FACTORS
INFLUENCING FARMER’S ADOPTION AND CONTINUATION OR DISCONTINUATION OF IMPROVED
AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGIES
Department of Agricultural Economics
IAAS, TU
Kirtipur, Kathmandu
TABLES
OF CONTENTS
1. Acknowledgements--I
2. Summary
__II
3. Introduction
or Background of the Study __III
4. Objectives
__IV
5. Literature
Review __V
6. Methodology
___VI
7. Results
and Discussion __VII
8. Conclusion
and Recommendations __VIII
9. References
__IX
ABSTRACT:
This paper
presents the review of literatures on agricultural technology adoption, specifically
the factors that have the most significant association with technology
adoption, continuance and discontinuance. The information were collected from
the secondary data available and analyzed.
The
farmers’ decision of adoption of technology was strongly influenced by age, gender
and literacy of house hold head as the houses with educated, younger,
male household head were more reluctant to practice new technologies in
agriculture than older people or female household head.
The
off farm asset, household wealth index, family size,
number of contacts with an extension agent, participation in
extension-education activities, membership in social institutions and the presence
of farm workers were the most important socio-economic factors influencing the
adoption of technology. While
continuous use of the technology was influenced by the literacy of the
household head, visits by extension agents, farmers’ experience, household land
size, membership of farmers groups/cooperatives and off-farm work.
Similarly,
the factors affecting the disadoption of technology were increase in price of
inputs, lack of credit, lack of extension visits and lack of timely
availability of inputs and distance from market. The farmers reported to be
discontinuing technology were illiterate and most of them from female
household. From the review it is found that extension service, household
literacy and availability of credit and inputs and involvement in cooperatives
have the biggest impact on technology adoption.
Key words: Technology,
Adoption, Continuation, Discontinuation
III.
INTRODUCTION
OR BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY:
Agriculture plays a
crucial role in
the economy of
developing countries, and provides the main source of food and income to their
rural populations. Agriculture provides employment opportunities to 66 percent of
population and contributes 33 percent share in the GDP of Nepal (MOAD,
2017). Nevertheless, Nepal is struggling to produce an adequate supply of
food for its citizens and the
reason behind this is the dominance of small and marginal farm holders
following traditional and indigenous farming technology which is regarded as
low yielding technology. However,
there is potential for increasing agricultural productivity as exemplified by
the large gap in yield between those of research stations and farmers’ fields (Paudel and Matsuoka 2009). The adoption of new
technologies, such as fertilizer, improved seed, etc. is central to
agricultural growth and increasing productivity.
Improved agricultural technologies help to boost the performances of the
agricultural sector and hence enhance the overall growth of developing
countries (Kassie et al. 2011). National
Seed Vision (2013-2025) of Nepal states that improved seed can contribute 20-30
percent increment in crop yield. The adoption of high yielding crop
varieties by farmers in developing countries has been viewed as the solution to
lower incomes in agriculture over the years. Improved seeds and inorganic
fertilizers can improve crops’ productivity resulting higher quantities of
crops production both for self-consumption and for increased household income
(Kassie et al. 2011). Agricultural technologies increase food availability by
boosting crop productivity, increasing the supply of food per unit of
agricultural land (Feder et al. 1985).
Although
adoption of new technology is an effective way to increase agriculture
production and productivity it is relatively complicate process. Development of a new technology
occurs at a particular point in time, while the awareness and use of the
technology takes place over a long period of time. The impact or intended purpose of a new technology i.e.
productivity growth, can only be felt after adoption and use by the target end
users. However, the magnitude of the impact is determined by the rate of
adoption, following the diffusion and learning about the technology or
innovation over time. Upon introduction of a new technology, it can either be
adopted if found to be beneficial and profitable relative to existing
alternatives or rejected if found unprofitable. In the agricultural sector,
widening of adoption of new technology by all farmers is rare due to the
various deterrents to adoption imposed by various economic, social, physical,
and technical factors. In all the cases a technology is not continued adoption
in some cases the technology are discontinued. The purpose of this study is to
analyze the factors influencing farmer’s adoption and continuation or
discontinuation of improved agricultural technologies in Nepal.
IV.
OBJECTIVES:
Broad objective:
- The main objective of this
study is to perform a systematic literature review about the factors
influencing adoption of agriculture technologies found in Nepal and other
countries.
Specific objectives:
- To characterize the main
technologies used by farmers and factors of major influence in the
adoption of those improved technologies
- Analyze the influence of
socioeconomic factors, sources of information, farmer perception and
technological factors in the adoption of new technology
- To determine factors influencing
in continuation and discontinuation of agriculture technology.
V.
LITERATURE REVIEW:
Definition and imp of adoption:
Adoption
of innovations refers to the decision to apply an innovation and to continue to
use it (Roger and shoemaker, 1971). An
adopter is a farmer who has adopted a component or more of a technology and
continued using it, whereas non-adopters are those who have never tried a
technology (Doss, 2006). Adoption of new farming technologies is one effective
way to increase agricultural productivity (Minten and Barrett, 2008). A study
conducted in Mexico showed that adoption of improved maize varieties improves
household welfare (Becerril and Abdulai, 2010). Similarly, in sub-Saharan
Africa, adoption of improved maize was indicated to have positive outcomes
(Alene et al., 2009). Cavatassi et al. (2011) found that agriculture technology
permits a reduction in the probability of crop failures and increase grain
quality, safeguarding farm income for household food consumption and nutrition.
Emiliano Magrini & Mauro Vigani, (2016) found out that use of improved
maize varieties and inorganic fertilizers in Tanzania enhanced food
availability by increasing maize productivity, which in turn allowed for
greater maize production available for local household consumption.
Adoption factors:
There are several factors influencing the rate of
adoption, continuation or discontinuation of new technologies in agriculture
sector.
Rao and Rao (1996) found a positive and significant association between age,
farming experience, and training received, socioeconomic status, cropping
intensity, aspiration, economic motivation, innovativeness, information source
utilization, information source, agent credibility and adoption. There are
several examples from the adoption literature (e.g., Becerril and Abdulai 2010;
Just and Zilberman 1988; Koundourietal.2006; Uaiene et al, 2009) reveal that
adoption decisions are based on risk, uncertainty, input rationing, information
imperfections, human capital and social networks. The resource-poor farmers are
often reluctant to invest in any untried technology because of their limited
resources (cash, labor, time). As economic theory would predict, relatively
wealthier (or more resource-endowed) households are better able to cope with
production and price risks and consequently are more willing to adopt new
technologies than their poorer (or less resource-endowed) counterparts (Bola et
al. 2012; Hardaker et al. 2004; Langyintuo and Mungoma 2008). Feder et al.
(1985) found that farm size, risk and uncertainty, human capital, labor
availability, credit constraints and tenure security were the most important
factors determining adoption decisions. Yet some of the concerns raised by
Feder et al. (1985), mercer (2004) and Doss (2006) on the need to study the
dynamic patterns of adoption remain unanswered. The few recent studies that
have properly tracked the dynamics of adoption yield important new insights on
learning process, farmer experimentation with new technologies, the impact of
changing profitability, social conformity effects, etc( Foster and Rosenzweig,
1995; Cameron 1999; Conley and Udrey, 2001; Moser and Barrett, 2003, 2006).
Moreover, some of
the factors that influence the continued use of technology are linked to the
experience in using it; the more the farmers know a technology, the more they
keep using it. These phenomena generate modeling problems related to
self-selection and endogeneity (Doss, 2006).
Human capital
endowments, usually captured by family size and composition and education are
the main factors influencing the technology adoption and continued use
decisions of households.
Family size and
composition influence such decisions from both labor supply and consumption
demand sides. Availability of labor within the household, as measured in number
of adult household members, is taken into account.
Disadoption
factor:
Technology
adoption is complicated process the households may adopt a technology and will
keep on using it. However, apparently the farmers may try a technology and
decide not to continue using it also. Rogers (2003) reported two types of
reasons for discontinuing a technology use on the part of farmers; that is,
replacement discontinuance, where farmers discontinue using the existing
technology in order to adopt a superior one, and disenchantment discontinuance,
where a decision to discontinue a technology, with or without replacement, is
due to dissatisfaction with its performance. There are several reasons behind
farmers’ discontinuation of the technology.
Lack of credit and
low household income is the reason behind the adoption of both improved maize
seeds and inorganic fertilizers in Tanzania. It shows that adopters have a
higher level of welfare compared to non-adopters. Both technologies enhanced
food availability by increasing maize productivity, which in turn allowed for
greater maize production available for local household consumption. Similarly,
adopters of improved maize seeds show lower vulnerability to poverty,
suggesting that benefits of adoption can last over time and are not confined to
a single harvest cycle. On the other hand, inorganic fertilizers have a
stronger effect on household resilience, accelerating replenishment of food
stocks. The human capital assets (education, skills, and training) of the
household head affect the profitability of modern technology, as they reflect
unobservable productive characteristics of the decision maker, such as farming
skills and entrepreneurship (Carletto et al., 1999).Education increases the
ability of farmers to obtain, process, and use information relevant to the
technology leading to greater use of new technologies (Wozniak, 1997). However,
the literature on the relationship between education and adoption is not
definitive, for example Weir and Knight (2000) show that education is
associated more with timing of adoption rather than with adoption itself.
VI.
METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY:
The study is based on the secondary
information collected from the different sources like published journal
articles, books, dissertations and working papers on factors affecting
technology adoption in agriculture in Nepal and other countries. Web pages were
visited and the relevant information were collected. Author's experience in
technology adoption in agriculture is also internalized in the paper. Finally,
information collected from different sources were analyzed and presented.
VII.
RESULT AND DISCUSSION:
Factors related to
adoption and Continuation of Technology:
The farmers’ decision of adoption of technology is strongly influenced by
human capital, asset endowment, institutional and policy variables (Motuma Ture
et al, 2010). While continuous use of the seed is influenced by the proportion
of farmland allocated to maize, literacy of the household head, involvement in
off-farm work, visits by extension agents, farmers’ experience, household land
size, and fertilizer usage. Ghimire & Huang, (2015) found the positive
influence between household wealth index and adoption and intensity of adoption
of improved maize varieties. The factors most strongly related to adoption were
farmers’ ages, with older
farmers being less likely to adopt, possibly because of risk aversion.
Education and extension services positively influenced adoption among poorly
endowed households, implying that increased awareness and information reduced
risk aversion and motivated farmers to adopt new technology. It was similarly
reported in Ethiopia that education influences timing of adoption but not
whether to adopt an agricultural innovation (Weir and Knight, 2000).
Similarly,
membership of farmers groups/cooperatives and off-farm
work positively influenced adoption among the subsample of well-endowed
households. The distance to market showed a negative impact on adoption and
intensity of adoption, the implication is that high production and transaction
costs make farmers less competitive in product markets.
Similarly, Ransom
et al, (2003) found significant and positive relation between adoptions of
improved varieties with khet land area, ethnic group, years of fertilizer use,
off-farm income, and contact with extension. Access to extension has been
widely reported to positively influence adoption and continued use of
agricultural technologies (Feder and Umali, 1993; Knowledge and Bradshaw,
2007). Ghimire, Wen-chi and Shrestha, 2015) revealed that education, extension
services and seed access play significant roles in adoption decisions of rice
varieties among rural households. Additionally, farm and field characteristic
variables such as farm size, endowment of favorable land type (e.g. lowlands),
and animal power (e.g. oxen) are the key factors influencing the probability of
adoption. Similarly, (Marc Jim Mariano et al., 2012) found that the adoption of
certified seed technology and integrated crop management practices in rice were
influenced by farmers’ education, machinery ownership, irrigation water supply,
capacity-enhancement activities, extension service and profit-oriented
behavior. Extension services seem to have the biggest impact on technology
adoption. This is supported by Adeogun
et al, (2008) found that the
main source of technology is through extension personnel and also implied that
an inverse relationship exist between the farm size and adoption. Farmer’s age
and education, market distance from field and availability of information about
input and product as well price were found to be contributing in adoption of
technology negatively and positively. (Paswel P. Marenya and Christopher B.
Barrett, 2006) found that the size of the farm owned by a household, the value
of its livestock, off-farm income, family labor supply, and the educational
attainment and gender of the household head all had a significant positive
effect on the likelihood of adoption of technology. Seyyed ali
noorhosseini-niyaki1 and mohammad sadegh allahyari, (2012) found that family
size, number of contacts with an extension agent, participation in
extension-education activities, membership in social institutions and the
presence of farm workers were the most important socio-economic factors for the
adoption of rice-fish farming system.
Factors related to discontinuation of technology:
The important
factor affecting discontinuation of technology is the time to time increase in
price of inputs like improved seed varieties and fertilizers which are
unaffordable to poor farmers.(Motuma Tura et al) identified that high price of
seed and fertilizer as reasons for discontinuance of improved maize varieties
mainly due to lack of financial resources. Since prices of seed and fertilizer
are the major components of cost of production, a rise in input cost may render
farm activities unprofitable; this is in line with the disenchantment theory of
disadoption (Rogers, 2003). Oladele and Kareem [29] reported that 60% of arable
farmers in Oyo state, Nigeria had stopped using fertilizer due to the
unavailability, and the untimely and high cost of the input.
Another major
factor that farmers mentioned as a constraint to adoption of technology was
lack of credit. Partly because of defaulting problems, farmers have found it
increasingly difficult to get credit from official sources. Tenkir et al.
(2004) indicated that about 40% of farmers who tried new inputs discontinued
using them in Ethiopia. (NEGASAl, 1997; Degu, 2000; Feleke, 2006) showed that
extension service, access to credit and market, respectively are the main
factors influencing the adoption of improved maize seed in Ethiopia. Feleke
(2006) also emphasized that access to credit is a powerful policy option in
raising the probability of the adoption of improved maize seeds. The households
that have adopted improved maize seeds were better off in terms of livestock
wealth and average land holding as compared to non-adopters. Kolawole et al.
(2003) report on Nigerian farmers who abandoned a technology due to natural
hazards and emerging economic constraints. Access to credit, by helping farmers
to finance the acquisition of improved seed and fertilizer could enhance
adoption and continued use of an agricultural technology.
Montuma et al.,
found that among those who
discontinue the technology have more female family members as improved
varieties traditionally required more male agricultural labor tasks and are
located farther from the development agents and town markets.
Among the
discontinuers more than half of those who discontinue were illiterate, most of
them have never hired farm labor, and a third of them were not members of
cooperatives.
Neill and Lee
(2001) reported farmers in Honduras relayed a legume species after planting
maize but the practice was being abandoned at the rate of 10% per year by
previous adopters because of the emergence of another weed species that
increased labor requirements and reduced maize yields. Oladele, (2005) found that the lack of extension visits and lack
of availability of inputs to farmers who have adopted the improved varieties of
maize would lead to discontinuance. Igodan, et al [13] reported that farmers
who are more exposed to formal extension information have a high propensity
towards adoption than those with less exposure. The extension visits will help
to reinforce the message and enhance the accuracy of implementation of the
technology packages.
Inadequate infrastructure;
that is, roads and lack of seed, is another external factor affecting
technology adoption and continued use. Households living near major towns have
good access to both physical infrastructure and seed supplies, and can purchase
seed from the market, hence are expected to continue using adopted
technologies. So, the issue of input and market availability should not be
allowed to impact negatively on the adoption behaviour of the farmer.
VIII.
CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATION:
In developing countries
widespread adoption of improved agricultural technologies is one way to
eradicate poverty and to ensure food security. However, adoption of new
technologies is not sufficient to meet this national need. In addition it must
be ensured that farmers use the technology in a sustainable manner. This paper
provides insights into the key factors associated with the adoption and
continuous use of improved technologies and the results reveal that the age of
household influences adoption of technology as younger people were more
reluctant to practice new technologies in agriculture. Similarly, educational
level was also main factor affecting technology adoption. Households head
having formal education had tendency to take risk and could process information
more rapidly than others. The farmers having regular contact with extension
personnel adopted improved technologies and continued it than people away from
extension services. The major factor affecting adoption was distance from
market and availability of inputs, there exists inverse relation between market
distance and adoption of
The adoption and
continued of technology can be achieved by promoting extension visits that
would help to reinforce the message and improve the accuracy of implementation
technological packages. Similarly timely supply of inputs would lead to decrease
discontinuity of adoption of technology. Given the significant role played by
extension and access related variables, increased emphasis on information dissemination,
field demonstration, and farmers’ participatory research and training programs
to popularize new technologies and enhance their adoption rate are required.
IX.
REFERENCES:
Abdelmagid, S.A
& Hassan, F.K. (1996) “Factors affecting the adoption of wheat production
technology in Sudan”. Quarterly Journal
of International Agriculture 35 (4): 325-337.
Abdul, R.Q,
Ashfaq, H.M & Sultan, A.C (1993): Farmers characteristics affecting
adoption of agricultural innovations.
Journal of Rural Development and Administration. Vol. xxv, (3): 111 –
113.
Adeogun O A, Ajana
A M, Ayinla O A, Yarhere M T, Adeogun M O. 2008. Application of logit model in
adoption decision: A study of hybrid clarias Lagos state, Nigeria. Am Eur J
Agric
Adesina,
A. A., & Zinnah, M. M. (1993). Technology characteristics, farmers'
perceptions and adoption decisions: A Tobit model application in Sierra Leone. Agricultural
Economics, 9(4), 297-311
Adesina, A.A &
Baidu-Forson J (1995) Farmers perceptions and adoption of new agricultural
technology: evidence from analysis in Burkina Faso and Guinea, West Africa
Agricultural Economics 13(1995) 19
Agbamu, J.U (1993)
“Analysis of farmers’ Characteristics associated with adoption of soil
management innovations in Ikorodu Local Government Area of Lagos State. Nigeria
Journal of Rural Extension and Development 1 (2&3): 57-67.
Alene AD, Menkir A, Ajala SO, Badu-Apraku
AS, Olanrewaju V, Manyong M, Ndiaye A
(2009). The economic and poverty impacts of maize research in West and Central
Africa. Agric. Econ., 40: 535-550.
Alexander Corinne,
Jorge Fernandez-Cornejo & Rachael E. Goodhue (2002) Determinants of GMO
Use: A survey of Iowa Corn- soybean Farmers’ Acreage Allocation. In V
Santaniello, R.E Evenson and D Zilberman, eds Market Development for
genetically Modified Foods. Trowbridge, UK: CABI Publishing, 2002.
Arene, C.J (1994)
Discriminant analysis of small holder farmer adoption potential and the
prediction of extension cost in Nigeria: a comparative enterprise perspective
Journal of Extension System 10 (1): 46–58.
Ashby,
J. A. (1982). Technology and ecology: Implications for innovation research in
peasant agriculture. Rural Sociology, 47(2), 234.
Babel,
M. S., Gupta, A. D., & Pradhan, P. (2007). A multivariate econometric
approach for domestic water demand modeling: An application to Kathmandu,
Nepal. Water Resources Management, 21(3), 573-589. doi:
10.1007/s11269-006-9030-6
Barrett, C.B.,
Marenya, P.P., McPeak, J., Minten, B., Murithi, F., Oluoch-Kosura, W., Place,
F., Randrianarisoa, J.C., Rasambainarivo, J. & Wangila, J.( 2006). Welfare
dynamics in rural Kenya and Madagascar. Journal of Development Studies 42 (1),
248–277
Becerril J, Abdulai A (2010). The impact
of improved maize varieties of poverty in Mexico: A propensity score matching
approach, World Dev., 38(7): 1024-1035
Bishop R &
Coughenour C.M (1964) Discontinuance of Farm Innovations. Mimeo Billetin AE 361
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Ohio State
University, Columbus.
Bola, A. A.,
Diagne, A., Wiredu, A. N., & Ojehomon, V. E. (2012). Wealth status and
agricultural technology adoption among smallholder rice fermers in Nigeria.
International Journal of Sustainable Development, 05(2), 97–114.
Cameron, L.A.,
1999. The importance of learning in the adoption of high-yielding variety
seeds. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 81, 83–94.
Carletto C, de
Janvry A, Sadoulet E (1999). Sustainability in the Diffusion of innovations:
smallholder nontraditional agro-exports in Guatemala. Econ. Dev. Cult. Change,
47: 345-369.
Cavatassi, R., Lipper, L., & Narloch,
U. (2011).Modern variety adoption and risk management in drought prone areas:
insights from the sorghum farmers of eastern Ethiopia. Agricultural Economics,
42, 279–292.
Conley, T., Udry,
C., 2001. Social learning through networks: the adoption of new agricultural
technologies in Ghana. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83 (3),
668–673.
Darr, David A
& Wen S. Chern (2002) Analysis of Genetically Modified Organism Adoption by
Ohio grain Farmers. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on
Agricultural biotechnology: New Avenues for production, Consumption and
Technology Transfer. Ravello Italy July 11-14 2002.
Degu G, Mwangi W,
Verkuijl H, Wondimu A (2000). An Assessment of the Adoption of Seed and
Fertilizer Packages and the Role of Credit in Smallholder Maize Production in
Sidama and North Omo Zone, Ethiopia. Mexico, D.F.: International Maize and
Wheat Improvement Center, and Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization
(EARO).
District Office of
Agricultural and Rural Development (DOARD) (2008). Activity performance
Reports. Bako, Ethiopia
Doss CR (2006). Analyzing Technology
Adoption Using Microstudies: Limitations, Challenges, and Opportunities for
Improvement. Agric.Econ., 34: 207-219.Environ Sci, 4(4): 468–472.
Feder G, Just RE, Zilberman D (1985).
Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries: A Survey. Econ.
Dev. Cult. Change, 33(2): 255-298.
Feder G, Umali DL (1993). The adoption of
agricultural innovations: A review. Technology Forecast Soc. Change, 43:
215-39.
Feleke
S, Zegeye T (2006). Adoption of improved maize varieties in Southern Ethiopia:
Factors and strategy options. Food Policy, 31:442–457.
Floyd,
C., Harding, A., Paddle, K., Rasali, D., Subedi, K., & Subedi, P. (1999).
The adoption and associated impact of technologies in the western hills of
Nepal. Network Paper-Agricultural Administration, Research and Extension,
Network (United Kingdom).
Foster, A.,
Rosenzweig, M., 1995. Learning by doing and learning from others: human capital
and technicalchange in agriculture. Journal of Political Economy 103 (6),
1176–1209.
Ghimire, R., &
Huang, W.-C. (2015). Household wealth and adoption of improved maize varieties
in Nepal: a double-hurdle approach. Food Security, 7(6), 1321-1335. doi:
10.1007/s12571-015-0518-x
Ghimire,
R., Wen-chi, H., & Shrestha, R. B. (2015). Factors Affecting Adoption of
Improved Rice Varieties among Rural Farm Households in Central Nepal. Rice
Science, 22(1), 35-43. doi: 10.1016/j.rsci.2015.05.006
Goswami, A &
Sagar, R. L (1994) “Factors related with knowledge about feeding of green
fodder and concentrates in relation to nutritional status. Indian Journal of Animal Health. 33 (1):
45-48.
Greve H.R (1995)
“Jumping Ship: The diffusion of strategy Abandonment”. Administrative Science
Quarterly 40: 444-473.
Hardaker, J. B.,
Huirne, R. B., Anderson, J. R., & Lien, G. (2004). Coping with risk in
agriculture. United Kingdom:CABI publishing
Igodan,
C.O, Oheji, P.E & Ekpere, J.A (1988) “Factors associated with the adoption
of recommended practices for Maize Production in Kainji Lake Basin in Nigeria”
Agricultural Administration and Extension Vol 29 (2): 149 – 156
Ikpi, A, Peters,
G.H, Stanton, B.F & Tyler, G.J (1992) House hold time allocation – the
ultimate determinant of improved agricultural technology adoption in Nigeria:
an empirical activity inter phase impact model.
Proceeding of the 21st international conference of Agricultural
economists, Japan 22nd –29th August 1991 pp 481-501.
Just, R. E., & Zilberman, D. (1988).
The effects of agricultural development policies on income distribution and
technological change in agriculture. Journal of Development Economics, 28(2),
193–216.
doi:10.1016/0304-3878(88)90058-2.
Karki,
L. B., & Bauer, S. (2004). Technology adoption and household food
security. Analyzing factors determining technology adoption and impact of project
intervention: A case of smallholder peasants in Nepal. Paper presented at
the Proceedings of Deutscher Tropentag Workshop.
Kassie M, Shiferaw B, Muricho G. 2011.
Agricultural technology, crop income, and poverty alleviation in Uganda. World
Dev, 39(10): 1784–1795.
Knowler D,
Bradshaw B (2007). Farmers’ Adoption of Conservation Agriculture: A Review and
Synthesis of Recent Research. Food Policy, 32, 25-48.
Kolawole O.D
Farinde AJ & Alao A (2003) other side of Adoption behaviour forms of
Discontinuance Journal of Extension Systems 19(1):70-80.
Koundouri, P.,
Nauges, C., & Tzouvelekas, V. (2006). Technology adoption under production
uncertainty: theory and application to irrigation technology. American Journal
of Agricultural Economics,88(3), 657–670.
Langyintuo, A. S.,
& Mungoma, C. (2008). The effect of household wealth on the adoption of
improved maize varieties in Zambia. Food Policy, 33(6), 550–559.
doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2008.04.002
Leuthold F.O
(1967) Discontinuance of Improved Farm Innovations by Wisconsin farm Operators
PhD dissertation, University of Wisconsin Madison.
Maddala, G.S
(1983), Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variables in econometrics. Cambridge
University Press.
Marenya,
P. P., & Barrett, C. B. (2007). Household-level determinants of adoption of
improved natural resources management practices among smallholder farmers in
western Kenya. Food Policy, 32(4), 515-536. doi:
10.1016/j.foodpol.2006.10.002
Mariano,
M. J., Villano, R., & Fleming, E. (2012). Factors influencing farmers’ adoption
of modern rice technologies and good management practices in the Philippines. Agricultural
Systems, 110, 41-53. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2012.03.010
Mercer, D.E.,
2004. Adoption of agroforestry innovations in the tropics: a review.
Agroforestry Systems 204411, 311–328.
Minten B & Barrett BC (2008).
Agricultural technology, productivity, and poverty in Madagascar. World Dev.,
36(5): 797-822.
MOAD (Ministry of Agriculture
Development). 2017. Statistical Information on Nepalese Agriculture, Government
of Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Moser, C.M.,
Barrett, C.B., 2003. The disappointing adoption dynamics of a yield-increasing,
low external input technology: the case of SRI in Madagascar. Agricultural
Systems 76, 1085–1100.
Moser, C.M.,
Barrett, C.B., 2006. The complex dynamics of smallholder technology adoption:
the case of SRI in Madagascar. Agricultural Economics.
Neill PS, Lee DR
(2001). Explaining the adoption and disadoption of sustainable agriculture: The
case of cover crops in Northern Honduras. Economic Dev. Cult. Change, 49(4):
793-820.
Noorhosseini-Niyaki,
S. A., & Allahyari, M. S. (2012). Logistic Regression Analysis on Factors
Affecting Adoption of Rice-Fish Farming in North Iran. Rice Science, 19(2),
153-160. doi: 10.1016/s1672-6308(12)60034-1
Ogunfiditimi, T.O.
(1993) “Abandoned Adoption: Why Adopters discontinued use of previously adopted
Innovations improved farm practices: a choice uncertainty” Journal of Extension
System 9(1): 86-91
Oladele
O.I and Kareem A.I (2003) Adoption rate and continued use of selected arable
crop technologies among farmers in Oyo State Nigeria. 1(3&4): 291-294ral
Economics, 36(3), 409-419.
Oladele OI (2005).
A tobit analysis of propensity to discontinue
adoption of agricultural technology among farmers in southern Nigeria. J.
Central Eur. Agric., 6(3): 249-254.
Patel, M.M.,
Senoria, Y.C & Nahetkar, S.B. (1996) Analysis of adoption behaviour of
sugarcane grower. India – sugar. 45(9): 691 – 694.
Paudel, P., & Matsuoka, A. (2009).
Cost efficiency estimates of maize production in Nepal: a case study of the
Chitwan district. Agricultural Economics – Czech, 55(3), 139–148.
Ransom,
J. (2003). Adoption of improved maize varieties in the hills of Nepal. Agricultural
Economics, 29(3), 299-305. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-0862.2003.tb00166.x
Rao, P.P & Rao
V.G.K (1996) “Adoption of rice production technology by the tribal
farmers. Journal of research and ANGRAU
24 (1-2): 21 – 25.
Rogers
E.M (2003) Diffusion of Innovations.
Fifth Edition. New York: Free Press
Rogers E.M and
Shoemaker, (1971) Communication of innovations: A cross culture approach. The
Free Press, Collier Macmillan publishing Inc. NY. pp 11-28.
Ryan B &Gross
N.C (1943) The Diffusion of Hybrid seed corn in Two Iowa Communities Rural
Sociology 8: 15-24.
Senyolo,
M. P., Long, T. B., Blok, V., & Omta, O. (2018). How the characteristics of
innovations impact their adoption: An exploration of climate-smart agricultural
innovations in South Africa. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172,
3825-3840. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.019
Shakya,
P. B., & Flinn, J. (1985). Adoption of modern varieties and fertilizer use
on rice in the Eastern Tarai of Nepal. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 36(3),
409-419.
Srisopaporn,
S., Jourdain, D., Perret, S. R., & Shivakoti, G. (2015). Adoption and
continued participation in a public Good Agricultural Practices program: The
case of rice farmers in the Central Plains of Thailand. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 96, 242-253. doi:
10.1016/j.techfore.2015.03.016
Tenkir B, Gezahegn
A,Tadesse K (2004). Agricultural Extension, Adoption and Diffusion in Ethiopia,
Research Report I, EDRI, Addis Ababa.
Tobin James (1958) Estimation of Relationships
for Limited Dependent Variables” Econometrica, 26(1): 24-36
Tura,
Motuma & Aredo, Dejene & Tsegaye, Wondwossen & Rovere, Roberto
& Kassie, Girma & Mwangi, Wilfred & Mwabu, Germano. (2010).
Adoption and continued use of improved maize seeds: Case study of Central
Ethiopia. African Journal of Agricultural Research. 5. 2350-2358.
Uaiene, R. N.,
Arndt, C.,&Masters,W. (2009). Determinants of agricultural technology
adoption in Mozambique (Discussion papers (67E)).Republic of Mozambique:
Ministry of Planning and Development.
Voh, J.P (1982) “A
study of factors associated with the adoption of recommended farm practices in
a Nigeria Village” Agricultural Administration 2: 17 – 27.
Weir S, Knight J
(2000). Adoption and diffusion of agricultural innovations in Ethiopia: the
role of education. CSAE Working Paper WPS2000-5, Center for the Study of
African Economies, Oxford University, UK.
Wozniak GD (1997).
Human capital, information, and the early adoption of new technology. J. Human
Res., 22(1): 101-112
Comments
Post a Comment