Content uploaded by Hamza Ahmed
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Hamza Ahmed on Mar 02, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Developing Country Studies www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-607X (Paper) ISSN 2225-0565 (Online)
Vol.13, No.2, 2023
1
Influencing Factors on Adoption of Modern Agricultural
Technology in Developing Economy Countries
Hamza Ahmed
1
, Mousab Ahmed
2
1. Colorado State University, Department of Systems Engineering, 6029 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins,
CO 80523-130
2. Department of Mechanical engineering, Howard University, 2041 Georgia Avenue NW Washington,
DC 20060
* E-mail the corresponding author: hamza.ahmed@colostate.edu
Abstract:
The adoption of advanced agricultural technologies is crucial in reducing poverty and improving food security
on the developing economy countries. Despite the recognition of its importance, smallholder farmers in
developing nations often face obstacles in adopting new technologies, leading to slow uptake. To better
understand the factors that impact the use of agricultural technology in these nations, this study seeks to provide
insights through a review of previous research on technology adoption. The results of the study highlight several
key elements that determine whether or not agricultural technology is adopted, including factors related to the
technology itself, the economic situation of farmers, the institutional and organizational affiliations of the
farmers, and unique household factors. In order to fully comprehend the complexities involved in the adoption of
agricultural technology, future research is recommended to include the perspectives and experiences of farmers.
By considering their perceptions of new technologies, the range of factors influencing. The purpose of this paper
is to gain a deeper understanding of the challenges faced by smallholder farmers in adopting new technologies
and to identify opportunities for improvement. By considering their perceptions of new technologies, the range
of factors influencing technology adoption can be broadened, providing a more comprehensive understanding of
the subject.
Keywords: Agricultural Technology, smallholder farmers, Adoption, developing economy countries, economic
situations, household situations.
DOI: 10.7176/DCS/13-2-01
Publication date: February 28
th
2023
1. Introduction:
Agriculture is a crucial factor in securing food supplies, reducing poverty levels, and driving rural development.
The majority of the world's 3.0 billion poor depend on it as their main source of income ((FAO), 2003). As part
of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the goal is to reduce the number of people living in extreme
poverty and hunger by half by the year 2030, and smallholder farmers are recognized as a key instrument in
reaching this objective (Bank, 2008A). Despite this recognition, many smallholder farmers continue to rely on
traditional farming methods, which often lead to decreased output. For instance, smallholder farmers produce
more than 70% of the corn in most developing countries using conventional techniques (Muzari et al., 2012).
These farmers often experience low crop yields due to a variety of factors, such as the use of low-yielding
indigenous crops, reliance on rain-fed agriculture, limited use of irrigation and fertilizers, and insufficient pest
control measures ((Muzari et al., 2012). The need to improve agriculture sustainability and productivity on a
global scale is widely acknowledged, but the precise methods of doing so are not well understood. Therefore,
further research is needed to identify the most effective ways to support smallholder farmers in adopting new and
innovative techniques to increase their yields and improve their livelihoods.
The rise in demand for food necessitates an increase in agricultural production, making it important to
examine the latest advancements in agricultural technology. This includes a range of techniques and procedures
aimed at boosting agricultural output (Ahmed et al., 2023; Jain et al., 2009). According to (Lavison, 2013),
advancements have been made in areas such as the development and promotion of new crop varieties and
farming practices, soil and soil fertility management, pest and weed control, efficient irrigation and water
management, and more. The implementation of new technology often leads to increased output and reduced
average production costs due to improved input-output relationships, resulting in a substantial increase in farm
revenue (Challa & Tilahun, 2014). The adoption of advanced technology drives an upward trend in production
and contributes to ongoing socioeconomic progress.
Adopting advanced agricultural technologies has been shown to have numerous positive impacts on both
individual and collective levels. Not only does it result in improved nutrition and lower costs of staple foods, but
it also leads to better job opportunities and higher wages for those without access to land (Ssewanyana &
Kasirye, 2010). This widespread adoption of technology has been instrumental in the success of the green
revolution that many Asian countries have experienced ((Chen & Ravallion, 2004; Ssewanyana & Kasirye,
Developing Country Studies www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-607X (Paper) ISSN 2225-0565 (Online)
Vol.13, No.2, 2023
2
2010). On the other hand, the failure to adopt these technologies has led to a cycle of socioeconomic stagnation,
which in turn contributes to poverty (Jain et al., 2009). To ensure long-term food security and economic growth,
innovative agricultural technologies that improve sustainable food and fiber production are crucial. This has
sparked extensive research into the dynamics of technical change in agriculture, particularly in the early 20th
century ((Lavison, 2013), Smallholder farmers in developing nations are particularly in need of these advanced
technologies, as they face numerous challenges in their operations. Development programs are often geared
towards these farmers, who operate in regions with low rainfall, poor soil quality, and limited access to irrigation,
input and product markets, financing, and extension services (Muzari et al., 2012). This lack of resources and
support exacerbates the obstacles they face, making the adoption of advanced agricultural technologies essential
for their success.
Over the years, the study of innovation and the uptake of new technologies has been a central focus for
researchers, particularly in the context of developing economy countries. A significant body of research has been
conducted to understand the adoption process and the impact of modern farming techniques on smallholder
farmers. Despite the recognition of their importance in ending poverty in many developing nations (Rasul, 2002;
Simtowe et al., 2011), the adoption of new agricultural methods has often been slow, and many of the challenges
associated with adoption are still not fully understood. The purpose of this paper is to delve into the wealth of
research that exists on the adoption of new technology, exploring both the reasons behind the slow uptake and
the factors that contribute to the low adoption of modern farming techniques. Through this examination, the goal
is to gain a deeper understanding of the challenges faced by smallholder farmers in adopting new technologies
and to identify opportunities for improvement. By providing a comprehensive evaluation of existing research on
the topic, the paper aims to contribute to the ongoing discourse on how best to support smallholder farmers in
adopting new technologies and improving their livelihoods.
2. Previous studies and research:
The definition of technology has been the subject of much debate among writers and experts in the field.
(Loevinsohn et al., 2013) define technology as the tools and processes involved in producing goods and services,
including both physical and organizational methods. They also highlight that what may be considered new
technology in one location or among one group of farmers may already be widespread in other regions or groups.
Technology is also described as the knowledge and information that enables individuals to perform certain jobs,
provide services, or create products (Loevinsohn et al., 2013). Its ultimate aim is to improve existing conditions
or transform current circumstances into a more desirable state. As stated by (Bonabana-Wabbi, 2002),
technology results in increased efficiency and productivity, allowing individuals to complete tasks more quickly
and easily than they would be able to without it. The concept of adoption has also been defined in various ways
by different scholars. (Loevinsohn et al., 2013) describe adoption as the process of integrating new technology
into daily life, followed by a period of experimentation and adaptation. (Feder et al., 1985) define adoption as the
mental journey that individuals undergo as they learn about an innovation and eventually incorporate it into their
lives. Adoption intensity and adoption rate are two key aspects of adoption. Adoption intensity, as described by
(Bonabana-Wabbi, 2002), measures the extent to which a particular technology is used over a given period,
while adoption rate, as noted by Feder et al. (1985), refers to the speed at which individuals accept innovations.
The concept of time is considered to be a cornerstone of the latter, playing a key role in determining adoption
intensity.
Defining technology adoption is a complex task, as it relies on the technology being accepted and adopted
by individuals. There are different interpretations of technology adoption, and its definition varies among studies.
A study by (Doss, 2003) revealed that farmers were considered adopters in a CIMMYT survey if they were using
seeds passed down from previous generations, while in other studies adoption is associated with following the
extension service's advice to use new and certified seeds (Bisanda et al., 1998; Doss, 2003; Ouma et al., 2002).
The definition of technology adoption is crucial in determining whether farmers use agricultural technology
and is often represented by binary response variables, indicating whether a farmer has adopted new technology
or not, using values of 0 and 1. However, as C. Doss (2003) suggests, the definition of technology adoption
varies depending on the context and each strategy's suitability is dependent on that specific context.
Jain et al. (2009) suggests that relying on a straightforward dichotomous variable approach in studying
farmers' decisions to adopt new technologies is not sufficient. This is because a dichotomous reaction only
indicates the level of awareness of new technology, not its actual adoption. Thus, researchers should explicitly
specify how they are defining technology adoption so they can create the best method to measure it.
3. Adoption of agricultural technology factors:
The adoption of agricultural technology is a complex topic that has garnered a great deal of attention from
researchers, economists, and experts in the field. According to (Loevinsohn et al., 2013), the decision to adopt
new technology is the result of a dynamic interaction between the technology itself and the conditions and
Developing Country Studies www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-607X (Paper) ISSN 2225-0565 (Online)
Vol.13, No.2, 2023
3
circumstances surrounding its adoption. Farmers consider the unknown benefits and costs of a new technology
before making a decision to adopt it. Understanding the factors that influence the adoption of agricultural
technology is critical for economists who study growth drivers and for those who create and distribute
technology. (Ahmed, 2022) has summarized the factors Influencing the adoption of agricultural technologies in
Table 1.
Table 1. Factors Influencing the Adoption of Agricultural Technologies (Ahmed, 2022)
Categories Factors
Socio-Economic
Operator age
Years of farming experience
Formal education
Agro-Ecological
Land tenure
Farm specialization
Farm size
Farm sales
Variable fertilizer rates
Livestock sales
Debt-to-asset ratio
Production value
Owned land minus rented land
Yield
Part-owner farmers
Full-owner farmers
Farm income/profitability
Soil quality
Percentage of the main crop in total farmland
Percentage of farmland as county land area
Percentage of cropped land to total farmland
Percentage of farmland as large farms
Off-farm employment
Institutional
Distance from a fertilizer
dealer
Region
Use of forwarding contract
Development pressure
Informational
Use consultant
Perceived usefulness of extension services in implementing precision farming
practices
Farmer Perception Perceived profitability of using precision agriculture
Behavioral Willingness to adopt variable-rate technology
Technological
Yield mapping
Use of computer
Farm has an irrigation facility
Generated own map
-
based input prescription
Despite the potential benefits of agricultural machinery, traditional farmers can face a number of barriers to
its adoption. For example, traditional farmers may be unable to access credit or loans to purchase new machinery,
or they may lack the skills and knowledge required to operate and maintain the equipment (Hertel & Rosch,
2010). Additionally, traditional farmers may be resistant to change, and may not see the value in investing in
new machinery, especially if they have been practicing traditional farming methods for generations (Dos Santos
et al., 2021).
However, recent research suggests that traditional farmers can be motivated to adopt agricultural machinery
if the benefits are clearly demonstrated and if they receive the necessary support and training. For example, a
study conducted by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) in Ethiopia found that
traditional farmers who received training in the use of new machinery were more likely to adopt these
technologies, and that this led to significant increases in their productivity and income (Takahashi et al., 2020).
Another study, conducted by the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) in Honduras, found that the
provision of affordable credit and technical assistance to traditional farmers was crucial in encouraging the
adoption of agricultural machinery, especially among small-scale farmers (Van Loon et al., 2020). This
highlights the importance of creating supportive environments for the adoption of agricultural machinery by
traditional farmers, and the role that governments and other organizations can play in promoting and facilitating
this transition.
Studies have historically focused on understanding adoption by analyzing individual traits and endowments,
incomplete knowledge, risk and uncertainty, institutional restrictions, input accessibility, and infrastructure
(Mwangi & Kariuki, 2015; Ruttan, 2010; Uaiene, 2009). Recent research has also looked at the role of social
networks and education in technology adoption (Uaiene, 2009). Different studies categorize the factors that
influence technology adoption in various ways. For example, (Akudugu et al., 2012) separated these factors into
institutional, social, and economic categories, while (Kebede et al., 1990), classified them into economic,
physiological, and social elements. (McNamara et al., 1991) divided the factors into farmer, farm structure,
organizational, and leadership structure features, while (Wu & Babcock, 1998) categorized them as human
capital and productivity.
Developing Country Studies www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-607X (Paper) ISSN 2225-0565 (Online)
Vol.13, No.2, 2023
4
The categorization of determinants of technology acceptance can vary depending on the location, researcher
preferences, and even the needs of the client (Bonabana-Wabbi, 2002). For instance, the level of education may
be classified as human capital by some scholars and as a family-specific characteristic by others. In the present
study, we will examine the technological, economic, organizational, and household-specific factors that
influence the adoption of agricultural technology. By examining each factor in greater detail, we can gain a
deeper understanding of its impact on technology adoption.
4. Factors related to farmer perception on the adoption:
Farming machinery plays a crucial role in improving agricultural productivity and supporting economic growth
in developing economies. However, the adoption of modern farming machinery in these economies is often slow,
partly due to farmer perception towards this technology. The perception of farmers towards farming machinery
has a significant impact on their adoption decisions (Singh & Singh, 2020). Farmers who view farming
machinery as a positive tool are more likely to adopt the technology than those who see it as a threat to their
livelihoods (Koubi, 2019). Positive perceptions of farming machinery are influenced by a range of factors,
including the perceived benefits of the technology, such as improved productivity, reduced labor costs, and
better-quality crops (Ahmed & Miller, 2022; Rejeb et al., 2021). Farmers who view farming machinery as a
valuable investment are also more likely to adopt the technology (Ahmed, 2022; Al Hosani et al., 2022). On the
other hand, negative perceptions of farming machinery, such as the high cost of investment, the perceived
complexity of operating the machinery, and the threat to traditional farming practices, can lead to slow adoption
or resistance to the technology (Ahmed, 2022). The farmers perception is also a factor of the financial barriers as
it’s a major factor hindering the adoption of farming machinery (Sattler & Nagel, 2010). The high cost of
investment is one of the biggest challenges faced by farmers in these economies (Bapela et al., 2022). In many
cases, farmers lack the financial resources to purchase modern farming machinery, and often have limited access
to credit (Ahmed & Miller, 2022). This makes it difficult for them to invest in the technology and upgrade their
farming practices. In addition, the lack of government support and subsidies in some developing economies also
contributes to the slow adoption of farming machinery (Arshad et al., 2022).
In addition to financial barriers, infrastructure and technical challenges can also hinder the adoption of
farming machinery in developing economies (Aker, 2011). The lack of infrastructure, such as poor roads and
limited access to electricity, makes it difficult for farmers to transport and use modern farming machinery
(Ahmed & Miller, 2022) In addition, the lack of technical knowledge and skills among farmers can also be a
barrier to the adoption of farming machinery (Pivoto et al., 2019). This is particularly true in rural areas, where
access to education and training is limited (Aker, 2011).
To promote the adoption of farming machinery in developing economies, it is important to address the
barriers to adoption, including the high cost of investment, lack of infrastructure, and limited access to credit
(Diao et al., 2016). Governments in these economies can play a key role in promoting the adoption of farming
machinery by providing subsidies, financing, and technical support to farmers (Al Hosani et al., 2022). In
addition, private sector companies can also play a role in promoting the adoption of farming machinery by
providing affordable financing options and technical support to farmers (Diao et al., 2016). The role of farmer
training and education is also crucial in promoting the adoption of farming machinery in developing economies.
By providing farmers with the necessary technical knowledge and skills, they will be better equipped to operate
and maintain modern farming machinery (Malabo, 2018). In addition, training programs can also help to address
negative perceptions of farming machinery and promote its benefits to farmers (Cortner et al., 2019).
5. Factors related to technology:
Adoption of technology is a complex process that is influenced by various factors. One of the key determinants
of technology adoption is trialability, which refers to the willingness of potential users to engage in a limited test
of the technology before making a full commitment. Studies have shown that the attributes of the technology
play a significant role in shaping the decision-making process for adoption. For example, (Doss, 2003; D. B.
Mignouna et al., 2011) found that when analyzing the adoption of Imazapyr-Resistant Maize (IRM) technology
in Western Kenya, farmers' perceptions of the technology's compatibility and efficacy were major drivers of their
adoption decision. (Adesina & Zinnah, 1993), also found that farmers' perceptions of the contemporary rice
variety and fish aquaculture technology, respectively, greatly impacted their adoption decisions.
Given the significant role that farmers' perceptions play in the adoption of technology, it is crucial that they
be involved in the evaluation of any new technology to assess its suitability for their specific needs and
environment. According to (Sinja et al., 2004), involving farmers in the review process before giving them
access to a new technology helps to ensure its successful adoption. In summary, trialability and farmers'
perceptions of technology attributes are two critical factors that must be considered when looking to adopt new
technology.
Developing Country Studies www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-607X (Paper) ISSN 2225-0565 (Online)
Vol.13, No.2, 2023
5
6. Factors related to the armers Agro-Ecological situations:
There are several factors related to the farmers' agro-ecological situations that can influence the adoption of
farming machinery. These factors include:
6.1 Farm size:
The adoption of agricultural machinery has been a major factor in increasing agricultural productivity and
efficiency. The development of new technologies and the use of machines have helped farmers to increase their
crop yields and reduce the time and labor required for various agricultural tasks (Talaviya et al., 2020). One of
the factors that influence the adoption of agricultural machinery is the size of the farm.
Large-scale farms are more likely to adopt agricultural machinery due to the economies of scale associated
with larger operations (Duffy, 2009). Smaller farms, on the other hand, are more likely to continue using
traditional farming practices due to the higher cost of investment in agricultural machinery and the lack of access
to credit and information (Muzari et al., 2012). The adoption of agricultural machinery by traditional farmers has
been limited due to a number of factors, including the high cost of equipment, lack of access to credit (Ullah et
al., 2016), and lack of knowledge about the benefits of the technology (Riasati et al., 2012).
Despite these challenges, there has been a growing trend towards the adoption of agricultural machinery by
traditional farmers in recent years. This is due in part to the increasing availability of credit (Mohan, 2006),
improved access to information (Ahmed & Miller, 2022), and the development of new technologies that are
more affordable and accessible to small-scale farmers (Ahmed, 2022).
In addition, the introduction of programs and policies aimed at supporting the adoption of agricultural
machinery by traditional farmers has helped to increase the rate of adoption (Knowler & Bradshaw, 2007). The
adoption of agricultural machinery by traditional farmers is influenced by a variety of factors, including farm
size, access to credit, availability of information, and government policies. While large-scale farms are more
likely to adopt agricultural machinery, smaller farms face challenges in accessing the technology. Despite these
challenges, the adoption of agricultural machinery by traditional farmers is increasing due to the introduction of
government policies, the availability of credit, and improved access to information.
6.2 Livestock sales:
Livestock sales have been identified as one of the key drivers of agricultural mechanization in many parts of the
world. This is because farmers who sell livestock can use the proceeds from these sales to invest in new
machinery and equipment, which can help to increase productivity and efficiency. For example, a study
conducted by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) in Kenya found that farmers who sold
livestock were more likely to adopt new agricultural technologies(Adato & Meinzen-Dick, 2002), such as
tractors and plows, compared to farmers who did not sell livestock (Adato & Meinzen-Dick, 2002). Another
study, conducted by the World Bank in India, found that livestock sales were positively associated with the
adoption of agricultural machinery, particularly in regions where livestock farming was an important source of
income (Viswanathan et al., 2020). This research highlights the importance of livestock sales as a source of
income and capital for farmers, and the role they play in promoting the adoption of agricultural machinery.
However, while livestock sales can provide farmers with the capital they need to invest in new machinery, they
can also have negative consequences for traditional farming communities. For example, a study conducted by the
Food and Agriculture Organization (Hertel & Rosch, 2010) in Bangladesh found that the sale of livestock by
traditional farmers was often driven by poverty and desperation, and that this led to a decline in the number of
farmers and the quality of the land ((Chambers, 1987). This highlights the need for more comprehensive
approaches to agricultural development that take into account the needs of traditional farmers, and that support
their transition to more sustainable and profitable farming practices.
6.3 Percentage of cropped land to total farmland:
One of these factors is the percentage of cropped land to total farmland. The percentage of cropped land to total
farmland is one of the key factors affecting the adoption of agricultural machinery by traditional farmers (Sattler
& Nagel, 2010). A higher percentage of cropped land to total farmland indicates that a larger portion of the farm
is being used for crops, and therefore there is a greater need for more efficient and productive farming practices
(Pretty et al., 2003). This can increase the adoption of agricultural machinery as traditional farmers seek ways to
improve their yields and increase their income (Bradshaw et al., 2004). In areas where there is a high percentage
of cropped land to total farmland, farmers are more likely to adopt agricultural machinery, as they are able to
realize the benefits of these technologies more quickly and easily. This is because they have a larger area of land
that is being used for agriculture, and therefore a greater need for efficiency and productivity. In contrast, in
areas where there is a low percentage of cropped land to total farmland, farmers are less likely to adopt
agricultural machinery (Derpsch et al., 2010). This is because they have a smaller area of land that is being used
for agriculture, and therefore a smaller need for efficiency and productivity. This means that they are less likely
Developing Country Studies www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-607X (Paper) ISSN 2225-0565 (Online)
Vol.13, No.2, 2023
6
to see the benefits of agricultural machinery and may be less motivated to adopt these technologies (Rotz et al.,
2019). However, while the percentage of cropped land to total farmland is a significant factor in determining
whether or not traditional farmers will adopt agricultural machinery, it is not the only factor. There are several
other factors that can influence a farmer’s decision to adopt or not adopt agricultural machinery (Ahmed, 2022).
6.4 Soil quality
One of the key factors affecting the adoption of agricultural machinery by traditional farmers is the soil quality
of their farmland. Soil quality is a complex issue, and it is influenced by various factors such as soil structure,
soil fertility, soil moisture, and soil pH. Good soil quality is characterized by physical, chemical, and biological
attributes that promote plant growth and fertility. In traditional agriculture, soil quality is maintained through
traditional practices such as crop rotation, intercropping, and the use of organic fertilizers. However, in some
cases, these practices may not be enough to maintain soil quality, and the adoption of agricultural machinery may
be necessary (Watson et al., 2002). Traditional farmers who have high-quality soil are more likely to adopt
agricultural machinery as they seek to improve their yields and increase their income (Muzari et al., 2012).
7. Factors related to farmers economic situations:
In agriculture, the size of a farm plays a critical role in the adoption of new technology. Several studies have
shown that farm size is a significant factor in determining the speed of technology adoption (Bonabana-Wabbi,
2002; Lavison, 2013). The relationship between farm size and the adoption of agricultural technology is well
documented (Ahmed & Bagchi, 2004; Gabre-Madhin & Haggblade, 2004; Kasenge, 1998; D. Mignouna et al.,
2011; Uaiene, 2009). Generally, larger farms are more likely to adopt new technologies as they have the
resources to set aside a portion of their land for research purposes (Uaiene, 2009). For some technologies, such
as heavy machinery or animal traction, economies of scale are required for success (Feder et al., 1985).
However, not all studies are in agreement on the relationship between farm size and technology adoption.
Some studies have found that small farms may have difficulty adopting modern agricultural technology due to
factors such as high input requirements (Harper et al., 1990; Yaron et al., 1992). On the other hand, small-scale
farmers with limited land could potentially adopt land-saving techniques such as zero grazing or greenhouse
technology to increase agricultural productivity (Harper et al., 1990; Yaron et al., 1992).
Several studies have explored the relationship between adoption and farm size, with findings indicating that
adoption has either no effect or a neutral effect. For instance, a series of investigations by researchers such as
(Bonabana-Wabbi, 2002; Grieshop et al., 1988; Ridgley & Brush, 1992; Waller et al., 1998), found that the size
of the farm had no impact on the adoption of integrated pest prevention (IPP) methods. Additionally, research by
Simtowe et al. (2011) found that the vast land ownership had no significant effect on the likelihood of adopting
ICM-FFS practices.
However, these studies consider the overall size of the farm and not just the cropland on which the new
technology is used. (Lowenberg-DeBoer, 2000) suggests that the total farm size may affect overall adoption, so
it might be more informative to look at the crop acreage using the current technology as an indicator of the rate
and degree of technology adoption. In this regard, (Bonabana-Wabbi, 2002) argues that estimating the proportion
of all land area that the new technology can use can provide a better understanding of the effect of technology
adoption on farm size. (Foster & Rosenzweig, 2010) highlight that the farmer's net profit, which takes into
account all expenditures related to the adoption of new technology, is a critical factor in determining technology
acceptance.
The adoption of technology in agriculture is hindered by several factors, including the high cost of
implementation. Research by Muzari et al. (2012) has revealed that the loss of incentives on seed and fertilizer
prices due to institutional reforms in sub-Saharan Africa supported by the World Bank has added to this
limitation. The high cost of technology has been widely recognized as a barrier to adoption, as evidenced by
previous studies on the factors that influence it. For example, (Makokha et al., 2001) conducted research on the
variables that influence the use of fertilization and manure in the cultivation of maize in Kiambu County, Kenya,
and found that the primary obstacles to adoption were the high cost of labor and other inputs, the scarcity of
packages, and the delay in deliveries. Similar findings were reported by (Ouma et al., 2002) in the Kenyan
county of Embu, where the high cost of hired labor was identified as a deterrent to the use of fertilizer and hybrid
seeds. When studying the variables that led to the adoption of a better maize variety in Kenya's coastal lowlands,
(Wekesa et al., 2003) found that the high cost of seed and scarcity were significant contributors to the low
adoption rate. These findings underscore the importance of addressing the financial barriers to technology
adoption in agriculture to ensure widespread and sustainable implementation.
The impact of off-farm income on technology adoption has been well documented. This is because in many
developing countries, off-farm income is seen as a crucial strategy for rural people to overcome their credit
limitations (Reardon et al., 2007). In local economies with ineffective or absent credit markets, off-farm income
is frequently used to replace borrowed capital (Diiro, 2013). The availability of liquid funds generated by off-
Developing Country Studies www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-607X (Paper) ISSN 2225-0565 (Online)
Vol.13, No.2, 2023
7
farm earnings is expected to provide farmers with the resources to invest in inputs that increase production, such
as better seeds and fertilizers (Diiro, 2013). For instance, Diiro (2013) found that households with off-farm
earnings spent significantly more on purchased inputs compared to those without off-farm earnings, when
examining the effect of off-farm income on the adoption of improved maize varieties and productivity of maize
production in Uganda.
However, not all technologies have shown a positive relationship between off-farm income and their
adoption. Research on labor-intensive technologies has found little correlation between adoption and off-farm
income. According to (Goodwin & Mishra, 2004), farmers who are pursuing off-farm income may be
discouraged from adopting new technologies due to the reduction in household work allocated to farming
operations. These findings suggest that while off-farm income can have a positive impact on technology
adoption in some cases, its impact on adoption may vary based on the type of technology and the household's
labor allocation patterns.
8. Factors related to farmers formal education:
Studies have shown that formal education can have a significant impact on the adoption of agricultural
machinery by traditional farmers (Adesope et al., 2012). In one study conducted in Philippines, it was found that
farmers who received formal training on the use of agricultural machinery were more likely to adopt these
technologies and make effective use of them in their work ((Mariano et al., 2012). Similarly, another study in
Nigeria found that farmers who received formal training on the use of machinery and equipment were more
likely to adopt these technologies and experience increased productivity as a result (Abdoulaye et al., 2014).
The adoption of agricultural machinery by traditional farmers has been slow and limited, and many factors
have been cited as contributing to this phenomenon, including the lack of education and training on how to use
these machines effectively (Abdoulaye et al., 2014). In this article, we will examine the effect of formal
education on traditional farmers' adoption of agricultural machinery and explore how this education can help
farmers overcome the challenges associated with implementing new technologies in their work.
Traditional farmers often face significant challenges when it comes to adopting new technologies, including
agricultural machinery. These challenges can be linked to a lack of knowledge, skills, and understanding of the
technology, as well as the costs and difficulties of obtaining the machines themselves (Endsley & Garland, 2000).
The need for education and training on the use of these machines is critical, as it helps to mitigate these
challenges and promote the successful adoption of these technologies by traditional farmers (Endsley & Garland,
2000).
Formal education is an effective tool for teaching farmers the skills they need to operate and maintain
agricultural machinery effectively (Binns et al., 2012). This education can take many forms, including
classroom-based instruction, online training courses, and hands-on training programs (Platz et al., 2010).
Regardless of the delivery method, formal education provides farmers with the knowledge and skills they need to
use these machines in a safe, efficient, and effective manner (Swanson, 2008).
In addition to providing farmers with the necessary skills and knowledge, formal education also has the
potential to increase their confidence and motivation to adopt new technologies (Swanson, 2008). By learning
about the benefits and potential applications of agricultural machinery, farmers may become more willing to
invest in these technologies and implement them in their work (McCown, 2002). This increased confidence and
motivation can also help to overcome the barriers that may be preventing farmers from adopting these
technologies, such as the costs involved, the difficulties of obtaining financing, and the lack of local support or
resources (Dowd et al., 2008).
These findings suggest that formal education can play an important role in promoting the adoption of
agricultural machinery by traditional farmers (Caffaro et al., 2020). By providing farmers with the skills and
knowledge they need to use these machines effectively, formal education can help to overcome the barriers that
may be preventing the adoption of these technologies and promote their widespread implementation (Mariano et
al., 2012).
9. Factors related to farmers organizational affiliation:
The concept of being part of a social group has been proven to enhance social capacity and foster the exchange
of information, trust, and ideas (D. Mignouna et al., 2011). In the agricultural sector, farmers have the
opportunity to share their knowledge and experiences with the use of new technologies within their specific
social group. According to (Uaiene, 2009), social network effects play a significant role in shaping the decisions
made by individuals and this can be especially true for farmers who can benefit from the experiences and
knowledge of their peers. (Katung & Akankwasa, 2008)found that when they studied the impact of community-
based organizations on the adoption of innovative banana technology in Uganda, farmers who were more
involved in these groups were more likely to learn about the technology through social networks, which
increased their chances of adopting it.
Developing Country Studies www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-607X (Paper) ISSN 2225-0565 (Online)
Vol.13, No.2, 2023
8
While the benefits of social groups on technology adoption have been widely recognized, particularly in
cases where free-riding behavior is present, these groups can also have a negative impact on technology adoption.
(Foster & Rosenzweig, 1995) discovered this when they studied the usage of Green Movement technology in
India and found that although social learning externalities can increase the profitability of technology adoption,
farmers may also benefit from the expensive technological experimentation of their neighbors. (Bandiera et al.,
2005) suggests that the conflicting effects of learning externalities lead to an inverted U-shaped individual
adoption curve, where network effects are advantageous at low adoption rates but become detrimental as
adoption rates increase. This is consistent with the findings of (Hogset, 2005) who cites (Bandiera et al., 2005) in
suggesting that social groups can have a significant impact on technology adoption.
The acquisition of knowledge about technology is a critical factor in its adoption. Knowledge enables
farmers to understand the technology and how to use it effectively, thereby facilitating its adoption. Only those
technologies that farmers are familiar with or have heard about will be adopted. Having access to accurate
information reduces uncertainty about the technology's effectiveness and can help farmers shift from a subjective
to an objective evaluation. However, access to information does not guarantee adoption, as farmers may interpret
and evaluate technology differently from scientists (Uaiene, 2009). In some cases, access to information may
actually decrease the adoption of technology. For instance, when the public has limited experience with a new
technology, increased knowledge can make people less likely to adopt it due to the increased risk associated with
a wider information gap (Bonabana-Wabbi, 2002). Hence, it is crucial to ensure that the information available is
reliable, consistent, and accurate. Farmers need to be informed about the existence, benefits, and applications of
technology to use it effectively.
The provision of extension services is a critical aspect in the adoption of technology within the agricultural
sector. Through the interaction with extension agents, farmers are able to access information about new
technologies, their applications, and the benefits they offer. This connection between farmers and technology
developers (researchers) decreases the transaction costs associated with providing knowledge about the
technology to a large and diverse group of farmers (Genius et al., 2014).. Furthermore, extension agents typically
work with a small group of peer farmers, which can have a direct or indirect influence on the entire farming
community in their region (Genius et al., 2010).
Studies have shown that the provision of extension services has a positive correlation with the adoption of
technology, as the innovation-diffusion hypothesis suggests that providing farmers with information about new
technologies will encourage adoption (Karki & Bauer, 2004; Uaiene, 2009). According to (Bonabana-Wabbi,
2002; Yaron et al., 1992), the influence of extension agents can even mitigate the negative effects of a lack of
formal education on the adoption of technology. In conclusion, access to extension services plays a crucial role
in promoting the adoption of new technologies within the agricultural sector, by providing farmers with the
information they need to make informed decisions.
Availability of financing is considered to play a crucial role in the adoption of new technologies (Mohamed
& Temu, 2008). It has been theorized that access to finance can mitigate liquidity constraints and increase an
individual's risk tolerance, thereby promoting the adoption of more innovative and riskier technologies (Simtowe
& Zeller, 2006). This, in turn, enables households to focus on high-risk, high-reward investments rather than
low-risk but less effective diversification strategies (Simtowe & Zeller, 2006).
However, lending institutions in some countries have been found to discriminate against female-headed
households, making it difficult for them to obtain loans to finance yield-enhancing technologies. As a result, the
adoption rates of such technologies are low (Muzari et al., 2012). Policymakers must thus strive to improve the
smallholder financial systems to ensure that a larger segment of smallholders, especially female-headed
households, can access loans (Mkandawire, 1993; Simtowe & Zeller, 2006). In some cases, it may be necessary
to design credit packages that are tailored to the needs of specific target groups (Muzari et al., 2012). For
example, the Kenyan government has launched the UWEZO fund, which provides interest-free loans to young
people and women. By providing women with more agency, they can be empowered to embrace agricultural
innovations, leading to economic growth.
10. Factors related to political stability:
Political stability is a crucial factor in the development of any economy, and agriculture is no exception. A stable
political environment provides a favorable environment for investment, enabling farmers to access resources and
support necessary for the implementation of modern farming methods (Czech et al., 2000). A lack of stability
can result in instability, hindering the implementation of agriculture projects and reducing the willingness of
private investors to invest in the sector (Olukunle, 2013). In addition, political stability helps to create a
favorable policy environment, allowing farmers to have access to inputs, financing, and markets, which are
necessary for the success of agricultural activities (Shiferaw, Hellin, et al., 2011).
Political stability can have a significant impact on the adoption of agricultural technology. In stable political
environments, smallholder farmers are more likely to adopt new technologies due to improved access to
Developing Country Studies www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-607X (Paper) ISSN 2225-0565 (Online)
Vol.13, No.2, 2023
9
resources and support (Branca et al., 2022). In contrast, a lack of stability can create a negative impact, reducing
the willingness of farmers to adopt new methods. For example, farmers in conflict-ridden areas face numerous
challenges, including limited access to resources, inputs, and markets, making it difficult to adopt and implement
new technologies (Clover, 2003). Moreover, the threat of violence and insecurity can discourage farmers from
making investments in new technologies, as they may not see a return on their investment (De Clercq et al.,
2018).
political stability can also influence the effectiveness of technology adoption. In stable political
environments, farmers have access to support services, including extension services and training programs,
which are essential for the successful implementation of new technologies (De Clercq et al., 2018). On the other
hand, in conflict-ridden areas, these services may not be available, reducing the effectiveness of technology
adoption (Kolade, 2018). Furthermore, in such environments, farmers may not be able to access the necessary
inputs, such as seed and fertilizer, which are critical to the success of new farming methods (Kolade, 2018).
In developing countries, the importance of political stability for agricultural technology adoption is even
greater (Mendola, 2007). In these countries, smallholder farmers are often the primary food producers and face
numerous challenges, including poverty, food insecurity, and limited access to resources and support (Mendola,
2007). The adoption of new technologies can help to overcome these challenges and improve the livelihoods of
smallholder farmers (Mendola, 2007). However, the lack of political stability can create obstacles that prevent
farmers from adopting new technologies, exacerbating poverty and food insecurity (Shiferaw, Prasanna, et al.,
2011).
In addition, the implementation of modern agricultural technology in developing countries can have a
positive impact on economic growth, creating jobs and generating income for farmers (Lanjouw & Lanjouw,
2001). For example, the green revolution in India and other Asian countries has been instrumental in improving
the livelihoods of smallholder farmers, creating jobs and increasing agricultural productivity (Lanjouw &
Lanjouw, 2001). However, this success was only possible due to a stable political environment, which provided
the necessary resources and support for the implementation of new technologies.
11. Factors unique to household's situations:
The human capital of a farmer is considered to be a major factor in determining their willingness to embrace new
technologies. A farmer's education, age, gender, and family size have commonly been utilized as indicators of
their human capital in many technologies adoption studies (Fernandez-Cornejo et al., 1994; Fernandez-Cornejo
et al., 2007; Keelan et al., 2009; D. Mignouna et al., 2011). It is widely believed that the higher the level of
education of a farmer, the greater their capacity to gather, analyze, and apply information related to the
acceptance of new technologies (Lavison, 2013; D. Mignouna et al., 2011; Namara et al., 2003).
Studies have shown that a positive relationship exists between a farmer's level of education and their
likelihood of adopting new technologies. For example, (Adebiyi & Okunlola, 2013) found that higher levels of
education positively and significantly influenced fish producers' adoption of new technologies. (Ajewole, 2010)
also found that education had a positive impact on the use of organic fertilizers. This is because higher levels of
education can alter a farmer's attitudes and perceptions, making them more open-minded and capable of
evaluating the benefits of new technologies (Waller et al., 1998). This, in turn, makes the introduction of new
technologies easier and hastens their adoption (Adebiyi & Okunlola, 2013).
Other studies, such as those presented by (Uematsu & Mishra, 2010), have also found a positive
relationship between education and the adoption of new technologies, including the use of forward pricing
methods (Goodwin & Mishra, 2004), computers in agriculture (Huffman & Mercier, 1991; Putler & Zilberman,
1988), the internet (Mishra & Park, 2005; Mishra et al., 2009), reduced tillage (Mishra & Park, 2005; Rahm &
Huffman, 1984; Uematsu & Mishra, 2010), precision farming (Roberts et al., 2004), and conservation tillage
(Traoré et al., 1998).
However, some researchers argue that education has little to no impact on the rate of technology adoption
(Atry et al., 2009; Khanna, 2001; Martin et al., 2008). According to (Uematsu & Mishra, 2010), formal
education was found to have a negative impact on the adoption of genetically modified crops. The contradictory
results from previous studies highlight the need for further research to arrive at a more consistent conclusion
regarding the relationship between education and technology adoption.
The influence of age on the acceptance of modern technology is a complex issue. While older farmers are
often better equipped to evaluate technology information due to their extensive knowledge and experience, as
per research studies (Kariyasa & Dewi, 2013; D. Mignouna et al., 2011), age can also have a negative effect on
technology adoption. The rise in risk aversion and decline in interest in making long-term investments as farmers
age, as noted by (Adesina & Zinnah, 1993; Mauceri et al., 2005), can partially explain this association. On the
other hand, younger farmers tend to be more open to taking risks and exploring novel ideas, as seen in the case
of modified maize engineering, where younger farmers are found to embrace it at a higher rate compared to older
farmers who are on the verge of retiring from farming (Alexander & Van Mellor, 2005).
Developing Country Studies www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-607X (Paper) ISSN 2225-0565 (Online)
Vol.13, No.2, 2023
10
Studies on the impact of gender on the adoption of farming technology have produced conflicting results.
While a study by (Doss & Morris, 2000) found no significant relationship between gender and the likelihood of
adopting improved maize in Ghana, gender was found to have a big impact on technology acceptance, as access
to and influence over production resources differ between men and women, as per (Mesfin, 2005; D. Mignouna
et al., 2011; Omonona et al., 2006). For example, (Obisesan, 2014) found that gender has a significant positive
influence on the adoption of improved cassava production in Nigeria, while Lavison (2013) found that male
farmers tend to apply organic fertilizer more frequently than female farmers. The size of the household, which
serves as a proxy for labor availability, also affects the success of technology adoption, as the ability to allocate
labor resources for the adoption of a new technology depends on the size of the household (Bonabana-Wabbi,
2002; D. Mignouna et al., 2011). The impact of gender on technology adoption varies depending on the
technology being considered. Male farmers often have greater access to resources, such as land and labor, and as
a result, they are better equipped to adopt certain technologies. Additionally, cultural norms often dictate that
men hold more decision-making power within the household, which can further contribute to their advantage in
adopting new technologies. However, this is not always the case, as different studies have shown that gender can
have a significant positive impact on the adoption of technologies like improved cassava production in Nigeria
(Obisesan, 2014).
It is worth noting that household size also plays a crucial role in the success of technology adoption. As the
size of the household increases, the availability of labor decreases, making it more difficult to adopt new
technologies. This is why the ability to overcome labor restrictions is crucial in determining the success of
technology adoption. The availability of labor is often determined by the size of the household, which serves as a
proxy for labor availability (Bonabana-Wabbi, 2002; D. Mignouna et al., 2011). The results of these studies
highlight the importance of understanding the influence of gender and household size in the adoption of new
technologies in agriculture.
12. Conclusion:
The acceptance and implementation of new agricultural technologies have been a topic of much interest in
previous studies, as it plays a critical role in the success of the farming industry. The adoption of a new
technology requires not only the availability of resources, but also the farmer's perception and understanding of
the technology. Many factors come into play when evaluating the adoption of a new technology in agriculture,
including human factors, economic considerations, technology-specific factors, and institutional issues. It is
important to note that the influence of these factors on technology adoption can vary depending on the specific
technology in question. For example, farm size has been shown to have conflicting effects on technology
adoption. While a larger farm might encourage the adoption of one technology, it might discourage the adoption
of another, such as the zero-grazing method. This highlights the importance of understanding the factors that
drive or obstruct technology adoption, as it is essential in developing and implementing effective technology-
related programs to address food production challenges in developing countries. Therefore, it is crucial for those
who develop and make decisions regarding new technologies to have a clear understanding of farmers' needs and
their ability to embrace new ideas. This will enable the development of technologies that are more beneficial to
farmers and ultimately contribute to the success of the agricultural industry.
13. Reference:
(FAO), F. a. A. O. (2003). Statement from the Ministerial Conference of the WTO 10-14 September, Doc No:
WT/MIN (03)/ST/61.
Abdoulaye, T., Abass, A., Maziya-Dixon, B., Tarawali, G., Okechukwu, R., Rusike, J., Alene, A., Manyong, V.,
& Ayedun, B. (2014). Awareness and adoption of improved cassava varieties and processing technologies
in Nigeria. Journal of Development and Agricultural Economics.
Adato, M., & Meinzen-Dick, R. S. (2002). Assessing the impact of agricultural research on poverty using the
sustainable livelihoods framework.
Adebiyi, S., & Okunlola, J. (2013). Factors affecting adoption of cocoa farm rehabilitation techniques in Oyo
State of Nigeria. World Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 9(3), 258-265.
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.
Adesope, O., Matthews-Njoku, E., Oguzor, N., & Ugwuja, V. (2012). Effect of socio-economic characteristics of
farmers on their adoption of organic farming practices. Crop Production Technologies, 210-220.
Ahmed, H. (2022). HUMAN SYSTEMS INTEGRATION OF AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY IN DEVELOPING
ECONOMY COUNTRIES: SUDAN AS A CASE STUDY Colorado State University].
Ahmed, H., Miller, E., & Ahmed, M. (2023). Facts, Myths, and Evolving Research Agenda on the
Mechanization of the African Agricultural Sector.
Ahmed, H., & Miller, E. E. (2022). Human‐Systems Integration of Agricultural Machinery in Developing
Developing Country Studies www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-607X (Paper) ISSN 2225-0565 (Online)
Vol.13, No.2, 2023
11
Economy Countries: Perceptions of Adoption. INCOSE International Symposium,
Ahmed, S., & Bagchi, K. (2004). Factors and constraints for adopting new agricultural technology in Assam
with special reference to Nalbari district: An empirical study. Contemp. Indian Policy, 3, 205-216.
Ajewole, O. (2010). Farmer’s response to adoption of commercially available organic fertilizers in Oyo state,
Nigeria. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 5(18), 2497-2503.
Aker, J. C. (2011). Dial “A” for agriculture: a review of information and communication technologies for
agricultural extension in developing countries. Agricultural Economics, 42(6), 631-647.
Akudugu, M. A., Guo, E., & Dadzie, S. K. (2012). Adoption of modern agricultural production technologies by
farm households in Ghana: what factors influence their decisions?
Al Hosani, N., Fathelrahman, E., Ahmed, H., & Rikab, E. (2022). Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR) for
decentralized grey water treatment: Technical, ecological and cost efficiency comparison for domestic
applications. Emirates Journal of Food and Agriculture.
Alexander, C., & Van Mellor, T. (2005). Determinants of corn rootworm resistant corn adoption in Indiana.
Arshad, M. U., Zhao, Y., Hanif, O., & Fatima, F. (2022). Evolution of Overall Cotton Production and Its
Determinants: Implications for Developing Countries Using Pakistan Case. Sustainability, 14(2), 840.
Atry, S., Ahmad, R., & Elham, F. (2009). Factors influencing the adoption of integrated pest management (IPM)
by wheat growers in Varamin County, Iran. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 4(5), 491-497.
Bandiera, O., Barankay, I., & Rasul, I. (2005). Social preferences and the response to incentives: Evidence from
personnel data. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(3), 917-962.
Bank, W. (2008A). Millennium Development Goals. Retrieved on Aug 30th, 2022.
Bapela, T., Shimelis, H., Tsilo, T. J., & Mathew, I. (2022). Genetic improvement of wheat for drought tolerance:
Progress, challenges and opportunities. Plants, 11(10), 1331.
Binns, T., Dixon, A., & Nel, E. (2012). Africa: Diversity and development. Routledge.
Bisanda, S., Mwangi, W., Verkuijl, H., Moshi, A. J., & Anandajayasekeram, P. (1998). Adoption of maize
production technologies in the Southern Highlands of Tanzania. CIMMYT.
Bonabana-Wabbi, J. (2002). Assessing factors affecting adoption of agricultural technologies: The case of
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in Kumi District, Eastern Uganda Virginia Tech].
Bradshaw, B., Dolan, H., & Smit, B. (2004). Farm-level adaptation to climatic variability and change: crop
diversification in the Canadian prairies. Climatic change, 67(1), 119-141.
Branca, G., Cacchiarelli, L., Haug, R., & Sorrentino, A. (2022). Promoting sustainable change of smallholders’
agriculture in Africa: Policy and institutional implications from a socio-economic cross-country
comparative analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 358, 131949.
Caffaro, F., Cremasco, M. M., Roccato, M., & Cavallo, E. (2020). Drivers of farmers’ intention to adopt
technological innovations in Italy: The role of information sources, perceived usefulness, and perceived
ease of use. Journal of Rural Studies, 76, 264-271.
Challa, M., & Tilahun, U. (2014). Determinants and impacts of modern agricultural technology adoption in west
Wollega: the case of Gulliso district. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare, 4(20), 63-77.
Chambers, R. (1987). Sustainable livelihoods, environment and development: putting poor rural people first.
Chen, S., & Ravallion, M. (2004). How have the world's poorest fared since the early 1980s? The World Bank
Research Observer, 19(2), 141-169.
Clover, J. (2003). Food security in sub-Saharan Africa. African security review, 12(1), 5-15.
Cortner, O., Garrett, R. D., Valentim, J. F., Ferreira, J., Niles, M. T., Reis, J., & Gil, J. (2019). Perceptions of
integrated crop-livestock systems for sustainable intensification in the Brazilian Amazon. Land use policy,
82, 841-853.
Czech, B., Krausman, P. R., & Devers, P. K. (2000). Economic associations among causes of species
endangerment in the United States: associations among causes of species endangerment in the United States
reflect the integration of economic sectors, supporting the theory and evidence that economic growth
proceeds at the competitive exclusion of nonhuman species in the aggregate. BioScience, 50(7), 593-601.
De Clercq, M., Vats, A., & Biel, A. (2018). Agriculture 4.0: The future of farming technology. Proceedings of
the World Government Summit, Dubai, UAE, 11-13.
Derpsch, R., Friedrich, T., Kassam, A., & Li, H. (2010). Current status of adoption of no-till farming in the
world and some of its main benefits. International journal of agricultural and biological engineering, 3(1),
1-25.
Diao, X., Silver, J., & Takeshima, H. (2016). Agricultural mechanization and agricultural transformation (Vol.
1527). Intl Food Policy Res Inst.
Diiro, G. M. (2013). Impact of off-farm income on agricultural technology adoption intensity and productivity.
Agric. Econ, 1-15.
Dos Santos, D. G., Coelho, C. C. d. S., Ferreira, A. B. R., & Freitas-Silva, O. (2021). Brazilian coffee production
and the future microbiome and mycotoxin profile considering the climate change scenario. Microorganisms,
Developing Country Studies www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-607X (Paper) ISSN 2225-0565 (Online)
Vol.13, No.2, 2023
12
9(4), 858.
Doss, C. (2003). Understanding farm-level technology adoption: lessons learned from CIMMYT's micro survey
in Eastern Africa.
Doss, C. R., & Morris, M. L. (2000). How does gender affect the adoption of agricultural innovations? The case
of improved maize technology in Ghana. Agricultural economics, 25(1), 27-39.
Dowd, B. M., Press, D., & Los Huertos, M. (2008). Agricultural nonpoint source water pollution policy: The
case of California's Central Coast. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 128(3), 151-161.
Duffy, M. (2009). Economies of size in production agriculture. Journal of hunger & environmental nutrition,
4(3-4), 375-392.
Endsley, M. R., & Garland, D. J. (2000). Theoretical underpinnings of situation awareness: A critical review.
Situation awareness analysis and measurement, 1(1), 3-21.
Feder, G., Just, R. E., & Zilberman, D. (1985). Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries: A
survey. Economic development and cultural change, 33(2), 255-298.
Fernandez-Cornejo, J., Daberkow, S., & Huang, H. (1994). The adoption of integrated pest management (IPM)
Techniques. Economics, 26(1), 158-172.
Fernandez-Cornejo, J., Mishra, A. K., Nehring, R. F., Hendricks, C., Southern, M., & Gregory, A. (2007). Off-
farm income, technology adoption, and farm economic performance.
Foster, A. D., & Rosenzweig, M. R. (1995). Learning by doing and learning from others: Human capital and
technical change in agriculture. Journal of political Economy, 103(6), 1176-1209.
Foster, A. D., & Rosenzweig, M. R. (2010). Microeconomics of technology adoption. Annual review of
Economics, 2.
Gabre-Madhin, E. Z., & Haggblade, S. (2004). Successes in African agriculture: results of an expert survey.
World development, 32(5), 745-766.
Genius, M., Koundouri, P., Nauges, C., & Tzouvelekas, V. (2014). Information transmission in irrigation
technology adoption and diffusion: Social learning, extension services, and spatial effects. American
Journal of Agricultural Economics, 96(1), 328-344.
Goodwin, B. K., & Mishra, A. K. (2004). Farming efficiency and the determinants of multiple job holding by
farm operators. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 86(3), 722-729.
Grieshop, J. I., Zalom, F. G., & Miyao, G. (1988). Adoption and diffusion of integrated pest management
innovations in agriculture. Bulletin of the ESA, 34(2), 72-79.
Harper, J. K., Rister, M. E., Mjelde, J. W., Drees, B. M., & Way, M. O. (1990). Factors influencing the adoption
of insect management technology. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 72(4), 997-1005.
Hertel, T. W., & Rosch, S. D. (2010). Climate change, agriculture, and poverty. Applied economic perspectives
and policy, 32(3), 355-385.
Hogset, H. (2005). Social networks and technology adoption.
Huffman, W. E., & Mercier, S. (1991). Joint adoption of microcomputer technologies: An analysis of farmers'
decisions. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 541-546.
Jain, R., Arora, A., & Raju, S. (2009). A novel adoption index of selected agricultural technologies: Linkages
with infrastructure and productivity. Agricultural Economics Research Review, 22(347-2016-16726), 109-
120.
Kariyasa, K., & Dewi, Y. A. (2013). Analysis of factors affecting adoption of integrated crop management
farmer field school (ICM-FFS) in swampy areas. International Journal of Food and Agricultural
Economics (IJFAEC), 1(1128-2016-92015), 29-38.
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. Proceedings of Deutscher Tropentag Workshop,
Kasenge, V. (1998). Socio-economic factors influencing the level of soil management practices on fragile land.
proceedings of the 16th Conference of Soil Science Society of East Africa (Eds.: Shayo-Ngowi, AJ, G. Ley
and FBR Rwehumbiza), 13th-19th, Tanga, Tanzania,
Katung, E., & Akankwasa, K. (2008). Community-based organizations and their effect on the adoption of
agricultural technologies in Uganda: a study of banana (Musa spp.) pest management technology. IV
International Symposium on Banana: International Conference on Banana and Plantain in Africa:
Harnessing International 879,
Kebede, Y., Gunjal, K., & Coffin, G. (1990). Adoption of new technologies in Ethiopian agriculture: the case of
Tegulet‐Bulga District, Shoa Province. Agricultural economics, 4(1), 27-43.
Keelan, C., Thorne, F. S., Flanagan, P., Newman, C., & Mullins, E. (2009). Predicted willingness of Irish
farmers to adopt GM technology.
Khanna, M. (2001). Sequential adoption of site‐specific technologies and its implications for nitrogen
productivity: A double selectivity model. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 83(1), 35-51.
Developing Country Studies www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-607X (Paper) ISSN 2225-0565 (Online)
Vol.13, No.2, 2023
13
Knowler, D., & Bradshaw, B. (2007). Farmers’ adoption of conservation agriculture: A review and synthesis of
recent research. Food Policy, 32(1), 25-48.
Kolade, O. (2018). Venturing under fire: Entrepreneurship education, venture creation, and poverty reduction in
conflict-ridden Maiduguri, Nigeria. Education+ Training, 60(7/8), 749-766.
Koubi, V. (2019). Sustainable development impacts of climate change and natural disaster. Background Paper
Prepared for Sustainable Development Outlook.
Lanjouw, J. O., & Lanjouw, P. (2001). The rural non‐farm sector: issues and evidence from developing countries.
Agricultural Economics, 26(1), 1-23.
Lavison, R. K. (2013). Factors influencing the adoption of organic fertilizers in vegetable production in Accra
University of Ghana].
Loevinsohn, M., Sumberg, J., Diagne, A., & Whitfield, S. (2013). Under what circumstances and conditions does
adoption of technology result in increased agricultural productivity? A Systematic Review.
Lowenberg-DeBoer, J. (2000). Comment on" Site-Specific Crop Management: Adoption Patterns and
Incentives". Review of agricultural economics, 22(1), 245-247.
Makokha, S., Kimani, S., Mwangi, W., Verkuijl, H., & Musembi, F. (2001). Determinants of fertilizer and
manure use for maize production in Kiambu District, Kenya. Cimmyt.
Malabo, M. P. (2018). Mechanized: transforming Africa's Agriculture Value Chains. Mechanized: transforming
Africa's Agriculture Value Chains.
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.
Martin, S. W., Roberts, R. K., Larkin, S. L., Larson, J. A., Paxton, K. W., English, B. C., Marra, M. C., &
Reeves, J. M. (2008). A binary logit estimation of factors affecting adoption of GPS guidance systems by
cotton producers. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 40(1), 345-355.
Mauceri, M., Alwang, J., Norton, G., & Barrera, V. (2005). Adoption of integrated pest management
technologies: A case study of potato farmers in Carchi, Ecuador. Memorias Annual Meeting American
Agricultural Economics Association, Providence (RI),
McCown, R. L. (2002). Changing systems for supporting farmers' decisions: problems, paradigms, and prospects.
Agricultural systems, 74(1), 179-220.
McNamara, K. T., Wetzstein, M. E., & Douce, G. K. (1991). Factors affecting peanut producer adoption of
integrated pest management. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 13(1), 129-139.
Mendola, M. (2007). Agricultural technology adoption and poverty reduction: A propensity-score matching
analysis for rural Bangladesh. Food Policy, 32(3), 372-393.
Mesfin, A. (2005). Analysis of factors Influencing Adoption of Triticale and its Impact. The Case Farta Wereda
School of Graduate Studies of Alemaya University Dire Dawa, Ethiopia].
Mignouna, D., Manyong, V., Mutabazi, K., & Senkondo, E. (2011). Determinants of adopting imazapyr-resistant
maize for Striga control in Western Kenya: A double-hurdle approach.
Mignouna, D. B., Manyong, V. M., Rusike, J., Mutabazi, K., & Senkondo, E. (2011). Determinants of adopting
Imazapyr-resistant maize technologies and its Impact of household Income in Western Kenya.
Mishra, A. K., & Park, T. A. (2005). An empirical analysis of Internet use by US farmers. Agricultural and
Resource Economics Review, 34(2), 253-264.
Mishra, A. K., Williams, R. P., & Detre, J. D. (2009). Internet access and internet purchasing patterns of farm
households. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 38(2), 240-257.
Mkandawire, R. (1993). Agrarian change and food security among smallholder farmers in Malawi. Food policy
and agriculture in Southern Africa., 63-84.
Mohamed, K. S., & Temu, A. E. (2008). Access to credit and its effect on the adoption of agricultural
technologies: the case of Zanzibar. African Review of money finance and Banking, 45-89.
Mohan, R. (2006). Agricultural credit in India: Status, issues and future agenda. Economic and Political Weekly,
1013-1023.
Muzari, W., Gatsi, W., & Muvhunzi, S. (2012). The impacts of technology adoption on smallholder agricultural
productivity in sub-Saharan Africa: A review. Journal of Sustainable Development, 5(8), 69.
Mwangi, M., & Kariuki, S. (2015). Factors determining adoption of new agricultural technology by smallholder
farmers in developing countries. Journal of Economics and sustainable development, 6(5).
Namara, R. E., Weligamage, P., & Barker, R. (2003). Prospects for adopting system of rice intensification in Sri
Lanka: A socioeconomic assessment (Vol. 75). IWMI.
Obisesan, A. (2014). Gender differences in technology adoption and welfare impact among Nigerian farming
households.
Olukunle, O. T. (2013). Challenges and prospects of agriculture in Nigeria: the way forward. Journal of
Economics and sustainable development, 4(16), 37-45.
Omonona, B., Oni, O., & Uwagboe, A. (2006). Adoption of improved cassava varieties and its welfare impact on
Developing Country Studies www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-607X (Paper) ISSN 2225-0565 (Online)
Vol.13, No.2, 2023
14
rural farming households in Edo State, Nigeria. Journal of agricultural & food information, 7(1), 39-55.
Ouma, J. O., Murithi, F. M., Mwangi, W., Verkuijl, H., Gethi, M., & De Groote, H. (2002). Adoption of maize
seed and fertilizer technologies in Embu district, Kenya.
Pivoto, D., Barham, B., Waquil, P. D., Foguesatto, C. R., Corte, V. F. D., Zhang, D., & Talamini, E. (2019).
Factors influencing the adoption of smart farming by Brazilian grain farmers. International Food and
Agribusiness Management Review, 22(4), 571-588.
Platz, E., Goldflam, K., Mennicke, M., Parisini, E., Christ, M., & Hohenstein, C. (2010). Comparison of Web-
versus classroom-based basic ultrasonographic and EFAST training in 2 European hospitals. Annals of
emergency medicine, 56(6), 660-667. e661.
Pretty, J. N., Morison, J. I., & Hine, R. E. (2003). Reducing food poverty by increasing agricultural sustainability
in developing countries. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 95(1), 217-234.
Putler, D. S., & Zilberman, D. (1988). Computer use in agriculture: evidence from Tulare County, California.
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 70(4), 790-802.
Rahm, M. R., & Huffman, W. E. (1984). The adoption of reduced tillage: the role of human capital and other
variables. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66(4), 405-413.
Rasul, I. (2002). Social networks and technology adoption in northern Mozambique. Suntory and Toyota
International Centre for Economics and Related Disciplines.
Reardon, T., Stamoulis, K., & Pingali, P. (2007). Rural nonfarm employment in developing countries in an era of
globalization. Agricultural economics, 37, 173-183.
Rejeb, A., Rejeb, K., Abdollahi, A., Zailani, S., Iranmanesh, M., & Ghobakhloo, M. (2021). Digitalization in
food supply chains: A bibliometric review and key-route main path analysis. Sustainability, 14(1), 83.
Riasati, M. J., Allahyar, N., & Tan, K.-E. (2012). Technology in language education: Benefits and barriers.
Journal of education and practice, 3(5), 25-30.
Ridgley, A.-M., & Brush, S. (1992). Social factors and selective technology adoption: the case of integrated pest
management. Human Organization, 51(4), 367-378.
Roberts, R. K., English, B. C., Larson, J. A., Cochran, R. L., Goodman, W. R., Larkin, S. L., Marra, M. C.,
Martin, S. W., Shurley, W. D., & Reeves, J. M. (2004). Adoption of site-specific information and variable-
rate technologies in cotton precision farming. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 36(1), 143-
158.
Rotz, S., Duncan, E., Small, M., Botschner, J., Dara, R., Mosby, I., Reed, M., & Fraser, E. D. (2019). The
politics of digital agricultural technologies: a preliminary review. Sociologia ruralis, 59(2), 203-229.
Ruttan, V. W. (2010). Sources of technical change: Induced innovation, evolutionary theory, and path
dependence. In Technological change and the environment (pp. 15-45). Routledge.
Sattler, C., & Nagel, U. J. (2010). Factors affecting farmers’ acceptance of conservation measures—A case study
from north-eastern Germany. Land use policy, 27(1), 70-77.
Shiferaw, B., Hellin, J., & Muricho, G. (2011). Improving market access and agricultural productivity growth in
Africa: what role for producer organizations and collective action institutions? Food Security, 3, 475-489.
Shiferaw, B., Prasanna, B. M., Hellin, J., & Bänziger, M. (2011). Crops that feed the world 6. Past successes and
future challenges to the role played by maize in global food security. Food Security, 3, 307-327.
Simtowe, F., Kassie, M., Diagne, A., Asfaw, S., Shiferaw, B., Silim, S., & Muange, E. (2011). Determinants of
agricultural technology adoption: The case of improved pigeonpea varieties in Tanzania. Quarterly Journal
of International Agriculture, 50(892-2016-65202), 325-345.
Simtowe, F., & Zeller, M. (2006). The Impact of Access to Credit on the Adoption of hybrid maize in Malawi:
An Empirical test of an Agricultural Household Model under credit market failure.
Singh, N., & Singh, A. N. (2020). Odysseys of agriculture sensors: Current challenges and forthcoming
prospects. Computers and electronics in agriculture, 171, 105328.
Sinja, J., Karugia, J. T., Baltenweck, I., Waithaka, M. M., Miano, M., Nyikal, R. A., & Romney, D. (2004).
Farmer Perception of Technology and its Impact on Technology Uptake: The Case of Fodder Legume in
Central Kenya Highlands.
Ssewanyana, S. N., & Kasirye, I. (2010). Food security in Uganda: A dilemma to achieving the Millennium
Development Goal.
Swanson, B. E. (2008). Global review of good agricultural extension and advisory service practices (Vol. 82).
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Rome.
Takahashi, K., Muraoka, R., & Otsuka, K. (2020). Technology adoption, impact, and extension in developing
countries’ agriculture: A review of the recent literature. Agricultural Economics, 51(1), 31-45.
Talaviya, T., Shah, D., Patel, N., Yagnik, H., & Shah, M. (2020). Implementation of artificial intelligence in
agriculture for optimisation of irrigation and application of pesticides and herbicides. Artificial Intelligence
in Agriculture, 4, 58-73.
Traoré, N., Landry, R., & Amara, N. (1998). On-farm adoption of conservation practices: the role of farm and
Developing Country Studies www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-607X (Paper) ISSN 2225-0565 (Online)
Vol.13, No.2, 2023
15
farmer characteristics, perceptions, and health hazards. Land economics, 114-127.
Uaiene, R., Arndt, C., Masters, W. (2009). Determinants of Agricultural Technology Adoption in Mozambique.
Discussion papers. No. 67E.
Uematsu, H., & Mishra, A. K. (2010). Can education be a barrier to technology adoption?
Ullah, R., Shivakoti, G. P., Zulfiqar, F., & Kamran, M. A. (2016). Farm risks and uncertainties: Sources, impacts
and management. Outlook on Agriculture, 45(3), 199-205.
Van Loon, J., Woltering, L., Krupnik, T. J., Baudron, F., Boa, M., & Govaerts, B. (2020). Scaling agricultural
mechanization services in smallholder farming systems: Case studies from sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia,
and Latin America. Agricultural systems, 180, 102792.
Viswanathan, P., Kavya, K., & Bahinipati, C. S. (2020). Global patterns of climate-resilient agriculture: A
review of studies and imperatives for empirical research in India. Review of Development and Change,
25(2), 169-192.
Waller, B. E., Hoy, C. W., Henderson, J. L., Stinner, B., & Welty, C. (1998). Matching innovations with
potential users, a case study of potato IPM practices. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment, 70(2-3), 203-
215.
Watson, C. A., Atkinson, D., Gosling, P., Jackson, L. R., & Rayns, F. (2002). Managing soil fertility in organic
farming systems. Soil use and management, 18, 239-247.
Wekesa, E., Mwangi, W., Verkuijl, H., Danda, K., & De Groote, H. (2003). Adoption of maize production
technologies in the coastal lowlands of Kenya. CIMMYT.
Wu, J., & Babcock, B. A. (1998). The choice of tillage, rotation, and soil testing practices: Economic and
environmental implications. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 80(3), 494-511.
Yaron, D., Voet, H., & Dinar, A. (1992). Innovations on family farms: the Nazareth region in Israel. American
Journal of Agricultural Economics, 74(2), 361-370.
