Modern Sustainable Fish Screens: A Study on Developing Effective Communication with Water Users

Abstract

Background: Recently, there has been a shift in strategic goals relating to water management in Australia, from water development to protecting and restoring environmental assets. Thus, there is a need to develop knowledge that accounts for the new realities of developing an effective communication channel with irrigators. Combining insights from two communication theories: the hierarchy of effects model, AIDA, and the diffusion of innovation (DOI) model, this article explores developing effective communication techniques (e.g., format, style, content, and source) and tools for Australian irrigators regarding adopting new sustainable technology—a modern self-cleaning fish screen. This study investigates irrigators’ communication preferences and innovation processes to understand to sketch foundational strategies for improving communication schemes. Methods: Data were collected through semi-structured in-depth interviews. Twenty-three irrigators in the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia’s primary food bowl, participated in the study. Constructivist grounded theory (CGT) was used to design and analyse the data. Results: The study explored the communications preferences of Australian irrigators and revealed insights into their preferred format, style, content, and source and how information is gathered and evaluated in the decision-making process. The results confirmed that the information must come from trusted sources, be grounded in research, provide hands-on observations/experiences, and focus on benefits for irrigators (i.e., improving irrigation efficiency) to be impactful. Broadly, this study contributes to the discussion of policy formulation, enhancing technology adoption in a broader setting and designing efficient and effective systems for engaging with Australian irrigators. Conclusions: To increase the likelihood of adopting fish screens, it is essential to implement targeted education and information programs and communications in appropriate formats with relevant content.

1. Introduction

Agriculture, fishing, and biodiversity have all benefited from the installation of modern fish screens on irrigation pumps and diversions (See Figure 1). By extension, fish screens represent a new best practice for native fish protection and thriving ocean ecosystems in Australia. As reviewed by Boys et al. (2021) [1], irrigation pumps and diversions across Australia are typically unscreened or inadequately screened with coarse materials, providing inadequate fish protection and significantly impacting fish populations. This includes injury or death to fish as they pass through pumps furthermore, displaced fish populations—those diverted from the river—rarely return to the river [1]. Worldwide, screens are commonly applied to protect fish and other aquatic animals from entering irrigation systems. This has been supported by the introduction of irrigation screening legislation within regions of North America, New Zealand and Europe [1]. In the Australian context, there has been growing interest and government support for fish screening over the past two decades. This is demonstrated by the recent announcement of a $20 million project to fund fish screens by the New South Wales (NSW) Government (Minister for Agriculture, 2022) and the inclusion of fish screens as an investment priority within the Murray-Darling Basin Authority’s (MDBA, 2020) Native Fish Recovery Strategy.

Notwithstanding the growing support from commonwealth government agencies and the emerging consensus that installing fish screens can reduce the adverse effects of irrigation pumps on native fish populations, the awareness and uptake of screens have been relatively low [2]. In essence, most water users are unaware of the merits of modern screens—how they work, where to get information from (and trustworthy sources), who supplies them, and so on. Concurrently, fish screen advocates are uncertain how to effectively disseminate this information across the target market.

This research addresses this void by proposing an integrated conceptual framework to further investigate the irrigators’ communication preferences. Specifically, drawing on prior research on a key hierarchy of the effects model AIDA (attention-interest-desire-action) and the diffusion of innovation (DOI) model along with a qualitative empirical study involving in-depth interviews with a broad range of NSW irrigators, the study seeks to develop an effective communication model. It elucidates how best to motivate sustainable behaviours by irrigators. Scholars have recognised marketing communication’s pivotal role in the success of innovation adoption [3]. The two stated theories (i.e., the DOI and AIDA) are especially germane in this context as consumers typically have multiple opportunities to observe a product performance before deciding when it is a case of a high-involvement decision, such as adopting a modern fish screen. Previous studies have shown that communication must yield some mental effect (e.g., awareness, memory, attitude towards the product) before influencing behaviour [4]. The context for our investigation is the Murray-Darling Basin, home to many iconic waterways, which are highly valued from cultural, ecological, and economic perspectives. Given that the native fish population is estimated to be less than 10% of pre-European settlement levels [5], the issue has gained significant traction among managers and industry advisers and public policymakers. Placed in a broader perspective, this research addresses the more substantive issue of reducing the ecological footprint in a world buffeted by increasingly palpable hydrological and environmental upheavals.

Based on our fieldwork and subsequent theorising, we offer many practical recommendations concerning the communication of environmental issues to manage large-scale screening programs. Regarding the fish screen information format, our findings substantiate the view that there is no one-size-fits-all preference, given the diverse ways interviewees expressed that they collect and analyse farming-related information. This being said the value of in-person interactions and field-site visits were acknowledged by several interviewees. Predictably, interviewees preferred fish screen information that is concise in style and based on demonstratable facts. Across the interviews, it was clear that many were interested in discovering further information about the environmental benefits of screening, how screens function, and their potential practical benefits. Such information will be most trusted if acquired through an irrigator’s local networks and existing screen users and backed by research industry sources.

Given the positive impact of screening on native fish and public investment in technology and conservation programs, to establish effective lines of communication with irrigators should be a priority. Low adoption rates of innovation are ubiquitous in different spheres, and in the absence of early enthusiasm by the end customers, many potentially promising innovative systems cannot take off. Theoretically, this research expands the marketing literature on advertising and diffusion of innovation and provides insight into understanding and predicting the market success of an innovation. Most prior work has adhered to a single perspective—either AIDA or DOI and as such, meaningful integration of the two has been lacking [6]. One of the key theoretical contributions of this work is to consider these two models within a unified framework.

The article proceeds as follows. In the next section, we lay out the conceptual foundation for the study. We then describe the sample and elaborate on the data-gathering process. Next, we present our findings. Subsequently, we discuss irrigator communications preferences in format, style, content, and source. This is followed by an in-depth discussion of our findings for communication about innovations in the context of irrigation screening in Australia. Finally, we outline a few managerial implications, note the study’s limitations, and look to the future, sketching out opportunities for further research.

2. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

Sustainability orientation is an overall proactive strategic stance toward creating shared value for the different stakeholders and integrating various environmental concerns [7]. In Australia, using modern fish screens on irrigation pumps is now considered a valid conservation measure that can significantly impact irrigators’ sustainability practices [1]. By implementing these screens, irrigators can reduce damage to water infrastructure and help protect aquatic wildlife. Recently, there have been some efforts to move the needle on water policy, as fish screening was included in some key policy documents, such as the NSW Water Strategy (Department of Planning Industry and Environment, 2021) and the Native Fish Recovery Strategy [8], published by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. Modern fish screens are self-cleaning, low-maintenance and engineered to achieve more sustainable performance. The NSW Department of Primary Industries also published a guide to promoting sustainable irrigation practices. Accompanying the guide is a set of specifications to support water users adopting modern fish screens at their pumped and gravity-fed water diversions.

This study is informed by two theories—AIDA and DOI. The AIDA model postulates four steps—awareness, interest, desire, and action—each term represents a cognitive stage of a consumer’s buying journey that customers must move through to complete the adaption [9]. The communication content will ideally attract attention to the product/idea/service, generate interest, stimulate a desire for it, and spur action to try to purchase it. Following AIDA, the hierarchy of effects implies that communication influences consumer purchase decisions by creating a series of successive consumer responses. It is a purchasing funnel where consumers go to and from at each stage on their way to making the final purchasing decision. Each stage has fewer consumers than the previous one. The key assumption is that communication does not bring about an immediate behavioural response or purchase, but rather a series of effects must occur with each step fulfilled before the consumer moves to the next step in the hierarchy (i.e., from initial awareness of a product or service leading to interest and preference until actual purchase/adoption) [10,11,12].

Developed by Rogers, DOI theory explains how, over time, a new offering gains momentum and spreads within and between communities [13,14]. The key concept is that the adoption of a new behaviour within a social system does not occur all at once but rather through a systematic process in which certain individuals are more inclined to accept the innovation before others [13]. Diffusion research investigates key attributes of an idea, process, or technology commonly captured under five user-perceived qualities: relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability [14]. Furthermore, the individuals of a social system have also been characterised into five groups based on their attitudes towards an innovation: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards [15]. In Rogers’ words, “Diffusion is the process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system. Diffusion is a special type of communication concerned with the spread of messages perceived as new ideas” ([14], p. 35). Along this line, positive and negative feedback generated in the social system will support and restrict diffusion, respectively [16]. Overall, the four main determinants of innovation success are communication channels, the innovation’s attributes, the adopters’ characteristics, and the social system [17]. (Figure 2).

Innovation is a process through which novel solutions emerge as multiple actors integrate and exchange resources to co-create values [18]. Given that fish screening is deemed a novel technology in Australia, which the water users would favourably or unfavourably receive specific features in the product will play a central role [19].

Looking through the lens of DOI theory, fish screening in Australia is also in the first stage of adoption, where only a small percentage of innovators install screens. Therefore, understanding irrigator communication preferences is essential to improve the odds of fish screens being successfully adopted. This study explored irrigator preferences for fish screens as an innovation to understand how they gather and act upon the information. These understanding benefits innovators, guiding how to develop effective communication strategies for water users.

There has not been enough research into farmer communication preferences, so we used a constructivist grounded theory (CGT) [20,21] approach to explore this phenomenon. A qualitative CGT approach is well suited to exploring a new research area where we do not begin with any pre-existing framework or hypothesis but with a social situation to investigate [21]. The understanding of problems is enhanced by an inductive approach. Consequently, hypotheses and theories are evolved through simultaneous data collection and analysis. Examples are used to illustrate hypotheses and theories rather than using the data to validate a theory. As succinctly put by Charmaz and Liska (2009; p. 743) [22], “Grounded theory is a systematic method for theory construction, which relies on rigorous analysis and conceptualisation of data. Grounded theory is an iterative, comparative, and interactive method that begins with inductive data.”.

The combination of DOI and AIDA models to define the context and research goals of the study, with CGT to inform the data collection and analysis, provided the framework for the methodology.

3. Methodology

The study drew on the DOI and AIDA frameworks of communication and awareness progression and a qualitative field study to develop a grounded model of communication approaches to water users. A constructivist grounded theory approach (see Charmaz, 2014) [21] was used to collect and analyse data. In the next section, we describe the qualitative field study.

3.1. Data Collection

Data was collected through semi-structured, in-depth interviews with NSW irrigators. These interviews initially focused on the interviewees’ awareness of and understanding of fish screens. Subsequent questioning focused on understanding interviewee fish screen information preferences regarding information format, style, content, and source. In recruiting interviewees, we relied on industry networks and existing relationships. Interviewees were selected strategically for their expertise and experience in the industry. Overall, the sample consisted of 23 irrigation farmers from the Murray Darling basin, and this configuration is consistent with the sample sizes recommended for exploratory research (McCracken, 1988) [23]. Each participant received an $80 AUD gift card to acknowledge their contribution to the research. The two lead researchers interviewed all participants, each lasting 60–80 min. Interviews were audio-recorded and later transcribed using a professional transcription service.

Properties varied in size and structure from small, mixed-farming, family properties of around 50 ha to large commercial farms of about 40,000 ha. Nearly all farms grew more than one product, including fruit, vineyards, almonds, sheep (lamb and wool), cattle (beef and dairy), wheat, barley, canola, lucerne, winter cereals, hay, rice, and cotton.

Participants used a variety of irrigation systems, including flood (60%), overhead sprinklers (30%), and drip (30%). Most water is sourced directly from the rivers (80%), with a smaller proportion coming from channels (30%), creeks (10%), groundwater (30%), pipes (10%), and floodplains (10%), using up to 400 ML/day.

Participants’ educational backgrounds varied greatly, with the level of formal training ranging from upper high school to post-graduate degrees. Fourteen participants came from farming families, some having been on the same property for many generations.

Interviews were designed to understand the level of awareness and acceptability of screening options for participants, the economic, social, and environmental drivers and barriers to adoption, and communications preferences. The questions fell into four broad categories: the first group of questions was designed to gather background information about participants and production; the second one focused on awareness and knowledge of pump and fish screens; the third one examined the value proposition; and the fourth one explicitly queried about communications preferences. As the interviews were semi-structured, there was much information about communications throughout the conversations; thus, the entirety of each interview was used in this analysis.

3.2. Data Analysis and Interpretation

Interviews were conducted by phone and/or using an online platform (i.e., Zoom) as COVID-19 restrictions during the data collection period prohibited meeting in person. Data were coded using the qualitative data analysis software Nvivo 12. As a first step, a professional transcription independently undertook coding and identified the concepts and their properties and dimensions in the data through line-by-line analysis of the documents [24,25]. All data were de-identified to ensure anonymity. The interview process and data analysis followed a CGT approach [21,23], using memo writing, coding, and continual comparison to generate inductive codes. These categories were explored and refined through memo writing after completing the coding. We conducted selective, focused coding to integrate and refine emerging themes and ideas. This data collection and analysis process was repeated as we established connections between categories and observed similarities and differences in the different data sets. This analytic process continuously repeated as we established connections between categories, noting emerging differences and similarities. This process ensured that we remained open to the data, allowing us to explore beliefs, preferences, habits, and processes as described by participants. We were mindful of applying the basic principles of data, and researcher triangulation helped us to remain open to the data, enabling us to observe, explore and analyse beliefs, preferences, habits, and processes as described by participants and, by extension, ensure the trustworthiness of the findings [21]. Data saturation became evident in the later stages of the interviews; however, further interviews (2) were conducted to verify saturation and enrich the depth of information collected. The last step involved the culmination of a final list of categories.

4. Results

The research explored the communications preferences of a group of NSW irrigation farmers, revealing their preferred format, style, content, and source and how information is gathered and evaluated in the decision-making process. Broadly, this broadens our understanding of agricultural communication and decision-making processes and thus, informing fish screen awareness in Australia. The following results are grouped into sections that reflect the codes that emerged from the CGT data analysis process.

4.1. Format

The interviews revealed that r communication preferences of the participants were varied and wide-ranging as a cohort and as individuals. The sample size of this study indicated that farmers were not one homogenous group. They happen to collect information in many ways, whether reading Twitter content or a blog post on the tractor, watching a video while waiting for an appointment, flipping through a magazine at the lunch table, or reading a standalone pamphlet or factsheets.

A profuse preference for all participants was live, in-person ways of getting information—talking to neighbours, colleagues, expert advisers, managers, and researchers at industry events (e.g., local grower meetings, regional field days, trainings, conferences, in-store conversations). One participant stated that talking to people “cuts out all the bullshit” (P3). The same participant added,

“Farmers around here tend to love to go to meetings. They want to sit down, have a yarn with someone and see something in front of them. A factsheet is good, but it’s too easy to slip it in the bottom of a pile and not read it”.

(P3)

One-to-one consultations may enhance awareness and interest and allow people to experience firsthand how a novel technology or idea can be applied. A participant explained,

“An eyeful is better than an earful, so you could let people have a look and show them what it’s doing. People beat you to death with words. If you can show them, you’ll win every time”.

(P6)

Visiting existing screening sites were mentioned by several participants as an excellent example of a hands-on, in-person experience that significantly enhanced interest in fish screens in the region.

Participants said that they frequently gathered information via short written material in the form of factsheets, websites, and articles—in both hard copy and electronic formats. First, they like this information to be concise and relevant, sparking their curiosity and inspiring them to seek further information. Somewhat confirming the importance of in-person interaction, they said it is vital that written information also includes the contact details of someone to call to obtain more information and discuss the innovation. Website links with supplementary information and additional details were also listed as a helpful inclusion. Participants also stated that they value the inclusion of pictures, diagrams, and photos that can prompt them to have better insights. Most participants mentioned videos as a favoured format and wanted those to be less daunting (less than 2 min) and relevant.

There is plenty of avenues for farmers to receive information geared to help them learn about different types of innovation. For instance, social media is a new pathway and interviewers asked about social media usage and found a full range of responses, from those who use it frequently to others who never use it. There was no correlation between respondents’ education level and social media usage. Those who do not use social media or use it infrequently described other ways of finding information and keeping up to date with new technology trends, both digitally and through hard copy materials, e.g., community news, farming-related newsletters, agriculture–industry and trade magazines, etc. On their preference between digital or hard copy formats, participants revealed that they like gathering information using multiple sources according to their needs and interests based on availability and accessibility.

4.2. Style

In terms of the general communication style, participants stated they preferred concise, factual, and relatable information that was easy to read or watch. For example, a one-minute video showing how a fish screen is installed on an irrigation pump, with commentary from the farm’s irrigator, will have a genuine buy-in from the audience. In other words, communication styles had to be clearer, more concise, and more compelling to be the information be simple, specific, and practical and to articulate how the new technology would improve their farming practice. A participant provides the following example,

“An irrigator is going to look at it and know within five minutes whether it is going to work for them or not and will not want to be bombarded with everything else, but if you’ve got a link that gives a short brief, show the design, show what it’s meant to do, and then go forward”.

(P18)

In addition to the above, participants indicated that they also like and are used to longer articles and conference presentations that provide greater detail.

4.3. Content

Contents are often the core of any form of communication. Participants mainly demonstrated a low awareness of fish screens but showed interest in discovering more about them. They listed the information they require to consider installing a screen on their pump.

An important factor in the early adoption process is the evidence of fish loss through irrigation and the impact of screening on fish. i.e., “Where does screening fit in in the hierarchy of improving things for native fish?” (P21). While they stated that they valued international evidence from countries that are more advanced in screening than Australia, participants wanted to see local evidence of the efficacy of screening to assess its suitability in the Murray-Darling Basin context. Case studies of operational screens were the most frequent examples participants provided to explain this point.

Next, they want information on the screens themselves: how they function (mechanical details including the self-cleaning function and electrical makeup), the effects on pump capacity and efficiency, maintenance requirements, manufacturers, cost, and availability. They also want information on policy, guidelines or potential regulation changes associated with fish screens. Most importantly, however, irrigators want to know how screening will benefit their operation. This includes details and cost-benefit figures on how screens can reduce debris and pump blockages, saving time and money spent on maintenance and increasing production. This is what a participant stated about an in-person event, “A few practical examples of where a fish screen has been installed; have the person that installed it, or the organisation, and talk about the benefits and things that they’ve seen. I think people relate to those sorts of events more than just someone preaching to them about what they think might be the solution.” (P15).

Participants said they wanted concise information at the start of the awareness journey and more detailed and in-depth information in the subsequent stages. A specific suggestion was to install roadside billboards in irrigation areas that say, “This screen saves energy, and water and increases production,” (P19), accompanied by the name and town of an irrigator who has installed one.

Irrigators need to be mindful of what level of detail may be appropriate for an individual seeking particular information at any stage of the awareness journey can easily find out the facts they need in the format they prefer.

4.4. Source

The source of information is at the very heart of communication, and it affects the receiver’s acceptance of a message. Simply put, target customers are more likely to be persuaded when the source presents itself as credible—free from bias and backed up with some evidence. Consistent with this notion, participants indicated they pay close attention to validity and trustworthiness. In line with preferences for in-person communication, participants revealed they considered information from known individuals as high quality and reliable. Talking to other farmers was also effective as it eliminated the obfuscation of hidden agendas such as commercial interests or political agendas. Participants rated discussions with people who have experience using the innovation very highly. They express a preference for conversing with “people that have actually used them and implemented them...and their experience of how it’s worked for them”. (P9).

Following word of mouth, information from industry bodies (e.g., crop-specific associations such as grains or citrus) was described as the most credible for published information. Participants working with industry associations stated they would promote screening (and other innovations) rather than individual products, reflecting the broad distrust of any information from or associated with commercial sources. A participant reasoned, “We do workshops, but we don’t promote the actual product, if you know what I mean. We just promote a screening.” (P20).

Participants revealed a medium confidence level in the reliability of information from government agencies. However, they displayed some wariness about the potential for biased information, resulting in increased regulations. Ultimately, irrigators were definitive about placing their trust in information gained from their local network, individuals who have used the new technology, and their firsthand observations supported by published information from research and industry bodies.

4.5. Information Gathering Process

The interviews demonstrated unequivocally that farmers are curious and eager to learn about fish screens. Every participant, including those who did not use pumps, said they would like to receive more information about fish screens on irrigation pumps. As one stated, “Knowledge is never any load to carry. So yes, I’m interested in information.” (P14).

Throughout the interviews, participants described how they gather, evaluate, and use information in decision-making. The first piece of information is the key—if they find it exciting and relevant, they will actively look for more information on the subject. They seek multiple sources of information to verify the validity, reveal hidden agendas, and always interrogate the source, asking questions such as: Who is providing it? Are they an expert? What are their perspectives and purpose? How does this fit with my experience and other knowledge?

“If they like the information, they’ll take it on board, but they won’t actually run with that information. They’ll seek a second opinion or seek someone that has already tried it, or other people with knowledge on it as well. They just won’t pick it up and run with that one particular [bit of] information.”

(P14)

5. Discussion

Despite the emerging interest in fish screening, more systematic research is needed concerning how a better communication strategy can be developed with water users. This study aimed to develop a theoretically grounded and practically tested understanding of how to communicate the benefits of modern fish screening to irrigation farmers in Australia. Fish screening in Australia is in the first stage of adoption, where only a small percentage of water users are installing screens. Looking through the lens of the AIDA and DOI models, the qualitative study findings reported herein provide a rich set of insights about the potential adoption of modern fish screening by irrigation farmers. The findings reveal that utilising the communication strategy will go a long way to influencing this process. In particular, the format, style, content, and source of information about innovations will have a critical downstream impact on improving the communication barrier and trust. Understanding and responding to farmer communication preferences and processes is vital to the future success of public investment, conservation programs, and farming sustainability. Furthermore, in-person and hands-on interactions are preferable for producing the desired persuasive effect. As Leeuwis and Aarts (2016, p. 4) [26], state, “everyday communication among citizens plays a key role in the building or undermining of support for innovation”.

The above diagram (Figure 3) represents the information gathering and evaluation process, as described by participants, from the first exposure to the communication stimuli to making a decision. The process begins when the target customer encounters the first piece of information. The critical issue is whether the content has attracted their attention and engaged them. Specifically, the farmer asks, “Is it interesting and relevant?” The relevance here includes the applicability of the innovation on the individual’s property, available resources to install and maintain it, and perceived benefits of the innovation to improve existing farming practices. If the answer is no, the information is discarded, and the innovation is rejected (as shown in the bottom left of the diagram). However, if the answer is yes, they move to the next stage and seek to learn more about the product and potential fit. Accordingly, in this stage, new information will try to draw them in and combine with the farmers’ earlier consumption experiences with similar prior technology and know-how. At this stage, they will also seek the opinions of experts and people with experience with the innovation. These three sources of information are then used as an evaluation considering the usefulness and relevance of the innovation. At this juncture, the marketer’s persuasiveness and message effectiveness will be in play. Like the first stage, the innovation will be rejected if the answer is negative, but if it is positive, it will move to the next stage. They will ask whether they have enough information to decide on screen adoption. They will return to the second step and seek more information if they do not feel they do. This cycle may continue several times and over some time until they feel they have adequate information to decide. Once they have ample information, they again ask, “Is the innovation interesting and relevant?” At this last stage, a negative answer will again result in a decision to reject the innovation. However, a positive answer will ultimately result in a decision to adopt (or at least consider) the innovation.

While the information gathering and evaluation process described by participants is similar for all, the information preferences may vary. Thus, information ought to be provided in various formats and styles and with content to ensure that message is getting through. Our investigation also reveals that collaboration could be key in communication about agricultural innovation. Given that in-person communication is the preferred method of information gathering and irrigators are more likely to pay attention to the collation of multiple pieces of information, an open, discussion-based intervention will be the optimum approach for the target audience to comprehend the message better. A collaborative approach would also include other interested groups, such as recreational fishers, community, manufacturers, suppliers and retailers, water regulators, grower groups, and indigenous custodians, to expand the conversation into the wider community. According to Leeuwis and Aarts (2016, p. 18) [26], this approach increases the “possibility of planning and orchestrating change based on consensus and mutual understanding.” This communication approach is also consistent with the participants’ desire for a collaborative rather than mandatory approach to innovations, where the “carrot is always far better than the stick.” (P8).

Participants in this study demonstrated that they are curious and discerning regarding information about agricultural innovations. Published information from trusted sources must be relevant and available on demand. Most importantly, in-person and hands-on interactions are the preferred communication method and should be in the action plan.

“Most farmers are hands-on people, so the most effective communication in farming, generally, are things like site visits, field days, those sorts of things. And any farmers like to have the background and get that from websites, publications, talking to people. But in terms of this sort of an exercise, nothing will be more informing than going there after a year to Trangie-Nevertire pump site on the quarry and having someone talk about it and say, ‘Okay, here’s how it went, here’s where it went well, here’s where it went wrong, here are the costs, et cetera’. They go away from that thinking, ‘Okay, that’s for me’. […] But it’s those sort of practical answers that will be important”.

(P15)

Government agencies and research institutes must explore farmer preferences and acknowledge their diversity when the information is crafted into a narrative. All in all, understanding farmer communication preferences is imperative for the future success of the public investment, conservation programs, and farming sustainability. Being attentive to farmer feedback, encouraging open dialogue and activity, and developing information in their preferred formats, styles, and content will enhance the success of the communication program. This study of attitudes to fish screens enriches knowledge regarding how information about innovations is communicated, received, and evaluated in the primary production context in Australia.

5.1. Managerial Implications

This study has important implications for managerial practice in promoting agricultural education to sustain marine ecosystems. Foremost, the results indicate that marketers should always look for ways to become better at communicating complex information about a new product. By addressing how organisations might proactively manage the diffusion process, we shed light on new and better ways to engage with irrigators and influence their adoption process. With policymakers under increased pressure to improve environmental sustainability, our study underscores support for investments in building effective communication channels with irrigators. By structuring the integrated communication strategy with both AIDA and DOI models in mind, marketers and policymakers can pre-empt more control over their prospects’ path to an adoption decision. Throughout the process, communication narratives should focus on the positive effects of screening for farmers—saving water, reducing blockages, and increasing production. The focus should be on how and when they receive information and the ease of accessing further information when required.

Considering the findings, policymakers overseeing the communication strategy must recognise the varied preferences of the farmers and the differential effects of various communication vehicles. This points to the importance of segmenting landholders [27] and devising tailored communication materials that resonate with different segments. To bolster the awareness and benefits of innovation, the communication campaign must vary the contents per farmer preferences for the format, style, content, and source of information. We recommend that policymakers use technology to enable new capabilities and extract advantages to provide information in different formats and depths to cater to different AIDA stages. For example, an informational campaign targeted at early-stage customers must work instantly—the reasons why it should be adapted should be evident and fully learned in the first few exposures. In contrast, the persuasion technique used for the target customers at the late stages of the AIDA model should have a different tone, e.g., a major focus on sustainability. The emphasis of this latter stage should be to transform “I like it” to “I need it”.

Our findings add to prior findings that communication campaigns can effectively create awareness, change attitudes, and motivate positive environmental behaviours [28,29]. The caveat for policymakers is to realise that gathering information is not linear but rather a complex validation cycle that combines information from various sources. Nevertheless, integrating multiform communication content such as blogging on social media platforms, online videos/documentaries, web-based downloadable decision tools, and arranging workshops will enhance the efficacy of innovation-related communication. In summary, a well-designed communication program with a targeted message can influence water users’ attitudes, the desire to adopt, and the action to install this sustainable fish screen technology.

5.2. Limitations and Future Research

Our study is subject to certain limitations that provide avenues for further research. Foremost, at its core, the effectiveness of any communication strategy depends on whether the target audience has processed the key element of the message in the intended manner and is motivated to take the requisite action; in this regard, we acknowledge that today’s media consumption by farmers takes place across multiple platforms, requiring more fine-grained investigation to capture the complexity of the effects in the minds of the end users. Scholars have argued that situation variables explain considerably more variance in consumer response to advertising than individual-level determinants [30]. Second, the study was set in a specific geographical area, and interactions with the respondents were virtual because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Because translating a positive attitude into deliberate action is not immediate, face-to-face interviews and interactions with the respondents will be needed to have relevant insights. Equally, triangulation of the methods (i.e., adding a survey or analytical modelling of real-world adoption data) will go a long way towards overcoming the trade-off between internal and external validity and further refining these research findings. For example, quantitative data can help shed more light into the turning point of the purchasing decision. Social and economic structures change and evolve through a continual process of a technology exploration. Along this line, a longitudinal study (versus a snapshot at a given time, as adapted in the current study) monitoring changes in communication preferences and embedded ties would bear out further theoretical underpinning. It will also be important in future to include the perspectives of other stakeholders, including relevant officials from state and federal government environmental and agricultural departments across Australia. Relatedly, our research points to a need to examine the role of environmental policies in further promoting the adoption of fish screens. Finally, our study provided a rather general understanding of the phenomenon as we did not explicitly consider the heterogeneity across the respondents. There is likely to be a skill gap or differences in financial resources among the water farmers, which could be among the critical factors for implementing new technology. Future research should help to disentangle these effects.

6. Conclusions

This study primarily investigates Australian irrigators’ attitudes towards fish screens and explores their preferred methods and sources of information. The results revealed that most participants had little or no understanding of the effects of irrigation on native fish and were not entirely familiar with the concept of modern self-cleaning fish screens. However, irrigators were keen to improve their productivity, environmental outcomes and processes, but they were reluctant to adopt fish screens without adequate information from trusted sources. Implementing targeted education and information sessions using appropriate formats and trustworthy channels with relevant content is essential to increase the probability of widespread screen adoption. Collaborative installation programs with incentives can also encourage uptake.

In summary, with consistent information and sufficient support provided through trustworthy communication channels, the probability of achieving widespread adoption of sustainable fish screens in Australia is relatively high.