Innovation in small-scale aquaculture in Chile

Salazar, César; Jaime, Marcela; Figueroa, Yanina; Fuentes, Rodrígo

doi:10.1080/13657305.2017.1409293

Cited by 19 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Chilean aquaculture producers who had greater access to internet had greater participation in organization and were willing to undertake more innovations on farms. The study by Salazar et al () also found that Internet access promotes the extent and intensity of adoption of innovation on farms. However, the ubiquitous nature of information about technology on the Internet and social media makes it all the more important that farmers receive the right mix of reliable, consistent, and accurate information about a particular technology in its proper format, time, and quantity (Joffre et al ).…”

Section: Methods Of Information Transfermentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Effective national‐ and regional‐level training of coastal Indian farmers was instrumental in the improvement of aquaculture practices such as pearl oyster farming, mud crab, and green mussel farming (Subramnannian ). Training was also found to significantly influence the degree of innovativeness among small‐scale aquaculture firms in Chile (Salazar et al ). Regional aquaculture development agencies in several countries are increasingly using communication and information technologies to reduce the learning and information gap (El‐Gayar ; Bostock et al ).…”

Section: Methods Of Information Transfermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bosma et al () showed that educational levels of farmers were an important determinant in the adoption of integrated rice‐fish culture in Vietnam. Similarly, technology usage among small‐scale aquaculture firms in Chile was found to be positively linked with their level of education (Salazar et al ). In general, the availability of human capital is found to reduce the complexity associated with aquaculture farming practices and fuel the adoption of better management systems.…”

Section: Sociodemographic and Institutional Factorsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Similarly, probability of adoption of alternate catfish production technologies such as split ponds and intensive aeration were found to be greater among larger catfish farms (Kumar ). Salazar et al () showed that larger Chilean aquaculture firms tend to innovate in more areas of production as opposed to smaller firms.…”

Section: Farm Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Factors Driving Aquaculture Technology Adoption

Kumar

Engle²,

Tucker

2018

J World Aquaculture Soc

164

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Technology adoption has played a key role in the global development and increase in agricultural productivity. However, the decision to adopt a new technology on farms is complex. While the factors that drive the adoption of new technologies have been well studied in agriculture, less attention has been paid to drivers of technology adoption in aquaculture. Aquacultural technologies have developed and advanced rapidly in recent decades, but not all technologies have been adopted readily by farmers. This review paper summarizes some of the critical factors that influence aquaculture technology adoption decisions such as: (1) method of information transfer, (2) characteristics of the technology, (3) farm characteristics, (4) economic factors, and (5) sociodemographic and institutional factors. Fish farmers have tended to adopt technologies that are perceived to be more advantageous than others in terms of productivity, cost efficiency, and ease of management. Price of aquaculture products and profit expectations from business ventures were key economic factors influencing adoption decisions. Given the wide array of species, production practices, and global nature of aquaculture, the intensity and the extent of adoption of technologies depend on the nature of the industry in which they are adopted and their economic, social, political, and regulatory environments.

show abstract

Section: Methods Of Information Transfermentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Methods Of Information Transfermentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Sociodemographic and Institutional Factorsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Farm Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Factors Driving Aquaculture Technology Adoption

Kumar

Engle²,

Tucker

2018

J World Aquaculture Soc

164

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The perceived contribution of tilapia aquaculture to social and human assets found here are essential for adaptation of this innovation into the communities, long-term sustainability of the activity, and for promoting the innovation and ensuring farmers can tangibly benefit from SSA [66,69]. This is because, too often the expectation is that such new livelihood activities-externally motivated and introduced into rural communities as alternative livelihoods-must have an immediate impact on rural livelihoods.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Limits of Tilapia Aquaculture for Rural Livelihoods in Solomon Islands

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increasing pressure on coastal fisheries poses serious threats to local livelihoods and the food security of Pacific Islanders. In response, governments and development agencies have explored tilapia pond aquaculture as an alternative fish production source. Yet, evidence to date on the impact of tilapia aquaculture on rural livelihoods has been inconclusive. Drawing on the sustainable livelihood framework, we analysed the contribution of Mozambique tilapia (Oreochromis mossambicus) aquaculture to the livelihood assets and outcomes of 40 rural farmers in Solomon Islands. First, results showed that 53% of tilapia farmers were satisfied with tilapia aquaculture’s contribution to their human and social assets, while only 28% and 13% were satisfied with its contribution to their physical and financial assets, respectively. Tilapia aquaculture’s contribution to farmers’ natural assets was also limited. Second, and most importantly, there was an insignificant contribution of tilapia aquaculture to food and income security. Our results demonstrate that tilapia farmers rarely consumed tilapia, with only two of the 40 households having consumed tilapia in the seven days prior the interview. Moreover, only eight tilapia farmers sold their tilapia, which contributed 0.002–0.5% of their total weekly revenue. We argue the limited contribution of tilapia aquaculture to food and income stems from the low productivity of the available tilapia species and the low local demand for tilapia at rural markets. Given the current context of declining coastal fisheries and food insecurity concerns in rural Pacific Islands, it is unlikely that the current form of Mozambique tilapia aquaculture will be able to achieve its objective of addressing food and income security as a complement to coastal fisheries.

show abstract