Risk perception and technology adoption among smallholder farmers: The mediating role of agricultural extension services in West Africa

Introduction

According to Nobel laureate Theodore Schultz, smallholder farmers in developing countries are rational economic actors who allocate their limited resources efficiently given the constraints and information available to them [1] . This perspective, now widely accepted in agricultural economics, implies that low technology adoption rates reflect not farmer ignorance but rather reasonable responses to real and perceived risks associated with new practices [2] . West Africa presents a compelling setting for examining risk-adoption dynamics. Smallholder farmers in the region face a combination of climate variability, volatile commodity prices, limited access to credit, and weak safety net systems that make the consequences of failed technology investments particularly severe [3] . In Ivory Coast, where cocoa and food crop systems employ over 60% of the rural workforce, adoption rates for improved agronomic practices remain below 35% despite decades of extension promotion [4] . Previous research has established that risk perception influences adoption decisions, but most studies treat the relationship as direct and unmediated [5] . Less attention has been paid to the mechanisms through which risk perceptions can be altered or moderated. Extension services are one such mechanism, potentially reducing perceived risk through information provision, field demonstrations, and the social validation that comes from seeing trusted advisors recommend a technology [6] . This research examined the mediating role of extension contact in the risk-adoption relationship across three West African countries. The objectives were to quantify the effect of risk perception on adoption for four technologies, test whether extension contact mediates this effect, and identify which specific risk factors most strongly predict non-adoption [7] .

Theoretical Framework

The research integrated Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations theory [8] with the Perceived Risk Theory from consumer behavior [9] . Rogers' framework identifies perceived attributes of innovations, including relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability, as determinants of adoption timing. Perceived Risk Theory adds that adoption decisions are filtered through subjective assessments of potential negative outcomes. The combined framework predicted that extension services would moderate risk perceptions by enhancing trialability and observability while reducing perceived complexity.

Material and Methods

Material

The research was conducted between May and October 2022 from Universite Felix Houphouet-Boigny in Abidjan. A total of 847 smallholder farmers participated: 312 from www.extensionjournal.com Ivory Coast, 287 from Ghana, and 248 from Senegal. Respondents were selected through multi-stage sampling from three agroecological zones per country. Structured questionnaires captured data on perceived risk levels for four technologies (improved seeds, irrigation technology, organic inputs, and conservation agriculture), adoption status, extension contact frequency and quality, and socioeconomic characteristics. Extension contact was defined as any face-to-face advisory interaction within the preceding 12 months.

Pilot Research

The questionnaire was pilot-tested with 45 farmers in Ivory Coast's Agneby-Tiassa region during April 2022. The pilot revealed that risk perception questions required visual scaling aids for farmers with limited literacy. A pictorial Likert scale using locally meaningful images was developed and validated. Revised instruments achieved acceptable reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.81 for risk perception scale, 0.78 for extension quality scale).

Methods

Structural equation modeling (SEM) tested the hypothesized mediation pathway: risk perception to extension contact to adoption decision. Direct and indirect effects were estimated using bootstrapped confidence intervals (5,000 iterations). A risk intensity index was calculated for each technology-risk factor combination on a 1-10 scale. Logistic regression identified predictors of non-adoption. All analyses used Mplus 8. 4 Adoption rates dropped sharply between low and high risk perception groups for all technologies. Extension contact was associated with substantially higher adoption: farmers with extension contact adopted at rates 22-27 percentage points higher than those without contact, with the largest gap observed for irrigation technology (43.8% vs 21.7%). The SEM confirmed significant mediation: extension contact accounted for 38.4% of the total negative effect of risk perception on adoption (indirect effect = -0.162, 95% CI: -0.22 to -0.10). The direct effect of risk remained significant (-0.423), indicating partial rather than full mediation. Model fit was acceptable (CFI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.047, SRMR = 0.038).

Discussion

The 38.4% mediation effect of extension contact on the riskadoption pathway provides empirical support for conceptualizing extension services as risk-reduction mechanisms rather than simply information channels. When extension agents demonstrate a technology, connect farmers with peers who have successfully adopted, or provide follow-up support during initial implementation, they are functionally reducing the uncertainty that drives risk-averse decision-making [6] . The technology-specific risk profiles revealed in the heatmap have direct implications for extension messaging. Irrigation technology's dominant risk factor was financial loss (8.6/10), suggesting that extension programs promoting irrigation should emphasize financial risk mitigation strategies such as group-based investment, subsidized equipment, or insurance products. Conservation agriculture faced primarily technical complexity barriers (8.1/10), pointing toward the need for intensive hands-on training and long-term follow-up rather than one-off demonstrations [10] . The finding that social disapproval was the weakest risk factor across all technologies challenges the assumption that social norms are primary barriers to adoption in West African farming communities [11] . Farmers in this research were far more concerned about financial consequences and technical failure than about community opinion, suggesting that extension approaches emphasizing economic benefits and technical competence building may be more effective than those targeting social influence [12] .

Limitations

The cross-sectional design captures associations rather than causal relationships; perceived risk and adoption may be simultaneously determined rather than sequentially. Selfreported extension contact may be subject to recall bias. The three-country scope within West Africa may not represent risk dynamics in East or Southern Africa. Risk perception was measured at a general level rather than capturing farmspecific conditions that influence individual risk calculations.

Conclusion

This research tested the mediating role of extension contact in the relationship between risk perception and technology adoption among 847 smallholder farmers in West Africa. Risk perception strongly predicted non-adoption across all four technologies examined, confirming the rational risk management perspective on smallholder decision-making. Extension contact mediated 38.4% of this effect, demonstrating that advisory services meaningfully reduce the perceived risk associated with technology change. Extension programs seeking to accelerate adoption should explicitly incorporate risk reduction strategies tailored to the specific risk profiles of promoted technologies. For highinvestment technologies where financial loss dominates risk perception, extension should be coupled with financial instruments. For technically complex technologies, sustained mentoring outperforms one-off demonstration events. The persistent gap in adoption rates between contacted and non-contacted farmers underscores the continued relevance of face-to-face extension as a mechanism for managing the uncertainty inherent in agricultural innovation.

References

1. Schultz TW. Transforming Traditional Agriculture. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1964.
2. Feder G, Just RE, Zilberman D. Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries: A survey. Economic Development and Cultural Change. 1985;33(2):255-298.
3. Reardon T, Barrett CB, Berdegue JA, Swinnen JF. Agrifood industry transformation and small farmers in developing countries. World Development. 2009;37(11):1717-1727.
4. Ministere de l'Agriculture. Rapport annuel de la vulgarisation agricole 2021. Abidjan: MINAGRI; 2022.
5. Marra M, Pannell DJ, Abadi Ghadim A. The economics of risk, uncertainty and learning in the adoption of new agricultural technologies. Agricultural Systems. 2003;75(2-3):215-234.
6. Anderson JR, Feder G. Agricultural extension: Good intentions and hard realities. The World Bank Research Observer. 2004;19(1):41-60.
7. Sunding D, Zilberman D. The agricultural innovation process: Research and technology adoption in a changing agricultural sector. Handbook of Agricultural Economics. 2001;1:207-261.
8. Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press; 2003.
9. Bauer RA. Consumer behavior as risk taking. Proceedings of the 43rd Conference of the American Marketing Association. 1960;389-398.
10. Knowler D, Bradshaw B. Farmers' adoption of conservation agriculture: A review and synthesis of recent research. Food Policy. 2007;32(1):25-48.
11. Bandiera O, Rasul I. Social networks and technology adoption in northern Mozambique. The Economic Journal. 2006;116(514):869-902.
12. Genius M, Koundouri P, Nauges C, Tzouvelekas V. Information transmission in irrigation technology adoption and diffusion. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 2014;96(1):233-248.
13. Asfaw S, Shiferaw B, Simtowe F, Lipper L. Impact of modern agricultural technologies on smallholder welfare. Food Policy. 2012;37(3):283-295.
14. Dercon S, Christiaensen L. Consumption risk, technology adoption and poverty traps. Journal of Development Economics. 2011;94(2):153-163.