IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea99/21599.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Sequential Adoption Of Site-Specific Technologies And Its Implications For Nitrogen Productivity: A Double Selectivity Model

Author

Listed:
  • Khanna, Madhu

Abstract

This paper analyzes the sequential decision to adopt two site-specific technologies, soil testing and variable rate technology (VRT), and their impact on nitrogen productivity in four Midwestern states. The results indicate that while farm location was a key variable influencing the adoption of soil testing, human capital and innovativeness of farmers had a significant impact on the adoption of VRT. A double selectivity model applied to correct for sample selection bias shows that gains in nitrogen productivity due to the two adoption decisions are largest for farms with below average soil quality and statistically insignificant for farms with above average soil quality. These findings have implications for the targeting of public policies designed to promote adoption to reduce nitrate pollution.

Suggested Citation

  • Khanna, Madhu, 1999. "Sequential Adoption Of Site-Specific Technologies And Its Implications For Nitrogen Productivity: A Double Selectivity Model," 1999 Annual meeting, August 8-11, Nashville, TN 21599, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea99:21599
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.21599
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/21599/files/sp99kh01.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.21599?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Linda K. Lee & William H. Stewart, 1983. "Landownership and the Adoption of Minimum Tillage," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 65(2), pages 256-264.
    2. Hausman, Jerry A & Wise, David A, 1978. "A Conditional Probit Model for Qualitative Choice: Discrete Decisions Recognizing Interdependence and Heterogeneous Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(2), pages 403-426, March.
    3. Justin Yifu Lin, 1991. "Education and Innovation Adoption in Agriculture: Evidence from Hybrid Rice in China," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 73(3), pages 713-723.
    4. Howard D. Leathers & Melinda Smale, 1991. "A Bayesian Approach to Explaining Sequential Adoption of Components of a Technological Package," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 73(3), pages 734-742.
    5. Michael R. Rahm & Wallace E. Huffman, 1984. "The Adoption of Reduced Tillage: The Role of Human Capital and Other Variables," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(4), pages 405-413.
    6. Kevin T. McNamara & Michael E. Wetzstein & G. Keith Douce, 1991. "Factors Affecting Peanut Producer Adoption of Integrated Pest Management," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 13(1), pages 129-139.
    7. Takeshi Amemiya, 1975. "Qualitative Response Models," NBER Chapters, in: Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, Volume 4, number 3, pages 363-372, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Ariel Dinar & Mark Campbell & David Zilberman, 1992. "Adoption of improved irrigation and drainage reduction technologies under limiting environmental conditions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(4), pages 373-398, July.
    9. Fishe, Raymond P. H. & Trost, R. P. & Lurie, Philip M., 1981. "Labor force earnings and college choice of young women: An examination of selectivity bias and comparative advantage," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 1(2), pages 169-191, April.
    10. Daniel S. Putler & David Zilberman, 1988. "Computer Use in Agriculture: Evidence from Tulare County, California," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 70(4), pages 790-802.
    11. 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.
    12. Wozniak, Gregory D, 1984. "The Adoption of Interrelated Innovations: A Human Capital Approach," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 66(1), pages 70-79, February.
    13. Jeffrey H. Dorfman, 1996. "Modeling Multiple Adoption Decisions in a Joint Framework," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(3), pages 547-557.
    14. 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.
    15. Lee, Lung-Fei, 1978. "Unionism and Wage Rates: A Simultaneous Equations Model with Qualitative and Limited Dependent Variables," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 19(2), pages 415-433, June.
    16. Keith O. Fuglie & Darrell J. Bosch, 1995. "Economic and Environmental Implications of Soil Nitrogen Testing: A Switching-Regression Analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 77(4), pages 891-900.
    17. Wesley N. Musser & James S. Shortle & Kathleen Kreahling & Brian Roach & Wen-Chi Huang & Douglas B. Beegle & Richard H. Fox, 1995. "An Economic Analysis of the Pre-sidedress Nitrogen Test for Pennsylvania Corn Production," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 17(1), pages 25-35.
    18. Gershon Feder, 1982. "Adoption of Interrelated Agricultural Innovations: Complementarity and the Impacts of Risk, Scale, and Credit," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 64(1), pages 94-101.
    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. Kimhi, Ayal & Rubin, Ofir D., 2006. "Assessing The Response Of Farm Households To Dairy Policy Reform In Israel," Discussion Papers 7134, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Department of Agricultural Economics and Management.
    2. Margarita Genius & Christos Pantzios & Vangelis Tzouvelekas, 2003. "Information Acquisition and Adoption of Organic Farming Practices: Evidence from Farm Operations in Crete, Greece," Working Papers 0305, University of Crete, Department of Economics.
    3. 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.
    4. Van Dusen, M. Eric, 2000. "In Situ Conservation Of Crop Genetic Resources In The Mexican Milpa System," Dissertations 11941, University of California, Davis, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    5. 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.
    6. Sheng Gong & Jason.S. Bergtold & Elizabeth Yeager, 2021. "Assessing the joint adoption and complementarity between in-field conservation practices of Kansas farmers," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 9(1), pages 1-24, December.
    7. L. Toma & A. P. Barnes & L.-A. Sutherland & S. Thomson & F. Burnett & K. Mathews, 2018. "Impact of information transfer on farmers’ uptake of innovative crop technologies: a structural equation model applied to survey data," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 864-881, August.
    8. Yigezu, Yigezu A. & Tizale, Chilot Y. & Aw-Hassan, Aden, 2015. "Modeling Farmers’ Adoption Decisions of Multiple Crop Technologies: The Case of Barley and Potatoes in Ethiopia," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211867, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Dung, Luu Tien & Phi Ho, Dinh & Thi Kim Hiep, Nguyen & Hoi, Phan Thi, 2018. "The Determinants of Rice Farmers� Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Technologies in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam," Asian Journal of Applied Economics, Kasetsart University, Center for Applied Economics Research, vol. 25(2), December.
    10. Julius Manda & Arega D. Alene & Cornelis Gardebroek & Menale Kassie & Gelson Tembo, 2016. "Adoption and Impacts of Sustainable Agricultural Practices on Maize Yields and Incomes: Evidence from Rural Zambia," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(1), pages 130-153, February.
    11. Kidane Mariam Gebregziabher, 2014. "Agricultural Extension Service and Input Application Intensity: Evidence from Ethiopia," Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, AMH International, vol. 6(9), pages 735-747.
    12. Lambrecht, Isabel & Vanlauwe, Bernard & Maertens, Miet, 2014. "Integrated soil fertility management: from concept to practice in eastern DR Congo," Working Papers 180062, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Popp, Michael P. & Faminow, Merle D. & Parsch, Lucas D., 1998. "Adoption Of Backgrounding On Cow-Calf Farms," 1998 Annual meeting, August 2-5, Salt Lake City, UT 20800, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    16. Wang, H. Holly & Young, Douglas L. & Camara, Oumou M., 2000. "The Role Of Environmental Education In Predicting Adoption Of Wind Erosion Control Practices," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 25(2), pages 1-12, December.
    17. Caffey, Rex H. & Kazmierczak, Richard F., Jr., 1994. "Factors Influencing Technology Adoption In A Louisiana Aquaculture System," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 26(1), pages 1-11, July.
    18. Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge & Beach, E. Douglas & Huang, Wen-Yuan, 1992. "The Influence of Grower Attributes on the Adoption of IPM Techniques in Vegetable Production in Three States," WAEA/ WFEA Conference Archive (1929-1995) 321393, Western Agricultural Economics Association.
    19. Haluk Gedikoglu & Sansel Tandogan & Joseph Parcell, 2023. "Neighbor effects on adoption of conservation practices: cases of grass filter systems and injecting manure," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 70(3), pages 723-756, June.
    20. Gillespie, Jeffrey M. & Davis, Christopher G. & Rahelizatovo, Noro C., 2004. "Factors Influencing the Adoption of Breeding Technologies in U.S. Hog Production," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(1), pages 35-47, April.

    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:aaea99:21599. 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/aaeaaea.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.