IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/wjagec/32062.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Influence Of Quality And Scarcity Of Inputs On The Adoption Of Modern Irrigation Technologies

Author

Listed:
  • Dinar, Ariel
  • Yaron, Dan

Abstract

This article describes the influence of input quality and scarcity, environmental conditions, human capital, water price, and other variables on adoption rates for modern irrigation technologies in terms of both speed and extent of application. An empirical model is developed to apply these relationships to citrus groves in Israel. Results show that modern irrigation technologies tend to be adopted sooner and to a greater extent (a) on groves located on relatively low quality land, (b) in regions with higher evaporation rates, (c) on groves planted with more sensitive rootstock, and (d) on groves grown under conditions of restricted water allotments and higher water prices. Management, human capital, and scale of operation also affect the level and speed of adoption. It is suggested that water prices and quotas can be used to increase adoption.

Suggested Citation

  • Dinar, Ariel & Yaron, Dan, 1990. "Influence Of Quality And Scarcity Of Inputs On The Adoption Of Modern Irrigation Technologies," Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 15(2), pages 1-10, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:wjagec:32062
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.32062
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/32062/files/15020224.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.32062?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Feder, Gershon & Just, Richard E & Zilberman, David, 1985. "Adoption of Agricultural Innovations in Developing Countries: A Survey," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 33(2), pages 255-298, January.
    2. Dinar, Ariel & Letey, J. & Knapp, Keith C., 1985. "Economic evaluation of salinity, drainage and non-uniformity of infiltrated irrigation water," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 221-233, November.
    3. Feder, Gershon, 1980. "Farm Size, Risk Aversion and the Adoption of New Technology under Uncertainty," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 263-283, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gedikoglu, Haluk & McCann, Laura M.J. & Artz, Georgeanne M., 2011. "Off-Farm Employment Effects on Adoption of Nutrient Management Practices," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 40(2), pages 1-14, August.
    2. Bellon, Mauricio R & Taylor, J Edward, 1993. ""Folk" Soil Taxonomy and the Partial Adoption of New Seed Varieties," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 41(4), pages 763-786, July.
    3. Patrick S. Ward & Valerien O. Pede, 2015. "Capturing social network effects in technology adoption: the spatial diffusion of hybrid rice in Bangladesh," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 59(2), pages 225-241, April.
    4. Tristan Le Cotty & Elodie Maître d’Hôtel & Raphael Soubeyran & Julie Subervie, 2018. "Linking Risk Aversion, Time Preference and Fertiliser Use in Burkina Faso," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(11), pages 1991-2006, November.
    5. Jim Engle-Warnick & Javier Escobal & Sonia Laszlo, 2007. "Ambiguity Aversion as a Predictor of Technology Choice: Experimental Evidence from Peru," CIRANO Working Papers 2007s-01, CIRANO.
    6. Galarza, Francisco, 2009. "Choices under Risk in Rural Peru," MPRA Paper 17708, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Tiffany Shih & Brian Wright, 2011. "Agricultural Innovation," NBER Chapters, in: Accelerating Energy Innovation: Insights from Multiple Sectors, pages 49-85, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Yigezu, Yigezu A. & Alwang, Jeffrey & Rahman, M. Wakilur & Mollah, M. Bazlur R. & El-Shater, Tamer & Aw-Hassan, Aden & Sarker, Ashutosh, 2019. "Is DNA fingerprinting the gold standard for estimation of adoption and impacts of improved lentil varieties?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 48-59.
    9. Paul Diederen & Hans Van Meijl & Arjan Wolters & Katarzyna Bijak, 2003. "Innovation adoption in agriculture : innovators, early adopters and laggards," Cahiers d'Economie et Sociologie Rurales, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 67, pages 29-50.
    10. Jia, Xiangping, 2009. "Synergistic Green and White Revolution: Evidence from Kenya and Uganda," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 51367, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Prisca Koncy Fosso & Roger Tsafack Nanfosso, 2016. "Adoption of agricultural innovations in risky environment: the case of corn producers in the west of Cameroon," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 97(1), pages 51-62, June.
    12. Elaine M. Liu, 2013. "Time to Change What to Sow: Risk Preferences and Technology Adoption Decisions of Cotton Farmers in China," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(4), pages 1386-1403, October.
    13. Kurosaki, Takashi & Fafchamps, Marcel, 2002. "Insurance market efficiency and crop choices in Pakistan," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 419-453, April.
    14. Worden, David & Hailu, Getu, 2020. "Do genomic innovations enable an economic and environmental win-win in dairy production?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    15. Ahsanuzzaman, & Priyo, Asad Karim Khan & Nuzhat, Kanti Ananta, 2022. "Effects of communication, group selection, and social learning on risk and ambiguity attitudes: Experimental evidence from Bangladesh," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    16. Apurba Shee & Carlo Azzarri & Beliyou Haile, 2019. "Farmers’ Willingness to Pay for Improved Agricultural Technologies: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Tanzania," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-13, December.
    17. Alexis H. Villacis & Jeffrey R. Alwang & Victor Barrera, 2021. "Linking risk preferences and risk perceptions of climate change: A prospect theory approach," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(5), pages 863-877, September.
    18. Gars, Jared & Ward, Patrick S., 2019. "Can differences in individual learning explain patterns of technology adoption? Evidence on heterogeneous learning patterns and hybrid rice adoption in Bihar, India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 178-189.
    19. Negash, Martha, 2015. "Drivers of bioenergy crop adoption: evidence from Ethiopia's castor bean contract farming," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 230226, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. Jim Engle-Warnick & Javier Escobal & Sonia Laszlo, 2009. "How do additional alternatives affect individual choice under uncertainty?," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 42(1), pages 113-140, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:wjagec:32062. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/waeaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.