IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/saea17/252856.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Determinants Of Irrigation Technology Adoptions And Production Efficiency In Nepal’S Agricultural Sector

Author

Listed:
  • Gautam, Tej K.
  • Bhatta, Dependra

Abstract

The factors considered in using irrigation as a production strategy in Nepal has been different from many countries mainly because of geographical diversity, water availability and investment constraint. This paper identifies the factors affecting irrigation technology adoption among the farmers in Nepal using household survey data 2011. We use a multinomial logit model to estimate variables affecting multiple irrigation technology (tube-well, canal and pond) adoptions in which sociodemographic information, land holding, access to credit, and geographical factors are major explanatory variables. Preliminary results show that education, land holding size, access to credit, and geographic factors have a higher impact on tube-well irrigation technology adoption. Additionally, productivity of major crops found to increase substantially in irrigated land. The impact of shallow tube-well is much greater in plain compared to other modes of irrigation in plain and hilly regions. Findings from this study should provide insights to producers and policy makers in identifying opportunities for utilizing and investing in more efficient irrigation technology

Suggested Citation

  • Gautam, Tej K. & Bhatta, Dependra, 2017. "Determinants Of Irrigation Technology Adoptions And Production Efficiency In Nepal’S Agricultural Sector," 2017 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2017, Mobile, Alabama 252856, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:saea17:252856
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/252856
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Miranowski, John & Shortle, J., 1986. "Effects of Risk Perceptions and Other Characteristics of Farmers and Farm Operations on the Adoption of Conservation Tillage Practices," Staff General Research Papers Archive 10703, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    2. 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(02), December.
    3. Dinar, Ariel & Yaron, Dan, 1992. "Adoption and abandonment of irrigation technologies," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 6(4), pages 315-332, April.
    4. Janis M. Carey & David Zilberman, 2002. "A Model of Investment under Uncertainty: Modern Irrigation Technology and Emerging Markets in Water," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(1), pages 171-183.
    5. Dinar, Ariel & Yaron, Dan, 1992. "Adoption and abandonment of irrigation technologies," Agricultural Economics of Agricultural Economists, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 6(4), April.
    6. Margarita Genius & Phoebe Koundouri & Céline Nauges & Vangelis Tzouvelekas, 2014. "Information Transmission in Irrigation Technology Adoption and Diffusion: Social Learning, Extension Services, and Spatial Effects," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 96(1), pages 328-344.
    7. David Zilberman & Doug Parker, 1996. "Explaining Irrigation Technology Choices: A Microparameter Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(4), pages 1064-1072.
    8. Fuglie, Keith O., 1999. "Conservation Tillage and Pesticide Use in the Cornbelt," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 31(01), pages 133-147, April.
    9. Fuglie, Keith O., 1999. "Conservation Tillage And Pesticide Use In The Cornbelt," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 31(01), April.
    10. Cason, Timothy N. & Uhlaner, Robert T., 1991. "Agricultural production's impact on water and energy demand: A choice modeling approach," Resources and Energy, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 307-321, December.
    11. Dinar, Ariel & Zilberman, David, 1991. "The economics of resource-conservation, pollution-reduction technology selection: The case of irrigation water," Resources and Energy, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 323-348, December.
    12. Clay, Daniel & Reardon, Thomas & Kangasniemi, Jaakko, 1998. "Sustainable Intensification in the Highland Tropics: Rwandan Farmers' Investments in Land Conservation and Soil Fertility," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 46(2), pages 351-377, January.
    13. Margriet F. Caswell & David Zilberman, 1986. "The Effects of Well Depth and Land Quality on the Choice of Irrigation Technology," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 68(4), pages 798-811.
    14. 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.
    15. Phoebe Koundouri & Céline Nauges & Vangelis Tzouvelekas, 2006. "Technology Adoption under Production Uncertainty: Theory and Application to Irrigation Technology," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(3), pages 657-670.
    16. Margriet Caswell & David Zilberman, 1985. "The Choices of Irrigation Technologies in California," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 67(2), pages 224-234.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Irrigation technology; shallow tube well; water; farming; multinomial logit; Crop Production/Industries; Production Economics; Resource /Energy Economics and Policy; Q12; Q25;

    JEL classification:

    • Q12 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Micro Analysis of Farm Firms, Farm Households, and Farm Input Markets
    • Q25 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Water

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:saea17:252856. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

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

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.