IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i23p15986-d989027.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Adoption Patterns and Intensity for Multiple BananaTechnologies in Uganda

Author

Listed:
  • Stella Kiconco

    (National Agricultural Research Laboratories—Kawanda (NARL-Kawanda), Kampala P.O. Box 7065, Uganda
    Department of Agricultural Economics, Extension and Rural Development, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, University of Pretoria, Private Bag X20 Hatfield, Pretoria 0028, South Africa)

  • Suresh Chandra Babu

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, Extension and Rural Development, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, University of Pretoria, Private Bag X20 Hatfield, Pretoria 0028, South Africa
    International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), 1201 Eye St., NW, Washington, DC 20005, USA)

  • Kenneth Akankwasa

    (National Agricultural Research Laboratories—Kawanda (NARL-Kawanda), Kampala P.O. Box 7065, Uganda
    Rwebitaba Zonal Agricultural Research and Development Institute (RZARDI), Fort Portal P.O. BOX 96, Uganda)

Abstract

The adoption of improved technologies is widely recognized as key to improving agricultural productivity in Sub-Saharan Africa. This study analyzes adoption patterns and intensity of multiple banana technologies in Uganda which have been promoted over time. We used primary data collected from 383 banana farmers sampled using a multi-stage sampling procedure. Multivariate probit (MVP) and ordered probit analyses were applied to establish the adoption patterns and adoption intensity, respectively, and any factors affecting them. The findings highlight that 15 pairwise correlation coefficients among banana technologies were statistically significant implying that banana farmers adopt technologies simultaneously. The household size, total banana area, ecological location, membership to farmer groups, access to formal credit sources, and the type of market accessed had significant effects on household adoption patterns and intensity. Thus, it is recommended that such factors should be seriously considered in addition to technology characteristics when planning promotion programs. Simultaneous adoption implies that each of the technologies should be considered as a package which contributes to the increased farmer options and maximum synergistic effects among them. This study contributes to the existing literature by highlighting the key variables which affect the pattern and intensity of adopting technological packages involving both input intensification and low-external-input technologies in Uganda.

Suggested Citation

  • Stella Kiconco & Suresh Chandra Babu & Kenneth Akankwasa, 2022. "Adoption Patterns and Intensity for Multiple BananaTechnologies in Uganda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-14, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:23:p:15986-:d:989027
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/23/15986/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/23/15986/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tolulope E. Oladimeji & Oyakhilomen Oyinbo & Abubakar A. Hassan & Oseni Yusuf, 2020. "Understanding the Interdependence and Temporal Dynamics of Smallholders’ Adoption of Soil Conservation Practices: Evidence from Nigeria," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-21, March.
    2. 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.
    3. Derek Byerlee & Edith Hesse de Polanco, 1986. "Farmers' Stepwise Adoption of Technological Packages: Evidence from the Mexican Altiplano," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 68(3), pages 519-527.
    4. Keijiro Otsuka & Rie Muraoka, 2017. "A Green Revolution for Sub-Saharan Africa: Past Failures and Future Prospects," Journal of African Economies, Centre for the Study of African Economies, vol. 26(suppl_1), pages 73-98.
    5. Singh, Inderjit & Squire, Lyn & Strauss, John, 1986. "A Survey of Agricultural Household Models: Recent Findings and Policy Implications," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 1(1), pages 149-179, September.
    6. Martinez, Jose Maria & Labarta, Ricardo A. & Gonzalez, Carolina & Lopera, Diana C., 2021. "Joint adoption of rice technologies among Bolivian farmers," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(2), pages 252-272, August.
    7. K. Akankwasa & G.F. Ortmann & E. Wale & W.K. Tushemereirwe, 2013. "Farmers' choice among recently developed hybrid banana varieties in Uganda: A multinomial logit analysis," Agrekon, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(2), pages 25-51, June.
    8. Ehiakpor, Dennis Sedem & Danso-Abbeam, Gideon & Mubashiru, Yussif, 2021. "Adoption of interrelated sustainable agricultural practices among smallholder farmers in Ghana," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    9. Mr. Jorge A Alvarez & Claudia Berg, 2019. "Crop Selection and International Differences in Aggregate Agricultural Productivity," IMF Working Papers 2019/179, International Monetary Fund.
    10. Hailemariam Teklewold & Menale Kassie & Bekele Shiferaw, 2013. "Adoption of Multiple Sustainable Agricultural Practices in Rural Ethiopia," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(3), pages 597-623, September.
    11. Gershon Feder & Roger Slade, 1984. "The Acquisition of Information and the Adoption of New Technology," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 312-320.
    12. Priscilla Wainaina & Songporne Tongruksawattana & Matin Qaim, 2016. "Tradeoffs and complementarities in the adoption of improved seeds, fertilizer, and natural resource management technologies in Kenya," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 47(3), pages 351-362, May.
    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. Gregory Amacher & Jeffrey Alwang, 2004. "Productivity and Land Enhancing Technologies in Northern Ethiopia: Health, Public Investments, and Sequential Adoption," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 321-331.
    2. Marra, Michele & Pannell, David J. & Abadi Ghadim, Amir, 2003. "The economics of risk, uncertainty and learning in the adoption of new agricultural technologies: where are we on the learning curve?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 75(2-3), pages 215-234.
    3. Gebremariam, Gebrelibanos & Tesfaye, Wondimagegn, 2018. "The heterogeneous effect of shocks on agricultural innovations adoption: Microeconometric evidence from rural Ethiopia," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 154-161.
    4. Mariapia MENDOLA, 2005. "Agricultural technology and poverty reduction: a micro-level analysis of causal effects," Departmental Working Papers 2005-14, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    5. Oumer, Ali M. & Burton, Michael, 2018. "Drivers and Synergies in the Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Intensification Practices: A Dynamic Perspective," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 273871, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Ruzzante, Sacha & Labarta, Ricardo & Bilton, Amy, 2021. "Adoption of agricultural technology in the developing world: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    7. Kazushi Takahashi & Rie Muraoka & Keijiro Otsuka, 2020. "Technology adoption, impact, and extension in developing countries’ agriculture: A review of the recent literature," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(1), pages 31-45, January.
    8. Srijna Jha & Harald Kaechele & Marcos Lana & T.S Amjath-Babu & Stefan Sieber, 2020. "Exploring Farmers’ Perceptions of Agricultural Technologies: A Case Study from Tanzania," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-21, January.
    9. Banchayehu Tessema Assefa & Jordan Chamberlin & Martin K. van Ittersum & Pytrik Reidsma, 2021. "Usage and Impacts of Technologies and Management Practices in Ethiopian Smallholder Maize Production," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-19, September.
    10. Kangogo, Daniel & Dentoni, Domenico & Bijman, Jos, 2021. "Adoption of climate‐smart agriculture among smallholder farmers: Does farmer entrepreneurship matter?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    11. Weaver, Robert D. & Rauniyar, Ganesh, 1993. "The Economics of Adoption of Environmentally Beneficial Agricultural Practices: (EBAPs): An Analytical Review of Evidence," Staff Paper Series 256847, Pennsylvania State University, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology.
    12. Xu, Pei & Wang, Zhigang, 2012. "Factors Affect Chinese Producers' Adoption of a New Production Technology: Survey Results from Chinese Fruits Producers," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 13(2), pages 1-16.
    13. Langyintuo, Augustine S. & Mungoma, Catherine, 2008. "The effect of household wealth on the adoption of improved maize varieties in Zambia," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 550-559, December.
    14. Burton, Michael P. & Rigby, Dan & Young, Trevor, 2003. "Modelling the adoption of organic horticultural technology in the UK using Duration Analysis," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 47(1), pages 1-26, March.
    15. Ayala Wineman & Timothy Njagi & C. Leigh Anderson & Travis W. Reynolds & Didier Yélognissè Alia & Priscilla Wainaina & Eric Njue & Pierre Biscaye & Miltone W. Ayieko, 2020. "A Case of Mistaken Identity? Measuring Rates of Improved Seed Adoption in Tanzania Using DNA Fingerprinting," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(3), pages 719-741, September.
    16. Keil, Alwin & Saint-Macary, Camille & Zeller, Manfred, 2013. "Intensive Commercial Agriculture in Fragile Uplands of Vietnam: How to Harness its Poverty Reduction Potential while Ensuring Environmental Sustainability?," Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, Humboldt-Universitaat zu Berlin, vol. 52(1), pages 1-25, February.
    17. Guizar-Mateos, Isai & Miranda, Mario J. & Gonzalez-Vega, Claudio, 2013. "The Role of Credit and Deposits in the Dynamics of Technology Decisions and Poverty Traps," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 149860, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Khushbu Mishra & Abdoul G. Sam & Gracious M. Diiro & Mario J. Miranda, 2020. "Gender and the dynamics of technology adoption: Empirical evidence from a household‐level panel data," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(6), pages 857-870, November.
    19. Faruque As Sunny & Linlin Fu & Md Sadique Rahman & Zuhui Huang, 2022. "Determinants and Impact of Solar Irrigation Facility (SIF) Adoption: A Case Study in Northern Bangladesh," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-17, March.
    20. Liu, Jean & Chen, Kevin & Shi, Minjun, 2004. "Access to Information and the Adoption of Hybrid Maize: Evidence from China's Poor Areas," Japanese Journal of Agricultural Economics (formerly Japanese Journal of Rural Economics), Agricultural Economics Society of Japan (AESJ), vol. 6, pages 1-7.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:23:p:15986-:d:989027. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.