TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
TITLE PAGE I
APPROVAL II
CERTIFICATION III
DEDICATION IV
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS V
TABLE OF CONTENTS VI
LIST FIGURESÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â IXÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â
LIST OF TABLES X
LIST OF APPENDIXÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â XII
ABSTRACT XIII
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study 1
Statement of the Problem 10
Purpose of the Study 11
Significance of the Study 12
Research Questions 15
Research Hypotheses 15
Scope of the Study 17
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Conceptual Framework                                                                    18  Â
- Linkages in agricultural innovation generation                      18
- Dissemination and adoption of innovations                                           34
- Agricultural research in Nigeria                                                               49
- Place of agricultural education and training in the agricultural
Innovation triad 51
- Agricultural production and environmental quality              54
- Environmental quality: indicators and assessment                71
Theoretical Framework                                                           73
- Agricultural Innovation System                                                         73
Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) Theory 76
Theory of Reasoned Action/Theory of Planned Behavior 78
 Related Empirical Studies                                                             81
Summary of Review of Related Literature                                          89
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Design of the Study 91
Area of the Study 91
Population for the Study 92
Sample and Sampling Technique 93
Instrument for Data Collection 93
Validation of the Instrument 94
Reliability of the Instrument 95
Method of Data Collection 96
Method of Data Analysis 96
CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA
Research Question One 97
Hypothesis One 98
Research Question Two 99
Hypothesis Two 101
Research Question Three 102
Hypothesis Three 103
Research Question Four 104
Hypothesis Four 105
Research Question Five 106
Hypothesis Five 107
Research Question Six 108
Hypothesis Six 109
Research Question Seven. 110
Hypothesis Seven 112
Findings of the Study 113
Discussion of the Findings 116
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Restatement of the Problem 127
Summary of Procedure Used 129
Principal Findings of the Study 129
Conclusion of the Study 131
Implications of the Findings 133
Recommendations of the Study 137
Limitations of the Study 138
Suggestions for Further Study 139
REFERENCES 140
Appendices 156
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Relationship between research, extension, education and farmers 33
Figure 2: Ball shaped curve showing categories of individual innovators
and percentages within each category 43
Figure 3: S-curve representing rate of adoption of an innovation over time 44
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Mean ratings of the responses on mechanisms employed for linkages by agencies                                                                                                  98
Table 2: Analysis of variance test for comparing data obtained from agricultural extension workers, AET lecturers and agricultural research scientists on the mechanism employed for linkage                                                   99
Table 3: Mean ratings of the responses of respondents on constraints to linkages in innovation generation and adoption                      100
Table 4: Analysis of variance test for comparing the responses of agricultural research scientists, Agricultural extension workers, and agricultural education lecturers  on the constraints to effective linkages in agricultural innovation generation and adoption                                       101
Table 5: Mean ratings of the responses of respondents on the strategies for enhancing linkages in agricultural  innovation generation and adoption                                                                                                    102
Table 6: Analysis of variance test for comparing the responses of Agric. research scientists, agric extension workers and agricultural education lecturers on the strategies for enhancing linkages among agencies in agricultural innovation generation and adoption                                                         103
Table 7: Mean ratings of the responses of respondents on the level of adoption of environment friendly agricultural practices 104
Table 8: Analysis of variance test for comparing data obtained from the responses of farmers, agricultural extension workers and agricultural research scientists on the extent of adoption of environment friendly agricultural practice    105
Table 9:  Mean ratings of the responses of respondents on the ways environment friendly agricultural practices promote environmental quality                  106
Table 10: Analysis of variance test for comparing the responses of extension workers, research scientists, and AET lecturers on ways environment friendly agricultural practices promote environmental quality                              107
Table 11: Mean ratings of the responses of respondents on the obstacles to the adoption of environment friendly agricultural practices by farmers        108
Table 12: Analysis of variance test for comparing data obtained from the responses of farmers, extension workers, research scientists and AET lecturers      109
Table 13: Mean ratings of respondents on the measures that could promote the adoption of environment friendly  agricultural practices                           111
Table 14: Analysis of variance tests for comparing the responses of research scientists, extension workers, AET lecturers  and farmers on the measures that could promote the adoption of environment friendly agricultural practices                                                                                                       113
LIST OF APPENDIX
Appendix A: Letter to Validates 156
Appendix B: Research instrument 157
Appendix C: Distribution of population of respondents 165
Appendix D: Sample for the study 166
Appendix E: Result of the analysis using Statistical Package
for Social Science 167
Appendix F: Result of reliability test using statistical Package
for Social Sciences 192
Abstract
The need to supply sufficient food
and fibre to satisfy the ever increasing population is one of the greatest
challenges facing government at all levels in Nigeria. To this end, government
establish agricultural research institutes, departments, colleges and
universities of agriculture to generate and teach farmers, practices and
systems meant to boast agricultural production.
In spite of the long history of agricultural research and the fast
increasing number of agricultural research institutes and colleges/universities
of agriculture, coupled with the large volume of information/innovation
resulting from enhanced research efforts, agricultural production has remained
largely at subsistent level. The innovations generated are either not adopted
or inappropriately adopted with severe environmental consequences. This study
was carried out to investigate the linkages in agricultural innovation
generation and adoption for promotion of environmental quality. Seven research
questions were answered while seven related null hypotheses were formulated and
tested at 0.05 level of significance. The descriptive survey research design
was adopted for the study. Proportionate random and purposive sampling
techniques were used to select 329 respondents. A 117 item structured questionnaire
developed from the literature reviewed was used to collect data from the
respondents. Each of the structured questionnaire items was assigned four
response options of strongly agree, agree, disagree and strongly disagree. The
questionnaire items were face validated by three experts. The reliability data
was collected from 20 respondents outside the area of study and a reliability
coefficient of 0.82 was obtained using the cronbach alpha reliability test. The
findings revealed poor/weak linkages among agencies involved in agricultural
innovation generation and adoption. Fifteen constraints to linkages were
identified to include inappropriate government policy, inequality and gap in
qualification and salary scale, weak legal and policy framework for linkages,
poor attitude and low morale of some agencies, poor logistics support, lack of
incentives for linkage activities, lack of trust and confidence among agencies
and inadequate well trained personnel in some agencies. Seven strategies for
enhancing linkages were identified which include entrenching linkage mandates
in policies establishing each agencies, making formal arrangements for linkage
activities, organizing orientation on linkage activities, building linkage
leadership in administration and promoting joint priority setting, planning,
implementation and evaluation of research and training projects among others. The
findings also revealed low level of adoption of environment friendly
agricultural innovations. Eighteen obstacles to adoption of environment friendly
innovations were identified to include high labour requirement, low level of
education of farmers, low economic potentials and profitability of environment
friendly agricultural practices, lack of clear and reliable information among
others, while sixteen measures to promote adoption were identified to include
provision of material inputs required for adoption, making application
procedures simple and easy, enhancing technical skills and capacity of farmers
among others. Based on the findings of the study, it was recommended among
others that linkage mandate should be formalized in policies establishing the
agencies and massive education and enlightenment of farmers and the general
public on the economic potential and profitability of environment friendly agricultural
practices should be embarked upon.
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
The supply of sufficient food and fibre to satisfy the ever increasing population is the greatest challenge of government at all levels in Nigeria. Globally, agricultural production is seen as being central to the overall wellbeing of the populace. The commanding position of the agricultural sector in Nigeria is manifested in its dominant share of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), employing more than 70% of the active labour force and generating about 88% of non-oil foreign exchange earnings (Eboh, 2003). In 2009, the agricultural sector contributed about 41.84% of Nigeria’s GDP and provided employment for about 70% of the workforce (Corporate Agriculture, 2012). The annual contribution of the agricultural sector to the Nigeria’s GDP stands at 35% and employment of about 70 – 75% of the working population annually (Osinowo, 2012). Therefore the challenge for African countries and Nigeria in particular, is how to increase agricultural production and rural incomes without irreparably damaging the natural resource base upon which agricultural production rest.
To achieve this, government sets up various agencies, institutions, agricultural universities, and extension agencies to generate and circulate innovations needed by stakeholders. Of these agencies, agricultural research institutes (ARI), agricultural education and training (AET) institutions and agricultural extension agencies (AEA) play crucial roles in generating and circulating information about agricultural production to farmers.
The ultimate aim of all applied agricultural research is to increase agricultural production and improve the standard of living of farmers through the generation of innovations and technologies related to agriculture. These innovations are arrived at through careful experiments conducted by agricultural researchers domiciled in agricultural research institutes as well as in departments, faculties and colleges/ universities of agriculture across the country. Presently, there are twenty two (22) research institutes in Nigeria, each with a specific mandate in crop, animal or commodity and fields of activity (Voh, 1999) and twenty three (23) faculties of agriculture and veterinary medicine across Nigerian universities and the International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Ibadan (Voh, 1999). These research efforts give rise to a body of knowledge, technologies, practices and systems which form the basis for innovations related to agriculture and environmental management.
Agricultural development depends on innovation. Innovation is a major source of improved productivity, competitiveness and economic growth throughout advanced and emerging economies, and plays an important role in creating jobs, generating income, alleviating poverty, and driving social development. Continuous innovation is necessary if farmers, agribusinesses, and even nations are to cope, compete, and thrive in the midst of changes in agriculture and economy. An innovation has been defined by Hall (2006) as new creations of social and economic significance. They may be brand new, but are more often combinations of existing elements. For Hall and Dijman (2006), the concept of innovation is a search for development, adaptation, imitation and adoption of technologies that are new to a specific context. It is a process that involves continuous interaction among stakeholders. There must be continuous learning for innovations to take place and the opportunity to learn depend on the degree and type of interactions among the different enterprises, organizations and related sectors as well as institutional behaviours which determine the extent and rate at which information and knowledge are produced, transferred and utilized (CTA, 2005). It is a process by which farmers and farms accept and use agricultural technologies and services that are new to them.
Innovation implies something new. This newness indicates to some extent, a strangeness of the idea (Adekoya and Tologbonse, 2011). All technologies, ideas and practices have origins and would be treated as innovation in a domain until its popularity is overwhelming. Innovation therefore will be taken to include agricultural practices, technologies and systems that are new to farmers or not familiar practice in a geographical area. To be termed innovation, the use of this knowledge has to be novel to the farmer or firm, neighbors, and competitors, but not necessarily new globally. Innovation and technology may be taken as synonyms (Rogers, 1995; Van den ban and Hawkins, 1996). Such innovations could be mechanical (tractor and other mechanical equipment), biological (new seed variety), chemical (fertilizers, pesticides and other agro chemicals), agronomic (new management practices and systems), biotechnological (gene modification), or informational (computer technologies). They could also be yield-increasing, cost-reducing, quality enhancing, risk-reducing, environmental protection increasing and shelf-life enhancing.
Once innovations are evolved, it becomes the responsibility of the agricultural extension agency to communicate same to end-users. End-users as used in this study do not only refer to farmers, but all stakeholders: government, agricultural policy makers, non-governmental organizations, financial institutions; including agricultural educators who need to incorporate the innovations into the curriculum and delivery system of Agricultural Education and Training (AET); and those who directly or indirectly are involved in agricultural policy planning, execution and implementation as well as extension agencies who are expected to have regular contacts with farmers. To facilitate monitoring and guide from the agricultural extension agency, farmers are expected to register with the extension agency. Farmers who are registered with the agricultural extension agency are called Registered Contact Farmers (RCF), and are normally the target of extension agents and programmes.
The aim of agricultural extension is to promote agricultural development by providing information on improved production technologies and helping farmers with their adoption as well as communicating farmers’ problems to research institutions for solution. According to World Bank (2013), agricultural extension provides critical access to the knowledge and information that rural people need to increase the productivity and sustainability of their production systems, and thus improve the quality of their lives and livelihoods. Osinem (2008) mentioned the objectives of agricultural extension to include raising the standard of living of people by raising their productivity; disseminating research results, information or practical experience so that they will accept and put it into practice; finding solutions to farmers’ problems; developing leaders among farmers; and helping farmers in decision making as well as teaching them environmental management practices. Laogun (2011) summarized the task of the extension worker to include bringing knowledge of improved methods in farming that will make their work less arduous, more productive and more profitable to farmers; to develop in them new skills and abilities; and to develop in them new attitudes and ideas, to discard ancient superstitions and replace them with scientific attitude. Success in the discharge of its task would require that the extension worker be an integral component of the generation process of such innovation. The level of success recorded in the dissemination process results in the adoption or non adoption of innovations by farmers, with varying effects on the wellbeing of both man and the state of the environment.
Innovation adoption has been explained by Feder, Just and Zilberman (1985) as the degree of use of an innovation in long run equilibrium when a farmer has full information about the innovation and its potentials. Rogers (1995) sees innovation adoption as a decision to make full use of an innovation or technology as the best course of action available. Vanden Ban and Hawkins (1996) describe adoption of an innovation as the decision of an individual or group to use or apply an innovation. It describes the realization of farmers’ decision to apply an innovation in the production process. The proper adoption of an innovation is expected to bring about improvements in the wellbeing of the farmer expressed in terms of increased yield and better living standard due to improvement in feeding and income status. For the environment, it is expressed in terms of sustainability in the use of environmental resources. This however is dependent on the environment friendliness of the adopted practice.
An environment friendly agricultural practice or system is one that is resource conserving, socially supportive, commercially competitive, and environmentally sound (Amalu, 1998). Altieri (1991) is of the view that an environment friendly agricultural practice must provide long term sustained yields through the use of ecologically sound management technologies. The concept of environment friendly agriculture has been used synonymously with sustainable agriculture and often taken to mean low external input farming. It challenges farmers to think about the consequences of agricultural practices, as well as the functioning and interactions of agricultural systems (Horringan, Lawrence and Walker, 2002).
The concept of sustainable agriculture is more frequently defined using its three components or aims: environmental health, economic profitability, and social and economic equity. The environmental component refers to the promotion of environmental quality including protection and improving soil quality, reducing dependence on non renewable resources and minimizing adverse effects of agriculture on safety, wildlife, water quality and other environmental resources (Sustainable Agricultural Research and Education (Sustainable Agricultural Research and Education (SARE), 2003). Environment friendly agriculture could thus be seen as a component of sustainable agriculture which improves the environment and natural resources upon which agriculture depends. It encompasses environmental sustainability by emphasizing the efficient use of on farm resources, non renewable resources and integration of biological cycles.
An environment friendly agricultural practice or system promotes environmental quality which is the relative capacity of an environment to satisfy the needs or wants of an individual or society. It means the balance of nature being composed of animals, plants, natural resources and man-made objects which are for the benefit and subsistence of mankind and the sustenance of human beings and nature (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA), 2006). SEPA (2006) established sixteen indicators of environmental quality based on five fundamental principles; promotion of human health, preservation of biological diversity, preservation of cultural heritage assets, preservation of long – term production capacity of ecosystems, and wise management of natural resources. The sixteen indicators are reduced climate impact, clean air, natural acidification only, a non-toxic environment, a protective ozone layer, a safe radiation environment, zero eutrophication, flourishing lakes and good streams, good quality groundwater, a balance marine environment, flourishing coastal areas and archipelagos. Others include thriving wetlands, sustainable forests, a varied agricultural landscape, a magnificent mountain landscape, a good built environment, and a rich diversity of plant and animal life.
The rate of adoption, non adoption, appropriateness or inappropriateness of adoption of agricultural innovations and technologies determine the health of these factors. Unfortunately, low rate of adoption and inappropriate application of innovations (Madukwe and Ozor, 2004) have often being the case with Nigerian farmers resulting in persistent low agricultural production and continual environmental degradation. The low rate of adoption becomes more manifest when it involves the adoption of practices that discourage the use of high external inputs. This situation has often been blamed on poor/ weak linkages among agencies involved in agricultural innovation generation, dissemination and adoption. Kaimowitze (1990) noted that poor linkages in information creation and use are responsible for the slow rate of adoption and inappropriate application of new agricultural techniques by farmers in the sub-region. Obibuaku and Madukwe (1992) working on the institutional framework for the transfer of agricultural technology to resource poor farmers in Nigeria reported that agricultural extension institutions are uncoordinated and improperly linked with the tenets of agricultural development.
The existence of poor coordination and linkage mechanisms in innovation generation and adoption has become a recurrent problem (Madukwe, 2008). Havelock (1986) described linkage as communication and working relationship established between two or more organizations pursuing commonly shared objectives in order to have regular contact and improved productivity; while Eponou (1991) described it as any structural or managerial device or procedure used to facilitate the interconnectedness of the tasks of technology generation, transfer and utilization. Linkage would therefore mean the evolution of a clearly defined institutional arrangement which provide for regular contact among researchers, scientists, extension professionals and agricultural education institutions to solve problems faced by farmers and to develop a package of recommendations that will enhance agricultural production and enrich the curriculum of instruction in agricultural education and training institutions as well as mitigate adverse effects of farm practices on the environment. Linkage is the interaction between agricultural research scientists, agricultural extension workers, farmers and agricultural education and training lecturers as key components of the agricultural innovation system.
Agricultural education and training, according to World Bank (2013), has a major role as the creator of capacity and supplier of the human resources necessary to enable rural people to increase agricultural productivity and the sustainability of their farming systems. Absent of this, the ability of rural people to improve their quality of live and livelihoods will be compromised. Agricultural education and training (AET) refer to the process of imparting knowledge, skills and attitudes in agriculture to learners (Osinem, 2008), the purpose of which is to enable rural producers to realize higher returns on labour and investments. It is instruction about crop production, livestock management, soil and water conservation and various other aspects of agriculture. This can be done through farmer training or by educating extension staff, developing researchers or building the technical capacities of producer organizations and input suppliers. Ukonze and Olaitan (2010) defined agricultural education as a programme designed for equipping students with competency (knowledge, skills and attitudes) in different areas of agriculture to enable them impart same to learners in school. Wikipedia (2010) defined agricultural education as an instruction about crop production, livestock management, soil conservation and water management among others. Agricultural Education and Training (AET) has three primary target audiences: farmers (subsistence and commercial), extensionists and farmer service personnel (private and public), and tertiary level teachers and researchers. These audiences are reached through different levels and types of AET, ranging from informal farmer training to middle level agricultural colleges that prepare farm managers and extension specialists to post graduate faculties of agriculture where researchers are trained.
AET is offered at various levels ranging from departments of agricultural education in colleges of education, departments/units of agricultural education in faculties of education and faculties of agriculture in universities. Universities are the apex AET institutions responsible for the training of agricultural specialists such as agricultural teachers/instructors, agricultural research scientists, soil and animal scientists, and other technical staff that occupy various positions in agricultural research institutes and other agricultural establishments. They produce manpower that impart knowledge at middle and lower level agricultural institutions as well as play active role in structuring the curriculum of other levels of AET. Thus, linkages between these apex AET institutions, agricultural extension and agricultural research institutes will translate to greater agricultural production as well as adoption of more environment friendly management practices.
Linkage of agricultural education and training with research institutions is either weak or nonexistent. To train a researcher, an extension staff, and farmer demands that universities must understand the activities of these groups of actor and have strong linkage with them. Universities in Nigeria are under the ministry of education, while the agricultural research institutes and extension are under a different ministry. In practice, there is no formal linkage between them. Similarly, there are no provisions for any linkage between the Ministry of Agriculture and universities. A study of linkages between Agricultural Development Project (ADP), an arm of the ministry of agriculture and the universities reported limited linkages and interactions (Madukwe and Eze, 1999; Uzoegbunam and Madukwe, 2005). It is therefore worrisome that the ministry of agriculture that is the main recipient of agricultural graduates has no linkage and interactions with universities that produce these graduates. It is very odd that a graduate would be expected to work in an establishment he knows nothing about throughout his period of training.
For innovations to realize their full potentials, and for agricultural education and training graduates to continue to remain relevant in the areas for which they were trained, effective linkage must be fostered among the agencies and their personnel to form an integral system. Agricultural research institutes, agricultural extension agencies, farmers and agricultural education and training institutions which are key components of the agricultural innovation system, must be adequately linked and collaborate in order to attain the individual objectives of the various agencies and the collective goal of the development of the agricultural sector. It has therefore become imperative to investigate linkages in agricultural innovation generation and adoption for more sustainable agricultural production.
Statement of the Problem
