IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v14y2024i5p667-d1382595.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perceived Organizational Support, Inter-Temporal Choice, and Farmer Conservation Tillage Adoption

Author

Listed:
  • Tong Zhang

    (School of Economics and Management, Northwest A&F University, Yangling District, Xianyang 712100, China)

  • Liangming Lang

    (School of Marxism, Chang’an University, Xi’an 710064, China)

  • Nan Zhao

    (School of Economics and Management, Northwest A&F University, Yangling District, Xianyang 712100, China)

  • Qian Lu

    (School of Economics and Management, Northwest A&F University, Yangling District, Xianyang 712100, China)

  • Bailiang Sun

    (School of Marxism, Chang’an University, Xi’an 710064, China)

Abstract

To solve the problem of the insufficient driving force and low adoption rate of conservation tillage adoption and to enhance the effect of industrial organization in influencing technology diffusion, this paper explored the relationship and the mechanism of perceived organizational support and inter-temporal choice in the adoption of conservation tillage by using micro-research data from 725 melon farmers in the Shaanxi and Shanxi provinces in China and by applying the experimental economics method to obtain the inter-temporal choices of the farmers. This paper also analyzed farmers’ risk preferences’ moderating effect on the relationship between inter-temporal choice and conservation tillage. Additionally, it examined the impact of perceived organizational support on the differentiation of different conservation tillage technologies. The study found that perceived organizational support significantly contributes to adopting zero tillage and minimum tillage, and water-saving irrigation. Perceived organizational support was not conducive to farmers’ adoption of furrow and ridge tillage. The impact of perceived organizational support on technology adoption is heterogeneous, depending on the differences in the size of the family’s cultivated land. The inter-temporal choice of farmers significantly impedes the adoption of conservation tillage. The increase in risk preference helps alleviate the hindering effect of inter-temporal choice on farmers’ adoption of conservation tillage. Perceived organizational support can promote the adoption of conservation tillage by reducing farmers’ inter-temporal choices. Inter-temporal choice is an essential mechanism by which perceived organizational support affects the adoption of conservation tillage. Compared with the existing studies, this paper incorporates the technology-attribute-induced inter-temporal choice of farmers into the impact analysis framework and considers the relationship between perceived organizational support, inter-temporal choice, and the adoption of conservation tillage and the mechanism of its action. The findings of the study provide a theoretical basis for the enrichment of incentive mechanisms for the adoption of conservation tillage, which is of great significance for the improvement of the tool for the integration of small farmers in developing countries into the industrial activities of the new agricultural business central bodies and for promoting the diffusion of conservation tillage in agriculture.

Suggested Citation

  • Tong Zhang & Liangming Lang & Nan Zhao & Qian Lu & Bailiang Sun, 2024. "Perceived Organizational Support, Inter-Temporal Choice, and Farmer Conservation Tillage Adoption," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-29, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:14:y:2024:i:5:p:667-:d:1382595
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/14/5/667/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/14/5/667/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. DeSteno, David & Li, Ye & Dickens, Leah & Lerner, Jennifer, 2014. "Gratitude: A Tool for Reducing Economic Impatience," Scholarly Articles 12185844, Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
    2. Teklewold, Hailemariam & Kassie, Menale & Shiferaw, Bekele & Köhlin, Gunnar, 2013. "Cropping system diversification, conservation tillage and modern seed adoption in Ethiopia: Impacts on household income, agrochemical use and demand for labor," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 85-93.
    3. Luisa Menapace & Gregory Colson & Roberta Raffaelli, 2016. "A comparison of hypothetical risk attitude elicitation instruments for explaining farmer crop insurance purchases," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 43(1), pages 113-135.
    4. Abebaw, Degnet & Haile, Mekbib G., 2013. "The impact of cooperatives on agricultural technology adoption: Empirical evidence from Ethiopia," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 82-91.
    5. Meike Wollni & David R. Lee & Janice E. Thies, 2010. "Conservation agriculture, organic marketing, and collective action in the Honduran hillsides," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 41(3‐4), pages 373-384, May.
    6. Magnan, Nicholas & Spielman, David J. & Lybbert, Travis J. & Gulati, Kajal, 2015. "Leveling with friends: Social networks and Indian farmers' demand for a technology with heterogeneous benefits," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 223-251.
    7. Wanglin Ma & Awudu Abdulai & Renan Goetz, 2018. "Agricultural Cooperatives and Investment in Organic Soil Amendments and Chemical Fertilizer in China," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(2), pages 502-520.
    8. Marc Scholten & Daniel Read, 2006. "Discounting by Intervals: A Generalized Model of Intertemporal Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(9), pages 1424-1436, September.
    9. Saha Atanu & H. Alan Love & Robert Schwart, 1994. "Adoption of Emerging Technologies Under Output Uncertainty," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(4), pages 836-846.
    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. Kifle T. Sebhatu & Fatemeh Taheri & Tekeste Berhanu & Miet Maertens & Steven Van Passel & Marijke D'Haese, 2021. "Beyond focus: Exploring variability of service provision of agricultural cooperatives," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 92(2), pages 207-231, June.
    2. Tesfaye, Wondimagegn & Tirivayi, Nyasha, 2020. "Crop diversity, household welfare and consumption smoothing under risk: Evidence from rural Uganda," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    3. Liyan Yu & Jerker Nilsson & Feng Zhan & Song Cheng, 2023. "Social Capital in Cooperative Memberships and Farmers’ Access to Bank Credit–Evidence from Fujian, China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-18, February.
    4. Wanglin Ma & Hongyun Zheng & Amaka Nnaji, 2023. "Cooperative membership and adoption of green pest control practices: Insights from rice farmers," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 67(3), pages 459-479, July.
    5. Musa Hasen Ahmed & Kassahun Mamo Geleta & Aemro Tazeze & Hiwot Mekonnen Mesfin & Eden Andualem Tilahun, 2017. "Cropping systems diversification, improved seed, manure and inorganic fertilizer adoption by maize producers of eastern Ethiopia," Journal of Economic Structures, Springer;Pan-Pacific Association of Input-Output Studies (PAPAIOS), vol. 6(1), pages 1-16, December.
    6. Tianzhi Gao & Yaqin Ren & Qian Lu & Hui Feng, 2023. "Conservation Tillage Technology: A Study on the Duration from Awareness to Adoption and Its Influencing Factors—Based on the Survey of the Yellow River Basin in China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-17, June.
    7. 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.
    8. Aihounton, Ghislain & Christiaensen, Luc, 2024. "Does agricultural intensification pay in the context of structural transformation?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    9. Yuanyuan Peng & H. Holly Wang & Yueshu Zhou, 2022. "Can cooperatives help commercial farms to access credit in China? Evidence from Jiangsu Province," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 70(4), pages 325-349, December.
    10. Herbert, Ainembabazi & Asten, Piet & Vanlauwe, Bernard & Ouma, Emily & Blomme, Guy & Birachi, Eliud & Manyong, Victor M. & Macharia, Ibrahim, 2015. "Improving the adoption of agricultural technologies and farm performance through farmer groups: Evidence from the Great Lakes Region of Africa," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 210939, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Xin Deng & Lingzhi Zhang & Rong Xu & Miao Zeng & Qiang He & Dingde Xu & Yanbin Qi, 2022. "Do Cooperatives Affect Groundwater Protection? Evidence from Rural China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-14, July.
    12. Zeweld, Woldegebrial & Huylenbroeck, Guido Van & Tesfay, Girmay & Speelman, Stijn, 2019. "Impacts of socio-psychological factors on smallholder farmers’ risk attitudes: empirical evidence and implications," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 58(2), March.
    13. Aniseh S. Bro & Daniel C. Clay & David L. Ortega & Maria C. Lopez, 2019. "Determinants of adoption of sustainable production practices among smallholder coffee producers in Nicaragua," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 895-915, April.
    14. Wang, Anbang & He, Ke & Zhang, Junbiao & Zeng, Yangmei, 2021. "Green Production Technologies and Technical Efficiency of Rice Farmers in China: A Case Study of Straw-Derived Biochar," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315026, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Ali M. Oumer & Michael Burton & Atakelty Hailu & Amin Mugera, 2020. "Sustainable agricultural intensification practices and cost efficiency in smallholder maize farms: Evidence from Ethiopia," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(6), pages 841-856, November.
    16. Lim, Krisha & Wichmann, Bruno & Luckert, Martin, 2021. "Adaptation, spatial effects, and targeting: Evidence from Africa and Asia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    17. Qiao Liang & Kangwei Ma & Wenhao Liu, 2023. "The role of farmer cooperatives in promoting environmentally sustainable agricultural development in China: A review," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 94(3), pages 741-759, September.
    18. Teklewold, Hailemariam & Gebrehiwot, Tagel & Bezabih, Mintewab, 2019. "Climate smart agricultural practices and gender differentiated nutrition outcome: An empirical evidence from Ethiopia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 38-53.
    19. Wanglin Ma & Hongyun Zheng & Peng Yuan, 2022. "Impacts of cooperative membership on banana yield and risk exposure: Insights from China," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(2), pages 564-579, June.
    20. Gezahegn, Tafesse & Van Passel, Steven & Berhanu, Tekeste & D'Haese, Marijke & Maertens, Miet, 2020. "Structural and Institutional Heterogeneity among Agricultural Cooperatives in Ethiopia: Does it Matter for Farmers’ Welfare?," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 46(2), August.

    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:gam:jagris:v:14:y:2024:i:5:p:667-:d:1382595. 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.