IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ajaees/357530.html

An Economic Analysis of Technology Adoption Coupled With Conjunctive Use of Ground Water in Tank Command Area

Author

Listed:
  • Minithra, R.
  • Kumar, D. Suresh

Abstract

This paper aims to evaluate the conjunctive use of surface and ground water, adoption of water management technologies and factors which influence the adoption of water management technologies in the tank command area since water scarcity problem is becoming major concern in most of the districts in Tamil Nadu. Dindigul district was purposively selected for the study since there are about 3,104 tanks and 30 per cent of area was irrigated by tank to total net area irrigated. Tank irrigation was also supplemented with well (open well) irrigation (i.e. conjunctive use of surface water and ground water was playing significant role). Simple random sampling technique was employed for selecting the sample farmers. Primary data was collected from 150 sample farmers and multinomial logit model was used for analysis. The result revealed that the yield was higher for farmers adopting water management technologies under conjunctive water use situation. . The adopters of water management technologies had realized increased productivity and thereby the returns in rice crop were comparatively high the farming experience, income from off and non-farm activities and contact with extension agents were found to have positive and significant influence on adoption of technology. The farm size of the farmers had negative effect on adoption of technology.

Suggested Citation

  • Minithra, R. & Kumar, D. Suresh, 2019. "An Economic Analysis of Technology Adoption Coupled With Conjunctive Use of Ground Water in Tank Command Area," Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics & Sociology, Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics & Sociology, vol. 29(1).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ajaees:357530
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/357530/files/Minithra2912018AJAEES45946.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Noltze, Martin & Schwarze, Stefan & Qaim, Matin, 2012. "Understanding the adoption of system technologies in smallholder agriculture: The system of rice intensification (SRI) in Timor Leste," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 64-73.
    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. Raju Ghimire & Wen-Chi Huang, 2015. "Household wealth and adoption of improved maize varieties in Nepal: a double-hurdle approach," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 7(6), pages 1321-1335, December.
    2. Varma, Poornima, 2017. "Adoption of System of Rice Intensification and its Impact on Rice Yields and Household Income: An Analysis for India," IIMA Working Papers WP2017-02-03, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
    3. Varma, P., 2018. "Adoption and the Impact of System of Rice Intensification on Rice Yields and Household Income: A study for India," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 275986, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Nazziwa-Nviiri, L. & Van Campenhout, Bjorn & Amwonya, D., 2017. "Stimulating agricultural technology adoption lessons from fertilizer use among Ugandan potato farmers," IFPRI discussion papers 1608, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    5. Hazarika, Bhabesh & Bezbaruah, Madhurjya Prashad & Goswami, Kishor, 2016. "Adoption of modern weaving technology in the handloom micro-enterprises in Assam: A Double Hurdle approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 344-356.
    6. Varma, Poornima, 2016. "Agricultural Technology Adoption under Multiple Constraints: An Analysis of System of Rice Intensification (SRI) in India," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235806, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Rao, Elizaphan J.O. & Qaim, Matin, 2013. "Supermarkets and agricultural labor demand in Kenya: A gendered perspective," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 165-176.
    8. Cuong Le Van & Nguyen To The, 2019. "Farmers’ adoption of organic production," Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 33-59, February.
    9. Smale, Melinda & Mason, Nicole M., 2012. "Demand for Maize Hybrids, Seed Subsidies, and Seed Decisionmakers in Zambia," Food Security Collaborative Working Papers 123555, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    10. Avila-Santamaria, Jorge J. & Useche, Maria P., 2016. "Urea Subsidies and the Decision to Allocate Land to a New Fertilizing Technology: Ex-ante Analysis in Ecuador," 2016 Annual Meeting, February 6-9, 2016, San Antonio, Texas 229851, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    11. Cook, Aaron M. & Ricker-Gilbert, Jacob E. & Sesmero, Juan P., 2013. "How do African households adapt to climate change? Evidence from Malawi," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150507, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    13. Maren Radeny & Elizaphan J. O. Rao & Maurice Juma Ogada & John W. Recha & Dawit Solomon, 2022. "Impacts of climate-smart crop varieties and livestock breeds on the food security of smallholder farmers in Kenya," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 14(6), pages 1511-1535, December.
    14. Sylvester Amoako Agyemang & Tomáš Ratinger & Miroslava Bavorová, 2022. "The Impact of Agricultural Input Subsidy on Productivity: The Case of Ghana," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 34(3), pages 1460-1485, June.
    15. Ricker-Gilbert, Jacob & Jones, Michael, 2015. "Does storage technology affect adoption of improved maize varieties in Africa? Insights from Malawi’s input subsidy program," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 92-105.
    16. Kuntashula, Elias & Chabala, Lydia M. & Chibwe, Terence K. & Kaluba, Peter, 2015. "The Effects of Household Wealth on Adoption of Agricultural Related Climate Change Adaptation Strategies in Zambia," Sustainable Agriculture Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 4(4).
    17. Chen, Feifei & Qiu, Huanguang & Zhao, Yilin & Wei, Xun & Wan, Xiangyuan, 2024. "Impact of new maize variety adoption on yield and fertilizer input in China: Implications for sustainable food and agriculture," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).
    18. Kenneth, Akankwasa & Gerald, Ortmann & Edilegnaw, Wale & Wilberforce, Tushemereirwe, "undated". "Ex-Ante Adoption of New Cooking Banana (Matooke) Hybrids in Uganda Based on Farmers' Perceptions," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 123302, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Smale, Melinda & Olwande, John, 2011. "Is Older Better? Maize Hybrid Change on Household Farms in Kenya," Food Security International Development Working Papers 118474, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    20. Elisabeth Fischer & Matin Qaim, 2014. "Smallholder Farmers and Collective Action: What Determines the Intensity of Participation?," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(3), pages 683-702, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ajaees:357530. 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://journalajaees.com/index.php/AJAEES/index .

    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.