South Pacific Studies Vol.35, No.1, 2014

Determinants of Adoption of Pond Fish Farming Innovationsin Salamaua of Morobe Province in Papua New Guinea
MANUS Peter* and SINGAS Susan

Department of Agriculture, PNG University of Technology,
Private Mail Bag, LAE 411, Morobe Province, Papua New Guinea*Corresponding author
E-mail: pmanuas@ag.unitech.ac.pg

Abstract
Pond fish farming, introduced in the 1960s, remained an underdeveloped industry due to no policy
support. About two decades ago, the industry was revived with emphases placed on smallholder production.
Four fish production innovations were introduced, as a part of this program, to improve production andincome of farmers and in the process, engage youth. This study, conducted at Salamaua, was aimed atdetermining the extent of and the factors that influence the adoption of four innovations disseminated. Thus,
primary and secondary data collected were on the socioeconomic characteristics of the farmers, extent ofinnovation adoption and problem confrontation of farmers in adopting innovations. The pond liming andfertilizing innovation, which ranked number 1, was adopted by all the farmers followed by 56, 52 and30 percent adoption for stock density, sampling and sexing and feed formulation in that order of ranking
respectively. About 96 percent of the farmers categorized problems they faced as medium to high problems
and ranked poor infrastructure as problem number 1 followed by lack of knowledge and skills, lack ofmarketing facilities, lack of extension contact, poor performance of fingerlings, and lack of local quality
feed. Annual income and family size were the most important attributes influencing adoption and problem
confrontation in adopting introduced innovations respectively. Although the innovations were disseminatedto improve production and income of farmers, their dissemination was not adequately supported throughfarmer training and extension, market access and credit acquisition.
Key words: adoption, innovations, pond fish farming, problem confrontation, smallholder fish farmers

Introduction
At its most basic level, food security is concerned with securing a balanced meal
for individual families of a given society. It is often supported by governments throughstate intervention programmes aimed at securing adequate food supply through cropand livestock production for the most important basic units of society, the families ofReceived: 1 July, 2014
Accepted: 31 October, 2014

22

South Pacific Studies Vol.35, No.1, 2014

rural communities.
Papua New Guinea (PNG) is a signatory to the FAO agreement on food security.
An aspect of that agreement is the recognition given to freshwater fish farming toprovide for the protein needs of the rural population (ACIAR 2007). Fish farming
constitutes farming fish in fresh, brackish and sea water under controlled conditions
with production interventions (FAO 1994). An example of such a farming situation
recognized is the rearing of fish in man constructed ponds with water flow controls,
regular stocking, feeding and protection of fish from predators.
Fish farming is gaining popularity and increasingly supported due to a number ofreasons. At the global level, there is an apparent decline1 in global catches particularly
marine captured fisheries (FAO 2006, 2010, 2012, MILLER 2009). This would affectthe seafood supply which accounts for one-third of the world's total food supply (FAO
2006). In this regard, fish farming offers a potential solution to meeting the growing
demand for seafood that marine captured fisheries cannot provide (FAO 2006, MILLER
2009). At the national level, fish farming can help not only support securing national
food security but also improve farmer family nutrition and income (ACIAR 2007).
Moreover, fish farming offers the best solution for the utilization of organic wastes,
unproductive2 land, and aquatic resources and at the industrial level, fish meal asanimal feed (FAO 2006).
Pond fish farming, as a technology, was introduced in PNG in the 1960s. Its
introduction was to help reduce the presence of high malnutrition level of the inland
population of the country (ACIAR 2007). Fish farming, however, has since been givenno attention to its development as an industry. Even PNG being a signatory to FAO forfood security did little to improve the fish farming situation in the country. The stagnant
nature of its development was largely due to, among others, lack of policy direction todevelop fish farming as an industry3. Consequently, it lacked the provision of a good
extension service to transfer fish farming innovations thereby preventing the spread of
the nutritional and financial benefits to farmers as well as the technical skills of farming
to rural communities (ACIAR 2007).
In the past two decades, the National Fisheries Authority (NFA), with support
from the government, has revived pond fish farming throughout the country. Given
this push by the NFA and ably supported by the Australian Center for International
Agricultural Research (ACIAR) and Japanese International Cooperation Agency(JICA), fish farming activities got started everywhere by involving real time farmers.
For example, in 2001 (ACIAR 2007), some 5,418 famers were doing farming of which
4, 880 were located in the highlands of PNG. Assuming an average PNG family sizeof 5, fish farming could influence the nutrition and income of some 27,090 people.
１
２
３

This can happen largely due to over fishing where catches can be anything and everything usingfishing nets on a regular basis.
Land that cannot be productively used for agricultural production and for homestead needs such as
land on hill sides.
During the same period, export tree crops such as coffee, cocoa, rubber and tea were introduced andmuch of the focus was on the development of this sector.

MANUS and SINGAS: Determinants of Adoption of Pond Fish Farming Innovations in Papua New Guinea 23

Thus, for the first time since the 60s, the government, ACIAR, JICA, NFA andextension providers are working together to identify impediments, develop fish farming
innovations and implement strategies to providing fish farming innovations, farmer
training and the provision of extension services in the dissemination of the innovations(WANI 2004). There is thus an emerging real partnership forged between government
agencies, donor agencies and extension service providers aimed at improving income
generating opportunities for farmers.
Farmed fish production is reported to be insufficient to meet the growing demand
for fish in the country (WANI 2004) implying that farmed fish production must be
increased. The increase in the production of farmed fish or lack of it is influenced by
how successfully fish farmers are adopting the fish farming innovations disseminated.
Essentially, the key to improving production is the effective transfer of the fish farming
innovations.
Adoption of a new technology has been described as an “innovation decision
process” where the innovation passes through from the time of first knowledge of it to
the decision stage of either to reject or adopt it to the confirmation stage of the rejector adopt decision made at the decision stage (ROGERS 1995, EKONG 2002). Essentially,
it takes time for the farmers to first become aware of the existence of the innovation.
They then take a decision on either to adopt or reject the innovation (decision stage)
after evaluating it. The decision made at the decision stage is at a later date confirmed
based on the evidence available at that stage.
The adoption-rejection decision of the farmer is thus dependent on the degree ofrisk involved relative to the existing practices. In that regard, the adoption or rejection
decision is based on the characteristics of the innovation, the socioeconomic conditionsof farmers as well as their social, physical and cultural environments which drive them
(JONES 1987). Ideally then, the profitability of the innovation relative to the existing
practice must be adequately demonstrated to farmers (WETENGERE 2008). The fish
farming technologies are adopted only when farmers are convinced that fish farming
is profitable and would benefit society (CHI and YAMADA 2002, STANLEY et al. 2010).
In addition, adoption of innovations is also influenced by the farmers' economic
motivation (W ETENGERE 2010), resources endowment (N WEKE 1981, WETENGERE
2008, 2010) and access to information (WETENGERE 2010), education and trainings(NJANKOUAWANDJI et al. 2012), and access to funds to maintain ponds and buy feeds (Ikeand ROSELINE 2007), degree of accessibility to of innovations by farmers and extension
methods used (NWEKE 1981).
Essentially, to give the farmers a fair chance of evaluating the potential benefitsof the innovations, they must be properly linked to service providers for extension
services and training (NJANKOUAWANDJI et al. 2012), and credit institutions for their
credit needs (IKE and ROSELINE 2007), in addition to establishing clear marketing
linkages where possible and easy access to innovations disseminated. Thus, fish
farmers justify adoption or rejection of the introduced innovations based on theforegoing range of attributes.

24South Pacific Studies Vol.35, No.1, 2014

The NFA has disseminated four fish farming innovations namely (i) liming andfertilizing, (ii) stock density, (iii) fish feed formulation, and (iv) sampling and sexing.
These innovations, which are being disseminated as a package, must be adopted
together for farmers to realize maximum benefit and in the process increase production
to help meet local demand for fish. Given the dissemination of these innovationsin the Morobe Province, no information is available on how successfully they are
adopted and the factors that affect their adoption. This study was, therefore, conducted
aimed at determining the extent of the adoption of the innovations disseminated andmoreover, to identify the factors influencing the adoption decisions of the farmers. This
information, when become available, are useful for policy, research and extension.

Data Collection and Analysis
Selection of Farmers
The research was conducted in Salamaua, an area located in the Huon Gulf
District of Morobe Province of Papua New Guinea. The study site was purposively
selected due to its active promotion of pond fish farming activities. Salamua, although
situated closer to Lae city, the administrative capital of Morobe Province but isinaccessible by road. The only way out is by sea4.
A prior check with Provincial Department of Agriculture and Livestock (PDAL),BRIS KANDA5, and even from District DAL Office, revealed that there was no registryof fish farmers existed anywhere in these places to be used as a sampling frame.
Essentially, 23 farmers6 were selected for interview using the snowball sampling
method. The approach used was to interview the next farmer that the researcher comes
into contact while walking through the village areas. The interview process includes
observation of the fish pond sites. The households were scattered so the researcher
walked throughout the study area. Given that fish farming is a new technology, notmany farmers are expected to be involved in fish farming. Essentially, although thestudy sample is less than 30, it is believed that the sample is representative of the
population.
Data
The data was collected over a two week period in June/July, 2011 with the helpof two research assistants7. The data collected were on the selected socio-economic
４

All service provisions either by private or government and all businesses are conducted by sea
transport including transporting fish and garden produce for marketing in Lae city. Infrastructuraldevelopment is poor and access to services is also poor
５ BRIS KANDA is a Non Government Organization which provided extension services to fish farmers in
the area.
６ The 23 farmers selected are males and the heads of families who did fish farming.
７ The two research assistants are two postgraduate students that did their postgraduate diploma in
Agriculture.

MANUS and SINGAS: Determinants of Adoption of Pond Fish Farming Innovations in Papua New Guinea 25

characteristics of the fish farmers and the level and extent of adoption of innovations
and anticipated problem confrontation in the adoption of fish farming innovations. The
data collection instruments used constituted a structured questionnaire, observations
and two research assistants. The questionnaire was read to the respondents and the
responses received were recorded.
Measurement of Dependent Variables
Dissemination of four Innovations
Four fish innovations disseminated to farmers were chosen for this study. They are(i) pond liming and fertilizing - which is the fertilization and liming of the fish ponds
to increase fish weight gaining and production8, (ii) stock density - is to introduce andmaintain the correct fish population in a given pond to promote maximum growth,(iii) fish sampling and sexing - is the process involved in determining the sexes (maleor female) from a sample of fish in the pond, a process that helps maintain correct
stock density, and (iv) fish feed formulation - involves preparing a balance fish feeds
from locally available food stuff and byproducts. These innovations, disseminated asa bundle, were aimed at improving both fish quality and production as a sources ofincome.
Extent of Adoption of Innovations
There were four categories of adopters, viz., innovators, earlier adopters, lateadopters and laggards. The farmers were categorized into these groups after discussing
with them the time it took them to adopt an innovation. Most farmers were not able
to distinguish between early adopters and earlier majority categories. Therefore, thesecategories were grouped together as early adopters. The innovators were the fish
farmers who adopted an innovation within 6 months after its introduction while forthe early adopters; it took them about one to one and a half years to adopt it after it
was introduced. For the late adopters, it took them two years while for the laggards
two and a half to three years to adopt the innovation after it was introduced. It must
be noted that, the adopter categories were done arbitrarily based on farmer memory
recall. Furthermore, the farmers are resources poor. Thus, all things being equal, thefarmers ability to adopt an innovation was entirely based on the resources they haveand for most, they get things done with what they have. Essentially, the adoption rates
vary considerably from the standard adoption rates of Rogers often found in adoptiondiffusion of innovation literature.
The adoption for each of the innovations disseminated was measured bycomputing an adoption score. Each of the respondent was, thus, read to each of
adoption category to which the respondent responded by identifying his/her adopter
category as “innovator, earlier adopter, late adopter and late adopter” since the８

Fertilizing the ponds promotes the growth of phytoplankton (microscopic green plants) while liming
helps improve water quality and stabilize pH of bottom mud and increases production of aquatic
insects. Liming and fertilizing therefore help the production of food for pond fish.

26

South Pacific Studies Vol.35, No.1, 2014

innovation was introduced in the area. Each of these responses received a score of 3,
2, 1 and 0 for innovators, earlier adopters, late adopters and laggards respectively. The
scores received for each of the innovations was then added up to determine the adopter
score of an individual respondent. The adopter scores of a respondent could vary
between zero and 12, zero indicating no adoption (laggards) and 12 indicating adoption(innovators).
The extent of adoption of the fish pond innovations disseminated was measured
by computing the farmers total adoption index (TAI) as:
TAI=(A1x3)+(A2x2)+(A3x1)+(A4x0)
Where; A1 = No. of farmers as innovators; A2 = No. of farmers as early adopters; A3= No. of farmers as late adopters; A4 = No. of farmers as laggards. The TAI for each
adopter category can vary between zero and 69, zero indicating no adoption and 69
indicating full adoption of the innovation.
Extent of Problem Confrontation
The anticipated problem confrontation 9 in the adoption of the innovations
disseminated for each farmer was measured by using a four-point Likert scale. The
farmers were asked to indicate 7 problems (poor infrastructure, lack of knowledge
and skills, lack of marketing facilities, lack of extension contact, poor performanceof fingerlings, lack of local quality fish feed and a composite of others - stealing,etc) which, in their opinion, affect non-adoption of innovations disseminated and the
responses received were categorized as “no problem, low problem, medium problem
and high problem” with each receiving a score of 0, 1, 2, and 3 respectively. The
scores received for each of the problems was then added up to determine the problem
confrontation score of an individual respondent. The problem confrontation scoresof an individual could thus vary between zero and 21, zero indicating problem as noproblem for adoption and 21 indicating problem as high problem for adoption.
The extent of anticipated problem confrontation for adoption of the fish pond
innovations disseminated was measured by computing the farmers' total Problem
Confrontation Index (TPCI) as:
TPCI=(A1x3)+(A2x2)+(A3x1)+(A4x0)
Where, A1 = No. of farmers rating problem faced as high problem; A2 = No. of farmers
rating problem faced as medium problem; A3 = No. of farmers rating problem faced as
low problem; A4 = No. of farmers rating problem listed as no problem
The TPCI for each adopter category can vary between zero and 69, zero indicatingproblem as no problem and 69 indicating problem as high problem for the adoption of
an innovation.

９

Problem confrontation is aimed at isolating the problems which the farmer deemed important to beaddressed for the development of the fish farming industry.

MANUS and SINGAS: Determinants of Adoption of Pond Fish Farming Innovations in Papua New Guinea 27

Measurement of Independent Variables
The socioeconomic characteristics of the respondents such as age, education level,farming experience, family size, pond (farm) size, annual income and cosmopolitenesswere taken as the independent variables. Age was measured in years from birth,education was measured as the number of years of schooling, farming experience as
number of years in farming fish, family size was measured as the number of persons in
the family, pond size is measured in squared meters, annual income is income earned
by fish farming family and is valued in PNG Kina10, and cosmopoliteness is measured
as number of trips made outside of his village.
Data Analysis
The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, such as the mean, frequency
distribution, percentages, and standard deviation. These descriptive statistics wereused to describe the variables used in the study. Pearson Product Moment Correlation
Coefficient was used to determine the relationships between the dependent andindependent variables of the study. The descriptive and the correlation coefficientswere computed using the SPSS computer program.

Results and Discussions
Socioeconomic Characteristics of the Farmers
The results of the socio-economic characteristics of the fish farmers are presented
in Table 1.
Age: The majority of the farmers (96%) were found to be relatively young (young
and middle aged groups) and were observed to be the most active farmers. Given thatfish farming requires adequate attention and responsibilities, the middle aged group
was to be the most important group in the rural communities (OFUOKU et al. 2008),
also a finding of this study. The participation of the younger aged groups is importantin two respects; first is for the development of the pond fish farming industry in the
country and secondly, their involvement in the cash economy through fish farming was
expected to prevent them from moving to urban areas and causing social activities in
the rural villages.
Education: Majority of the farmers (69.6%) received formal schooling, althoughmost of them up to grade 8 (52.2%) while the remaining 30.4 percent were found tobe illiterate. It would appear that children in Salamaua have better access to primaryand secondary education, largely due to better access to government services including
primary and secondary schools. Education, according to DROST (1998) helps guideindividuals to process information with respect to their needs and problems and makes
better decision to overcome them in their own locality. Essentially, the high level of10

PNG Kina is the legal currency of Papua New Guinea and a PNG Kina : US $ 0.40

28South Pacific Studies Vol.35, No.1, 2014

Table 1. Socio-economic characteristics of the pond fish farmers.
Characteristics

Measurement

Age

Numbers of Years

Education Level

Number of Years
completed

Farming Experience

Number of Years

Family size

Number of family
members

Farm (pond) size

Hectares (ha)Gross Annual Income

In Unit scores

CosmopolitenessScoring

Categories
Young age (20-30)
Middle age (31-40)
Old age (Above 40)
Illiterate
Primary (1-8)
Secondary (9-12)
Tertiary (above 12)Less experience (1-3)
Medium experience (4-6)
High experience(above 6)
Small ( up to 4)
Medium (5-7)
Large (above 7)
Small ( up to 0.5)
Medium (0.6-1.0)
Large (above 1.0)
Low (< K5,000* = 1 unit)
Medium(K5,000-K10,000 = 2 units)
High(> K10,000 = 3 units)
Low (up to 3)
Medium (4-6)
High (above 6)

Number(N=23)
10
12
1
7
12
4
0
7
16
0
4
15
4
1
13
9
17
6
0
5
7
11

Percent
(%)
43.5
52.2
4.3
30.4
52.2
17.4
0
30.4
69.6
0
17.4
65.2
17.4
4.4
56.5
39.1
73.9
26.1
0
21.7
30.4
47.8

Mean

Standard
Deviation

30.09

7.23

3.70

3.43

4.39

1.23

6.04

2.38

1.59

1,24

2.12

1.35

2.09

0.79

* The current exchange rate of PNG Kina to USD is PNG Kina 1: US$ 0.40.

education attainment found in the study site helps farmers to pick up fish farming skills
by reading and communicating effectively with development officers.
Experience: A higher proportion (70%) of the farmers had a medium level of
exposure to fish farming. While this is true, all the farmers have years of experience
ranging from 1 to 6 years suggesting that they are still on the learning curve. The
innovations introduced are relatively new and as the farmers continue to learn and do
farming their level of experience will grow and skills for farming will sufficiently be
developed.
Family Size: About 82.5 percent of the pond fish farmers had small to medium
family sizes, implying that most of the fish farmers were young and active, an outcome
already noted. Given this result, the older age group tend to have a larger family size
implying that through the young members comes the necessary labor force needed toundertake fish farming activities. Pond fish farming is a labor intensive activity andfamily sizes are considered as an important parameter (NIYAKI and ALLAHYARI 2010), a
finding that prevails at Salamaua.
Farm Sizes: About 95.6 percent of the pond fish farmers owned medium to larger
farm sizes while the remaining 4 percent have small farms. A farmer, on average,
operates up 3 to 4 ponds. Farmers tend to increase farm size and thereby production
when they have accessed improved production information (OFUOKU et al. 2008). With
improved information, this can easily be done as the farmers at Salamaua have plentyof land.

MANUS and SINGAS: Determinants of Adoption of Pond Fish Farming Innovations in Papua New Guinea 29

Annual Income: All the fish farmers earned incomes less than K10,000, however,74 percent of them with incomes less than K 5,000. Although marketing of fish was
conducted at the local markets, most of the fish were produced by the lower income
categories as well as some from the medium to large categories appeared to be
consumed at home. Selling price for fresh fish at the local markets are normally low
when compared to fish prices at Lae Urban local markets. Economic factors (MALPANI
2011) such as the price of fish promotes adoption of sustainable agricultural practices.
There is thus, a greater need for marketing outlets for the farmers to sell their produce
to earn a higher level of income.
Cosmopoliteness: About 48 percent of the farmers' cosmopolite more frequently
while there is less frequent travel for 52 percent of the fish farmers. Nevertheless,almost all farmers left home to visit other places more than once and such movements
could help them acquire new ideas, skills and knowledge regarding fish farming
which could become the driving tools to improve fish farming practices in their farms.
Moreover, farmers with high contact outside of their social system could help adopt
innovations faster by observing other farmers (TALUKDAR and SONTAKI 2005).
Adoption of Innovations
The adoption of the pond fish farming innovations results are presented in Table 2.
The innovations introduced were such that when adopted together could help sustained
production and sale of fish. As shown in Table 2, the adoption patterns for the pond
fish farming innovations disseminated were similar except pond liming and fertilizing
Table 2. Distribution of Adoption of Pond Fish Farming Innovations.
Innovations Disseminated

Pond liming and fertilizing

Stock density

Fish sampling and sexing

Fish feed formulation

Categories

Number
Percent (%)(N=23)

Laggards (0)00Late Adopters (1)1

4.3

Early Adopters (28)

14

60.9

Innovators (18)

8

34.8

Laggards (0)

10

43.5

Late Adopters (5)

6

26.1

Early Adopters (12)

4

17.4

Innovators (9)

3

13.0

Laggards (0)

11

47.8

Late Adopters (5)

3

13.0

Early Adopters (8)

6

26.1

Innovators (3)

3

13.0

Laggards (0)

16

69.6

Late Adopters (4)

3

13.0

Early Adopters (18)1

4.3

Innovators (15)

3

13.0

Mean

Standard
Deviation

2.30

0.56

1.00

1.09

1.04

1.15

0.61

1.08

30

South Pacific Studies Vol.35, No.1, 2014

innovation which was adopted early when introduced.
Pond liming and fertilizing innovation was quickly adopted11 by 35 percent of the
farmers as innovators followed by 61 percent of the farmers as early adopters. Pondliming and fertilizing12 was quickly adopted as it was an important sources of feed forthe fingerlings to establish themselves as they are introduced to the pond.
For stock density, it was quickly adopted by 13 percent of the farmers (innovators)
when it was introduced followed by 17.4 percent of the farmers as early adopters and26 percent as later adopters. On sampling and sexing innovation, 13 percent of the
farmers (innovators) adopted the innovation as soon as it was introduced, followed
by 26 percent as early adopters and 13 percent as late adopters. For feed formulation,
the innovation was quickly adopted by 13 percent of the farmers (innovators) whenintroduced followed by 4 percent of farmers as early adopters and 13 percent as lateadopters.
An important feature that surfaces is that, although the time of adoption variedamong farmers, the pond liming and fertilizing innovation was adopted by all thesampled farmers (100%) while stock density, fish sampling and sexing and feed
formulation innovations were adopted by 56, 52 and 30 percent of the farmers for thoseinnovations respectively. These results are invariance with the results on the extent of
the adoption of these innovations presented in Table 3 with the adoption of pond liming
and fertilizing ranked number 1 followed by stock density, sampling and sexing andfeed formulation.
The last group of farmers is the laggards, who have waited until late when theinnovations have already gone past one after another after they were introduced(MAWUSI 2004). About 44, 48 and 70 percent of the farmers were found to be laggards
in the adoption of stock density, sampling and sexing and feed formulation innovations
respectively. These are a group of farmers who are poorly resourced. Thus, given thepoor provision of marketing and extension services, they decide to adopt what they
with what they have.
The stock density innovation involves cleaning the pond to create space forfish multiplication, growth and development. A part of the growth and development
Table 3. Extent of adoption of pond fish farming innovations (N=23).
No.

Types of Innovation

Innovators(3)

Earlier Adopters Late Adopters Laggards
(2)
(1)
(0)

TAI Rank

1

Pond liming and fertilizing

8

14

1

0

53

1

2

Stock density

3

6

3

11

24

2

3

Fish sampling and sexing

3

4

6

10

23

3

4

Feed formulation

3

1

3

16

14

4

11 This is an activity that needs to be done before the fingerlings are introduced to the ponds.
12 Chicken manure was commonly used for pond fertilizing. This was important for fingerlings early
growth and development. Chicken manure is cheaper to obtain from chicken grower in the area.

MANUS and SINGAS: Determinants of Adoption of Pond Fish Farming Innovations in Papua New Guinea 31

Table 4. Distribution of farmers according to their Anticipated Problem Confrontation in the Adoptionof Pond Fish Farming Innovations.
Categories

Number (N=23)

Percent

Low (up to 4)

1

4.4

Medium (5-9)

7

30.4

High (above 9)

15

65.2

Mean

Standard Deviation

2.28

0.68

process is to separate the fingerlings to different ponds according to their sizes. They
are the time consuming labor intensive activities. The fish feed formulation activity ispracticed only when feed ingredients are available. The development of feed requires
buying some ingredients which are not affordable and the development of the feed istime consuming and labor intensive as well. The other option is to buy commerciallyprepared feed but the farmers were not able to afford that as well.
The decision to either accept or reject an innovation depends on an individual
farmer who engaged in farming activities (MAWUSI 2004). The innovations in this study
were adopted at a very slow pace or practiced when needed to be done because farmers
had to make their choices on which innovations they wanted to practice in relation totheir fish farming situations, given the limited resources they have.
Problem Confronted by Farmers
The distribution of farmers according to their anticipated problem confrontation of
selected problem items in adopting fish farming innovations are given in Table 4. About
65 percent of the farmers rated problems faced as the high problem category followed
by 30 percent and 4 percent of the farmers in the medium and low problem categories
respectively. These outcomes provide the reasons for the slow or non-adoption of theinnovations disseminated but it is thus far less clear as to which anticipated problems
influenced such an adoption outcome.
As indicated in Table 5, of all the problems anticipated, poor infrastructure
was ranked as problem number one followed by lack of knowledge and skills, lackof marketing facilities, lack of extension services, poor performance of fingerlings,
lack of local quality fish feed, and other problem such as water, disaster, stealing,and such in the like. The seventh anticipated problem - other, is thus a composite
of all other problems not listed above. These problems provide the reasons for nonadoption or slow adoption of innovations disseminated. It must be noted that farmer
lack of knowledge and skill and poor performance fingerlings are problems can beaddressed by the farmers themselves while the remaining problems listed in Table 5
are beyond the control of the farmers and can be solved by external sources such as thegovernment and its agencies and extension service providers, among others.
Infrastructure constitutes roads, schools, health services, and even provision ofmarketing facilities. An infrastructure that opens the outside world and opens the door
for conducting business is the presences of a good road network. Salamaua is, one

32South Pacific Studies Vol.35, No.1, 2014

Table 5. Anticipated Problem Confrontation of Farmers in Adopting Fish Farming Innovations (N =23).
Extent of Problems
No.

Problems

High(3)

Medium(2)

1

Poor infrastructure

22

0

2

Lack of knowledge and skills

21

1

1

0

66

2

3

Lack of marketing facilities

19

4

0

0

65

3

Low No problem
(1)
(0)

PCI

Rank Order

1

67

1

0

4

Lack of extension contact

18

5

0

0

64

4

5

Poor performance of fingerlings

17

6

0

0

63

5

6

Lack of local quality fish feed

10

13

0

0

56

6

7

Others (water problem, disaster,stealing, etc)

0

10

11

2

31

7

area, not linked by road and the only way out to access government services and beconnected to Lae City, the administrative centre of Morobe Province is by sea transport.
Given the non existence of a road net work and the irregularity of sea transport do notadequately linking extension providers to farmers and marketing facilities to farmers.
Essentially, farmers find it difficult to conduct business due to poor infrastructure(ACIAR 2007, BRIS KANDA 2007). Apparently, the level of extension provided is low.
Lack of knowledge and skills is due to provision of low level of extension services andtogether with poor infrastructure; absence of market facilities and even lack of credit
facilities in addition to farmers with inadequate resources would make the adoptionof innovations disseminated difficult and the increased production of fish and income
earning capacity objectives of the farmers are not maximized.
Majority fish farmers (74%) with low income could not afford commercial feeds.
This requires the need for fish farmers to source local feed which must be seriously
addressed by service providers. Other problems such as stealing, water problems,and natural disasters do not occur frequently but when they do occur, they affect theoperations of the fish farmers, the sentiments which are also shared by ACIAR (2007)
and BRIS KANDA (2007). Furthermore, problems faced by farmers can also affect theutilization of information among the rural fish farmers (OFUOKU et al. 2008) and canmake adoption of innovation difficult.
When compared to available literature, innovations would be rejected when the
profitability relative to an existing practice is less (WETENGERE 2008, STANLEY et al.
2010), less resources endowment (OLADELE 2006, ADEOKUN et al. 2008, WETENGERE2008), inadequate provision of markets, inadequate provision of extension service,training and support (NWEKE 1981, NJANKOUAWANDJI et al. 2012) and lack of accessto credit (IKE and ROSELINE 2007). If, on the other hand, the relative profitability ishigh compared to the existing practice but farmers faced problems in adopting them as
introduced, the innovations are modified (WETENGERE 2008) to suit their situation. This
practice limits the full realization of the potential benefits from the innovations, a caseobserved to be practiced at Salamaua. Given the drawbacks, production of fish is done

MANUS and SINGAS: Determinants of Adoption of Pond Fish Farming Innovations in Papua New Guinea 33

for the subsistence needs of the farming families as first priority with the surplus sold in
the local markets. With the subsistence production outlook, the goal of involving youth
meaningfully in the cash economy through fish farming is unlikely to be achieved.
Relationships of the Extent of Adoption and Problem Confrontation with Selected
Socioeconomic Characteristics
The relationships between the selected socio-economic characteristics and theextent of adoption of innovations and extent of anticipated problems confrontationof the farmers are given in Table 6. The results indicate that these relationships were
statistically not significant except the relationship between adoption and annual income
and the relationship between problem confrontation and family size.
The relationships between extent of adoption and the socioeconomic variables
fitted were all positive except age, family size, and pond size which were negative. The
positive relationships suggest that the adoption of innovations increased with educationlevel, farming experience, annual income and cosmopoliteness.
On the other hand, adoption of innovations decreases with age, family sizeand farm size. The negative relation between adoption and age is expected sinceolder people will not endure physically demanding farming activities. The negative
relationship between adoption and family size suggests that adoption increases withdecreases in family size. This relationship was expected since 83 percent of farmers
were young (young and medium categories) with young families. Moreover, theinverse relationship between adoption and pond size suggests pond sizes increased
with a decrease in adoption. This relationship was although not expected; farmers dohave larger farm sizes constructed to farm fish before the innovations were actually
introduced.
The relationships between anticipated problem confrontation and the selectedsocioeconomic characteristics were all positive except annual income. The inverse
relationship between annual income and problem confrontation was expected giventhat the majority of the famers indicated problems faced as high problems affecting fish
farming. Problem confrontation increased with family size suggesting that most of theTable 6. Correlation between independent and dependent variables (N=23).
No.

Independent Variables

Extent of Adoption

Problem Confrontation1

Age－0.003

0.096

2

Education Level

0.270

0.183

3

Farming Experience

0.213

0.258

4

Family size

－0.1510.408*

5

Farm (pond) size

－0.0630.208

6Annual Income

0.663*－0.001

7

Cosmopoliteness

0.297

0.010

* Significant at 10 percent level of probability.

34

South Pacific Studies Vol.35, No.1, 2014

problems identified were beyond the farmers control to find solutions to it.

Summary and Conclusions
Four pond fish farming innovations disseminated, as a package, were aimed at
improving production and income of farmers. Of the four innovations, the liming andfertilizing innovation was quickly adopted. About 96 percent of the farmers indicatedproblems faced as medium to high problems and ranked poor infrastructure as thenumber 1 problem followed by lack of knowledge and skills, lack of market facilities
and lack of extension service provision. Consequently, the slow or non-adoption of theinnovations were caused by the problems farmers encountered. Most of the solution
to these problems need to be addressed by the government, it agencies and service
providers. Annual income was found to be the most important socioeconomic attributethat positively influenced adoption of innovations while family size also positively
influenced anticipated problem confrontation in the dissemination of innovations. The
intent of the dissemination of the innovations was to increase production and incomeof farmers. These objectives were not achievable due to inadequate support provided
through training and extension and lack of marketing facilities and the general poor
provision of infrastructure in the study area. Given this state of outlook, the longterm strategy of engaging the young in fish farming to reduce urban drift and social
problems in the rural societies do not seem promising unless immediate steps aretaken to address the problems encountered. In the short term, a sustained approachto providing extension services, farmer trainings and marketing support for fish sales
seem necessary.

Acknowledgements
The researchers wish to thank the two anonymous referees for the criticalcomments provided. Their input has provided the basis to improve the paper and theircontributions are sincerely acknowledged.

References
ADEOKUN, O. A., AJANA, A. M., AYINLA, O. A., YARHERE, M. T. and ADEOGUN, M.
O. 2008. Application of Logit Model in Adoption Decision: A Study of Hybrid
Clarias Lagos State, Nigeria. American-Eurasian Journal of Agricultural andEnvironmental Sciences, 4: 468-472.
ACIAR 2007. Aquaculture in PNG: Status of Fresh Water Fish Farming. Australian
Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra.

MANUS and SINGAS: Determinants of Adoption of Pond Fish Farming Innovations in Papua New Guinea 35

BRIS KANDA 2007. Market Linkages and Business Analysis - Huon Gulf District,
Morobe Province, Papua New Guinea.
C HI , T. T. N. and Y AMADA , R. 2002. Factors Affecting Farmers' Adoption ofTechnologies in Farming System: A Case Study in Omon District, Can Tho
Province, Mekong Delta. Omonrice, 10: 94-100.
DROST, D. and HALES, L. K. 1998. Targeting Extension Efforts for the Adoption of
Sustainable Farming Practices. Journal of Extension, 36(5).
EKONG, E. E. 2002. An Introduction to Rural Sociology. Jumak Publisher, Nigeria.
FAO 1994. Handbook on Small-scale Freshwater Fish Farming. FAO, Rome.
FAO 2006. The State of Food Security. FAO, Rome.
FAO 2010. Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics. FAO Year Book, Rome.
FAO 2012. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. FAO, Rome.
IKE, N. and ROSELINE, O. 2007. Adoption of Aquaculture Technology by Fish Farmers
in Imo State of Nigeria. Journal of Technology Studies, 33:57-64.
JONES, D. 1987. World Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology Abstract, 9:917.
MALPANI, N. 2011. Agricultural Innovation in Rural India: The Paradox of Farmers
Non-adoption in Bajwada Pradesh. Universal-Publishers, Florida.
MAWUSI, B. 2004. Farmers' Knowledge and Perception towards a Sustainable Adoptionof Sugar Beet in Kenya. Lund University, Sweden.
MILLER, J. 2009. Farm Ponds for Water, Fish and Livelihoods. FAO, Rome.
NIYAKI, A. and ALLAHYARI, A. 2010. Socio-Personal Characteristics on The Adoptionof Rice Fish Culture System in Northern Iran. African Journal of Research, 5:3470-3476.
NJANKOUAWANDJI, D., POUOMOGNE, V., NYEMECK BINAM, J. and YOSSA NOUAGA, R.
2012. Adoption of New Aquaculture Technologies in the Western Highlands of
Cameroon. Tropicacultura, 30: 180-184.
NWEKE, F. I. 1981. Determinants of Agriculture Progressiveness in the Smallholder
Cropping System of South Eastern Nigeria and Consequences for Research andExtension Administration. Agricultural Administration, 8: 163-176.
OFUOKU, A. U., EMAH, G. N. and ETEDJERE, B. T. 2008. Information Utilization Among
Rural Fish Farmers in Central Agricultural Zone of Delta State, Nigeria. World
Journal of Agricultural Science, 4: 558-564.
OLADELE, O. I. 2006. A Tobit Analysis of Propensity to Discontinue Adoption ofAgricultural Technology among Farmers in Southwestern Nigeria. Journal ofCentral European Agriculture, 6: 249-254.
ROGERS, E. M. 1995. Diffusion of Innovations, 4th edition. Free Press, New York.
S TANLEY , J., Clouston, B. and Baker, R. 2010. Understanding Land Manager
Constraints to the Adoption of Changed Practices or Technological Innovations.
Advanced Journal of Food Science and Technology, 2: 55-62.
TALUKDAR, P. K. and SONTAKI, B. S. 2005. Correlates of Adoption of Composite Fish
Culture Practices by Fish Farmers of Assam, India. The Journal of Agricultural
Sciences, 1: 12-18.

36South Pacific Studies Vol.35, No.1, 2014

WANI, J.A. 2004. The Status of Aquaculture Development in Papua New Guinea: An
Information Paper. National Fisheries Authority. Port Moresby.
WETENGERE, K. 2008. Determinants of Adoption of A Recommended Package of Fish
Farming Technology: The Case of Selected Villages in Eastern Tanzania, Maxwell
Scientific Organization, Tanzania.
WETENGERE, K. 2010. Determinants of Adoption of A Recommended Package ofFish Farming Technology: The Case of Selected Villages in Eastern Tanzania.
Advanced Journal of Food Science and Technology, 2: 55-62.