• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Copyright
 Title Page
 Acknowledgement
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 Introduction
 Geographic, demographic and general...
 Grower goals and objectives
 Water management practices, technology...
 Community influence on grower decisions...
 Water use regulations, grower control,...






Group Title: Economic information report - Food and Resource Economics Department - EI 97-4
Title: Adoption of drip irrigation technology in the Florida tomato industry
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027374/00001
 Material Information
Title: Adoption of drip irrigation technology in the Florida tomato industry survey results
Series Title: Economic information
Physical Description: vi, 48 p. : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Casey, C. Franklin ( Clyde Franklin ), 1951-
University of Florida -- Food and Resource Economics Dept
Publisher: University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Food and Resource Economics Dept., Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations
Place of Publication: Gainesville FL
Publication Date: <1997>
 Subjects
Subject: Microirrigation -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Tomato industry -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: C. Franklin Casey.
General Note: "April 1997."
Funding: Florida Historical Agriculture and Rural Life
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027374
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Marston Science Library, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
Holding Location: Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the Engineering and Industrial Experiment Station; Institute for Food and Agricultural Services (IFAS), University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida
Resource Identifier: aleph - 002279597
oclc - 37430807
notis - ALN2688

Table of Contents
    Copyright
        Copyright
    Title Page
        Title Page 1
        Title Page 2
    Acknowledgement
        Page i
    Table of Contents
        Page ii
        Page iii
    List of Tables
        Page iv
        Page v
        Page vi
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Survey methods, geographic coverage and grower selection methods
            Page 1
        Reporting survey results
            Page 2
        Organizing of the report
            Page 2
    Geographic, demographic and general farm management - Characteristics of Florida tomato growers
        Page 3
        Geographic characteristics
            Page 3
        Demographic characteristics
            Page 4
            Page 5
        General farm management information
            Page 6
            Farm structure
                Page 6
                Page 7
            Cropping practices
                Page 8
            Soil type
                Page 8
                Page 9
            Water resources and management
                Page 10
                Page 11
                Page 12
    Grower goals and objectives
        Page 13
        Final and intermediate objectives by grower adoption status
            Page 13
            Growers ranking of final objectives by adoption status
                Page 13
            Growers ranking of intermediate objectives by adoption status
                Page 14
        Final and intermediate objectives by water management district
            Page 15
            Grower ranking of final objectives by water management district
                Page 15
                Page 16
            Grower ranking of intermediate objectives by water management district
                Page 17
        Grower outcome evaluations
            Page 18
            Grower evaluation of outcomes by adoption status
                Page 18
            Grower evaluation of outcomes by water management district
                Page 19
                Page 20
    Water management practices, technology adoption rates, and grower beliefs toward drip irrigation
        Page 21
        Current water and irrigation management practices
            Page 21
            Page 22
            Page 23
        Adoption profile of in-bed drip irrigation
            Page 24
        Growers' general attitudes toward drip irrigation technology
            Page 25
            Adopters and non-adopters of drip irrigation
                Page 25
            General grower attitudes by water management district
                Page 26
        Grower beliefs about the attributes and profitability of drip irrigation
            Page 27
            Attribute and profitability beliefs by adopter status
                Page 27
                Page 28
            Attribute and profitability beliefs by water management district
                Page 29
                Page 30
    Community influence on grower decisions to adopt water conserving irrigation technologies
        Page 31
        Influence of community groups by adoption status
            Page 32
            Page 33
        Community influence by water management district location
            Page 34
            Page 35
    Water use regulations, grower control, and irrigation technology adoption
        Page 36
        Grower beliefs concerning water use regulations
            Page 36
            Page 37
            Page 38
            Page 39
            Page 40
            Page 41
        The role of control in grower decisions to adopt drip irrigation
            Page 42
            Page 43
            Page 44
            Perceived control by adopter status
                Page 45
                Page 46
            Perceived control by water management district location
                Page 47
        Importance of control over technology choice and regulatory compliance
            Page 48
Full Text





HISTORIC NOTE


The publications in this collection do
not reflect current scientific knowledge
or recommendations. These texts
represent the historic publishing
record of the Institute for Food and
Agricultural Sciences and should be
used only to trace the historic work of
the Institute and its staff. Current IFAS
research may be found on the
Electronic Data Information Source
(EDIS)

site maintained by the Florida
Cooperative Extension Service.






Copyright 2005, Board of Trustees, University
of Florida





Economic Information


Report 97-4







Adoption of Drip Irrigation Technology
in the Florida Tomato Industry:
Survey Results


/ UNIVERSITY OF
FLORIDA
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
Food and Resource Economics Department
Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations
Gainesville, FL 32611


July 1997


C. Franklin Casey






























Adoption of Drip Irrigation Technology
in the Florida Tomato Industry





Survey Results





C. Franklin Casey1


April 1997











'Casey is a Post-Doctoral Research Associate in the Food and Resource Economics Department at the
University of Florida.


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA LIBRARIES












Acknowledgements


The author wishes to thank several persons who helped with this project. Mr. Wayne
Hawkins and Mr. Bernie Hamel of the Florida Tomato Committee provided funds for data
collection and analysis in south Florida, provided contact lists of tomato growers, and enlisted the
support of growers to participate in the survey. In the southern Florida survey areas, Dr. Phyllis
Gilreath of Manatee County Agricultural Extension, Ms. Sonya Sampson of Hillsborough County
Agricultural Extension, Mr. Steve Brown of Lee County Agricultural Extension and Mr. Stuart
Swanson of Collier County Agricultural Extension provided invaluable assistance in identifying
growers and asking for their participation in the study. The same cooperation and interest were
provided by Mr. Ben Castro of Gadsden County Agricultural Extension and Mr. Charles Brasher
of Jackson County Agricultural Extension in northwest Florida. Mr. Will Maxwell of the North
Florida Tomato Growers Association gave assistance in developing the survey instrument and
soliciting grower participation for that region. Mr. Carlos Jauregui of the Computer Support
Group at the Food and Resource Economics Department gave crucial time and advice for data
management. Ms. Maxine Toohey typed the report manuscript and tables, and exercised extreme
patience with the author when he needed to make revisions. Dr. Gary Lynne, Dr. Walter Milon
and Dr. Roy Carriker provided important comments and suggestions during the review phase of
this paper.

Most importantly, I wish to thank the tomato growers who generously shared with me their
time, interest, and information for the survey. I hope that I have reflected their actions and
concerns accurately.

The work has been funded by the Florida Tomato Committee and the Florida Agricultural
Experiment Station, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida.














TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page


Acknowledgements ............................
Table of Contents .............................
List of Tables ...............................

1.0 Introduction ..............................
1.1 Survey Methods, Geographic Coverage and Grower
Selection Procedures
1.2 Reporting Survey Results ...................
1.3 Organization of the Report ..................

2.0 Geographic, Demographic and General Farm Management
Characteristics of Florida Tomato Growers
2.1 Geographic Characteristics .................
2.2 Demographic Characteristics ................
2.3 General Farm Management Information .........
2.3.1 Farm Structure .....................
2.3.2 Cropping Practices ...................
2.3.3 SoilType ........................
2.3.4 Water Resources and Management .........


. . . . . 3

..... ... .... ...... 3
...................4
.................. 6
.... .... ... .... .. .. 6
.................. 8
..... ... ... ... .. ... 8
.................. 10
.le e e e e e e e 3

.ee e e e o e e e 3


3.0 Grower Goals and Objectives ..................................... 13
3.1 Final and Intermediate Objectives by Grower Adoption Status ............. 13
3.1.1 Growers Ranking of Final Objectives by ....................... 13
Adoption Status
3.1.2 Growers Ranking of Intermediate Objectives .................... 14
by Adoption Status
3.2 Final and Intermediate Objectives by Water Management District ........... 15
3.2.1 Grower Ranking of Final Objectives by Water ................... 15
Management District
3.2.2 Grower Ranking of Intermediate Objectives ..................... 17
by Water Management District
3.3 Grower Outcome Evaluations .................................. 18
3.3.1 Grower Evaluation of Outcomes by Adoption Status ............... 18
3.3.2 Grower Evaluation of Outcomes by Water Management District ........ 19












TABLE OF CONTENTS


Eag=


4.0 Water Management Practices, Technology Adoption Rates, and Grower ......... 21
Beliefs Toward Drip Irrigation
4.1 Current Water and Irrigation Management Practices ................... 21
4.2 Adoption Profile of In-Bed Drip Irrigation ......................... 24
4.3 Growers' General Attitudes Toward Drip Irrigation Technology ............ 25
4.3.1 Adopters and Non-Adopters of Drip Irrigation ................... 25
4.3.2 General Grower Attitudes by Water Management District ............ 26
4.4 Grower Beliefs about the Attributes and Profitability of Drip Irrigation ....... 27
4.4.1 Attribute and Profitability Beliefs by Adopter Status ............... 27
4.4.2 Attribute and Profitability Beliefs by Water Management ............ 29
District

5.0 Community Influence on Grower Decisions to Adopt Water Conserving ......... 31
Irrigation Technologies
5.1 Influence of Community Groups by Adoption Status ................... 32
5.2 Community Influence by Water Management District Location ............. 34

6.0 Water Use Regulations, Grower Control, and Irrigation Technology ............ 36
Adoption
6.1 Grower Beliefs Concerning Water Use Regulations .................... 36
6.2 The Role of Control in Grower Decisions to Adopt Drip Irrigation .......... 42
6.2.1 Perceived Control by Adopter Status ......................... 45
6.2.2 Perceived Control by Water Management District Location ........... 47
6.3 Importance of Control Over Technology Choice and Regulatory ............ 48
Compliance












LIST OF TABLES


Page

Table 2.1 Geographic Characteristics of Florida Tomato Growers ................ 3

Table 2.2 Demographic Characteristics of Florida Tomato Growers ............... 5

Table 2.3 Land Ownership Patterns of Florida Tomato Growers ................. 5

Table 2.4 Farm Organization Characteristics of Florida Tomato Growers ........... 7

Table 2.5 Cropping Practices by Florida Tomato Growers ..................... 7

Table 2.6 Soil Type Characteristics of Florida Tomato Growers ................. 9

Table 2.7 Water Sources for Irrigating Florida Tomato Farms .................. 9

Table 2.8 Water Quality Problems on Florida Tomato Farms .................. 11

Table 2.9 Irrigation System Management Practices Used by Florida ............. 11
Tomato Growers

Table 2.10 Ownership of Water Use Permits by Florida Tomato Growers ........... 12

Table 3.1 Grower Ranking of Final Objectives, Adopters and Non-Adopters ........ 13
of Drip Irrigation

Table 3.2 Grower Ranking of Intermediate Objectives, Adopters and ............ 14
Non-Adopters of Drip Irrigation

Table 3.3 Grower Ranking of Final Objectives by Water Management ............ 15
District

Table 3.4 Grower Ranking of Intermediate Objectives by Water ................. 16
Management District

Table 3.5 Grower Rankings of General Outcome Evaluations, Prior to ............ 20
Adoption and 1995 for Adopters and Non-Adopters of Drip
Irrigation

Table 3.6 Grower Rankings of General Outcome Evaluations, Prior to ............ 20
Adoption and 1995, by Water Management District Location

iv












LIST OF TABLES


Page


Table 4.1 Number and Percentage of Growers Using Selected ..........
Water-Related Best Management Practices.

Table 4.2 Frequency of Indices Used by Tomato Growers for ..........
Irrigation Management.

Table 4.3 Adoption Profile of In-Bed Drip Irrigation in the ...........
Florida Tomato Industry, 1994.

Table 4.4 General Grower Attitudes Held by Non-Adopters and Adopters ...
of Drip Irrigation Concerning Drip Irrigation Technology,
Tomato Producers, Prior to Adoption and 1995.

Table 4.5 General Grower Attitudes Held by Water Management District ...
Concerning Drip Irrigation Technology, Tomato Producers,
Prior to Adoption and 1995.


. . .. 21


. . .. 23


. . .. 24


Table 4.6 Beliefs of Tomato Growers Concerning the Results of Using ............ 28
Drip Irrigation, Adopters and Non-Adopters of Drip
Irrigation, Prior to Adoption and 1995.

Table 4.7 Beliefs of Tomato Growers Concerning the Results of Using ............ 30
Drip Irrigation, by Water Management District, Prior to
Adoption and 1995.

Table 5.1 Community Influence over Grower Adoption of Water Conserving ....... 33
Technologies, Adopters and Non-Adopters of Drip Irrigation
Prior to Adoption and 1995.


Table 5.2 Community Influence over Grower Adoption of Water Conserving
Technologies, by Water Management District, Prior to Adoption
and 1995.

Table 6.1 General Views Held by Tomato Producers Concerning Water Use .
Regulations, Prior to Adoption (then) and in 1995 (now), Water
Management District.


. . .. 35



. . .. 37


Table 6.2 General Views Held by Adopters and Non-Adopters of Drip Irrigation ....
Concerning Water Use Regulations, Tomato Producers, Prior to
Adoption (then) and in 1995 (now).


. 37












LIST OF TABLES


Page

Table 6.3 Percentage of Growers Investing Time and Money .................. 39
in Complying with Water Use Regulations, by Water
Management District, 1994-95.


Table 6.4.


Percentage of Growers Investing Time and Money ..................
in Complying with Water Use Regulations, by
Non-Adopter and Adopter Status.


Table 6.5 General Beliefs Held by Tomato Growers Concerning the .............
Impacts of Water Use Regulation, Prior to Adoption
and in 1995.


Table 6.6 General Beliefs Held by Tomato Growers Concerning ...
the Impacts of Water Use Regulation, Prior to Adoption
and in 1995.

Table 6.7 Perceived Grower Control Over the Adoption of Drip ....
Irrigation by Water Management District, Prior to Adoption
and 1995.

Table 6.8 Perceived Grower Control Over the Adoption of Drip ..
Irrigation, Adopters and Non-Adopters of Drip Irrigation,
Prior to Adoption and 1995.


. . . 44



. . . .. 46












1.0 Introduction


This report presents the results of a survey on water regulation and irrigation technology
adoption in the Florida Tomato Industry. The survey was designed 1) to provide growers the
opportunity to describe their production situation, 2) to solicit grower attitudes toward drip
technology and water use regulation, and 3) to determine if specific community groups influenced
grower decisions to adopt drip technology.

1.1. Survey Methods, Geographic Coverage and Grower Selection Procedures

A survey instrument was developed in cooperation with the staff of the Florida Tomato
Committee in December 1994 and North Florida Growers in August 1994. Draft questionnaires
were pre-tested during this time and revised. The final questionnaires were administered to
growers located in the Southwest and South Florida Water Management Districts from January
through April 1995, and in the Northwest District from August to September 1994. All surveys
were personally administered at the grower's farm, office, or residence.

Grower participation was solicited in two phases. First, growers were mailed letters from
the Florida Tomato Committee or local extension agents to explain the purpose of the survey and
asked for their participation. Growers were then contacted by phone to explain the type of survey
to be administered, and arrange an interview time.

A complete list of all tomato growers in the three surveyed Districts was complied with
the assistance of the Florida Tomato Committee and county extension agents. There were attempts
to contact every grower. Sixty-four of the 95 growers identified participated in the survey. One-
hundred percent coverage was not possible due to either the inability of some growers to
participate, difficulties in scheduling suitable interview times or out-dated addresses.

The survey results reported are based on interviews with growers located in the Southwest
Florida Water Management District (Ruskin-Palmetto-Bradenton areas), the western area of the
South Florida Water Management District (Naples-Immokalee-Fort Meyers-Bonita Springs), and
the Northwest Florida Water Management District.

For the 1994 production season, 79% percent of Northwest growers were interviewed,
77% in the Southwest, and 65% in the South. This extensive level of coverage safely allows
inferences to be made to the whole population of tomato growers in the targeted water
management districts.












1.0 Introduction


This report presents the results of a survey on water regulation and irrigation technology
adoption in the Florida Tomato Industry. The survey was designed 1) to provide growers the
opportunity to describe their production situation, 2) to solicit grower attitudes toward drip
technology and water use regulation, and 3) to determine if specific community groups influenced
grower decisions to adopt drip technology.

1.1. Survey Methods, Geographic Coverage and Grower Selection Procedures

A survey instrument was developed in cooperation with the staff of the Florida Tomato
Committee in December 1994 and North Florida Growers in August 1994. Draft questionnaires
were pre-tested during this time and revised. The final questionnaires were administered to
growers located in the Southwest and South Florida Water Management Districts from January
through April 1995, and in the Northwest District from August to September 1994. All surveys
were personally administered at the grower's farm, office, or residence.

Grower participation was solicited in two phases. First, growers were mailed letters from
the Florida Tomato Committee or local extension agents to explain the purpose of the survey and
asked for their participation. Growers were then contacted by phone to explain the type of survey
to be administered, and arrange an interview time.

A complete list of all tomato growers in the three surveyed Districts was complied with
the assistance of the Florida Tomato Committee and county extension agents. There were attempts
to contact every grower. Sixty-four of the 95 growers identified participated in the survey. One-
hundred percent coverage was not possible due to either the inability of some growers to
participate, difficulties in scheduling suitable interview times or out-dated addresses.

The survey results reported are based on interviews with growers located in the Southwest
Florida Water Management District (Ruskin-Palmetto-Bradenton areas), the western area of the
South Florida Water Management District (Naples-Immokalee-Fort Meyers-Bonita Springs), and
the Northwest Florida Water Management District.

For the 1994 production season, 79% percent of Northwest growers were interviewed,
77% in the Southwest, and 65% in the South. This extensive level of coverage safely allows
inferences to be made to the whole population of tomato growers in the targeted water
management districts.










1.2. Reporting Survey Results


The results reported represent average grower responses. Most results are presented
according to two categories of growers: adopters and non-adopters of drip irrigation and by water
management district location. Statistical tests were conducted to determine if the mean responses
between growers in the selected categories were significantly different.

Two types of water conserving technologies were covered by the survey: drip irrigation
and tensiometers. Grower responses to tensiometer use are not reported because of the low level
of investment (about $20,000 over the last 10 years for all growers). Only about a quarter of all
growers in the Southwest and South Florida Districts have ever tried to use tensiometers. Some
growers were unaware of what tensiometers were used for, and others had tried them but had
abandoned their use. Sixty-three percent of Northwest growers reported use of tensiometers, but
total investment over the last 10 years was less than $8,000. Many growers were given
tensiometers by the agricultural experiment station in their area. Additional information on the
low level of tensiometer use is reported in Section 4.

Comparisons are made between the responses of adopters and non-adopters of drip
irrigation to illustrate how they differ in their views toward water use regulations and drip
technology. Reporting survey results for growers by the three water management districts is
intended to compare responses across degrees of regulatory activity. The Northwest is the least
regulated, the South has a medium level of regulation, and the Southwest is the most regulated.

In addition to distinguishing the results according to which groups growers belong to,
much of the data is presented for two time periods: the time "just prior to adoption of drip
irrigation" or "Then" and the current time period or "Now." For non-adopters of drip irrigation,
the past was defined as "five to ten years ago". The objective in reporting the data for the two
periods is to capture changes in grower views over time.

1.3. Organization of the Report

Discussion of survey results begins with a description of the geographic, demographic, and
farm management characteristics of Florida tomato growers. Section 3 provides a context within
which grower adoption behavior of drip technology can be interpreted. Section 3 discusses
grower responses about their objectives and what outcomes (for example, profit maximization,
compliance with water regulations, control over technology decisions, etc.) are important to them.

Section 4 presents a profile of tomato grower use of and beliefs about irrigation
management practices and drip technology. Current water management practices and levels and
rates of adoption of drip irrigation are described. Data is provided with respect to grower's
general attitude towards, and beliefs about the profitability of drip irrigation. The implications
of the survey results for future adoption of drip irrigation are discussed.

Almost by definition, resource use and resource conserving behavior are social actions.
Section 5 reports survey results on grower responses as to how important certain groups were and










1.2. Reporting Survey Results


The results reported represent average grower responses. Most results are presented
according to two categories of growers: adopters and non-adopters of drip irrigation and by water
management district location. Statistical tests were conducted to determine if the mean responses
between growers in the selected categories were significantly different.

Two types of water conserving technologies were covered by the survey: drip irrigation
and tensiometers. Grower responses to tensiometer use are not reported because of the low level
of investment (about $20,000 over the last 10 years for all growers). Only about a quarter of all
growers in the Southwest and South Florida Districts have ever tried to use tensiometers. Some
growers were unaware of what tensiometers were used for, and others had tried them but had
abandoned their use. Sixty-three percent of Northwest growers reported use of tensiometers, but
total investment over the last 10 years was less than $8,000. Many growers were given
tensiometers by the agricultural experiment station in their area. Additional information on the
low level of tensiometer use is reported in Section 4.

Comparisons are made between the responses of adopters and non-adopters of drip
irrigation to illustrate how they differ in their views toward water use regulations and drip
technology. Reporting survey results for growers by the three water management districts is
intended to compare responses across degrees of regulatory activity. The Northwest is the least
regulated, the South has a medium level of regulation, and the Southwest is the most regulated.

In addition to distinguishing the results according to which groups growers belong to,
much of the data is presented for two time periods: the time "just prior to adoption of drip
irrigation" or "Then" and the current time period or "Now." For non-adopters of drip irrigation,
the past was defined as "five to ten years ago". The objective in reporting the data for the two
periods is to capture changes in grower views over time.

1.3. Organization of the Report

Discussion of survey results begins with a description of the geographic, demographic, and
farm management characteristics of Florida tomato growers. Section 3 provides a context within
which grower adoption behavior of drip technology can be interpreted. Section 3 discusses
grower responses about their objectives and what outcomes (for example, profit maximization,
compliance with water regulations, control over technology decisions, etc.) are important to them.

Section 4 presents a profile of tomato grower use of and beliefs about irrigation
management practices and drip technology. Current water management practices and levels and
rates of adoption of drip irrigation are described. Data is provided with respect to grower's
general attitude towards, and beliefs about the profitability of drip irrigation. The implications
of the survey results for future adoption of drip irrigation are discussed.

Almost by definition, resource use and resource conserving behavior are social actions.
Section 5 reports survey results on grower responses as to how important certain groups were and












are to their decision to install water conserving technologies and management practices. The key
question here is to what extent a grower is influenced by society in his/her decision to adopt or
not adopt drip irrigation technology.

Section 6 describes two aspects of grower involvement with water use regulations. First,
growers' general attitudes towards water use regulation, the costs of regulation, and growers'
perceptions of the impacts of regulations are presented. Second, survey results are reported for
grower perceptions of the amount of control they have over adopting drip irrigation technology,
including the influence of regulation.


2.0 Geographic, Demographic, and General Farm Management
Characteristics of Florida Tomato Growers

2.1 Geographic Characteristics

Table 2.1 gives basic geographic information for the entire sample and by water
management district. The 134 surveyed farms represented about twenty-eight thousand acres of
tomatoes. There were nineteen growers interviewed in the Northwest Florida Water Management
District, 31 in the Southwest Florida Water Management District, and 14 in the west coast area
of the South Florida Water Management District. Approximately forty-four percent of all
surveyed farms were located in the Southwest Florida Water Management District, 25% in the
South Florida Water Management District, and 31% in the Northwest Florida Water Management
District.

Due to the larger field sizes in the Southwest and the South, these districts account for
nearly 93% of the total acreage surveyed. While the average number of farms per grower is about
the same across all three Districts, the average farm size per grower varies tremendously. In the
Northwest Water Management District the average farm size is about one-hundred acres, 434
acres in the Southwest, and almost 900 acres on the west side of the South Florida Water
Management District.


Table 2.1 Geographic Characteristics of Florida Tomato Growers.
Northwest Southwest
Characteristic Entire Sample Florida Florida South Florida
Number of Growers 64 19 31 14
Number of Tomato Acres 27,818 1,917 13,210 12,691
Number of Tomato Farms 134 47 53 34
Acres per Grower 435 101 426 906
Farms per Grower 2.09 2.47 1.71 2.43
Acres per Farm 208 41 249 373












are to their decision to install water conserving technologies and management practices. The key
question here is to what extent a grower is influenced by society in his/her decision to adopt or
not adopt drip irrigation technology.

Section 6 describes two aspects of grower involvement with water use regulations. First,
growers' general attitudes towards water use regulation, the costs of regulation, and growers'
perceptions of the impacts of regulations are presented. Second, survey results are reported for
grower perceptions of the amount of control they have over adopting drip irrigation technology,
including the influence of regulation.


2.0 Geographic, Demographic, and General Farm Management
Characteristics of Florida Tomato Growers

2.1 Geographic Characteristics

Table 2.1 gives basic geographic information for the entire sample and by water
management district. The 134 surveyed farms represented about twenty-eight thousand acres of
tomatoes. There were nineteen growers interviewed in the Northwest Florida Water Management
District, 31 in the Southwest Florida Water Management District, and 14 in the west coast area
of the South Florida Water Management District. Approximately forty-four percent of all
surveyed farms were located in the Southwest Florida Water Management District, 25% in the
South Florida Water Management District, and 31% in the Northwest Florida Water Management
District.

Due to the larger field sizes in the Southwest and the South, these districts account for
nearly 93% of the total acreage surveyed. While the average number of farms per grower is about
the same across all three Districts, the average farm size per grower varies tremendously. In the
Northwest Water Management District the average farm size is about one-hundred acres, 434
acres in the Southwest, and almost 900 acres on the west side of the South Florida Water
Management District.


Table 2.1 Geographic Characteristics of Florida Tomato Growers.
Northwest Southwest
Characteristic Entire Sample Florida Florida South Florida
Number of Growers 64 19 31 14
Number of Tomato Acres 27,818 1,917 13,210 12,691
Number of Tomato Farms 134 47 53 34
Acres per Grower 435 101 426 906
Farms per Grower 2.09 2.47 1.71 2.43
Acres per Farm 208 41 249 373












2.2 Demographic Characteristics


The average and range for grower age, years of education, and years of farming experience
are given in table 2.2. Average age and years of education are almost identical across the three
water management districts and by drip adoption status. Years of farming experience differs
slightly. The average grower in the Northwest has nearly five years more farming experience than
growers in the South. Regardless of water management district location or drip adoption status,
the data indicate that the average grower is highly educated and has over twenty years of farming
experience.









Table 2.2 Demographic Characteristics of Florida Tomato Growers.

Characteristic Entire Northwest Southwest South
S__ample Florida Florida Florida Adopter Non-adopter

Age (Years)
Average 45.6 46.5 45 45.7 46.2 44.1
Minimum 26 26 28 31 26 32
Maximum 69 69 65 67 69 67

Education (Years)
Average 14.5 14.1 14.7 14.5 14.8 14.5
Minimum 10 12 10 12 12 10
Maximum 20 19 20 16 19 20


Farming Experience
(Years)
Average 24.7 27.3 24.3 22.2 25.7 22.3
Minimum 5 5 6 14 5 6
Maximum 50 50 45 40 50 40



Table 2.3 Land Ownership Patterns of Florida Tomato Growers.

Northwest Southwest South Drip
Characteristic' Entire Sample Florida Florida Florida Drip Adopter Non-Adopter

Total Acreage 27,818.25 1,917.25 13,210 12,691 19,787.50 8,030.75

Total Acreage 16,163.25 969.25 6,702 8,492 12,800.50 3,362.75
Owned

Percent Owned to
Total Average 58% 50% 51% 67% 65% 42%

* Acreages and total acres are rounded to the nearest hundreth. Percent owned to total acres is rounded to the nearest percent.












2.3. General Farm Management Information


2.3.1. Farm Structure

Table 2.3 summarizes land ownership patterns by district and by drip adoption status.
Only about 58 percent of the 1994 tomato production area across the three regions was owned by
growers. Owned land amounted to about 50% of total production area in the Northwest and
Southwest, and 67 percent in the South. Adopters of drip irrigation own a much higher
percentage of land than non-adopters (65% versus 42%, respectively). This finding supports the
hypothesis found in most of the drip technology adoption literature that growers are more apt to
invest in resource conserving technologies on their own farms than on rented land (Feder et al.
Feder and Umali).

Summary data for farm organization type is given in table 2.4. While nearly 44% of the
farms are organized as corporations, there are distinct differences between the three water
management districts. Only 22% of the farms in the Northwest Water Management District are
corporate, but over 50% of the farms in the Southwest and South are organized as such. The
majority of the farms on which drip irrigation is used (61%) are organized as either sole
proprietorship or as partnerships. Conversely, 57 percent of the farms which do not use drip
irrigation are organized as corporations.












2.3. General Farm Management Information


2.3.1. Farm Structure

Table 2.3 summarizes land ownership patterns by district and by drip adoption status.
Only about 58 percent of the 1994 tomato production area across the three regions was owned by
growers. Owned land amounted to about 50% of total production area in the Northwest and
Southwest, and 67 percent in the South. Adopters of drip irrigation own a much higher
percentage of land than non-adopters (65% versus 42%, respectively). This finding supports the
hypothesis found in most of the drip technology adoption literature that growers are more apt to
invest in resource conserving technologies on their own farms than on rented land (Feder et al.
Feder and Umali).

Summary data for farm organization type is given in table 2.4. While nearly 44% of the
farms are organized as corporations, there are distinct differences between the three water
management districts. Only 22% of the farms in the Northwest Water Management District are
corporate, but over 50% of the farms in the Southwest and South are organized as such. The
majority of the farms on which drip irrigation is used (61%) are organized as either sole
proprietorship or as partnerships. Conversely, 57 percent of the farms which do not use drip
irrigation are organized as corporations.











Sole Proprietorship Partnrship Corporation

Number of Percent of Number of Percent of Number of Percent of
Farms Farms Farms Farms Farms Farms

Entire Sample 28 21% 47 35% 59 44%

Northwest Florida Water
Management District 16 34% 21 44% 10 22%

Southwest Florida Water
Management District 5 10% 17 32% 31 58%

South Florida Water
Management District 7 20% 9 26% 18 54%

Adopters of Drip 23 25% 34 36% 35 39%

Non-Adopters of Drip 5 12% 13 30% 24 58%






Table 2.5 Cropping Practice by Florida Tomato Producers.

Northwest Southwest South
Cropping Practice Entire Sample District District District Adopter Non-Adopter

Monocrop Tomatoes
Number of Farms 65 17 30 18 42 23
Percent of Farms 48.51% 36.17% 56.60% 52.94% 45.65% 54.76%

Tomatoes Double-Cropped
Number of Farms 69 30 23 16 50 19
Percent of Farms 51.49% 63.83% 43.40% 47.06% 54.35% 45.24%


Table 2.4


Farm Oreanization Characteristics of Florida Tomato Growers.











2.3.2. Cropping Practices


Table 2.5. shows that the farms surveyed are evenly divided between monocropping and
double cropping tomatoes with other crops. Although there is little difference between the number
of farms mono and double-cropped in the two southern water management districts, a much larger
percentage of farms are double-cropped in the Northwest (about 64%). On a percentage basis,
adopters of drip irrigation do less mono-cropping than non-adopters, but both groups have about
half their farms under each type of cropping system.

2.3.3. Soil Type

Soil type characteristics of Florida tomato farms are shown in table 2.6. Nearly all farms
(82%) are classified as well to very well drained, meaning mostly sandy soils. By water
management district, most of the farms are classified as well drained; the highest level of poorly
drained soils is found in the South (about 24%). Of the twenty-three farms that were classified
as poorly drained, 17 have drip irrigation. This finding contradicts the results of other studies
where low adoption rates of drip have been associated with poorly drained soils, i.e., soils that
have better water holding capacity and less need for precision irrigation (Caswell and Zillerman,
1985, 1986).











2.3.2. Cropping Practices


Table 2.5. shows that the farms surveyed are evenly divided between monocropping and
double cropping tomatoes with other crops. Although there is little difference between the number
of farms mono and double-cropped in the two southern water management districts, a much larger
percentage of farms are double-cropped in the Northwest (about 64%). On a percentage basis,
adopters of drip irrigation do less mono-cropping than non-adopters, but both groups have about
half their farms under each type of cropping system.

2.3.3. Soil Type

Soil type characteristics of Florida tomato farms are shown in table 2.6. Nearly all farms
(82%) are classified as well to very well drained, meaning mostly sandy soils. By water
management district, most of the farms are classified as well drained; the highest level of poorly
drained soils is found in the South (about 24%). Of the twenty-three farms that were classified
as poorly drained, 17 have drip irrigation. This finding contradicts the results of other studies
where low adoption rates of drip have been associated with poorly drained soils, i.e., soils that
have better water holding capacity and less need for precision irrigation (Caswell and Zillerman,
1985, 1986).










Table 2.6 Soil Type Characteristics of Florida Tomato Farms

Soil Type All Growers Northwest Southwest South Adopter Non-Adopter

Well Drained
Number of Farms 93 34 38 21 66 27
Percent of Farms 69.40% 72.34% 71.70% 61.76% 71.74% 64.29%

Extremely Well Drained
Number of Farms 18 5 8 5 9 9
Percent of Farms 13.43% 10.64% 15.09% 14.71% 9.78% 21.43%






Table 2.7 Water Sources for Irrigating Florida Tomato Farms

Water Source All Growers Northwest Southwest South Adopter Non-Adopter

Ground Water
Number of Farms 104 22 51 31 63 41
Percent of Farms 77.61% 46.81% 96.23% 91.18% 68.48% 97.62%

Surface Only
Number of Farms 26 25 0 1 25 1
Percent of Farms 19.40% 53.19% 0.00% 2.94% 27.17% 2.38%

Ground and Surface
Number of Farms 4 0 2 2 4 0
Percent of Farms 2.99% 0.00% 3.77% 5.88% 4.35% 0.00%










2.3.4. Water Resources and Management


The major water source for tomato irrigation is groundwater (table 2.7.). Almost 80% of
the farms use only well water for irrigating. About 20% of the farms use some surface water
(creeks, ponds) for irrigation, but all of these except one are located in the Northwest Florida
Water Management District (Telogia Creek Basin). More than one-half the farms in the
Northwest use only surface water, while over 90 percent of the farms in Southwest and South use
only groundwater for irrigation.

Water quality differs over the study region. 77 percent of all growers reported no water
quality problems (table 2.8.). However, nearly 40 percent of the Northwest growers reported
algae and mineral problems associated with the use of surface water. Over 85 percent of the farms
in the Southwest and the South had no water quality problems. In previous research on drip
adoption there has been found to be an inverse relationship between adoption and water quality.
This appears to hold true for the adoption of drip irrigation in the study area. Of the 31 farms
reported to have water quality problems, 30 use drip irrigation.

Growers were asked who was mainly responsible for managing the irrigation system for
each farm. The management categories included owner-manager, family, foreman/farm manager,
irrigation manager, and laborer. For all growers, the majority of farm irrigation systems are
managed by either the owner-manager or the foreman/farm manager (table 2.9). However, there
are distinct differences between the irrigation management approaches amongst the three water
management districts. In the Northwest, most of the farms (74 percent) have irrigation systems
managed by the owner-operator, reflecting the relatively high number of farms under sole
proprietorship status. In the Southwest the majority of the farm irrigation systems are managed
by either the owner-operator or a foreman/farm manager, whereas in the South most of the farm
irrigation systems (68 percent) are managed by a foreman or farm manager.

Among adopters of drip irrigation, the majority of systems are managed by the owner-
operator and by foremen or farm managers. All nine farms with full time irrigation managers are
adopters of drip. This supports research in other areas that finds that adoption rates are positively
influenced by the presence of a full-time irrigation manager. However, it is not known if the
decision to adopt drip occurs before or after a grower employs an irrigation manager.

Having direct use rights to a resource is usually thought of as being positively related to
the adoption of new technologies. In this case, the supposition is that growers would be more apt
to adopt drip irrigation if they have their own water use permits. For the entire study, about 54
percent of all farms were irrigated under the growers own permit and about 30 percent under a
different land owners permit. The remaining 16 percent were not required to have a water use
permit (table 2.10). However, regional differences do occur. In Northwest, where the drip
adoption rate is high, 78 percent of the farms are either irrigated with the grower's own permit,
or do not require a permit. While the majority of farms in the Southwest and the South are drip
irrigated using the grower's permit, large numbers of farms are drip irrigated under another land
owner's permit. Adoption of drip irrigation technology does not appear to be influenced by who
holds the water use permit; nearly 34 percent of drip irrigation adopters do not use their own
water use permits to irrigate.





Lbale L.80 yry z LL ntL, lUnJIL If s-nA n,.zu .-- ....

Water Quality All Farms Northwest Southwest South Adopter Non-Adopter

No Water Quality
Problems Exist
Number of Farms 103 28 46 29 62 41
Percent of Farms 76.87% 59.57% 86.79% 85.29% 67.39% 97.62%

Water Quality
Problems Exist
Number of Farms 31 19 7 5 30 1
Percent of Farms 23.13% 40.43% 13.21% 14.71% 32.61% 2.38%

Table 2.9 Irrigation System Management Practices Used by Florida Tomato Growers.

Person Responsible
for System All Farms Northwest Southwest South Adopter Non-Adopter

Owner-Operator
Number of Farms 57 35 18 4 42 15
Percent of Farms 42.54% 74.47% 33.96% 11.76% 45.65% 35.71%

Family
Number of Farms 9 2 2 5 5 4
Percent of Farms 6.72% 4.26% 3.77% 14.71% 5.43% 9.52%

Foreman/Farm Manager
Number of Farms 56 2 31 23 33 23
Percent of Farms 41.79% 4.26% 58.49% 67.65% 35.87% 54.76%

Irrigation Manager
Number of Farms 9 5 2 2 9 0
Percent of Farms 6.72% 10.64% 3.77% 5.88% 9.78% 0.00%

Laborer
Number of Farms 3 3 0 0 3 0
Percent of Farms 2.24% 6.38% 0.00% 0.00% 3.26% 0.00%


~lrr,, r~.,l:h. D-,l\lmn ~n Clnr;~. Tnmat~ Fanna


,'lr l-1- m) 0














table 2.IU uwnersnup or water use permitss by rlonaa Tomato growers.

Permit Status All Farms Northwest Southwest South Adopter Non-Adopter

Grower Holds Permit
Number of Farms 72 21 29 22 47 25
Percent of Farms 53.73% 44.68% 54.72% 64.71% 51.09% 59.52%

Grower Does Not Hold Permit
Number of Farms 43 10 22 11 31 12
Percent of Farms 32.09% 21.28% 41.51% 32.35% 33.70% 28.57%

No Permit Required
Number of Farms 18 16 2 0 14 4
Percent of Farms 13.43% 34.04% 3.77% 0.00% 15.22% 9.52%


""' '' "'












3.0 Grower Goals and Objectives


This section provides the context within which grower adoption behavior can be
interpreted. Tomato producers, like the rest of us, have several goals and objectives that they
simultaneously pursue, and need to trade off one against the other. In order to better understand
growers perceptions of water use regulations, the profitability of water conserving technologies,
the role of social groups in adoption decisions, and the role of grower control, it is important to
have a clear idea of how growers rank different objectives.

3.1. Final and Intermediate Objectives by Grower Adoption Status

3.1.1. Grower's Ranking of Final Objectives by Adoption Status

Final objectives represent the major goals which growers hope to achieve. In this study
we listed five major goals that a grower would pursue relative to his farming operation. These
include profit maximization, security of access to water for the farm; a high quality natural
environment; community recognition, respect, and admiration relative to the farming operation;
and independence or free choice in making farming decisions. Each grower was asked to allocate
100 points among these five objectives. If a grower allocated 20 points to each objective he/she
ranked them all as equally important.

Table 3.1 shows the average scores that non-adopters and adopters of drip irrigation
assigned to each objective. Non-adopters ranked profit maximization and security to access to
water the highest and about evenly. Independence or free choice in farming was the next most
important goal for non-adopters. The lowest scores were given to community respect and a high
quality of the natural environment.


Table 3.1 Grower Ranking of Final Objectives, Adopters and Non-Adopters of Drip Irrigation.
Final Objectives' Non-Adopters Adopters
Maximize farm profit 24.78 30.90
High quality of natural environment 14.33 17.82
Security of access to water for the farm 24.22 23.70
Community recognition, respect and admiration
relative to farming 15.50 11.37*
Independence, free choice in farming decisions
21.17 17.02

SGrowers were given 100 points to divide among each of the Final Objectives.
Asterisks show adopters of drip irrigation differ significantly from non-adopters: (* = 0.10 probability,
** = 0.05 probability and *** = 0.01 probability).












3.0 Grower Goals and Objectives


This section provides the context within which grower adoption behavior can be
interpreted. Tomato producers, like the rest of us, have several goals and objectives that they
simultaneously pursue, and need to trade off one against the other. In order to better understand
growers perceptions of water use regulations, the profitability of water conserving technologies,
the role of social groups in adoption decisions, and the role of grower control, it is important to
have a clear idea of how growers rank different objectives.

3.1. Final and Intermediate Objectives by Grower Adoption Status

3.1.1. Grower's Ranking of Final Objectives by Adoption Status

Final objectives represent the major goals which growers hope to achieve. In this study
we listed five major goals that a grower would pursue relative to his farming operation. These
include profit maximization, security of access to water for the farm; a high quality natural
environment; community recognition, respect, and admiration relative to the farming operation;
and independence or free choice in making farming decisions. Each grower was asked to allocate
100 points among these five objectives. If a grower allocated 20 points to each objective he/she
ranked them all as equally important.

Table 3.1 shows the average scores that non-adopters and adopters of drip irrigation
assigned to each objective. Non-adopters ranked profit maximization and security to access to
water the highest and about evenly. Independence or free choice in farming was the next most
important goal for non-adopters. The lowest scores were given to community respect and a high
quality of the natural environment.


Table 3.1 Grower Ranking of Final Objectives, Adopters and Non-Adopters of Drip Irrigation.
Final Objectives' Non-Adopters Adopters
Maximize farm profit 24.78 30.90
High quality of natural environment 14.33 17.82
Security of access to water for the farm 24.22 23.70
Community recognition, respect and admiration
relative to farming 15.50 11.37*
Independence, free choice in farming decisions
21.17 17.02

SGrowers were given 100 points to divide among each of the Final Objectives.
Asterisks show adopters of drip irrigation differ significantly from non-adopters: (* = 0.10 probability,
** = 0.05 probability and *** = 0.01 probability).












3.0 Grower Goals and Objectives


This section provides the context within which grower adoption behavior can be
interpreted. Tomato producers, like the rest of us, have several goals and objectives that they
simultaneously pursue, and need to trade off one against the other. In order to better understand
growers perceptions of water use regulations, the profitability of water conserving technologies,
the role of social groups in adoption decisions, and the role of grower control, it is important to
have a clear idea of how growers rank different objectives.

3.1. Final and Intermediate Objectives by Grower Adoption Status

3.1.1. Grower's Ranking of Final Objectives by Adoption Status

Final objectives represent the major goals which growers hope to achieve. In this study
we listed five major goals that a grower would pursue relative to his farming operation. These
include profit maximization, security of access to water for the farm; a high quality natural
environment; community recognition, respect, and admiration relative to the farming operation;
and independence or free choice in making farming decisions. Each grower was asked to allocate
100 points among these five objectives. If a grower allocated 20 points to each objective he/she
ranked them all as equally important.

Table 3.1 shows the average scores that non-adopters and adopters of drip irrigation
assigned to each objective. Non-adopters ranked profit maximization and security to access to
water the highest and about evenly. Independence or free choice in farming was the next most
important goal for non-adopters. The lowest scores were given to community respect and a high
quality of the natural environment.


Table 3.1 Grower Ranking of Final Objectives, Adopters and Non-Adopters of Drip Irrigation.
Final Objectives' Non-Adopters Adopters
Maximize farm profit 24.78 30.90
High quality of natural environment 14.33 17.82
Security of access to water for the farm 24.22 23.70
Community recognition, respect and admiration
relative to farming 15.50 11.37*
Independence, free choice in farming decisions
21.17 17.02

SGrowers were given 100 points to divide among each of the Final Objectives.
Asterisks show adopters of drip irrigation differ significantly from non-adopters: (* = 0.10 probability,
** = 0.05 probability and *** = 0.01 probability).











Adopters of drip irrigation differed in their rankings of final objectives. Adopters also ranked
profit maximization as the most important objective, but more so than non-adopters. Security of
access to water was the second most important objective. Unlike non-adopters, however, adopters
gave less importance to the free choice objective, and placed more importance on the high quality
of natural environment. Equally ranked as the third most important objective for adopters were
independence in farming decisions and high quality of the natural environment. Adopters ranked
community recognition as significantly less important than non-adopters. Regardless of adoption
status, all growers rank profit maximization and security of access to water as their most important
objectives.

3.1.2 Grower's Ranking of Intermediate Objectives by Adoption Status

Intermediate objectives are defined as the means by which final objectives are achieved.
The five intermediate objectives used in this study included being self-reliant, being logical and
rational in all farming decisions, being in compliance with water use rules and regulations, being
capable of managing the irrigation system, and being responsible in the use of water. Growers
allocated 100 points between the five objectives.

Table 3.2 shows how adopters and non-adopters of drip irrigation ranked each intermediate
objective. Non-adopters gave about equal importance to being self-reliant and independent in
farming decisions, being logical and consistent with respect to these decisions, and being
responsible in the use of water. Next important was being capable of managing the irrigation and
crop system. The least important objective was being in compliance with water use rules and
regulations.


Table 3.2 Grower Ranking of Intermediate Objectives, Adopters and Non-Adopters of Drip Irrigation.
Intermediate Objectives' Non-Adopters Adopters
Being logical, consistent and rational in farming
decisions 23.06 22.90
Being capable in managing the irrigation and crop
system 17.94 19.01
Being responsible in the use of water 22.78 17.91**
Being self-reliant, self-sufficient and independent
in farming 24.28 24.90
Being in compliance to rules and regulations 13.06 12.61
Growers were given 100 points to divide among each of the Intermediate Objectives.
Asterisks show adopters of drip irrigation differ significantly from non-adopters: (* 0.10 probability, ** = 0.05
probability and *** = 0.01 probability).













Adopter's of drip irrigation likewise ranked being self-reliant and independence in farming,
and being logical and rational in farming decisions, as their most important objectives. However,
there was a significant difference in the adopter and non-adopter rankings of being responsible in
the use of water. Adopters of drip irrigation, on average, place significantly less importance on
being responsible in water use. This may mean that adopters believe that their adoption of drip
shows them to be responsible, and thus they can give more importance to other goals.

Similar to non-adopters, adopters ranked compliance with water use rules and regulations
as the least important objective. This finding supports the anecdotal evidence that growers
generally consider agricultural water use rules and regulations misinformed and arbitrary.

3.2. Final and Intermediate Objectives by Water Management District

3.2.1. Grower Ranking of Final Objectives by Water Management District

The rankings for final objectives by growers according to water management district are
given in table 3.3. For the water management district with the least regulation (the Northwest)
profit maximization is by far the most important objective. The next most important objectives
for Northwest growers are independence in farming decisions, security of access to water, and
high quality of the natural environment. Least important is community recognition.


Table 3.3 Grower Ranking of Final Objectives by Water Management District

Final Objectives' Northwest Southwest South
Maximize farm profit 34.28 28.94 20.43
High quality of natural environment
18.92 15.21 17.71
Security of access to water for the
farm 19.14 25.06 27.21**
Community recognition, respect and
admiration relative to farming 11.22 11.60 16.36
Independence, free choice in farming
decisions 21.17 19.90 18.29

* Asterisks show how growers in the Southwest and South differ significantly from growers in the Northwest
Water Management District (* = 0.10 probability, ** = 0.05 probability and *** = 0.01 probability).
' Growers were given 100 points to divide among each of the Final Objectives.













Adopter's of drip irrigation likewise ranked being self-reliant and independence in farming,
and being logical and rational in farming decisions, as their most important objectives. However,
there was a significant difference in the adopter and non-adopter rankings of being responsible in
the use of water. Adopters of drip irrigation, on average, place significantly less importance on
being responsible in water use. This may mean that adopters believe that their adoption of drip
shows them to be responsible, and thus they can give more importance to other goals.

Similar to non-adopters, adopters ranked compliance with water use rules and regulations
as the least important objective. This finding supports the anecdotal evidence that growers
generally consider agricultural water use rules and regulations misinformed and arbitrary.

3.2. Final and Intermediate Objectives by Water Management District

3.2.1. Grower Ranking of Final Objectives by Water Management District

The rankings for final objectives by growers according to water management district are
given in table 3.3. For the water management district with the least regulation (the Northwest)
profit maximization is by far the most important objective. The next most important objectives
for Northwest growers are independence in farming decisions, security of access to water, and
high quality of the natural environment. Least important is community recognition.


Table 3.3 Grower Ranking of Final Objectives by Water Management District

Final Objectives' Northwest Southwest South
Maximize farm profit 34.28 28.94 20.43
High quality of natural environment
18.92 15.21 17.71
Security of access to water for the
farm 19.14 25.06 27.21**
Community recognition, respect and
admiration relative to farming 11.22 11.60 16.36
Independence, free choice in farming
decisions 21.17 19.90 18.29

* Asterisks show how growers in the Southwest and South differ significantly from growers in the Northwest
Water Management District (* = 0.10 probability, ** = 0.05 probability and *** = 0.01 probability).
' Growers were given 100 points to divide among each of the Final Objectives.











T~ih1~ 14 naewr Rnnkincr nf Tnte~rmedliata Ohiectiven by Water Management District.


* Asterisks show how growers in the Southwest and South differ significantly from growers in the Northwest
Water Management District (* = 0.10 probability, ** = 0.05 probability and *** = 0.01 probability).
SGrowers were given 100 points to divide among each of the Intermediate Objectives.


Profit maximization is also the most important final objective in the most regulated district,
the Southwest. This was followed by security of access to water and independence in farming
decisions. The lowest rankings in importance were given to the objectives of high quality of
natural environment and community recognition.

Compared to growers in the Northwest, the South ranking of final objectives differed
significantly. In the South profit maximization is ranked second to security of access to water.
South growers gave about equal weight to the objectives of independence in farming decisions,
high quality of natural environment and community recognition.

Growers in the Southwest and South districts gave 25 percent or more of their points to
achieving security of access to water for the farm, considerably more than growers in the
northwest. This may be an indication that growers in the more regulated districts believe that their
access to water is less secure relative to areas where there is less regulation. In a similar vein,
water for irrigation in the northwest, with the exception of the Telogia Creek basin, is not
considered as being particularly scarce and therefore may be less of a concern for growers in that
area.

The goal of high quality of the natural environment was ranked the highest by Northwest
growers, perhaps because they are located in more rural areas that still have a relative abundance
of hunting and fishing habitat. Growers in all three districts ranked community recognition as the
least important goal.


Intermediate Objectives' Northwest Southwest South
Being logical, consistent and rational
in farming decisions 24.19 21.77 23.93
Being capable in managing the
irrigation and crop system 16.97 18.23 22.00
Being responsible in the use of water
16.31 20.08' 21.43'
Being self-reliant, self-sufficient and
independent in farming 32.25 22.26' 20.50'
Being in compliance to rules and
regulations 10.28 14.44' 12.14


'
e lba 3 4













3.2.2. Grower Ranking of Intermediate Objectives by Water Management District Location

Grower rankings of intermediate objectives by water management district are provided in
table 3.4. The most important objective of Northwest growers is being self-reliant and
independent in farming, followed by being rational in farming decisions. Being capable of
managing the irrigation and crop system and being responsible in the use of water were ranked
as third in importance. The least important objective was being in compliance with water use
regulations.

Growers in the Southwest ranked independence and being logical in farming decisions, and
being responsible in water use to be their most and equally important objectives. Second in
importance was being capable of managing the irrigation and crop system. Being in compliance
with water use regulations ranked last.

South growers considered being logical in farming decisions to be their most important
intermediate objective. Three other objectives were second in importance and ranked about
equally: being capable of managing the irrigation and crop system, being responsible in the use
of water, and being self-reliant. Like growers in the other districts, being in compliance with
water use regulations was the least important objective.

Compared to Northwest growers, growers in the Southwest and South put significantly less
importance on being self-reliant, self-sufficient, and independent in farming activities. Although
growers in the Southwest rank independence as their most important objective, South growers only
rank this objective fourth relative to other objectives. The data indicates that Northwest growers,
who have generally experienced a relatively lower degree of water use regulation, put a higher
relative value on self-sufficiency and independence.

There is also a significant difference between growers in the Northwest and the two
southern districts with respect to the importance of being responsible in the use of water. Growers
in the Southern districts put significantly more weight on the importance of being responsible in
water use. The more restrictive rules and regulations in the southern districts, and the more
pronounced level of competition for water between growers and other water users, may be
reinforcing the responsibility objective.

Similar to the comparison between drip irrigation adopters and non-adopters, the goal of
being in compliance with water use rules and regulations received the lowest ranking of all the
objectives. However, growers in the highly regulated Southwest put significantly more
importance on this objective than the less regulated Northwest and South districts. It appears that
the more regulated water use is, the more important it is for growers to be in compliance with
water use rules. Thus, while growers do not rank compliance high as an intermediate objective,
the level of compliance is positively related to the level of water use regulation.












In general, there are two important observations to be made concerning the rankings of
grower's final and intermediate objectives. The first is that the figures represent "averages" for
all groups. There were many individuals who gave equal ranking to each objective, just as there
were growers who gave zero points to some objectives. Those who want to promote adoption of
water conserving technologies must consider the important objectives of individual producers.
For example, for some growers the appeal of drip may be based on its potential to increase profits,
while for others drip may help them meet their concerns over environmental quality.

Secondly, it is important to note that none of the objectives received a near zero score.
The results show that even though community recognition, high quality of natural environment,
and compliance with water use regulations are not the most important objectives of tomato
producers, they do merit consideration and even moderate the level of importance given to other
goals such as profit maximization, security of access to water, and being self-reliant and
independent in farming decisions.

3.3 Grower Outcome Evaluations

Growers were asked to evaluate five outcomes, including profit maximization, compliance
with water use regulations, control over decisions to install technology, improving water quality
in the area, and reducing water for irrigation. Outcome evaluations are different from final and
intermediate objectives in that they are not ranked relative to one another. Each outcome was
evaluated by growers on a seven point scale ranging from 7 equal to "extremely important" to 1
equal to "extremely unimportant". A score of four indicated "neither important or unimportant,"
or a neutral position.

Outcome evaluations relate to specific types of individual behavior. Profit maximization
reflects self-interested behavior. Compliance with water technology regulations and control over
decisions to install technology relate to the importance of regulations on individual behavior and
how important volition is to grower's technology choices. Improving water quality and reducing
water for irrigation pertain to a grower's sense of social responsibility in water use.

3.3.1. Grower Evaluation of Outcomes by Adoption Status

Prior to adoption of drip irrigation, adopters evaluated profit maximization as an extremely
important outcome (table 3.5). Control over technology decisions and improving water quality
were considered quite important. Compliance with water use regulations and reducing water for
irrigation were ranked as slightly important. For the period five to ten years ago, non-adopters
of drip also ranked profit maximization as extremely important. The outcomes of control over
technology decisions, improving water quality and reducing water for irrigation were considered
quite important. Compliance with water use regulations by non-adopters was evaluated as only
slightly important, but significantly more important than the evaluation of adopters of drip
irrigation.












In general, there are two important observations to be made concerning the rankings of
grower's final and intermediate objectives. The first is that the figures represent "averages" for
all groups. There were many individuals who gave equal ranking to each objective, just as there
were growers who gave zero points to some objectives. Those who want to promote adoption of
water conserving technologies must consider the important objectives of individual producers.
For example, for some growers the appeal of drip may be based on its potential to increase profits,
while for others drip may help them meet their concerns over environmental quality.

Secondly, it is important to note that none of the objectives received a near zero score.
The results show that even though community recognition, high quality of natural environment,
and compliance with water use regulations are not the most important objectives of tomato
producers, they do merit consideration and even moderate the level of importance given to other
goals such as profit maximization, security of access to water, and being self-reliant and
independent in farming decisions.

3.3 Grower Outcome Evaluations

Growers were asked to evaluate five outcomes, including profit maximization, compliance
with water use regulations, control over decisions to install technology, improving water quality
in the area, and reducing water for irrigation. Outcome evaluations are different from final and
intermediate objectives in that they are not ranked relative to one another. Each outcome was
evaluated by growers on a seven point scale ranging from 7 equal to "extremely important" to 1
equal to "extremely unimportant". A score of four indicated "neither important or unimportant,"
or a neutral position.

Outcome evaluations relate to specific types of individual behavior. Profit maximization
reflects self-interested behavior. Compliance with water technology regulations and control over
decisions to install technology relate to the importance of regulations on individual behavior and
how important volition is to grower's technology choices. Improving water quality and reducing
water for irrigation pertain to a grower's sense of social responsibility in water use.

3.3.1. Grower Evaluation of Outcomes by Adoption Status

Prior to adoption of drip irrigation, adopters evaluated profit maximization as an extremely
important outcome (table 3.5). Control over technology decisions and improving water quality
were considered quite important. Compliance with water use regulations and reducing water for
irrigation were ranked as slightly important. For the period five to ten years ago, non-adopters
of drip also ranked profit maximization as extremely important. The outcomes of control over
technology decisions, improving water quality and reducing water for irrigation were considered
quite important. Compliance with water use regulations by non-adopters was evaluated as only
slightly important, but significantly more important than the evaluation of adopters of drip
irrigation.












Relative to the period prior to adoption, adopters of drip now evaluate all outcomes as
more important. Profit maximization remains extremely important, and control over technology
decisions, improving water quality, and reducing water for irrigation are all quite important.
Compliance with water use regulations by adopters is also considered quite important, more so
than in the period prior to adoption. The importance of the outcomes for non-adopters in the
current period has not changed much from the past. The major difference is that adopter's
evaluation of improving water quality is significantly higher than that of non-adopters, although
both groups consider this outcome as quite important. This indicates that adopters of drip
irrigation may have a relatively higher concern for larger social objectives related to water
conservation.

3.3.2. Grower Outcome Evaluations by Water Management District

For the period prior to adoption (or five to ten years ago for non-adopters) Northwest
district growers considered profit maximization extremely important (table 3.6). Those goals that
were quite important included control over technology decisions, improving water quality in the
area, and reducing water for irrigation. Compliance with water use regulations was ranked
between "neither important, nor unimportant" to "slightly important".

Southwest district growers likewise considered profit maximization as extremely important.
Control over technology adoption, improving water quality and reducing water for irrigation were
considered as quite important. Being in compliance with water use regulations was considered
as slightly to very important, and was ranked higher than growers in the Northwest.

The degree of importance placed on each outcome by South growers was about the same
as growers in the other districts. An important exception is that for the period prior to adoption.
South growers considered compliance with water use regulations as significantly more important
than growers in the Northwest. This may be because growers in the South operate in a relatively
more stringent regulatory environment than Northwest growers.

In the current time period, the importance of all objectives for growers in all three districts
has either increased or remained the same. All growers consider all outcomes to be very to
extremely important. For example, although growers consider profit maximization now to be just
as important as in the past, they also give more importance to reducing water for irrigation and
improving water quality. This simultaneous pursuit of self-interested and community objectives
may reflect the fact agricultural water use is increasingly a social issue. Compliance with water
use regulations continues to be the relatively least valued outcome, but a more important one
compared to the past. This may mean that growers, although they may not believe water use
regulations are particularly beneficial, believe that compliance is necessary.






Table 3.5


Grower Rankings of General Outcome Evaluations, Prior to Adoption and 1995 for Adopters and
Non-Ado ters of Drip Irri ation.


Period Prior to Adoption Current Time Period

Outcome* Adopters Non-Adopters Adopters Non-Adopters

Profit Maximization 6.61 6.94** 6.95 6.94

Compliance with water technology
regulations 5.04 5.78* 5.89 5.89

Control over decision to install
technology 5.98 6.17 6.41 6.28

Improving water quality in the area
5.91 6.06 6.50 6.00*

Reduce water for irrigation 5.65 6.00 6.32 6.28

SOutcome evaluations were measured on a scale from 7 to 1 with 7 = extremely important and 1 = extremely unimportant. Four means
neither.
* Asterisks show how adopters differ significantly from non-adopters (* = 0.10 probability, ** = 0.05 probability and *** = 0.01
probability).


Table 3.6 Tomato Grower Rankings of General Outcome Evaluations, Prior to Adoption and 1995, by Water Management District Location.

Period Prior to Adoption Current Period

Outcome' Northwest Southwest Northwest Southwest South
Florida Florida South Florida Florida Florida Florida

Profit Maximization 6.74 6.55 7.00 7.00 6.90* 7.00

Compliance with water technology regulations 4.68 5.39 5.71* 5.74 6.03 5.79

Control over decision to install technology 5.95 6.03 6.14 6.05 6.52 6.36

Improving water quality in the area 5.95 5.74 6.43 6.47 6.32 6.29

Reduce water for irrigation 5.68 5.65 6.07 6.37 6.32 6.14

SOutcome evaluations were ranked on a scale from 7 to 1 with 7 = extremely important and 1 = to extremely unimportant. Four means neutral.
Asterisks show how growers in the Southwest and South districts differ significantly from growers in the Northwest Water Management District
(* = 0.10 probability, ** = 0.05 probability and *** = 0.01 probability).











4.0 Water Management Practices, Technology Adoption Rates,
and Grower Beliefs Toward Drip Irrigation


This section provides a profile of tomato grower beliefs about irrigation management
practices and technologies. Current levels and rates of adoption of drip irrigation are described.
Data is presented with respect to grower's general attitudes towards, and beliefs about the
profitability of drip irrigation. The implications for future adoption of drip irrigation are then
discussed.

4.1. Current Water and Irrigation Management Practices

Growers were asked if they used specific water-conserving technologies or best
management practices (BMP's) in addition to drip irrigation. The purpose was to get an indication
of the effort growers put forth with respect to water conserving practices.

Specific BMP's included having a farm irrigation and water management plan, metering
water use, monitoring the water table, use of laser levelling (which allows for more uniform water
application rates and less pumping), satellite based weather monitoring (to better time irrigation
events), and tissue testing of tomato plants (to indicate drought stress). Table 4.1 summarizes the
use of these BMP's.


Tahle 4.1


Nurmber and Percentage of Growers Using Selected Water-Related Best Management Practices


District
Practice Northwest Southwest South Total
Water Table Number % Number % Number % Number %
Monitoring 4 (21) 14 (45) 12 (86) 30 (47)
SCS Irrigation and
Water Management
Plan 12 (63) 19 (61) 8 (57) 39 (61)
Water Metering 9 (47) 28 (90) 13 (93) 50 (78)
Laser-Levelling 6 (32) 28 (90) 14 (100) 48 (75)
Satellite Based
Weather Monitoring 4 (21) 13 (42) 9 (64) 26 (41)
Tissue Testing 13 (68) 24 (77) 12 (86) 49 (77)


Three quarters or more of all growers use water meters, laser levelling, and tissue testing.
In addition, almost 60% of all growers have an irrigation and water management plan. Over 40
percent of all growers monitor the depth to water table and use satellite based weather monitoring
as decision tools for irrigating.











4.0 Water Management Practices, Technology Adoption Rates,
and Grower Beliefs Toward Drip Irrigation


This section provides a profile of tomato grower beliefs about irrigation management
practices and technologies. Current levels and rates of adoption of drip irrigation are described.
Data is presented with respect to grower's general attitudes towards, and beliefs about the
profitability of drip irrigation. The implications for future adoption of drip irrigation are then
discussed.

4.1. Current Water and Irrigation Management Practices

Growers were asked if they used specific water-conserving technologies or best
management practices (BMP's) in addition to drip irrigation. The purpose was to get an indication
of the effort growers put forth with respect to water conserving practices.

Specific BMP's included having a farm irrigation and water management plan, metering
water use, monitoring the water table, use of laser levelling (which allows for more uniform water
application rates and less pumping), satellite based weather monitoring (to better time irrigation
events), and tissue testing of tomato plants (to indicate drought stress). Table 4.1 summarizes the
use of these BMP's.


Tahle 4.1


Nurmber and Percentage of Growers Using Selected Water-Related Best Management Practices


District
Practice Northwest Southwest South Total
Water Table Number % Number % Number % Number %
Monitoring 4 (21) 14 (45) 12 (86) 30 (47)
SCS Irrigation and
Water Management
Plan 12 (63) 19 (61) 8 (57) 39 (61)
Water Metering 9 (47) 28 (90) 13 (93) 50 (78)
Laser-Levelling 6 (32) 28 (90) 14 (100) 48 (75)
Satellite Based
Weather Monitoring 4 (21) 13 (42) 9 (64) 26 (41)
Tissue Testing 13 (68) 24 (77) 12 (86) 49 (77)


Three quarters or more of all growers use water meters, laser levelling, and tissue testing.
In addition, almost 60% of all growers have an irrigation and water management plan. Over 40
percent of all growers monitor the depth to water table and use satellite based weather monitoring
as decision tools for irrigating.












Use of these BMPs varies between growers located in different water management
districts. For example, while nearly all growers in the Southwest and South Districts meter their
water use, less than one-half the growers in Northwest Florida do so. This is explained by the fact
that most growers in the South and Southwest are required to use meters as part of permit
conditions.

Nearly all growers in the South and Southwest also use laser levelling as a means to save
on pumping costs. Low use rates in North Florida are explained by the more hilly terrain and the
high costs of levelling.

Eighty-six percent of South Florida growers monitor the depth to water table where seep
is still a dominant method of irrigation. Only 45 percent and 21 percent of the growers in
Southwest and Northwest Florida, respectively, monitor the water table. More South Florida
growers also use satellite based weather monitoring than growers in either of the other two
districts. Almost an equal percentage of growers (60 percent or more) in each district use tissue
testing and have an irrigation and water management plan.

There is a higher level of use of water metering, water table monitoring, and laser
levelling in those districts with the most water use regulation. Water use permits specifying the
quantities of water to be used annually are required in the South and Southwest districts. Permits
are not required of all growers in the Northwest.

Laser levelling is used by growers to cut water use and may be less expensive than
investing in a drip system. This may partially explain why adoption rates of drip irrigation are
lower in the South and Southwest districts. (See table 4.3.)

Growers were asked what factors they take into account when they make three types of
irrigation management decisions: when to start irrigating, the length of the irrigation event or "run
time", and the number of times they irrigate each day. The purpose in soliciting this information
was to determine which indices or methods are important to grower decision making with respect
to the initiation and length of water applications. The majority of growers indicated they had a
set schedule of irrigating once or twice daily.

Indices affecting the initiation, run time, and frequency of irrigation decisions were
identified by IFAS field research and extension staff, and by growers during the pretest phase of
the survey. The indices include looking at tomato leaves and fruit, feeling the soil by hand, using
tensiometers or pan evaporation, crop stage, use of historical soil-water balance records, past and
expected rainfall, irrigation system design, the pesticide spray schedule, and regulatory
requirements.

Table 4.2 shows the percentage of growers that employ the various indices for making
irrigation management decisions. For starting an irrigation, over 70% of all growers rely on three
key variables: feeling the soil by hand, yesterday's rainfall, and expected rainfall today. Nearly













one-half of all growers indicated that they use tensiometers and/or consider crop stage. Using pan
evaporation readings and/or considering the pesticide spray schedule are the least important
variables. Twenty percent of all growers consider water use regulations in the decision to irrigate.

The same indices used by most growers to start irrigating are also used in the run-time
decision. About two-thirds of all growers feel the soil and consider past and expected rainfall to
determine the run-time of their irrigation systems. Forty and fifty percent of all growers use
tensiometers or look at crop stage. Twenty percent consider regulatory requirements when
deciding run-time.


Table 4.2 Frequency of Indices Used by Tomato Growers for Irrigation Management
Irrigation Management Practice

Variable Start Irrigating Run Time Times Irrigated
Look at Leaves 40.6% 35.9% 18.8%
Look at Tomato 25.0% 23.4% 10.9%
Feel Soil 70.3% 59.4% 21.9%
Read Tensiometer 46.9% 40.6% 14.1%
Measure Pan Evaporation 9.4% 10.9% 4.7%
Crop Stage 54.7% 50.0% 20.3%
Soil Water Balance Records 15.6% 18.8% 4.7%
Rainfall Yesterday 75.0% 65.0% 29.7%
Expected Rainfall 70.3% 65.6% 29.7%
Design of the System 37.5% 25.0% 9.4%
Spray Pesticide Schedule 17.2% 10.9% 4.7%
Regulatory Requirements 20.3% 20.3% 9.4%


Although most growers irrigate a set number of times a day, some consider other indices
for determining the frequency of irrigation. Almost 30% of all growers consider past and
expected rainfall in making the decision, and about 20% feel the soil or consider crop stage. Less
than 10% take water use regulations into account when determining the number of times to irrigate
daily.

The data on irrigation management practices leads to three general conclusions. First,
tomato growers continue to rely mostly on traditional, informal methods (i.e. considering rainfall
amounts and feeling soil) to decide when and how much to irrigate.












Second, modern methods of irrigation scheduling through the use of tensiometers and
pan evaporation are not now employed by most growers. Measuring pan evaporation is used by
only 5% to 11% of the growers. Tensiometers are used by many growers, but several growers
indicated during interviews that tensiometers are no more reliable than feeling the soil.

Third, regulatory requirements regarding water use are considered by only about a fifth
of the growers when they decide when and how much to irrigate. Most growers expressed the
view that water management decisions are based first and foremost on "what the crop needs".

4.2. Adoption Profile of In-Bed Drip Irrigation

Table 4.3 summarizes the survey data on adoption levels and rates of adoption for in-bed
drip irrigation. At the time of the survey, 46 growers had adopted drip irrigation over nearly
14,000 acres, and had made capital investments totaling almost $8,936,000. These figures
represent adoption rates of nearly 72 percent of all growers, and almost 50 percent of the 1994
tomato production area. The average investment in drip irrigation was $632 per acre.


Table 4.3 Adoption Profile of In-Bed Drip Irrigation in the Florida Tomato Industry, 1994
Entire Sample Northwest Southwest South

Number of Growers 64 19 31 14
Number of Acres 28,022 1,871 13,460 12,691
Growers Using Drip 46 19 19 8
Acreage in Drip 14,131 1,728 6,470 5,933
Total Investment in
Drip Irrigation $8,935,704 $910,989 $3,019,765 $5,004,950
Investment per Acre in
Drip Irrigation $632.36 $527.30 $466.73 $843.58
Proportion of Growers
Using Drip Irrigation 71.9% 100% 61.3% 57.1%
Proportion of Acreage
in Drip Irrigation 50.4% 92.4% 48.1% 46.7%


There are important differences in the rates of adoption between growers in different water
management districts. In Northwest Florida, 100 percent of the growers use drip over about 92
percent of the 1994 production area. The proportion of growers using drip irrigation is lower in
Southwest Florida and South Florida, measuring about 61 percent and 57 percent, respectively.
The proportion of 1994 production area in drip is about 48 percent in Southwest Florida and about
47 percent in South Florida. Average investment per acre for in-bed drip ranged from about $844













per acre in South Florida, $527 per acre in Northwest Florida, to $467 per acre in Southwest
Florida. The higher investment costs in South Florida are due in part to the greater use of
computerized systems.

4.3. Grower's General Attitudes Toward Drip Irrigation Technology

4.3.1. Adopters and Non-Adopters of Drip Irrigation

For the period just prior to adoption, adopters of drip irrigation thought that the adoption
decision would be quite wise and useful, as well as slightly beneficial and desirable (table 4.4).
Adopters were neutral with respect to their expectations about whether drip would be pleasant or
unpleasant. The overall general grower attitude towards adoption, as measured by "Average
Attitude", ranks as slightly favorable.


Table 4.4 General Attitudes Held by Non-Adopters and Adopters of Drip Irrigation Concerning Drip Irrigation
Technology, Tomato Producers, Prior to Adoption and 1995

General Attitudes Period Prior to Adoption' Current Time Period'
Adoption of drip irrigation
is:b Adopters Non-Adopters Adopters Non-Adopters
Wise:Foolish 5.61 5.11 6.54 5.11***
Beneficial:Harmful 5.41 4.50** 6.50 5.00***
Useful:Useless 5.63 4.94 6.52 5.50**
Good:Bad 5.50 3.94*** 6.22 4.72**
Pleasant:Unpleasant 4.39 3.83 5.11 4.33
Desirable:Undesirable 5.20 4.56 6.41 5.11**
Average Attitude 5.29 4.48 6.22 4.96

SAsterisks show adopters differ significantly from non-adopters (* = 0.10 probability, ** = 0.05 probability and ***
= 0.01 probability).
b Defined on a 7 to 1 scale with, for example, 7 = extremely wise and 1 = extremely foolish. A score of 4 means
neutral.


In the past, non-adopter attitudes towards the use of drip have been less positive than those
of adopters. Non-adopters responded that adoption of drip would be either neutral or only slightly
beneficial, useful, desirable, or wise. Non-adopters also thought adoption would be somewhat
unpleasant, meaning it would require more labor. The Average Attitude of non-adopters showed
that they were neutral to the adoption decision.













per acre in South Florida, $527 per acre in Northwest Florida, to $467 per acre in Southwest
Florida. The higher investment costs in South Florida are due in part to the greater use of
computerized systems.

4.3. Grower's General Attitudes Toward Drip Irrigation Technology

4.3.1. Adopters and Non-Adopters of Drip Irrigation

For the period just prior to adoption, adopters of drip irrigation thought that the adoption
decision would be quite wise and useful, as well as slightly beneficial and desirable (table 4.4).
Adopters were neutral with respect to their expectations about whether drip would be pleasant or
unpleasant. The overall general grower attitude towards adoption, as measured by "Average
Attitude", ranks as slightly favorable.


Table 4.4 General Attitudes Held by Non-Adopters and Adopters of Drip Irrigation Concerning Drip Irrigation
Technology, Tomato Producers, Prior to Adoption and 1995

General Attitudes Period Prior to Adoption' Current Time Period'
Adoption of drip irrigation
is:b Adopters Non-Adopters Adopters Non-Adopters
Wise:Foolish 5.61 5.11 6.54 5.11***
Beneficial:Harmful 5.41 4.50** 6.50 5.00***
Useful:Useless 5.63 4.94 6.52 5.50**
Good:Bad 5.50 3.94*** 6.22 4.72**
Pleasant:Unpleasant 4.39 3.83 5.11 4.33
Desirable:Undesirable 5.20 4.56 6.41 5.11**
Average Attitude 5.29 4.48 6.22 4.96

SAsterisks show adopters differ significantly from non-adopters (* = 0.10 probability, ** = 0.05 probability and ***
= 0.01 probability).
b Defined on a 7 to 1 scale with, for example, 7 = extremely wise and 1 = extremely foolish. A score of 4 means
neutral.


In the past, non-adopter attitudes towards the use of drip have been less positive than those
of adopters. Non-adopters responded that adoption of drip would be either neutral or only slightly
beneficial, useful, desirable, or wise. Non-adopters also thought adoption would be somewhat
unpleasant, meaning it would require more labor. The Average Attitude of non-adopters showed
that they were neutral to the adoption decision.













Comparisons between adopters and non-adopters show that adopters expected drip
irrigation to be significantly more beneficial than non-adopters. In general, adopters had a more
positive overall attitude towards drip technology as measured by the Average Attitude for each
group. Whatever the reason for this favorable pre-adoption disposition towards drip (better
extension, information; more exposure to the technology), it is important to note that a positive
attitude toward the technology appears related to actual adoption.

It is noteworthy that the attitudes toward drip irrigation technology has grown more
favorable in all categories for both groups. The Average Attitude of adopters is quite favorable
now, and that of non-adopters is slightly favorable. In all categories except "pleasant," adopters
now have significantly stronger positive attitudes toward drip than non-adopters.

4.3.2. General Grower Attitudes by Water Management District

For the period prior to adoption, Northwest grower attitudes towards drip were quite
positive (table 4.5). Northwest growers expected the use of drip to be quite wise, beneficial, and
useful, but gave a relatively low rating to "pleasantness."


Table 4.5 General Grower Attitudes by Water Management District Concerning Drip Irrigation Technology, Tomato
Producers, Prior to Adoption and 1995
General Attitudes Period Prior to Adoption' Current Time Period*
Adoption of drip irrigation is:b Northwest Southwest South Northwest Southwest South
Wise:Foolish 6.05 5.23** 5.21* 7.00 5.65*** 6.07**
Beneficial:Harmful 5.68 4.81* 5.21 6.95 5.58** 6.00**
Useful:Useless 5.89 5.16 5.43 7.00 5.77** 6.20**
Good:Bad 6.11 4.68** 4.50** 6.95 5.16*** 5.64**
Pleasant:Unpleasant 4.63 3.87 4.50 5.74 4.29** 5.07
Desirable:Undesirable 5.37 4.61 5.43 6.84 5.52*** 6.14**
Average Attitude 5.62 4.73 5.05 6.75 5.33 5.85

* Asterisks show at what level growers in the Southwest and South differ significantly from Northwest growers (* = 0.10
probability, ** = 0.05 probability and *** = 0.01 probability).
b Defined on a 7 to 1 scale with, for example, 7 = extremely wise and 1 extremely foolish. A score of 4 means neutral.


Five to ten years ago Southwest and South Florida growers were not as positive about drip
irrigation, as measured by their Average Attitudes. In Southwest Florida, growers rated the
adoption decision as only slightly wise, beneficial, or useful, and thought that adoption would be
somewhat unpleasant. They rated the adoption decision as significantly less beneficial and wise












compared to Northwest growers. Growers in South Florida expected the adoption to be slightly
favorable, but their attitude with respect to the wisdom of adoption was significantly weaker
compared to Northwest growers.

Compared to the period just prior to adoption, the Average Attitude of growers in all
regions is now more positive. A major difference is that the view towards the adoption decision
held by Northwest growers (where all growers use drip) is now significantly more positive than
growers in the other districts. Northwest growers seem to be convinced of the merits of drip
irrigation.

The current high Average Attitudes towards drip, combined with a high percentage of non-
adopters, suggests that there may be other, more specific reasons why greater rates of adoption
have not taken place in the South and Southwest areas. We thus turn to grower beliefs about the
profitability and specific attributes of drip irrigation technology.

4.4 Grower Beliefs About the Attributes and Profitability of Drip Irrigation

Grower beliefs toward the specific attributes and average profitability of drip irrigation are
measured by a series of statements. The statements include reducing fuel and electricity for
pumping water, fertilizer, pesticides, labor and management, water withdrawn, and pump engine
or motor size for irrigation. These are beliefs toward the efficacy of drip irrigation to reduce
costs. Statements associated with increasing yield, and improving profit and tomato quality reflect
the technology's revenue enhancing effects.

4.4.1. Attribute and Profitability Beliefs by Adopter Status

Just prior to adoption, adopters of drip irrigation had specific expectations of what drip
irrigation could do for them (table 4.6). Adopters thought that it would be slightly to quite likely
that using drip would reduce fuel and electricity for pumping water, decrease water withdrawn
for irrigation, and increase yield. Adopters were either neutral or believed it would only be
slightly likely that use of drip would result in reducing fertilizer or the engine size for irrigation,
increased farm profit, or improve tomato and water quality. They also believed that it would be
slightly to quite unlikely that use of drip would result in a reduction of pesticides and labor and
management effort, or decrease overall production costs. Use of drip appears to be related to
selected cost-decreasing features of the technology and the revenue enhancing effect of increased
yields. Overall, however, the expectation that adoption would be profitable, as measured by
Average Profitability, shows that adopters believed drip would be either neutral or have a slightly
positive effect on profits. This relatively low expected measure of profitability can be explained
by the belief that use of drip was likely to increase labor and management and overall production
costs.












compared to Northwest growers. Growers in South Florida expected the adoption to be slightly
favorable, but their attitude with respect to the wisdom of adoption was significantly weaker
compared to Northwest growers.

Compared to the period just prior to adoption, the Average Attitude of growers in all
regions is now more positive. A major difference is that the view towards the adoption decision
held by Northwest growers (where all growers use drip) is now significantly more positive than
growers in the other districts. Northwest growers seem to be convinced of the merits of drip
irrigation.

The current high Average Attitudes towards drip, combined with a high percentage of non-
adopters, suggests that there may be other, more specific reasons why greater rates of adoption
have not taken place in the South and Southwest areas. We thus turn to grower beliefs about the
profitability and specific attributes of drip irrigation technology.

4.4 Grower Beliefs About the Attributes and Profitability of Drip Irrigation

Grower beliefs toward the specific attributes and average profitability of drip irrigation are
measured by a series of statements. The statements include reducing fuel and electricity for
pumping water, fertilizer, pesticides, labor and management, water withdrawn, and pump engine
or motor size for irrigation. These are beliefs toward the efficacy of drip irrigation to reduce
costs. Statements associated with increasing yield, and improving profit and tomato quality reflect
the technology's revenue enhancing effects.

4.4.1. Attribute and Profitability Beliefs by Adopter Status

Just prior to adoption, adopters of drip irrigation had specific expectations of what drip
irrigation could do for them (table 4.6). Adopters thought that it would be slightly to quite likely
that using drip would reduce fuel and electricity for pumping water, decrease water withdrawn
for irrigation, and increase yield. Adopters were either neutral or believed it would only be
slightly likely that use of drip would result in reducing fertilizer or the engine size for irrigation,
increased farm profit, or improve tomato and water quality. They also believed that it would be
slightly to quite unlikely that use of drip would result in a reduction of pesticides and labor and
management effort, or decrease overall production costs. Use of drip appears to be related to
selected cost-decreasing features of the technology and the revenue enhancing effect of increased
yields. Overall, however, the expectation that adoption would be profitable, as measured by
Average Profitability, shows that adopters believed drip would be either neutral or have a slightly
positive effect on profits. This relatively low expected measure of profitability can be explained
by the belief that use of drip was likely to increase labor and management and overall production
costs.













Table 4.6 Beliefs of Tomato Growers Concerning the Results of Using Drip Irrigation, Adopters and Non-Adopters of
Drip Irrigation, Prior to Adoption and 1995

Belief Statements Period Prior to Adoption" Current Time Period'
A Drip Irrigation System Results
in:b Adopters Non-Adopters Adopters Non-Adopters
Reducing fuel and electricity for
pumping water- 5.93 5.11** 6.43 5.22***
Reducing fertilizer applied: 4.76 4.22 4.80 3.94
Reducing pesticides applied: 3.89 1.89*** 3.74 1.78***
Reducing labor and management: 3.02 2.17* 2.76 1.50**
Decreasing water withdrawn: 5.96 5.22** 5.89 6.00
Increasing yield: 5.26 4.50* 5.85 5.22
Decreasing overall production
costs: 2.63 2.83 2.98 2.44
Reducing engine or motor size for
irrigation: 4.42 3.67 4.33 3.33
Increase overall farm profit: 4.63 4.27 5.04 3.89***
Improve tomato quality: 4.82 4.17 5.26 4.56
Improve water quality: 4.73 4.11 4.96 4.11
Average Profitability 4.55 3.83 4.73 3.82

SAsterisks show how adopters differ significantly from non-adopters (* = 0.10 probability, ** = 0.05 probability and
*** = 0.01 probability).
b Defined on a 7 to 1 scale with 7 = extremely likely and 1 = extremely unlikely. A score of 4 means neutral.


How did the expected beliefs of adopters compare to non-adopters? For the period five
to ten years ago, non-adopters did not have very many strong beliefs about what drip irrigation
could or could not do. Most rankings of non-adopters reflect either neutral or only slightly likely
belief statements (reducing fuel and electricity, reducing fertilizer, decreasing water withdrawn,
increasing overall farm profit, and improving tomato and water quality). Non-adopters expected
that it would be extremely to slightly unlikely that use of drip would result in reducing pesticides,
labor and management effort, or motor size, or decreasing overall production costs. Overall, non-
adopters believed that use of drip would be unprofitable, as measured by Average Profitability.

Compared to non-adopters, adopters of drip believed it would be significantly more likely
that use of drip would result in reducing fuel and electricity, pesticide and water use, and increase
yield. These beliefs may have been conditioned by more exposure to the use of drip irrigation or












perhaps better information received from equipment dealers, extension agents or experiment
station personnel.

What do adopters and non-adopters of drip now believe? Compared to the period prior
to adoption, adopters believe more strongly that drip results in reducing fuel and electricity,
increasing yield, increasing overall farm profit, and improving tomato and water quality.
Adopters' beliefs concerning reductions in fertilizer and reducing water withdrawals and engine
size for pumping have not changed much. Positive beliefs are counterbalanced by adopter's
stronger perception that drip results in increased labor and management costs. Adopters still
believe that it is slightly to quite unlikely that adoption of drip irrigation results in a decrease in
overall production costs. The Average Profitability for adopters is higher than for the period prior
to adoption, but the ranking is still neutral or only slightly profitable. Thus, while growers have
decided to use drip, there appears to be real financial trade-offs.

For the current time period, non-adopter beliefs about the individual characteristics of drip
have changed in both a positive and negative sense. On the positive side, non-adopters now
believe that it is more likely that drip irrigation results in decreasing water withdrawn, increasing
yield and improving tomato quality. On the negative side, non-adopters believe that it is less
likely that drip will result in reducing fertilizer, pesticides, or labor and management effort,
decrease overall production costs or increase farm profit. There was virtually no change in
grower beliefs concerning the reduction of fuel and electricity or engine size for pumping, or the
improvement of water quality resulting from the use of drip irrigation.

In general, the positive aspects of adoption appear to be offset by negative expectations of
what adoption of drip irrigation will result in. This is reflected in the measure of Average
Profitability which shows that the non-adopters still believe that use of drip is unlikely to be
profitable. Without some assurance that the perceived negative attributes of drip can be
overcome, adoption rates are not likely to increase among current non-users.

4.4.2. Attribute and Profitability Beliefs by Water Management District

For the period prior to adoption, Northwest growers expected that it would be slightly to
quite likely that adoption of drip irrigation would result in reducing fuel and electricity for
pumping water, decreasing fertilizer and pesticide use and water withdrawn, reducing engine size,
and improving yield, tomato quality, and overall farm profit (table 4.7). They were neutral with
respect to whether drip would result in a reduction of labor and management effort, or the
improvement of water quality. Northwest growers considered it slightly unlikely that adoption
would result in decreased production costs. Overall, Northwest growers expected the use of drip
to be slightly profitable, as measured by Average Profitability.













Table 4.7 Beliefs of Tomato Growers Concerning the Results of Using Drip Irrigation, by Water Management District,
Prior to Adoption and 1995

Belief Statements Period Prior to Adoption Current Time Period'
A drip irrigation system Northwest Southwest South Northwest Southwest South
results in:b
Reducing fuel and electricity
for pumping water: 5.63 5.61 6.00 6.53 5.68** 6.43
Reducing fertilizer applied: 5.11 4.19* 4.86 5.79 3.90*** 4.36**
Reducing pesticides applied: 4.95 2.52*** 2.93** 4.84 2.45*** 2.57**
Reducing labor and
management: 4.32 2.06*** 2.29** 3.95 1.90** 1.43**
Decreasing water withdrawn: 6.11 5.52 5.79 5.74 5.77 6.50
Increasing yield: 5.74 4.68* 4.93 6.26 5.19** 5.93
Decreasing overall
production costs: 3.00 2.48 2.71 3.37 2.42* 3.00
Reducing engine or motor
size for irrigation: 5.00 3.87* 3.93 4.94 3.74* 3.57*
Increase overall farm profit: 5.42 3.93** 4.64* 5.58 4.29** 4.50*
Improved tomato quality: 5.58 4.19** 4.36** 5.63 4.90 4.64
Improved water quality: 4.67 4.52 4.50 4.83 4.55 4.93
Average Profitability 5.05 3.96 4.27 5.22 4.07 4.35

* Asterisks show how growers in the Southwest and South districts differ significantly from Northwest growers
(* = 0.10 probability, ** = 0.05 probability and *** = 0.01 probability).
b Defined on a 7 to 1 scale with 7 = extremely likely and 1 = extremely unlikely. A score of 4 means neutral.


Compared to Northwest growers, Southwest and South growers expressed lower
expectations that drip would result in cost-reducing or income enhancing benefits. Southwest
growers had significantly lower expectations with respect to a reduction in fertilizer use, increased
yields or farm profit, or improved tomato quality. Southwest growers expressed the belief that
it would be slightly to quite unlikely that adoption of drip would result in reducing pesticides,
engine size, or labor and management effort, decreased production costs, or increased farm profit.
These low expectations are reflected in the neutral evaluation of the expected Average
Profitability.

The differences in expected beliefs between Northwest and South growers were less
pronounced. South growers believed that it was significantly less likely that adoption of drip
would result in either increased farm profits or improved tomato quality. Similar to Southwest












growers, South growers believed that it would be slightly to quite unlikely that use of drip would
result in a reduction in pesticide use or labor and management effort. The expected Average
Profitability was rated as neutral.

Compared to the period prior to adoption, Northwest growers now believe that the drip
is slightly more profitable. For example, Northwest growers consider it more likely that adoption
will result in reducing fuel and electricity and fertilizer use, and increasing yield and farm profits.
Although there has been some improvement, Northwest growers still believe that adoption is
unlikely to result in decreased production costs. This belief is mirrored by grower responses that
they now believe that adoption of drip is even less likely to reduce pesticide use or labor and
management effort, or decrease the amount of water withdrawn for irrigation. Although the
expected Average Profitability from adoption has increased, the increase is not significant
compared to be period prior to adoption.

Southwest growers now believe that it is more likely that adoption of drip will result in
reduced fuel and electricity costs, a decrease in water withdrawn, increased yields and profits, and
improved tomato and water quality. These positive changes are contrasted against grower beliefs
that there is less likelihood that drip will result in a reduction of pesticides, fertilizer, motor size,
labor and management effort, and in general, a decrease in overall production costs. Compared
to Northwest growers, Southwest growers now believe it is significantly less likely that adoption
will result in reductions of pesticides, fertilizers, and labor and management effort, or a decrease
in overall production costs. The Average Profitability rating of drip remains neutral for these
growers.

The evolution of South grower beliefs concerning use of drip is very similar to Southwest
growers. South growers now believe that drip irrigation can result in reduced use of fuel and/or
electricity and water withdrawn, increased yield, and improved tomato and water quality.
However, they also believe that it is significantly less likely that adoption will result in reduced
use of pesticides and fertilizer or labor and management effort, or increased farm profit. The
Average Profitability still shows that South growers are neutral.


5.0 Community Influence on Grower Decisions to Adopt
Water Conserving Irrigation Technologies


Almost by definition resource use and resource conserving behavior are social actions
because others are affected. The decision to adopt water conserving technologies and management
practices can be influenced by a grower's perception of what the community at large, and what
particular groups that make up that community, might expect him/her to do. This social
dimension of grower choice behavior was examined in the survey.












Growers were asked if it were important to them whether specific groups in the community
thought they should install and effectively manage water conserving technologies. These
community groups included other growers in the area, extension and experiment station personnel,
the growers association, water management district authorities, homeowners, the soil conservation
service, county government personnel, irrigation equipment dealers, environmental groups, and
family.

Growers were asked to rate the influence of each individual group on a seven-to-one scale
with seven representing "very important" and one equaling "very unimportant." A score of four
indicates "neither important nor unimportant" or "neutral". At the level of the total community
influence, 70 (10 groups multiplied by a maximum score of 7) is equal to "very important," 10
is equal to "very unimportant," with 40 equal to "neither important or unimportant" or "neutral".


5.1. Influence of Community Groups by Adoption Status

Prior to adoption of drip irrigation, adopter's total community influence score was about
46, indicating a mid-way point between "neither important nor unimportant" and "slightly
important" (table 5.1). The individual groups which received the highest scores (slightly
important) included extension, experiment station and soil conservation service personnel, and
family members. Those groups receiving the lowest scores were other farmers in the area and
environmental groups. These results indicate that while total community influence was not strong,
adopter-growers considered technical personnel and close family as somewhat important in their
decision to adopt drip irrigation.

For the period five to ten years ago, the total community influence score for non-adopters
was weak and almost identical to that of adopters (43.57). Only the water management district
was cited as a group that non-adopters thought was slightly important to their decisions. With
respect to the importance of specific groups, adopters did not significantly differ from non-
adopters.

Compared to the period prior to adoption, total community influence now for adopters of
drip irrigation, is higher and rated as more than slightly important. Overall social influence
regarding the water conserving technology decisions of adopters has increased, albeit by not very
much. Individual scores given to extension, experiment station, and soil conservation service
personnel influence remain high, indicating that these technical assistance groups are still
important to adoption decisions. Other farmers and irrigation equipment dealers remain the
groups with the lowest influence.













Table 5.1 Comnmnity Influence over Grower Adoption of Water Conserving Technologies, Adopters and Non-Adopters
of Drip Irrigation, Prior to Adoption and 1995

Prior to adoption Current Period
Individual Groupsab Adopters Non-Adopters Adopters Non-Adopters
Other Area Farmers: 4.02 3.89 4.48 4.22
Extension and Experiment Station: 5.07 4.39 5.59 4.83
Growers Association: 4.59 4.22 5.00 4.56
Water Management District: 4.61 5.06 5.23 5.44
Non-Farmers (e.g. Homeowners): 4.37 4.22 4.89 4.56
Soil Conservation Service: 4.96 4.56 5.41 4.77
County Government: 4.80 4.67 5.15 4.95
Irrigation Equipment Dealers: 4.19 3.56 4.43 3.94
Environmental Groups: 4.11 4.28 4.67 4.61
Family: 5.07 4.72 5.58 4.89
Total Community Influence 45.79 43.57 50.43 46.76

'Asterisks show how adopters of drip irrigation differ significantly from non-adopters (* = 0.10 probability, ** = 0.05
probability and *** = 0.01 probability).
b Individual group scores are defined on a 7 to 1 scale with 7 = extremely important and 1 = extremely unimportant.
A score of 4 means neutral. Total community influence scores are the sum of individual group scores. A community
value score of 70 would represent that community influence is "very important" (10 groups multiplied by 7), etc.


Although current total community influence on non-adopters also increased relative to the
past, the increase is marginal. The water management district continues to be the most important
source of influence, and has become slightly more so over the last five to ten years. Other groups
have gained in importance: extension, research station, and county government personnel, and
family members.

Over time, total community influence over technology adoption decisions for adopters and
non-adopters has increased, but more so for adopters. However, total community influence scores
do not approach the rating of "very" or even "quite" important. This indicates that total
community influence remains positive, but weak, as a factor in the adoption drip irrigation. As
water becomes a scarcer resource in Florida, and as the effects of grower water use on others in
community become more pronounced, the community influence over grower's technology
decisions might increase. However, this influence may be in a more regulatory mode rather than
adoption generated by an enhanced individual perception of social responsibility.











5.2. Community Influence by Water Management District Location


Total community influence scores prior to adoption for growers in all three districts are
not significantly different from each other and range from "neither unimportant or important" to
"slightly important" (table 5.2). The Northwest total community influence score comes the closest
to being slightly important.

Individual groups perceived as slightly important to grower decisions varied between
different districts, but none of the differences were statistically significant. In the Northwest,
experiment station, research and soil conservation service personnel, and family, were all rated
as being a little more than "slightly important". Those groups coming close to being slightly
important included the local grower's association and county government personnel. In the
Southwest district no individual group was rated as "slightly important," but family members came
closest. In the South district, only the water management district received a score of "slightly
important."

Similar to the results for the adopter and non-adopter categories, total community influence
over grower installation and efficient management of water conserving technologies was positive,
but weak in the period prior to adoption. In the Northwest, technical assistance personnel were
considered as the most important influence. In the South, where growers cite some positive
interactions with water management district personnel, this group was considered slightly
important. In the most regulated district, the Southwest, total community and individual group
influence were mostly neutral.

Relative to the past, total community influence for growers in all three districts increased
in the current time period. The score for Northwest growers now exceeds the "slightly important"
rating, but the total scores for the South and Southwest growers remain "neither important nor
unimportant." There are no significant differences between total community influence scores or
the scores for individual groups between growers in the three Districts.

The individual groups that were important to Northwest growers in the past are even more
so today: extension, experiment station and soil conservation service personnel, and family
members. All groups have gained in importance, but especially the water management district,
environmental, and county government groups. This indicates that while Northwest growers still
consider technical assistance groups to be most important to their decision making, governmental
and environmental interests now play a more important role in influencing their water technology
adoption and management decisions.














Table 5.2 Community Influence over Grower Adoption of Water Conserving Technologies, Growers by Water
Management District, Prior to Adoption and 1995

Prior to Adoption Current Period

Individual Groups" Northwest Southwest South Northwest Southwest South
Other Area Farmers 4.00 3.90 4.14 4.47 3.89 4.35
Extension and Experiment
Station: 5.26 4.74 4.64 5.79 5.29 5.00
Growers Association: 4.94 4.19 4.50 5.21 4.68 4.86
Water Management District:
4.63 4.65 5.07 5.32 5.23 4.42

Non-Farmers (e.g.
Homeowners): 4.74 4.16 4.14 5.18 4.71 4.50
Soil Conservation Service: 5.16 4.71 4.71 5.68 5.09 4.93
County Government: 4.89 4.71 4.71 5.26 5.03 5.00
Irrigation Equipment
Dealers: 4.32 3.71 4.26 4.42 4.10 4.57
Environmental Groups: 4.16 4.40 4.50 5.05 4.39 4.71
Family: 5.22 4.84 4.93 5.83 5.23 5.14
Total Community Influence 47.32 44.01 45.6 52.21 47.64 47.48

SAsterisks show how Northwest growers differ significantly South and Southwest
growers. (* = 0.10 probability, ** = 0.05 probability and *** = 0.01 probability).
b Individual group scores are defined on a 7 to 1 scale with 7 = extremely important and 1 = extremely unimportant.
A score of 4 means neutral. Total community influence scores are the sum of individual group scores. A community
value score of 70 would represent that community influence is "very important" (10 groups multiplied by 7), etc.


Specific groups have become "slightly important" to Southwest growers, including
experiment station, extension, soil conservation service, water management district, and county
government personnel, and family members. This trend indicates a growing importance of the
technical service and regulatory agency groups in grower decision making concerning water
technologies.

South district growers currently rate four groups as "slightly important" to their decisions:
family members, and extension, experiment station, soil conservation service, and county
government personnel. Interestingly, water management district personnel are now considered
less important to grower decisions than they were in the past.











There are clear trends for growers in all districts with respect to total community and
individual group influence on their technology adoption decisions. First, although total
community influence has increased, such influence is still only "slightly important" or "neither
important nor unimportant". Secondly, growers in all three districts rate the influence of technical
assistance and regulatory personnel much higher now than they did in the past. This latter finding
suggests that technical assistance personnel, who can be voluntarily approached by growers, may
be good channels for encouraging increased grower adoption of water conserving technologies.
On the other hand, water management district and county government groups, which are
associated with more control over grower technology decisions, also appear to be more important
to growers.


6.0 Water Use Regulations, Grower Control, and Irrigation Technology Adoption

Historically, agricultural technology policy in Florida focused on university based
extension education and demonstrations in joint partnership with the private sector. Grower
associations encouraged good practices while Federal agencies provided technical assistance and
cost sharing. There was little mandatory regulation.

The turning point came in the early 1970s when Floridians passed progressive
environmental legislation. Florida put in place an administrative system for implementing a top
down, some have called it a "micromanagement," approach to agricultural regulations. This
section addresses two topics. The first is growers' perception of how water regulation affects the
Florida tomato industry. The second addresses the role of control in growers' decisions to adopt
drip irrigation technology.

6.1 Grower Beliefs Concerning Water Use Regulations

Table 6.1 shows grower's general views concerning water use regulations by water
management district. The scale ranges from 7 to 1 with, for example, 7 equal to extremely wise
and 1 equal to extremely foolish for the first scale. A score of four signifies "neither," meaning
neutral. A general trend between time periods common to all three areas is that current water use
regulations are considered wiser, more beneficial, and more useful than in the past. But, the
general view of growers is that water use rules have only marginally become better, they are still
perceived as having a neutral effect on the grower's farming operation. In the most highly
regulated water use area, Southwest growers believe regulations have become more unpleasant to
deal with.

Table 6.2 provides the same information as table 6.1 but on the basis of adopters versus
non-adopters of drip irrigation. On average, adopters and non-adopters believe that water use
regulations have become wiser, and more useful and beneficial over time. The mean score on
how good regulations are now is significantly higher for the adopters. Both groups expressed the
belief that water use regulations were and are neutral in their effects. However, adopters and non-
adopters believe that water regulations have become more unpleasant over time.











There are clear trends for growers in all districts with respect to total community and
individual group influence on their technology adoption decisions. First, although total
community influence has increased, such influence is still only "slightly important" or "neither
important nor unimportant". Secondly, growers in all three districts rate the influence of technical
assistance and regulatory personnel much higher now than they did in the past. This latter finding
suggests that technical assistance personnel, who can be voluntarily approached by growers, may
be good channels for encouraging increased grower adoption of water conserving technologies.
On the other hand, water management district and county government groups, which are
associated with more control over grower technology decisions, also appear to be more important
to growers.


6.0 Water Use Regulations, Grower Control, and Irrigation Technology Adoption

Historically, agricultural technology policy in Florida focused on university based
extension education and demonstrations in joint partnership with the private sector. Grower
associations encouraged good practices while Federal agencies provided technical assistance and
cost sharing. There was little mandatory regulation.

The turning point came in the early 1970s when Floridians passed progressive
environmental legislation. Florida put in place an administrative system for implementing a top
down, some have called it a "micromanagement," approach to agricultural regulations. This
section addresses two topics. The first is growers' perception of how water regulation affects the
Florida tomato industry. The second addresses the role of control in growers' decisions to adopt
drip irrigation technology.

6.1 Grower Beliefs Concerning Water Use Regulations

Table 6.1 shows grower's general views concerning water use regulations by water
management district. The scale ranges from 7 to 1 with, for example, 7 equal to extremely wise
and 1 equal to extremely foolish for the first scale. A score of four signifies "neither," meaning
neutral. A general trend between time periods common to all three areas is that current water use
regulations are considered wiser, more beneficial, and more useful than in the past. But, the
general view of growers is that water use rules have only marginally become better, they are still
perceived as having a neutral effect on the grower's farming operation. In the most highly
regulated water use area, Southwest growers believe regulations have become more unpleasant to
deal with.

Table 6.2 provides the same information as table 6.1 but on the basis of adopters versus
non-adopters of drip irrigation. On average, adopters and non-adopters believe that water use
regulations have become wiser, and more useful and beneficial over time. The mean score on
how good regulations are now is significantly higher for the adopters. Both groups expressed the
belief that water use regulations were and are neutral in their effects. However, adopters and non-
adopters believe that water regulations have become more unpleasant over time.













Table 6.1 General Views Held by Tomato Producers Concerning Water Use Regulations Prior to Adoption (then) and
in 1995 (now)

General Views
Northwest' Southwest" South'

Agricultural Water Use
Regulations are':
Regulation : Thenb Now Thenb Now Thenb Now

Wise:Foolishd 4.00 4.89 4.55 5.00 4.36 4.57

Beneficial:Harmful 4.15 4.63 4.33 4.26 3.71 3.85

Useful:Useless 3.84 4.52 4.40 4.43 3.86 4.43

Good:Bad 4.05 4.90 4.23 4.53 4.07 4.50

Pleasant:Unpleasant 3.31 3.36 3.13 2.87 3.35 3.50

Desirable:Undesirable 3.63 4.42 3.87 3.96 3.42 3.85

' Figures represent mean responses of growers.
b "Then" represents five years prior to adoption for adopters and "5 to 10 years ago for non-adopters."
SThe differences between mean grower responses between districts were not statistically significant.
SDefined on a 7 to 1 scale, with, for example, 7 = extremely wise and 1 = extremely foolish.


Table 6.2. General Views Held by Non-adopters and Adopters of Drip Irrigation
Concerning Water Use Regulations, Tomato Producers, Prior to
Adoption (Then) and in 1995 (Now).

General Attitudes
Non-Adopters' Adopters'

Agricultural Water Use
Regulations are:d Thenb Now Then Now


Wise:Foolish 4.44 4.50 4.30 5.02

Beneficial:Harmful 4.00 4.05 4.20 4.37

Useful:Useless 4.11 4.44 4.11 4.47

Good:Bad 3.78 4.00 4.29 4.88**

Pleasant:Unpleasant 3.27 3.06 3.22 3.20

Desirable:Undesirable 3.89 3.78 3.62 4.20

SFigures represent mean responses of growers.
b "Then" represents five years prior to adoption for adopters and "5 to 10 years ago for non-adopters."
Asterisks show adopters differ significantly from non-adopters
(* = 0.10 probability; ** = 0.05 probability; and *** = 0.01 probability).
SDefined on a 7 to 1 scale, with, for example, 7 = extremely wise and
1 = extremely foolish.












Tables 6.3 and 6.4 show the percentage of growers that invest different levels of time and
money in compliance with water use regulations in a typical year. Time and money costs include
resources expended in attending district meetings, hiring.consultants, and obtaining, modifying
or renewing water use permits. Over eighty percent of growers in the Southwest and South spend
from 8 or more days complying with water use regulations (table 6.3). Over 50% of these
growers spend more than 14 days. This time investment is compared to the time used by growers
in the relatively unregulated Northwest district. In the Northwest, only 11% of the growers spend
14 days or more in complying with water use regulations, and 63% spend 1 day or less.

The distribution of money costs of compliance across the three districts are similar to time
investments. 53 percent of the South growers, and 41% of Southwest growers, reported
expenditures of $30,000 or more, respectively. None of the Northwest growers fell into this cost
category. About 11% of the Northwest growers reported money expenses of $2001 to $10,000.
86 percent of the South growers and 67% of Southwest growers spent $2001 or more in
complying with water use regulations in 1994.

Non-adopters of drip irrigation technology invest both more time and money in complying
with water use regulations than adopters (table 6.4). In terms of time, 78% of non-adopters
expend 8 or more days in compliance, with 56% spending more than 2 weeks. This is compared
with adopters of drip, 50% of whom spend 8 days or more in compliance.

In terms of money expenditures, 63% of non-adopters spend $30,000 or more in a typical
year complying with water use regulations. Only 21% of the adopters spend this much money.
Over one-half of the adopters (53%) spend $2000 or less in annual compliance costs, while only
31% of non-adopters fall within this expenditure category.

Two observations are clear from the data in tables 6.3 and 6.4. First, growers in the
relatively less regulated Northwest spend substantially fewer resources in terms of time and money
in compliance with water use regulations than growers in the southwest and south. Secondly, a
higher percentage non-adopters of drip irrigation expend more resources than adopters in
compliance. Because Northwest growers are all adopters of drip, and face fewer regulatory costs,
non-adopters of drip in the Southwest and South represent the majority of growers who invest the
most time and money in complying with water use regulations.

A geographic shift in production area was considered unlikely by growers in all districts
(table 6.5). However, growers in the Southwest and the South areas indicated that it is now more
likely that water use regulations will result in less production and higher production costs than in
the past. In terms of water security, growers in all districts expressed uncertainty over whether
the amount of water permitted to them would be adequate over the next 10 years, and whether or
not adoption of water conserving technologies would ensure renewal of their water use permits.
The highest level of uncertainty was recorded for growers in the relatively more regulated
Southwest and the South areas. Adoption is viewed as increasing the probability of permit
renewal in all districts.













Table 6.3 Percentage of Growers Investing Time and Money
in Complying with Water Use Regulations, by Water
Management Districts, 1994-95.
Time Cost Northwest Southwest South
One Day or 63% 17% 8%
Less
Two to Seven 21% 10% 8%
Days
Eight to 14 5% 17% 31%
Days
More Than 11% 63% 53%
14 Days


Money Cost
$100 or Less 50% 19% 7%
$101 to $500 17% 0 0
$501 to 11% 7% 7%
$1000
$1001 to 11% 7% 0
$2000
$2001 to 11% 16% 33%
$10,000
$10,001 to 0 7% 0
$20,000
$20,001 to 0 3% 0
$30,000
$30,001 to 0 22% 33%
$50,000
More Than 0 19% 20%
$50,000











Table 6.4 Percentage of Growers Investing Time and Money
in Complying with Water Use Regulations, by
Non-Adopter and Adopter Status.


Time Cost
One Day or Less
Two to Seven Days
Eight to 14 Days
More Than 14
Days


Percentage of
Non-Adopters
16%
6%
22%
56%


Percentage of
Adopters
34%
16%
14%
36%


Money Cost
$100 or Less
$101 to $500
$501 to $1000
$1001 to $2000
$2001 to $10,000
$10,001 to
$20,000
$20,001 to
$30,000
$30,001 to
$50,000
More Than
$50,000


19%
0
6%
6%
6%
0


50%

13%


29%
7%
9%
7%
19%
5%


14%


I











Table 6.5

Belief Statements


General Beliefs Hel


rowers Concerning the Impacts of Water Use Regulation, Prior to Adoption and in 1995.'

Northwest Southwest South
Now Thenb Now Thenb Now Thenb


Florida Water Use Regulatic

Will Cause Me to Shift Production
to Other areas of Florida

Will Cause Me to Shift Production
to Other States

Will Cause Me to Produce Less
(Double Cropping Not Possible)

Will Increase Production Costs

Water Security:

Amount of Water Permitted for My I
Will Be Adequate Over the Next Ten

The Use of Water Conserving Techn
Ensures Renewal of My Water Use I

' Figures represent mean responses o
b "Then" represents five years prior t

' Asterisks show growers in the Souths
probability).
d Defined on a 7 to 1 scale, with 7 =


2.85 3.37 3.30 3.93


2.79 3.37 2.87 3.07


3.95 4.42 4.12 4.96

5.16 5.16 5.35 6.10*




4.63 4.94 4.83 4.69


4.27 5.26 4.59 5.00


2.57 2.71


2.62 2.46


3.71 4.63

6.07 6.36**




5.35 5.14


5.14* 5.21


adopters and 5 to 10 years ago for non-adopters.
iffer significantly from growers in the Northwest (* = 0.10 probability; ** = 0.05 probability, and *** = 0.01


ly and 1 = extremely unlikely. A score of 4 means neutral.












Table 6.6 shows that adopters and non-adopters anticipate no geographic shift in
production due to past or current water use regulations. Both groups believe that while it was
unlikely that regulation caused less production in the past, it is now slightly likely. Adopters and
non-adopters think it is likely that regulations cause increases in costs, but adopters relatively less
so. Adopters differ from non-adopters in their current estimates of security to access of irrigation
water. Adopters now have slightly less confidence than non-adopters that the amount of water
permitted to them over the next ten years will be adequate. Adopters believe relatively more
strongly that their current use of water conserving technologies ensures renewal of their water use
permits.

6.2. The Role of Control in Grower Decisions to Adopt Drip Irrigation

A major supposition of economic theory is that producers can freely substitute inputs in
order to maximize technical efficiency and income. In reality, however, no producer exercises
complete volition over the inputs he/she uses in the production process. Growers face several
types of constraints to free input substitution including, but not limited to, the availability of
capital and the knowledge or ability these inputs. Drip irrigation is an input that is both expensive
and difficult to operate efficiently.

Florida crop growers face an additional and increasingly important constraint to their
ability to choose which irrigation systems they use. Over the past few years some of Florida's
water management districts have set water use efficiency levels which can only be met by modem
irrigation technologies (e.g. drip irrigation). Some districts have also tried to micro-manage
agricultural water use, and indirectly, crop choice. Thus, regulatory policy is acting as an
additional constraint to grower technology selection.

This section describes survey results with respect to grower's perceptions of the amount
of control they have over the adoption of drip irrigation. Also discussed is how important control
over technology decisions is to growers and whether compliance with water-related technology
regulations is important. Grower perceptions were solicited using control statements that
represented four general categories of constraints. The first category asks growers how much
control they have over the decision to install drip irrigation. The second statement asks growers
if they believe regulatory agencies can require them to use drip irrigation. Thirdly, growers were
asked if using drip was easy or difficult in order to indicate the degree to which knowledge or
ability is a constraint to adoption. Lastly, growers rated the degree to which investment capital
acted as a constraint to the adoption decision.

The individual scores for five control statements were totaled to give a measure of the
overall control that growers perceived they had over the adoption decision. Finally, growers were
asked if control over technology decisions and compliance with water use regulations were
important to them.













How much control or volition do growers believe they have over technological choices,
how important is this control to growers, and how important is it to growers to comply with
technology regulations? Table 6.7 shows the degree of control growers in different water
management districts believe they have over choices of water conserving technologies. While the
growers in all areas, and across time, believe they have a high degree of control over the choice
to use drip irrigation, they also believe that regulatory agencies are now better able to require use
of drip.


Table 6.6 General Beliefs Held by Tomato Growers Concerning the Impacts of Water Use Regulation, Prior
to Adoption and in 1995.'

Belief Statements"d Non-Adopters Adopters
Then" Now Thenb Now

Florida Water Use Regulations:
Will Cause me to Shift Production
to other Areas of Florida
2.94 3.06 3.02 3.82

Will Cause me to Shift Production
to Other States 2.16 2.06 3.05* 3.43***

Will Cause me to Produce Less
(Double Cropping not Possible) 4.00 4.56 3.98 4.74
Will Increase Production Costs 5.89 6.44 5.28 5.65*
Water Security:
Amount of Water Permitted for my
Use will be Adequate Over the
Next Ten Years 5.31 4.93 4.74 4.83

The Use of Water Conserving
Technology Ensures Renewal of
my Water Use Permit 4.75 5.06 4.59 5.14

* Figures represent mean responses of growers.
b "Then" represents five years prior to adoption for adopters and 5 to 10 years ago for non-adopters.

Asterisks show adopters differ significantly from non-adopters. (* = 0.10 probability; ** = 0.05 probability, and ***
= 0.01 probability).
d Defined on a 7 to 1 scale, with 7 = extremely likely and 1 = extremely unlikely.
A score of 4 means neither.














Table 6.7 Perceived Grower Control over the Adoption of Drip Irrigation by Water Management District, Prior to
Adoption and 1995

Prior to Adoption Current Period

Control Issue* Northwest Southwest South Northwest Southwest South

Control over Installation
of Drip Irrigation" 6.47 5.65* 5.35* 5.57 5.68 5.64

Regulatory Agencies
Cannot Require Drip
Installation' 5.53 3.97** 3.93** 3.58 2.90 3.29

Drip Irrigation is Easy to
Used 3.52 2.71 2.71 5.26 2.93*** 3.29**

Borrowing Money to
Invest in Drip is Easy' 3.84 3.48 3.57 3.37 3.65 3.50

Taking Money from
Current Income to Invest
in Drip is Easy* 3.63 3.19 3.57 3.58 3.29 3.50

Total Perceived Control' 22.99 19.00 19.13 21.36 18.45 19.22


Control Over Decisions'
to Install Technology is
Important to Me 5.95 6.05 6.03 6.51 6.14 6.35

Compliance with Water*
Technology Regulations is
Important 4.68 5.74 5.38 6.03 5.71 5.79

* Asterisks show how adopters of drip irrigation differ significantly from non-adopters (* = 0.10 probability,
** = 0.5 probability and *** = 0.01 probability).

b The level of grower control is defined on a 7 to 1 scale with 7 = extreme complete control and 1 = extremely little
control. A score of 4 means neither.

T The level of regulatory control is defined on a 7 to 1 scale with 7 = extremely likely and 1 = extremely unlikely. A
score of 4 means neither.

d The level of difficulty is defined on a 7 to 1 scale with 7 = extremely easy and 1 = extremely difficult.
A score of 4 means neither.

' Borrowing or using current income is defined on a 7 to 1 scale with 7 = extremely true and 1 = extremely false. A
score of 4 means neither.

' Total grower perception of control is the sum of individual group scores. A total control score of 35 would represent
extremely complete control.

' Defined on a 7 to 1 scale with 7 = extremely important and 1 = extremely unimportant.












Two interesting observations can be made from the data in table 6.7. First, in the period
prior to adoption, growers in the South and Southwest believed it was significantly less likely that
regulatory agencies could require the use of drip irrigation. Second, growers in the South and
Southwest Districts currently believe that drip is significantly more difficult to use than Northwest
growers.

Table 6.8 looks at control and compliance evaluations of adopters and non-adopters.
Growers in both groups believe they now have control over the decision to use drip irrigation, but
less so than in the past. They also perceive that while regulatory agencies are slightly likely to
require use of drip irrigation, the perception has become stronger over time.

Though compliance with water technology regulations has become more important over
time for both groups, even adopters believe they have less control over irrigation technology
choices now than in the past. Control over technology choices are now more important for
adopters than non-adopters, reflecting the view that compliance today does not necessarily
guarantee freedom of choice tomorrow.

6.2.1. Perceived Control by Adopter Status

Prior to the adoption of drip, adopters were generally neutral with respect to the level of
control they had for the decision to install drip irrigation, as measured by Total Perceived Control
(table 6.8). However, individual constraints were evaluated differently. In general, adopters
thought they had almost complete control over the adoption decision (Statement 1). On the other
hand, adopters were neutral or thought that it was only slightly likely that water management
districts could require the use of drip. Some doubt therefore existed over whether the districts
could or could not require them to use this technology, indicating that growers did not consider
the choice as completely free.

Concerning knowledge or ability to use drip, adopters indicated they expected drip to be
slightly difficult to use. They also said that borrowing money or taking money from current
income to invest in drip would not be easy. Thus, while adopters believed they exercised a high
degree of control over the choice to use drip, they also believed that there were knowledge and
financial constraints to adoption.

Compared to adopters, non-adopters perceived they had less control over the potential
adoption decision. The total perceived control score indicates that non-adopters believed the
(potential) adoption decision would not be completely voluntary. Their score ranged between
"slightly little control" to neutral and was lower than that for adopters of drip. There appear to
be several reasons for this.

First, non-adopters believed that it was likely that regulatory agencies could require
installation of drip irrigation. Secondly, non-adopters believed that using drip would be quite
difficult, indicating that the knowledge or ability to effectively use the technology could be acting














as a constraint to adoption. Non-adopters perceived that drip would be significantly more difficult
to use than adopters expected. Thirdly, non-adopters also responded that borrowing money or
taking money out of current income would be difficult for them, even more so than adopters.


Table 6.8 Perceived Grower Control Over the Adoption of Drip Irrigation,
Irrigation, Prior to Adoption and 1995


Adopters and Non-Adopters of Drip


Prior to Adoption Current Period

Control Issue" Adopters Non-Adopters Adopters Non-Adopters
Control Over Installation of Drip
Irrigation" 5.96 5.50 5.74 5.39

Regulatory Agencies Cannot
Require Drip Installation' 4.70 3.72 3.17 3.22

Drip Irrigation is Easy to Used 3.20 2.33* 3.98 3.00*

Borrowing Money to Invest in
Drip is Easy" 3.65 3.50 3.63 3.28

Taking Money from Current
Income to Invest in Drip is Easy"
3.48 3.22 3.54 3.06

Total Perceived Controlf 20.99 18.27 20.06 17.95
Control Over Decisions to Install
Technology is Important to Me'
6.17 6.28 5.98 6.37

Compliance with Water
Technology Regulations 5.78 5.89 5.04* 5.89

" Asterisks show how adopters of drip irrigation differ significantly from non-adopters (* = 0.10 probability,
** = 0.5 probability and *** = 0.01 probability).
b The level of grower control is defined on a 7 to 1 scale with 7 = extreme complete control and 1 = extremely little
control. A score of 4 means neither.
* the level of regulatory control is defined on a 7 to 1 scale with 7 = extremely likely and 1 = extremely unlikely. A
score of 4 means neither.
d The level of difficulty is defined on a 7 to 1 scale with 7 = extremely easy and 1 = extremely difficult.
A score of 4 means neither.
* Borrowing or using current income is defined on a 7 to 1 scale with 7 = extremely true and 1 = extremely false. A
score of 4 means neither.
' Total grower perception of control is the sum of individual group scores. A total control score of 35 would represent
extremely complete control.
* Defined on a 7 to 1 scale with 7 = extremely important and 1 = extremely unimportant.


In the current time period both adopters and non-adopters perceive that they have less
control over the drip adoption decision than they did in the past, as measured by the Total
Perceived Control score for both groups (table 6.8). Adopters still believe that, in general, they












have quite a bit of control over the adoption decision. However, they believe that it is now
significantly more likely that regulatory agencies can require them to use drip. Adopters currently
use of drip is neither easy nor difficult, an improvement over what they perceived before
adoption.

Non-adopters now believe they have less over all control over the adoption decision and
that regulatory agencies are now more likely to require them to use drip. Compared to the period
five to ten years ago, non-adopters still rate the use of drip as difficult, and perceive they have less
financial ability to invest in drip.

6.2.2. Perceived Control by Water Management District Location

In the period prior to adoption, Northwest growers were either neutral or believed they had
a slight degree of control over the decision to adopt drip irrigation, as measured by Total
Perceived Control (table 6.7). Because the Northwest water management district had been
relatively non-regulatory, growers believed that it was quite unlikely that the district could require
them to use drip irrigation. However, Northwest growers did perceive potential constraints to
adoption. Specifically, that drip irrigation would be slightly difficult to use and that capital to
invest in drip would not be easy to come by.

Compared to the Northwest, South and Southwest growers expressed the belief that they
had less total control over the adoption decision. In particular, growers in both southern districts
perceived that they had significantly less control of the adoption decision overall, and that it was
significantly more likely that regulatory agencies could require them to use drip. This latter
finding is not surprising given the more regulatory nature of the water management districts in
these areas. Although there were no significant differences between growers with respect to
capital constraints, South and Southwest growers also believe that financial resources for investing
in drip are not easy to come by. Finally, drip was believed to be relatively more difficult to use
by Southwest and South growers.

How have current beliefs about control over adoption evolved over time for growers in the
three water management districts? First, Northwest and Southwest growers perceive that they
have less control in the current period, while growers in the South district have about the same
neutral perceptions as before (see scores for Total Perceived Control). The major reason for the
perceived decrease in control amongst Northwest and Southwest growers is that they now feel
more strongly that regulatory agencies can require them to use drip irrigation. Capital to invest
in drip is still difficult to come by. While growers in all districts now consider drip easier to use
than in the past, Southwest and South growers still find drip irrigation a difficult technology to
employ.












6.3. Importance of Control over Technology Choice and Regulatory Compliance

Prior to adoption and now, both adopters and non-adopters of drip irrigation technology
indicated that control over technology decisions was very important to them (table 6.8).
Similarly, compliance with water regulations was quite important to adopters and non-adopters,
for both the period before adoption and now. The only significant difference in response was that
adopters, prior to the adoption of drip, thought it was less important to comply with water
technology regulations than non-adopters. This may be due to adopter's perceptions that the water
management districts have more power than they did in the past.

Table 6.7. shows grower scores with respect to technology control and regulatory
compliance on the basis of water management district. For both time periods, growers in all
districts indicated that control over technology decisions was very important to them. Compared
to "Then", growers in all districts now consider control over technology decisions to be relatively
more important. This is especially true amongst growers in the Southwest, which is the most
heavily regulated in terms of agricultural water use.

In the "Then" period, compliance with water technology regulations differed between
growers in different districts, but not significantly. Southwest and South growers indicated that
it was slightly to quite important to comply, while Northwest growers said that compliance was
"neither important or unimportant" to slightly important. For all growers, compliance now is
more important than in the past, indicating that they may perceive compliance with technology
regulations to be more strongly linked with continued access to water.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs