It is not a measure of "acceptance," which would imply
adoption or impact. However, a high Ia can be used to
predict a high rate of adoption.
 Results of a directed survey to evaluate active
acceptability can provide additional information. For
example, consider the following possibilities:

 C A Ia

 Case I 90 10 9

 Case II 10 90 9

In Case I, farmers were generally interested in the
alternative (90% continued using it) but they were not
completely convinced and continued experimenting with it
(they used it on only 10% of their crop). In this case,
it would be worthwhile for the researchers to continue
working with the farmers for another year on the same
alternative and to make follow-up evaluations the second
year. In Case II, 90% of the farmers rejected the
alternative, so it cannot be considered "acceptable" as it
is. However, there is a subgroup who considered the
alternative very acceptable because they planted most of
their crop with the new technology. Therefore, the
researchers should define the characteristics that
differentiated these farmers from those who rejected the
technology and consider partitioning their recommendation
domain with respect to this alternative.
 A second use of the survey the year after the FMT is
to ascertain why farmers accepted or rejected the
alternative or alternatives. This information can be used
to help guide the development of other alternatives and
usually provides additional insight into problems and
concerns of target farmers. In the case of a rejected
alternative that shows great potential to increase the
productivity of a farming system, a further analysis of
why it is not acceptable will guide researchers both on-
and off-station in how to improve it to meet the farmers'
demands. This may be the case of a maize variety for which
the ear is not completely covered, causing a high
incidence of ear rot. The course of action here would be
a breeding project to remove that defect.