessing innovations, suggesting that more diverse advisory support supported successful implementation. For new on‐farm activities, non‐adopters had more varied sources of advice than adopters. This demonstrates that non‐adoption can be a well‐informed decision. Droppers typically identified fewer sources of advice on an innovation than adopters, particularly in the later stages of the innovation process, suggesting that lack of advice impeded successful implementation. The findings suggest that public funding for advisory services could usefully target emergent gaps: to support the provision of up‐to‐date advice on topics to farmers who have difficulty accessing advice, and to prevent unnecessary dropping by supporting the implementation of innovations.