A Systemic Approach to Sustainable Technological Extension: A Dynamic Model for Oil Palm Cultivation in Colombia
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methodology
2.1. Context and Location
2.2. Research Design
- Quantitative approach: Data collection and analysis focused on key indicators such as producer typologies based on the sustainability index (SI), socioeconomic characterization, and ethnographic assessments. These datasets facilitated the identification of patterns and trends within the sector’s behavior.
- Qualitative approach: Generative sessions were conducted with focus groups and key system actors to determine their roles, interests, and the causal relationships influencing their decision-making processes. Additionally, the conceptual model was validated through iterative consultations with experts.
2.3. Methodological Approach
2.3.1. Problem Articulation
- a.
- Reference modes: sustainability index (classification of producers based on the level of adoption of practices, technologies, and innovations, and legal and regulatory compliance) [14], socioeconomic characterization of producers [13], and ethnographic approaches through semi-structured interviews using a questionnaire described in Appendix A (Table A1).
- b.
- Time horizon: The system’s behavior was analyzed over a five-year horizon, considering both baseline information from the reference modes and the historical causes of the problem, along with the potential future implications of its resolution. Future periodic data collection from the reference modes will provide the analytical foundation for formulating the simulation model, validation, and designing and evaluating intervention policies.
- c.
- Model boundary: Factors related to technological extension were defined, excluding those that did not directly influence the identified problem. Consequently, research and development (R&D) processes and interactions were excluded. This decision was based on the fact that, although R&D activities are highly important, they largely occurred outside the decision-making cycles of producers, extension agents, and other related actors, and were not directly influenced by the feedback loops modeled in this study. As shown in Figure 3, the model boundary extended from extension as an output variable to adoption as an impact or response variable. Adoption, according to the model boundary, included both the application of technology and compliance with laws and regulations in Colombia’s oil palm industry. Acknowledging this boundary, one limitation was that potential innovations or changes in available technologies originating from external research were treated as exogenous inputs rather than being endogenized within the model.
- a.
- Executors: who carries out actions that directly impact the problematic situation?
- b.
- Collaborators: who performs actions or provides resources or information that facilitate the actions of the executors?
- c.
- Beneficiaries: who benefits from the problematic situation?
- d.
- Affected parties: who suffers adverse effects from the problematic situation?
- e.
- Responsible parties: who is accountable for resolving or improving the problematic situation?
- f.
- Interveners: who, as part of the environment or context, can provide opportunities or pose threats that may improve or worsen the problematic situation?
2.3.2. Dynamic Hypothesis
- a.
- Inputs: technical information, economic incentives, regulatory frameworks.
- b.
- Decision variables: assessment of costs, benefits, and regulatory constraints.
- c.
- Outputs: actions such as investment in technology, regulatory compliance, and producer training.
- a.
- Causal relationships and polarity: connections between actors and variables were established, defining whether a relationship is reinforcing (+) or balancing (−).
- b.
- Key variables: technological adoption, legal and regulatory compliance, and the SI risk level.
- c.
- Feedback loops: reinforcing loops that accelerate technological adoption and legal compliance were identified, along with balancing loops that regulate the SI risk level.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Problem Articulation Based on the Analysis of Reference Modes and Their Context in the Existing Literature
3.1.1. Analysis of the Sustainability Index (SI) and Its Correlation with Technological Adoption
3.1.2. Socioeconomic Characterization and Its Impact on Technological Extension
3.1.3. Ethnographic Approaches and Mental Models on Technological Extension
- Level of SI compliance: producers were prioritized based on their classification within the three sustainability levels (high, intermediate, and low) for each axis (economic, environmental, and social), according to SI results.
- Geographical distribution: producers from the four main oil palm-growing regions in Colombia (Northern, Central, Eastern, and Southwestern) were included to capture the heterogeneity of agroecological and socioeconomic conditions.
- Organizational model: independent producers, those associated with cooperatives, and those linked to oil palm mills were considered in evaluating differences in technology adoption based on production structures.
- Production scale: producers of different farm sizes (small, medium, and large-scale) were included to analyze the influence of production scale on technological extension.
- Access to technical assistance: producers with and without regular access to extension programs were selected to compare the impact of technical support on decision making.
- Availability and consent: only producers who voluntarily agreed to participate in the study were interviewed, ensuring compliance with ethical and methodological research principles.
- I.
- Factors influencing technological adoption: When producers were asked about the factors that motivate or influence their decision to implement practices, technologies, and innovations in their production process, 78% agreed that economic factors are decisive. In comparison, 43.14% attributed this phenomenon to labor availability (Figure 6).
- II.
- Constraints and facilitators of technological adoption: a PESTEL perspective. We conducted an inquiry using ethnographic approaches to categorize constraints and facilitators into political, economic, social, technological, environmental, and legal (PESTEL) variables [22]. The objective was to understand producers’ perspectives on their interaction with these variables, which may either limit or facilitate the implementation of sustainability-oriented practices, technologies, and innovations in oil palm cultivation in Colombia. Figure 7 presents the distribution of categorized variables according to the perceived relevance reported by producers.
3.1.4. Contribution of Reference Modes
3.2. Conceptualization of the Model and Analysis of Causal Relationships
3.2.1. Identification of Actors and Their Interactions
3.2.2. Causal Relationships and Model Structure
3.2.3. Conceptual Systemic Model of Technological Extension in Agriculture in Developing Countries
- (a)
- Technological adoption.
- (b)
- Legal and regulatory compliance.
- (c)
- The level of risk associated with the sustainability index (SI).
3.2.4. Specific Conceptual Systemic Model for Technological Extension in Oil Palm Cultivation in Colombia
3.2.5. Feedback Loops
- First iteration: Each stakeholder independently analyzed the model, identifying the most relevant feedback loops based on their experience and overlaying the producer typologies onto the conceptual model. This phase provided an initial understanding of the relationship between typologies and system variables.
- Second iteration: A collective discussion was conducted among stakeholders and sectoral experts. During this phase, initial overlays were compared, inconsistencies were identified, and the analysis was enriched with different perspectives, leading to a more precise adjustment of the conceptual model.
- Third iteration: A final deliberation was conducted, during which stakeholders, through consensus and adjustments, established the definitive placement of each producer typology within the conceptual model. The proximity of each typology to specific variables helped identify the most influential factors and the areas requiring rapid intervention through extension strategies. This exercise facilitated the prioritization of actions aimed at moving producers from certain typologies toward higher levels of SI compliance.
3.2.6. Practical Implications
3.2.7. Limitations and Future Perspectives
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
SI | Sustainability Index |
Appendix A
Oil Palm Zone ___________________________ |
Informed Consent ___________________________ |
Name _______________ Date _______________ |
Nucleus _______________ Sub-Zone _______________ |
My name is [interviewer’s name], and I am a staff member at Cenipalma. As part of our work in extension, we are conducting a research project titled “Design of a Management System for Technological Extension in Oil Palm”. I would like to invite you to participate in this project, which will help us understand your needs in terms of technology transfer. If you agree to participate, I will ask you to allow me to interview you. The interview will last approximately one hour, during which I will ask questions about your experience in oil palm cultivation. Your participation in this research does not involve any material or financial compensation, and you are free to withdraw at any time. Your opinions and contributions to this research will be used exclusively for this project and stored securely. If you authorize me, I will record and transcribe the interview. If you prefer, your name will not appear in the study or any publication. |
If you agree to participate in this project, please answer YES or NO to each of the following questions: |
Do you agree to participate voluntarily in this project, understanding that you will not receive any material or financial compensation and that you can withdraw at any time? Yes _ No _ |
Do you authorize the use of photographs in which you appear in the research work and publications derived from this study? Yes _ No _ |
Do you authorize the recording of the interview and the taking of notes during the session? Yes _ No _ |
Do you request that your name not be revealed, and that your opinions, if cited, remain anonymous? Yes _ No _ |
Do you authorize your name to appear in the study or resulting publications to acknowledge your participation in this research or when your opinions are cited? |
Yes _ No _ |
[Space for producer’s signature] [Space for interviewer’s signature] |
Producer’s Signature Interviewer’s Signature |
1. Socioeconomic Characteristics |
Age: ___________ |
Number of dependents economically supported by the producer: ___________ |
Producer’s educational level: |
Primary _____Secondary _____Technical _____University _____Other _____ |
Years as a farmer: ___________Years as an oil palm grower: ___________ |
Land ownership: Owned _____ Leased _____ Other _____ |
Age of oil palm plantation: ___________ Number of hectares of oil palm: ___________ |
Other crops: ___________ Hectares: ___________ |
Proportion of income derived from oil palm (%): ___________ |
2. Technical Relationships |
2.1. Which organizations, companies, or individuals have supported you with technological practices, training, or technical assistance impacting your productivity in the last 3 years? |
(Agronomic management, harvest, and farm/plantation organization. Examples: innovative machinery, work organization, drainage, fertilization, sampling, pest and disease management, harvesting, post-harvest, residue utilization) |
Name(s) of actor(s): 1. ___________ 2. ___________ 3. ___________ … N. ___________ |
Importance rating: |
1 = Low importance; 2 = Acceptable; 3 = Important; 4 = Very important |
2.2. Which organizations, companies, or individuals have supported you with technological practices, training, or technical assistance in environmental issues in the last 3 years? |
(Environmentally friendly practices related to soil conservation, water management, conservation of natural habitats, deforestation, waste management) |
Name(s) of actor(s): 1. ___________ 2. ___________ 3. ___________ … N. ___________ |
Importance rating: |
1 = Low importance; 2 = Acceptable; 3 = Important; 4 = Very important |
2.3. Which organizations or companies have supported you with technological practices, training, or technical assistance in social issues in the last 3 years? |
(Relationship with the community, labor conditions—fair wages, contracts, social security, child labor, risks—organization, foreign workers, ethics, human rights, respect for other territories) |
Name(s) of actor(s): 1. ___________ 2. ___________ 3. ___________ … N. ___________ |
Importance rating: |
1 = Low importance; 2 = Acceptable; 3 = Important; 4 = Very important |
3. Verification for Quantifying Open-Ended Interview Responses |
3.1. Experience and Evolution |
Question: What does oil palm cultivation represent for you? |
Category / Preliminary Score (Measurable or Quantifiable Aspects): |
Life Purpose _____ |
Purely Business _____ |
Other (Specify): ___________ |
Observations: (Space for interviewer’s notes) |
3.2. Technologies, Practices, or Innovations with Economic Impact |
Question: Have you noticed any positive, negative, or no economic impact as a result of adopting technologies or practices in your oil palm plantation? |
(Mention technologies or practices and the changes in productivity observed) |
Technology/Practice/Innovation Name: ___________ |
Category/Preliminary Score (Measurable or Quantifiable Aspects): |
Increase: _____ |
Decrease: _____ |
No change: _____ |
Observations: (Space for interviewer’s notes) |
3.3. Technologies, Practices, or Innovations with Environmental Impact |
Question: Have you noticed any positive, negative, or no environmental impact resulting from adopting technologies or practices in your oil palm plantation? |
(Mention technologies or practices and their positive, negative, or neutral environmental impacts) |
Technology/Practice/Innovation Name: ___________ |
Positive Impact: _____ |
Negative Impact: _____ |
No Impact: _____ |
Observations: (Space for interviewer’s notes) |
3.4. Technologies, Practices, or Innovations with Social Impact |
Question: Have you noticed any effects on the local community and workers due to adopting technologies or practices in your oil palm plantation? |
(Mention technologies or practices and their effects on the local community and workers) |
Category/Preliminary Score (Measurable or Quantifiable Aspects): |
Technology/Practice/Innovation Name: ___________ |
Positive Effect: _____ |
Negative Effect: _____ |
No Effect: _____ |
Observations: (Space for interviewer’s notes) |
3.5. Influencing Factors |
Question: What motivates your decision to adopt or not adopt technologies, practices, or innovations in your oil palm plantation? |
Category/Preliminary Score (Measurable or Quantifiable Aspects): |
Economic Factors: ___________ |
Access to technology/practice: ___________ |
Technical knowledge: ___________ |
Belief in technology: ___________ |
Labor availability: ___________ |
Other: Yes __ No __ If yes, specify: ___________ |
Observations: (Space for interviewer’s notes) |
3.6. Challenges and Barriers |
Question: What challenges or barriers have you encountered in adopting technologies, practices, or innovations? |
Category/Preliminary Score (Measurable or Quantifiable Aspects): |
Political: ___________ |
Economic: ___________ |
Social: ___________ |
Technological: ___________ |
Environmental: ___________ |
Legal: ___________ |
Observations: (Space for interviewer’s notes) |
3.7. Knowledge of Sustainability Certifications in Oil Palm |
Question: Which sustainability certifications in oil palm are you aware of? |
Category/Preliminary Score (Measurable or Quantifiable Aspects): |
RSPO: __ |
APS Colombia: __ |
Other: Yes __ No __ If yes, specify: ___________ (Multiple choice) |
Observations: (Space for interviewer’s notes) |
3.8. Experience with Certification Programs |
Question: What has been your experience participating in sustainability certification programs or initiatives? |
Category/Preliminary Score (Measurable or Quantifiable Aspects): |
Positive: ___________ |
Regular: ___________ |
Neutral: ___________ |
Negative: ___________ (Single choice) |
Observations: (Space for interviewer’s notes) |
4. Additional Comments |
Before concluding, is there anything else you would like to add? For example, how do you perceive the return on investment for implementing sustainable technologies, practices, and innovations in your business? |
Appendix B
ECONOMIC AXIS |
PRINCIPLE 1. Productive, competitive, and resilient agribusiness |
PRINCIPLE 6. Value generation from biomass |
ENVIRONMENTAL AXIS |
PRINCIPLE 2. Proper and efficient use of soil, water, and energy |
PRINCIPLE 3. Zero deforestation and no replacement of HCV and HCS areas |
PRINCIPLE 4. Harmonious palm cultivation with its natural surroundings and biodiversity |
PRINCIPLE 5. Prevention and mitigation of environmental pollution |
SOCIAL AXIS |
PRINCIPLE 7. Decent employment and workers’ rights |
PRINCIPLE 8. Responsible supply schemes and inclusive businesses |
PRINCIPLE 9. Responsible relationship with communities and human rights |
PRINCIPLE 10. Ethical, legal, and transparent behavior |
References
- Trenberth, K.E.; Dai, A.; Van Der Schrier, G.; Jones, P.D.; Barichivich, J.; Briffa, K.R.; Sheffield, J. Global warming and changes in drought. Nat. Clim. Change 2014, 4, 17–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Traitler, H.; Dubois, M.; Heikes, K.; Petiard, V.; Zilberman, D. Megatrends in Food and Agriculture: Technology, Water Use and Nutrition; John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Aprillya, M.R.; Suryani, E.; Dzulkarnain, A. System Dynamics Simulation Model to Increase Paddy Production for Food Security. J. Inf. Syst. Eng. Bus. Intell. 2019, 5, 67–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turner, B.L.; Menendez, H.M.; Gates, R.; Tedeschi, L.O.; Atzori, A.S. System dynamics modeling for agricultural and natural resource management issues: Review of some past cases and forecasting future roles. Resources 2016, 5, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sukiyono, K.; Romdhon, M.M.; Mulyasari, G.; Yuliarso, M.Z.; Nabiu, M.; Trisusilo, A.; Reflis; Napitupulu, D.M.T.; Nugroho, Y.; Puspitasari, M.S.; et al. The Contribution of Oil Palm Smallholders Farms to the Implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals-Measurement Attempt. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adebiyi, J.A.; Olabisi, L.S. Participatory Causal Loop Mapping of the Adoption of Organic Farming in Nigeria. Environ. Manag. 2022, 69, 410–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fisher, D.K.; Norvell, J.; Sonka, S.; Nelson, M.J. Understanding technology adoption through system dynamics modeling: Implications for agribusiness management. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 2000, 3, 281–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharifzadeh, M.S.; Abdollahzadeh, G.; Damalas, C.A. Farmers’ behaviour in the use of integrated pest management (IPM) practices: Perspectives through the social practice theory. Int. J. Pest Manag. 2023, 69, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feder, G.; Anderson, J.R.; Ganguly, S. The Rise and Fall of Training and Visit Extension: An Asian Mini-Drama with an African Epilogue; World Bank Publications: Washington, DC, USA, 2006; Volume 3928, Available online: https://books.google.com.co/books?hl=es&lr=&id=MPgd9YUaDW4C&oi=fnd&pg=PA2&ots=ntGuaSYH1C&sig=f0VVjS5EtUfaBvPEdqOYWHjxCsg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false (accessed on 10 May 2022).
- Leeuwis, C. Communication for Rural Innovation: Rethinking Agricultural Extension; Blackwell Science: Oxford, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Rogers, E. Diffusion and Innovations; Free Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Becerra-Encinales, J.F.; Bernal-Hernandez, P.; Beltrán-Giraldo, J.A.; Cooman, A.P.; Reyes, L.H.; Cruz, J.C. Agricultural Extension for Adopting Technological Practices in Developing Countries: A Scoping Review of Barriers and Dimensions. Sustainability 2024, 16, 3555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cenipalma, Perfil Socioeconómico, Base Para la Asistencia Técnica Planificada. Available online: https://geoportal.cenipalma.org/caracterizacion/?page=Estadisticas (accessed on 7 March 2025).
- Becerra-Encinales, J.F. Compliance Patterns in Adopting Sustainability Practices: A Cluster Analysis of Oil Palm Producers in Colombia. Manuscript under review, 2025.
- Sterman, J. Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World; Irwin/McGraw-Hill: Chicago, IL, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Bell, S.; Morse, S. Sustainability indicators past and present: What next? Sustainability 2018, 10, 1688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahecha, X. Sustainable Palm Oil of Colombia (APSColombia): Aiming to Position Our Origin; Fedepalma, Ed.; Fedepalma: Bogotá, Colombia, 2024; Available online: https://crmfedepalma-my.sharepoint.com/:p:/r/personal/xmahecha_apscolombia_org/_layouts/15/Doc.aspx?sourcedoc=%7B5B05C776-300D-4082-89A5-3A2A9CAE3074%7D&file=190224%20APSColombia%20strategy.pptx&fromShare=true&action=edit&mobileredirect=true (accessed on 1 April 2024).
- Fedepalma. Oil Palm in Colombia; Fedepalma: Bogotá, Colombia, 2024. [Google Scholar]
- Fedepalma; SISPA; SIFF; DANE; DIAN. La Palma de Aceite en Colombia. Available online: https://repositorio.fedepalma.org/bitstream/handle/123456789/142819/Colombia%202022.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed on 1 April 2024).
- Olaya, C.; Gómez-Quintero, J. Conceptualization of Social Systems: Actors First. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Delft, The Netherlands, 17–21 July 2016; Universidad de los Andes: Bogotá, Colombia, 2016; pp. 1–18. [Google Scholar]
- Olaya, C.; Guzmán-Abello, L. Diagramas de Ciclos Causales. In Notas Sistémicas; Universidad de los Andes: Bogotá, Colombia, 2022; Volume 1, pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
- Mihailova, M. The state of agriculture in Bulgaria-PESTLE analysis. Bulg. J. Agric. Sci. 2020, 26, 935–943. [Google Scholar]
- Fedepalma. La Palma de Aceite en Colombia. Available online: https://web.fedepalma.org/la-palma-de-aceite-en-colombia-departamentos (accessed on 4 April 2022).
- Colombian Oil Palm Research Centre Corporation, Cenipalma; Becerra-Encinales, J.F.; Rodríguez, B.; Eloína, M.-F.; Beltrán-Giraldo, J.A.; Cooman, A.P.; Bernal-Hernández, P.; Reyes, L.; Cruz, J.C. Definition of Technological Extension Strategies Based on Exploratory Analysis of the Sustainability Index Using Artificial Intelligence: The Case of Oil Palm Producers in Colombia. Available online: https://repositorio.fedepalma.org/handle/123456789/142851#page=1 (accessed on 2 April 2024).
- Rogers, E.; Singhal, A.; Quinlan, M. Diffusion of Innovations in An Integrated Approach to Communication Theory and Research, 2nd ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2014; Volume 2, Available online: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780203887011-36/diffusion-innovations-everett-rogers-arvind-singhal-margaret-quinlan (accessed on 31 May 2022).
- Yuksel, I. Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovation Model in Action: Individual Innovativeness Profiles of Pre-service Teachers in Turkey/Rogersov model difuzije inovacije u praksi: Pojedinačni profili inovativnosti budućih nastavnika u Turskoj. Croat. J. Educ.—Hrvat. Čas. Odgoj. Obraz. 2015, 17, 507–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klerkx, L.; Van Mierlo, B.; Leeuwis, C. Evolution of systems approaches to agricultural innovation: Concepts, analysis and interventions. In Farming Systems Research into the 21st Century: The New Dynamic; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 457–483. [Google Scholar]
- Aguilar-Gallegos, N.; Muñoz-Rodríguez, M.; Santoyo-Cortés, H.; Aguilar-Ávila, J.; Klerkx, L. Information networks that generate economic value: A study on clusters of adopters of new or improved technologies and practices among oil palm growers in Mexico. Agric. Syst. 2015, 135, 122–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Birkhaeuser, D.; Evenson, R.E.; Feder, G. The Economic Impact of Agricultural Extension: A Review; Center Discussion Paper, No. 567; Yale University, Economic Growth Center: New Haven, CT, USA, 1989; Available online: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/160489/1/cdp567.pdf (accessed on 10 May 2022).
- Swinnen, J.; Kuijpers, R. Value chain innovations for technology transfer in developing and emerging economies: Conceptual issues, typology, and policy implications. Food Policy 2019, 83, 298–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Norton, G.W.; Alwang, J. Changes in Agricultural Extension and Implications for Farmer Adoption of New Practices. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 2020, 42, 8–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Norton, R. Política de Desarrollo Agrícola Conceptos y Principios. FAO: Rome, Italy, 2004; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
- Takahashi, K.; Muraoka, R.; Otsuka, K. Technology adoption, impact, and extension in developing countries’ agriculture: A review of the recent literature. Agric. Econ. 2020, 51, 31–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beni Houd, Y.; El Amrani, M. Social Network Analysis: A useful tool for studying Innovation diffusion processes. Econ. Agro-Aliment. 2022, 24, 1–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bernal-Hernandez, P.; Ramirez, M.; Mosquera-Montoya, M. Formal rules and its role in centralised-diffusion systems: A study of small-scale producers of oil palm in Colombia. J. Rural. Stud. 2021, 83, 215–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taheri, F.; D’Haese, M.; Fiems, D.; Azadi, H. The intentions of agricultural professionals towards diffusing wireless sensor networks: Application of technology acceptance model in Southwest Iran. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2022, 185, 122075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thuo, M.; Bell, A.A.; Bravo-Ureta, B.E.; Lachaud, M.A.; Okello, D.K.; Okoko, E.N.; Kidula, N.L.; Deom, C.M.; Puppala, N. Effects of social network factors on information acquisition and adoption of improved groundnut varieties: The case of Uganda and Kenya. Agric. Hum. Values 2014, 31, 339–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pannell, D.; Zilberman, D. Understanding Adoption of Innovations and Behavior Change to Improve Agricultural Policy. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 2020, 42, 3–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wigboldus, S.; Klerkx, L.; Leeuwis, C.; Schut, M.; Muilerman, S.; Jochemsen, H. Systemic perspectives on scaling agricultural innovations. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2016, 36, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ali Mengal, A.; Habib, S.; Baloch, F.M.; Siddiqui, A.A.; Balochistan, Q. An innovative approach of public and private extension services regarding diffusion and adoption of agricultural technology in Balochistan, Pakistan: A conceptual framework. JMAS J. MacroTrends Appl. Sci. 2016, 4, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Gatzweiler, F.W.; Von Braun, J. Technological and Institutional Innovations for Marginalized Smallholders in Agricultural Development; Springer: Bonn, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klerkx, L.; Hall, A.; Leeuwis, C. Strengthening agricultural innovation capacity: Are innovation brokers the answer? Int. J. Agric. Resour. Gov. Ecol. 2009, 8, 409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teece, D.J. Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Res. Policy 1986, 15, 285–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wejnert, B. Integrating Models of Diffusion of Innovations: A Conceptual Framework. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2002, 28, 297–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amoussohoui, R.; Arouna, A.; Bavorova, M.; Tsangari, H.; Banout, J. An extended Canvas business model: A tool for sustainable technology transfer and adoption. Technol. Soc. 2022, 68, 101901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walisinghe, B.R.; Ratnasiri, S.; Rohde, N.; Guest, R. Does agricultural extension promote technology adoption in Sri Lanka. Int. J. Soc. Econ. 2017, 44, 2173–2186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benor, D.; Harrison, J.Q. Agricultural Extension: The Training and Visit System; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 1977. [Google Scholar]
- Gonzáles, H. Hacia una Nueva Concepción de la Extensión; 2000. Available online: https://www.mag.go.cr/bibliotecavirtual/AV-1700.pdf (accessed on 10 February 2025).
- Gardezi, M.; Abuayyash, H.; Adler, P.R.; Alvez, J.P.; Anjum, R.; Badireddy, A.R.; Brugler, S.; Carcamo, P.; Clay, D.; Dadkhah, A.; et al. The role of living labs in cultivating inclusive and responsible innovation in precision agriculture. Agric. Syst. 2024, 216, 103908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huergo, J. Desafíos de la extensión desde la perspectiva cultural. Dialoguemos 2004, 8, 11–15. [Google Scholar]
- Martínez-Arteaga, D. Determinantes de la Adopción de Tecnologías para el Manejo Eficiente del Agua por los Cultivadores de Palma de Aceite en la Zona Norte Colombiana; Universidad Nacional de Colombia: Bogotá, Colombia, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Martínez-Arteaga, D.; Arias Arias, N.A.; Darghan, A.E.; Barrios, D. Identification of Influential Factors in the Adoption of Irrigation Technologies through Neural Network Analysis: A Case Study with Oil Palm Growers. Agriculture 2023, 13, 827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jansen, J.; Steuten, C.D.; Renes, R.J.; Aarts, N.; Lam, T.J. Debunking the myth of the hard-to-reach farmer: Effective communication on udder health. J. Dairy Sci. 2010, 93, 1296–1306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chambers, R.; Ghildyal, B.P. Agricultural research for resource-poor farmers: The farmer-first-and-last model. Agric. Adm. 1985, 20, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hazell, P.; Poulton, C.; Wiggins, S.; Dorward, A. The Future of Small Farms: Trajectories and Policy Priorities. World Dev. 2010, 38, 1349–1361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gorton, M.; Douarin, E.; Davidova, S.; Latruffe, L. Attitudes to agricultural policy and farming futures in the context of the 2003 CAP reform: A comparison of farmers in selected established and new Member States. J. Rural. Stud. 2008, 24, 322–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jadallah, A.E.O.; Hassan Abu Bakar, A.; Hsnah Mohd, J. The impact of the decentralization and Pluralism policy on agricultural extension services. J. Agric. Technol. 2011, 7, 895–901. [Google Scholar]
- Anderson, J.R.; Feder, G. Chapter 44 Agricultural Extension. Handb. Agric. Econ. 2007, 3, 2343–2378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anastasiadis, F.; Tsolakis, N.; Srai, J.S. Digital technologies towards resource efficiency in the agrifood sector: Key challenges in developing countries. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woittiez, L.S.; van Wijk, M.T.; Slingerland, M.; van Noordwijk, M.; Giller, K.E. Yield gaps in oil palm: A quantitative review of contributing factors. Eur. J. Agron. 2017, 83, 57–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parveez, G.K.A.; Hishamuddin, E.; Loh, S.K.; Ong-Abdullah, M.; Salleh, K.M.; Bidin, M.N.I.Z.; Sundram, S.; Hasan, Z.A.A.; Idris, Z. Oil palm economic performance in malaysia and R&D progress in 2019. J. Oil Palm Res. 2020, 32, 159–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bilal, M.; Brümmer, B.; Barkmann, J. A discussion on the outcomes of adopted agricultural technological products and specific sustainable development goals: Evidence from Pakistan. Cogent Econ. Financ. 2022, 10, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nazar, H.; Ullah, S.; Nasir, S.; Bilal, M. Exploring the potential determinants to favour available entrepreneurial strategies among dairy farmers of southern Punjab in Pakistan. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 2024, 31, 71–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdulai, A. Information acquisition and the adoption of improved crop varieties. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2023, 105, 1049–1062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arslan, C.; Wollni, M.; Oduol, J.; Hughes, K. Who communicates the information matters for technology adoption. World Dev. 2022, 158, 106015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bonjean, I. Heterogeneous incentives for innovation adoption: The price effect on segmented markets. Food Policy 2019, 87, 101741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Omar, J.A.E.; Bakar, A.H.A.; Jais, H.M.; Shalloof, F.M. Study of the Role of Agricultural Extension in the Dissemination of Sustainable Agricultural Development. J. Agric. Technol. 2012, 8, 1237–1245. [Google Scholar]
- Janssen, E.; Swinnen, J. Technology adoption and value chains in developing countries: Evidence from dairy in India. Food Policy 2019, 83, 327–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meinzen-Dick, R.; Quisumbing, A.R.; Behrman, J.A. A System That Delivers: Integrating Gender into Agricultural Research, Development, and Extension. In Gender in Agriculture; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 373–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swanson, B.E.; Rajalahti, R.; The World Bank. Strengthening Agricultural Extension and Advisory Systems: Procedures for Assessing, Transforming, and Evaluating Extension Systems. 2010. Available online: http://www.worldbank.org/rural (accessed on 14 July 2024).
- World Bank. Enhancing Agricultural Innovation: How to Go Beyond the Strengthening of Research Systems; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, F.D. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Q. 1989, 13, 319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M.G.; Davis, G.B.; Davis, F.D. User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Q. 2003, 27, 425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borgatti, S.P.; Mehra, A.; Brass, D.J.; Labianca, G. Network Analysis in the Social Sciences. Science 2009, 323, 892–895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Valente, T.W. Social network thresholds in the diffusion of innovations. Soc. Netw. 1996, 18, 69–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Steps | Description |
---|---|
Problem articulation | Clearly defining the issue of technology extension in the Colombian oil palm sector, establishing its reference modes, system boundaries, and time horizon. |
Dynamic hypothesis | Identifying key actors and their interactions, constructing causal relationships and feedback loops, and determining the system’s dynamics. |
Formulation of the simulation model | Developing a model based on differential equations and decision rules that represent the change in variables over time. |
Validation tests | Evaluating the robustness and coherence of the model to ensure its predictive capability and representativeness of the actual system. |
Policy design and evaluation | Formulating strategies to improve technology extension, considering structural leverage points within the system. |
Actors | Functionality and Purpose * |
---|---|
Oil Palm Producers and Workers | Fundamental actors in the oil palm sector’s production chain, responsible for the primary production of palm fruit. Their work focuses on improving profitability and production sustainability through adopting technologies, compliance with legal regulations, and implementing beneficial agricultural practices. |
Oil Palm Mill (Palm Nucleus) | An operational unit integrating processing plants and fruit suppliers, oriented towards sustainable productivity through technical support, compliance with the sustainability index, and the adoption of technologies. |
Cenipalma | The research center for the oil palm sector is dedicated to the development and implementation of technologies and innovations to address sectoral challenges, with a focus on effective knowledge and technology transfer. |
Associations | Organizational groups designed to generate economies of scale, facilitate collective bargaining, and promote the adoption of sustainable practices among their members. |
ICA (Colombian Agricultural Institute) | The phytosanitary regulatory body responsible for establishing and enforcing regulations to ensure agricultural health and productivity through the implementation of appropriate practices. |
Agricultural Input Suppliers | Specialized businesses in commercializing agricultural inputs, combining product sales with technical support to facilitate technology adoption. |
Fedepalma | The federation that brings together palm oil producers in Colombia, promoting industry representation and leading investment initiatives focused on sector sustainability. |
Advisors/Consultants | Professionals specializing in agronomic technical assistance, focusing on recommending practices that optimize sector productivity and sustainability. |
SENA (National Learning Service) | An educational institution that trains agricultural workers, providing workforce training to facilitate technology adoption in the sector. |
Financial Sector | Banking institutions that, through specialized credit lines, finance technology adoption by producers and support the viability of productive projects. |
Technical Assistance Providers | Entities focused on training and technical advisory services for producers, aiming to strengthen their competitiveness and expand their market reach. |
Cooperatives | Collective organizations that promote economic, environmental, and social sustainability through training strategies, hiring, and technology adoption in the oil palm sector. |
Solidaridad Network | A non-governmental organization that supports small producers by managing international resources, prioritizing sustainability, and rural development projects. |
Foundations | Organizations linked to companies in the sector that promote labor formalization and social well-being improvement through housing and quality-of-life projects. |
CAR (Regional Environmental Authorities) | An environmental regulatory entity responsible for issuing and enforcing regulations to ensure the sustainability of productive activities. |
NGOs | Organizations dedicated to rural development and quality of life improvement through international resource management and sustainability promotion in agricultural communities. |
Actor | Sustainability Axis | Role | Goals and Interests | Decision Rules | Variables |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Oil Palm Producers and Workers | Economic, Environmental, Social | Executor, Beneficiary | Increased profitability and sustainable productivity | Technological adoption, legal and regulatory compliance, SI compliance level | Training, affiliations, regulatory compliance, technology implementation |
Oil Palm Mill (Palm Nucleus) | Economic, Environmental, Social | Collaborator, Beneficiary | Increase sustainable productivity | Strategic and operational plans, technical assistance to suppliers | Formalization of plans, technical support, advisory, SI compliance, technological adoption |
Cenipalma | Economic, Environmental, Social | Executor, Stakeholder | Generate practices, technologies, and innovations | Strategic and operational plans, training and capacity building, coordination of phytosanitary management, sustainable and inclusive oil palm cultivation | Financing and formalization of plans, demonstration plots, productivity improvement plans, regulatory compliance, technical support, training, agreements, data collection, certified technical assistants, phytosanitary management, improvement of phytosanitary status, organizational models, SI compliance |
Associations | Economic, Environmental, Social | Collaborator, Beneficiary, Responsible | Economies of scale and technological adoption | Producer organization, management, and economies of scale | Producer associativity, technical support, needs identification, economies of scale |
ICA (Colombian Agricultural Institute) | Economic | Stakeholder | Maintain an adequate phytosanitary status | Issuance and enforcement of phytosanitary regulations | Regulatory framework, inspection, monitoring, and control, agreements |
Agricultural Input Suppliers | Economic | Collaborator, Stakeholder | Increase sales of agricultural products | Sale of products and services | Product marketing, technical support, product application |
Fedepalma | Economic, Environmental, Social | Collaborator, Stakeholder | Industry representation and administration of the palm oil fund | Producer association, sector investment projects | Producer affiliation, palm oil promotion fund, sector investment projects, sector advocacy, project implementation |
Advisors/ Consultants | Economic, Environmental, Social | Collaborator, Responsible | Technical support and profit | Technical assistance, client acquisition | Advisory, technical recommendations, advisory marketing, technical support |
SENA (National Learning Service) | Economic, Environmental, Social | Stakeholder, Responsible | Training and technical capacity building for producers | Training programs for labor skills | Training programs, capacity building, agreements |
Financial Sector | Economic, Environmental, Social | Stakeholder | Credit allocation for producers | Implementation of financial instruments | Application of financial instruments, credit allocation |
Technical Assistance Providers | Economic | Collaborator, Stakeholder | Technical support for producers | Support and technical recommendations | Producer support, technological adoption, SI compliance |
Cooperatives | Economic, Environmental, Social | Collaborator, Stakeholder | Promote technological adoption through organization | Producer and worker organization, labor formalization | Producer grouping, advisory, technical support, work schemes, memberships, skilled labor |
Solidaridad Network | Economic, Environmental, Social | Stakeholder | Support small-scale producers and rural development | Agreements | Project management, training, collaborative work, agreements |
Foundations | Economic, Environmental, Social | Stakeholder | Regulatory compliance and social improvement | Rural development projects | Project implementation, regional improvement, social management |
CAR (Regional Environmental Authorities) | Environmental | Stakeholder | Environmental regulatory compliance | Issuance and enforcement of environmental regulations | Environmental regulations, environmental issues |
NGOs | Environmental, Social | Stakeholder | Rural development and quality of life | International resource acquisition, deployment for adoption and compliance | Application for funding calls, training, resource management, agreements |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Becerra-Encinales, J.F.; Rodríguez-Ortega, J.D.; Cooman, A.P.; Reyes, L.H.; Cruz, J.C. A Systemic Approach to Sustainable Technological Extension: A Dynamic Model for Oil Palm Cultivation in Colombia. Sustainability 2025, 17, 4706. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17104706
Becerra-Encinales JF, Rodríguez-Ortega JD, Cooman AP, Reyes LH, Cruz JC. A Systemic Approach to Sustainable Technological Extension: A Dynamic Model for Oil Palm Cultivation in Colombia. Sustainability. 2025; 17(10):4706. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17104706
Chicago/Turabian StyleBecerra-Encinales, Julián F., Jair D. Rodríguez-Ortega, Alexandre P. Cooman, Luis H. Reyes, and Juan C. Cruz. 2025. "A Systemic Approach to Sustainable Technological Extension: A Dynamic Model for Oil Palm Cultivation in Colombia" Sustainability 17, no. 10: 4706. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17104706
APA StyleBecerra-Encinales, J. F., Rodríguez-Ortega, J. D., Cooman, A. P., Reyes, L. H., & Cruz, J. C. (2025). A Systemic Approach to Sustainable Technological Extension: A Dynamic Model for Oil Palm Cultivation in Colombia. Sustainability, 17(10), 4706. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17104706