Rationale for a new conceptual framework

The field survey findings (Chapter 6) prompted the need to review the approach for understanding success on the adoption process of small pumps. The results revealed that incentives are not clearly recognised by the diffusion of innovations model as an alternative pathway leading to adoption. A consideration of these discrepancies led to the need to clearly define success in adoption of SSPI. A better understanding of success could assist in effective dissemination of new SSPI. In this section evidence from literature and field surveys on how success in adoption process is understood is described.

Evidence from literature review

There is no common approach for identifying success for SSI systems (Burney and Naylor, 2012; Hussain and Hanjra, 2004; Kamwamba-Mtethiwa et al., 2015). For example, most theories for technology adoption (Chapter 2) are concerned with the uptake and diffusion of new innovations (Garforth and Usher, 1997). In these theories, ‘success’ in technology adoption is often based on the number or proportion of adopters initially accepting the new innovation. Rogers (2003) however attempted to include other stages (implementation and confirmation) beyond the acceptance, suggesting that innovations can be continued or discontinued even after the decision to adopt has been taken. This perspective suggests that continued-use can be used as a measure for success in adoption. Burney and Naylor (2012) recognised success in SSI projects as when ‘‘the adopter realizes significant efficiencies and is able to reinvest in subsequent labour and cost savings, starting up the ladder of increasing investment and asset accumulation’’. This suggests that successful adoption is considered by Burney and Naylor (2012) as moving beyond innovation continued-use.

This above review demonstrates that success in the adoption process can be independently measured by; using the number or proportion of adopters accepting

changes of the farmers that occur after adoption as illustrated in Figure 7.3. Bos et al. (2005) developed a set of five indicators to enable comparison of irrigation performance across all irrigation systems including agricultural output, water supply and financial returns. However, for SSPI in SSA the information required to estimate these indicators is rarely available. These clearly demonstrates that there is no approach that is all-encompassing in assessing success in adoption of SSPI suggesting that the choice of success elements depends on those carrying out the assessment. This supports previous evidence that argued that selection of measures for assessing success or impact of SSPI depends on the interest of those executing the studies (Kamwamba-Mtethiwa et al., 2015; Matekere and Lema, 2011).

Figure 7.3: Alternative definitions for success in adoption process.

Recently, a number of studies in SSA have attempted to address this gap (Van Averbeke, 2011; Djagba et al., 2014; Fanadzo, 2012; Mutiro and Lautze, 2015; Ofosu et al., 2014; Sumberg et al., 2012; Yakubov, 2012), however, most of these

determined that nearly 60% of the irrigation schemes in the region can be considered successful. However, the set of criteria used to measure success did not consider the types and conditions of the irrigation technologies but rather the outputs.

The above interpretation is also supported by evidence that showed variations in the use of success element on studies that assessed the impact of SSPI in other parts of the SSA. For example, evidence showed that most studies (Adeoti, 2008; Baba, 1993; Dillon, 2011; Mangisoni, 2008; Ofosu et al., 2010; Woltering et al., 2011) use socio-economic factors to determine the success of SSPI. A critical review (Chapter 5) showed that studies that used socio-economic elements mostly concluded with positive success outcomes. Conversely, studies (Connor et al., 2008; van Halsema et al., 2011; Kadyampakeni et al., 2012) that combined success elements (such as technical, agronomic and socio-economic) in their assessment approaches concluded with mixed success outcomes.

Evidence from field survey

Findings from the research’s field surveys agreed with most of the evidence in the literature on the success elements for SSPI. The results showed increased adoption trends, continued-use and change in the socio-economic status (e.g. accumulation of assets and reinvestment in labour saving technologies) in a number of pump types. Continued-use here is considered as when farmers used the pumps for a minimum period of six months or full irrigation season (Section 4.3.3). Based on the analytical understanding, those pumps could be categorized as successful by using any of the success definitions (Figure 7.3). However, a reflection on conditions which contributed to these successes provided a new insight on how ‘success’ in the adoption process should be recognised. The analysis revealed that some of the pumps were adopted through the incentives. Anand (2014) argued that this does not necessarily mean that the adopters who have embraced a technology by incentives will continue using it but rather have honoured the idea as good and are likely to include it in their current agenda. The implications is that counting the number of adopters accepting the pumps as a success measure for adoption could be misleading especially with the incentive farmers.

The field results also showed differences in the conditions that supported the continued-use of SSPI between the incentive and self-motivated farmers. The provision of continued external support to the incentive farmers reinforced the continued-use of the pumps. For self-motivated farmers, their initial conditions such as previous experiences, exposure and better socio-economic status facilitated their continued-use. These differences suggest that the conditions leading to the continued and discontinued-use of the pumps are significant and should be incorporated in the adoption processes of the incentive adopted pumps. The results also found that most treadle pump farmers advanced to better pumps (individual motorized pumps) suggesting that success can be recognised beyond the increasing investment as advocated by Burney and Naylor, (2012). These results support the need for better understanding of ‘success’ in adoption of SSPI. The analytical process leading to the development of a new framework is also summarised in Figure 7.4.

Figure 7.4: Analytical drivers for developing the new conceptual framework for identifying success in SSPI.

Defining success

The discrepancies between evidence from the literature and field survey led to the revised definition and categorization of success in adoption of SSPI. It is suggested that success can be realized when adopters have accepted the pumps, continue using them and are able to increase investments and grow. Success will be: ‘marginal’ if the pumps are simply being continued-use; ‘substantial’ if they are continued-use and adopters are able to increase their investments; and ‘major’ if pumps are continued-use, adopters are able to increase investment and grow e.g. advancing to better pumped systems. This definition partly supports the pathways of

include technology continued-use and growth in terms of advancing to better technologies as part of success outcomes. Given the different adoption pathways and the revised definition of success, a new framework is developed below.