Designing farmer-centered extension programmes for low-carbon agriculture: evidence from a discrete choice experiment in China

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

🔬研究者:Provides empirical evidence on farmer preferences for LCAT extension design, useful for agricultural technology adoption research.

🏢実務担当者:Offers actionable insights for designing extension programs that align with farmer preferences, improving adoption rates.

🏛政策担当者:Highlights the importance of delivery format and institutional credibility in designing effective LCAT extension policies.

Low-carbon agricultural technologies (LCAT) are central to climate mitigation, yet their adoption remains low, including in emerging economies. While prior research has focused mainly on technology attributes and broad adoption barriers, less attention has been paid to how the design and delivery of organized LCAT extension programmes shape farmers’ willingness to engage. This study uses a discrete choice experiment to examine Chinese farmers’ preferences for organized LCAT extension programmes and focuses on four key attributes: organizing bodies, delivery agents, delivery formats, and participation costs. The findings show that the delivery format emerges as the most influential attribute, suggesting that policy-makers should prioritize it in programme design. Farmers place higher value on programmes organized by local agricultural bureaus and agricultural research institutions than on those organized by agricultural input suppliers, and they evaluate local extension personnel less favourably than the other delivery-agent categories. Participation cost remains an important constraint, and preferences vary systematically across farmer groups. In particular, older farmers, those operating larger farms, those in good health, and those with favourable attitudes towards agricultural technology exhibit greater willingness to participate. Welfare simulations further suggest that extension programmes combining public or research-based organization, formal technical delivery, and on-site field guidance generate the largest gains in farmer welfare. By quantifying farmers’ preferences for specific institutional and delivery configurations, our paper provides evidence for designing LCAT extension strategies that better reflect farmer priorities and for determining how programme components should be prioritized, sequenced, and supported under real-world budget and implementation constraints. In LCAT extension, delivery format may matter more than organizer type or delivery agent and should therefore be prioritized under budget constraints.Interactive, field-based LCAT extension methods (demonstration plots and on-site guidance) should be prioritized over online-course delivery.Extension programmes organized by government agencies and research institutions are preferred over those organized by agricultural input suppliers, highlighting institutional credibility in LCAT extension.Participation likelihood varies by age, farm scale, health status, and attitudes towards agricultural technology, suggesting the need for more targeted LCAT extension strategies. In LCAT extension, delivery format may matter more than organizer type or delivery agent and should therefore be prioritized under budget constraints. Interactive, field-based LCAT extension methods (demonstration plots and on-site guidance) should be prioritized over online-course delivery. Extension programmes organized by government agencies and research institutions are preferred over those organized by agricultural input suppliers, highlighting institutional credibility in LCAT extension. Participation likelihood varies by age, farm scale, health status, and attitudes towards agricultural technology, suggesting the need for more targeted LCAT extension strategies.

• openalex https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.33204022first seen 2026-08-13 05:05:51 · last seen 2026-08-13 05:05:59