Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 13 No. sp1 (2026): Recent Advances in Agriculture

Do nutri-cereal growers in Uttarakhand fit the same adopter profile - A cluster analysis of smallholder farmers

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.12832
Submitted
19 November 2025
Published
14-04-2026

Abstract

The diffusion of agricultural innovations often falters when dissemination strategies fail to account for the heterogeneity in adopter characteristics. A prevalent, yet flawed, assumption of farmer homogeneity frequently leads to the misattribution of adoption failures to the technology recipients rather than to the design of the diffusion process itself. This study challenges this assumption by segmenting smallholder nutri-cereal growers in Uttarakhand, India, into distinct adopter categories to inform more effective, targeted policy and extension strategies. Utilising the Hurt Innovativeness Scale, data from 247 farmers were subjected to latent class cluster analysis. The analysis delineated five distinct adopter categories: Innovators (7 %), Early Adopters (13.5 %), Early Majority (30.7 %), Late Majority (30.7 %) and Laggards (18 %). A notable finding is that the proportion of Innovators (7 %) substantially exceeds the 2.5 % benchmark established in Rogers' classical diffusion theory. This deviation suggests a nascent but significant shift towards a more innovation-receptive agricultural landscape in the region, likely propelled by the ongoing commercialisation of nutri-cereals. The study concludes that recognising and leveraging this heterogeneity is crucial for accelerating the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices. The identified clusters provide a robust framework for tailoring communication and intervention strategies, thereby enhancing the efficacy of innovation diffusion within smallholder farming communities.

References

  1. 1. Koner N, Laha A. Economics of alternative models of organic farming: empirical evidences from zero budget natural farming and scientific organic farming in West Bengal, India. Int J Agric Sustain. 2021;19(3-4):255–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2021.1905346
  2. 2. Padulosi S, Mal B, King OI, Gotor E. Minor millets as a central element for sustainably enhanced incomes, empowerment and nutrition in rural India. Sustainability. 2015;7(7):8904–33. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7078904
  3. 3. Bhatt S, Ansari MA. Demographic determinants of millet commercialization in rainfed hilly regions: evidence from a North Himalayan state of India. J Sci Res Rep. 2025;31(5):908–18. https://doi.org/10.9734/jsrr/2025/v31i53086
  4. 4. Naylor R, Steinfeld H, Falcon W, Galloway J, Smil V, Bradford E, et al. Losing the links between livestock and land. Science. 2005;310(5754):1621–2. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1117856
  5. 5. Fan S, Rue C. The role of smallholder farms in a changing world. In: Paloma SG, Riesgo L, Louhichi K, editors. The role of smallholder farms in food and nutrition security. Switzerland: Springer Nature International Publishing; 2020. p. 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42148-9_2
  6. 6. Rogers EM, Murcott S. Attributes of innovations and their rate of adoption. In: Rogers EM, editor. Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press; 1995. p. 204–51.
  7. 7. Roberts R, Flin R, Millar D, Corradi L. Psychological factors influencing technology adoption: a case study from the oil and gas industry. Technovation. 2021;102:102219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2020.102219
  8. 8. Mottaleb KA. Perception and adoption of a new agricultural technology: evidence from a developing country. Technol Soc. 2018;55:126–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2018.07.007
  9. 9. Akudugu MA, Guo E, Dadzie SK. Adoption of modern agricultural production technologies by farm households in Ghana: what factors influence their decisions. J Biol Agric Healthc. 2012;2(3):2–9.
  10. 10. Mulimbi W, Nalley L, Dixon B, Snell H, Huang Q. Factors influencing adoption of conservation agriculture in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. J Agric Appl Econ. 2019;51:622–45. https://doi.org/10.1017/aae.2019.25
  11. 11. Adnan N, Nordin SM, Rahman I, Noor A. Adoption of green fertilizer technology among paddy farmers: a possible solution for Malaysian food security. Land Use Policy. 2017;63:38–52 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.01.022
  12. 12. Fadeyi OA, Ariyawardana A, Aziz AA. Factors influencing technology adoption among smallholder farmers: a systematic review in Africa. J Agric Rural Dev Trop Subtrop. 2022;123(1):13–30.
  13. 13. Loevinsohn M, Sumberg J, Diagne A. Under what circumstances and conditions does adoption of technology result in increased agricultural productivity. London: EPPI Centre, Social Science Research Unit; 2012.
  14. 14. Wairimu E, Obare G, Odendo M. Factors affecting weather index-based crop insurance in Laikipia County, Kenya. J Agric Ext Rural Dev. 2016;8(7):111–21.
  15. 15. Ali J. Factors affecting the adoption of information and communication technologies for farming decisions. J Agric Food Inf. 2012;13(1):78–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10496505.2012.636980
  16. 16. Ullah A, Saqib SE, Kächele H. Determinants of farmers’ awareness and adoption of extension recommended wheat varieties in the rainfed areas of Pakistan. Sustainability. 2022;14(6):3194. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063194
  17. 17. Fisher M, Holden ST, Thierfelder C, Katengeza SP. Awareness and adoption of conservation agriculture in Malawi: what difference can farmer-to-farmer extension make. Int J Agric Sustain. 2018;16(3):310–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2018.1472411
  18. 18. Jerop R, et al. Factors affecting the adoption of agricultural innovations on underutilized cereals: the case of finger millet among smallholder farmers in Kenya. Afr J Agric Res. 2018;13(36):1888–900. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR2018.13357
  19. 19. Srinivas A, Sukanya TS, Rao BD. Farmers’ adoption of finger millet production technologies and the impact on finger millet yields. J Exp Agric Int. 2024;46(5):518–25. https://doi.org/10.9734/jeai/2024/v46i52406
  20. 20. Gayathri M, Manimozhi K. Bridging the knowledge gap: enhancing awareness among farmers about millet cultivation. Curr Agric Res J. 2024;12(1):286–93. https://doi.org/10.12944/CARJ.12.1.23
  21. 21. Bado BV, Bationo A, Whitbread A, Tabo R, Manzo MLS. Improving the productivity of millet based cropping systems in the West African Sahel: experiences from a long-term experiment in Niger. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2022;335:107992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2022.107992
  22. 22. Hurt HT, Joseph K, Cook CD. Scales for the measurement of innovativeness. Hum Commun Res. 1977;4:58–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1977.tb00597.x
  23. 23. Aldahdouh TZ, Korhonen V, Nokelainen P. What contributes to individual innovativeness? A multilevel perspective. Int J Innov Stud. 2019;3(2):23–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijis.2019.06.001
  24. 24. Nylund KL, Asparouhov T, Muthén BO. Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: a Monte Carlo simulation study. Struct Equ Modeling. 2007;14(4):535–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701575396
  25. 25. Magidson J, Vermunt JK, Madura JP'. Thousand Oaks (USA): SAGE Publications; 2020.
  26. 26. Garthe RC, Sullivan TN, Behrhorst KL. A latent class analysis of early adolescent peer and dating violence: associations with symptoms of depression and anxiety. J Interpers Violence. 2021;36(5-6):2031–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518759654
  27. 27. Ayisi DN, Kozári J, Krisztina T. Do smallholder farmers belong to the same adopter category? An assessment of smallholder farmers innovation adopter categories in Ghana. Heliyon. 2022;8(8):e10421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10421
  28. 28. Rogers EM. Categorizing the adopters of agricultural practices. Rural Sociol. 1958;23(4):346–54.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.