Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Technology Adoption by Agricultural Producers: A Review of the Literature

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
From Agriscience to Agribusiness

Part of the book series: Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management ((ITKM))

Abstract

The increasing rate of technological advancement across various disciplines, and in particular the agricultural sector, has resulted in increased efficiency and productivity. Recent advances in biotechnology research and development offer new prospects for increased food production and security in various jurisdictions. However, adoption and commercialization of existing and emerging technologies both at the farm and industry levels have been of great concern to governments and the food industry. This chapter provides a review existing literature on technology adoption in agriculture, explores different dimensions of technologies and factors influencing their adoption, and examines returns on investment in technological research and development.

This work was undertaken as part of the research in two Genome Canada projects administered by Genome Prairie: Application of Genomics to Innovation in the Lentil Economy (AGILE) and Reverse Vaccinology Approach for the Prevention of Mycobacterial Disease in Cattle (MyVAMP).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    These are people who would reject a new technology based on experience of others, presumably early adopters, or perceived risks associated with the output of the technology. A prime example is consumer rejection of GM food products arising from biotechnology in some parts of the world, particularly developing countries. In addition, the Consumer Association of Canada (CAC) vehemently opposed the food irradiation technology proposed by Health Canada as a food safety measure against E. coli, Salmonella, listeria, and other pathogens following an E. coli outbreak in Europe that killed more than 42 people and left about 4000 sick in 2011 (Powell 2011). CAC argued that irradiation removes essential nutrients in food, alters the molecular structure, and is associated with uncertain health risks.

  2. 2.

    Reinvention may involve exploring uses of the technology outside its main purpose.

  3. 3.

    Rejection can also occur at this stage if the implementer does not have robust evidence to convince him that the new technology would meet expectations.

  4. 4.

    For the purpose of this chapter, these costs are referred to as adoption costs, which should be a component of R&D expenditures when calculating return on investment (ROI).

References

  • Abera, H.B. 2008. Adoption of Improved tef and Wheat Production Technologies in Crop-Livestock Mixed Systems in Northern Shewa Zones of Ethiopia. Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, University of Pretoria.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adesina, A.A., and J. Baidu-Forson. 1995. Farmers’ Perceptions and Adoption of New Agricultural Technology: Evidence from Analysis in Burkina Faso and Guinea, West Africa. Agricultural Economics 13 (1): 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agriculture and Agri-food Canada (AAFC). 2016. An Overview of the Canadian Agriculture and Agri-Food System. April 2016. Available at: https://caes.usask.ca/members/_pdf/Overview%202016-Final_eng.pdf. Accessed 1 June 2016.

  • Alston, J.M., M.C. Marra, P.G. Pardey, and T.J. Wyatt. 2000. Research Returns Redux: A Meta-Analysis of the Returns to Agricultural R&D. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 44 (2): 185–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alston, J., G. Edwards, and J. Freebairn. 2008. Market Distortions and Benefits from Research. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70: 281–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, K., C.P. Nielson, S. Robinson, and K. Thierfelder. 2001. Estimating the Global Effects of GMOs. In The Future of Food: Biotechnology Markets and Policies in an International Setting, ed. P.G. Pardey, 49–74. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arellanes, P., and D.R. Lee. 2003. The Determinants of Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Technologies: Evidence from the Hillsides of Honduras. Paper Presented at XXV Conference of International Association of Agricultural Economists, Durban, August 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Awada, L. 2012. The Adoption of Conservation Tillage on the Canadian Prairies. Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, University of Saskatchewan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Awada, L., S.R. Gray, and C. Nagy. 2015. The Benefits and Costs of Zero Tillage RD & E on the Canadian Prairies. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 64 (3): 417–438. https://doi.org/10.1111/cjag.12080.

  • Bandiera, O., and I. Rasul. 2006. Social Networks and Technology Adoption in Northern Mozambique. The Economic Journal 116 (514): 869–902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barkley, A.P. 2002. The Economic Impacts of Agricultural Biotechnology on International Trade, Consumers and Producers: The Case of Corn and Soybeans in the U.S.A. 6th International ICABR Conference, Ravello.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bassen, J. 2000. Adoption Costs and the Rate of Return to Research and Development. Working Paper 1/00, Research on Innovation, Wallingford. Available at: www.researchoninnovation.org/rdadopt.pdf.

  • Batz, F.J., K.J. Peters, and W. Janssen. 1999. The Influence of Technology Characteristics on the Rate and Speed of Adoption. Agricultural Economics 21 (4): 121–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besley, T., and A. Case. 1993. Modelling Technology Adoption in Developing Countries. The American Economic Review 83 (2): 396–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohlen, J., and G. Beal. 1955. How Farm People Accept New Ideas. Special Report No. 15, Agricultural Extension Service, Iowa State College, Ames.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briney, A. 2015. History and Development of Green Revolution. Available at: http://geography.about.com/od/globalproblemsandissues/a/greenrevolution.htm. Accessed 5 May 2016.

  • Chen, M. 1996. Competitor Analysis and Interfirm Rivalry: Toward a Theoretical Integration. The Academy of Management Review 21 (1): 100–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, K., and T. Fujimoto. 1991. Product Development Performance: Strategy, Organization, and Management in the World Auto Industry. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W.M., and D.A. Levinthal. 1989. Innovation and Learning: The Two faces of R&D. The Economic Journal 99: 569–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W.M., Nelson, R.R. and Walsh, J. (1997). Appropriability Conditions and Why Firms Patent and Why They Do not in the U.S. Manufacturing Sector. Working Paper. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Mellon University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dethier, J.-J., and A. Effenberger. 2012. Agriculture and Development: A Brief Review of the Literature. Economic Systems 36: 175–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dibba, L., S.C. Fialor, A. Diagne, and F. Nimoh. 2012. The Impact of NERICA Adoption on Productivity and Poverty of the Small-Scale Rice Farmers in the Gambia. Food Security 4 (2): 253–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinar, A., and D. Yaron. 1992. Adoption and Abandonment of Irrigated Technologies. Agricultural Economics 6: 315–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dooley, K.E. 1999. Towards a Holistic Model for the Diffusion of Educational Technologies: An Integrative Review of Educational Innovation Studies. Educational Technology & Society 2 (4): 35–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis-Iversen, J., A.J.C. Cook, E. Watson, M. Nielen, L. Larkin, M. Wooldridge, and H. Hogeveen. 2010. Perceptions, Circumstances and Motivators that Influence Implementation of Zoonotic Control Programs on Cattle Farms. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 93 (4): 276–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • El-Osta, H.S., and M.J. Morehart. 2002. Technology Adoption and Its Impact on Production Performance of Dairy Operations. Review of Agricultural Economics 22 (2): 477–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erenstein, O., U. Farook, R.K. Malik, and M. Sharif. 2007. Adoption and Impacts of Zero Tillage as a Resource Conserving Technology in the Irrigated Plains of South Asia. Comprehensive Assessment Research Report No. 19, International Water Management Institute, Colombo. Available at: www.impact.cgiar.org/sites/default/files/pdf/59.pdf.

  • Falck-Zepeda, J.B., and G. Traxler. 2000. Rent Creation and Distribution from Transgenic Cotton in the United States. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 82: 360–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feder, G., R.E. Just, and D. Zilberman. 1982. Adoption of Agricultural Innovation in Developing Countries: A Survey. World Bank Staff Working Papers No. 542, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1985. Adoption of Agricultural Innovation in Developing Countries: A Survey. Economic Development and Cultural Change 33: 255–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felvey, R., N. Foster, and O. Memedovic. 2006. The Role of Intellectual Property Rights in Technology Transfer and Economic Growth: Theory and Evidence. Vienna: United Nations Industrial Development Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuglie, K.O., and C.A. Kascak. 2001. Adoption and Diffusion of Natural-Resource-Conserving Agricultural Technology. Review of Agricultural Economics 23 (2): 386–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garforth, C., B. Angell, J. Archer, and K. Green. 2003. Fragmentation or Creative Diversity? Options in the Provision of Land Management Advisory Services. Land Use Policy 20 (4): 323–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gershon, F., and D.L. Umali. 1993. The Adoption of Agricultural Innovations: A Review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 43 (3–4): 215–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, R., and S. Malla. 2007. The Rate of Return to Agricultural Research in Canada. CAIRN Policy Brief. Canadian Agricultural Innovation Research Network. Available at: www.ag-innovation.usask.ca/finalpolicybriefs/mallaGray_11.pdf.

  • Griliches, Z. 1957. Hybrid Corn: An Exploration in the Economics of Technology Change. Econometrica 25: 501–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haggui, F. 2004. Cost of EU Opposition to Genetically Modified Wheat in Terms of Global Food Security. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Saskatchewan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B.H., and B. Khan. 2002. Adoption of New Technology. New Economy Handbook, 38. University of California Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanf, C.H., and A. Bocker. 2002. Is European Consumers’ Refusal of GM Food a Serious Obstacle or a Transient Fashion? In Market Development for Genetically Modified Foods, ed. R.E. Evenson, V. Santaniello, and D. Zilberman, 49–52. Wallingford: CABI Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hildebrand, P.E., and E.J. Partenheimer. 1958. Socioeconomic Characteristics of Innovators. Journal of Farm Economics 40 (2): 446–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs, P.R., G.S. Giri, and P. Grace. 1997. Reduced and Zero Tillage Options for the Establishment of Wheat After Rice in South Asia, Rice-Wheat Consortium Paper Series, vol. 2. New Delhi: RWC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs, J.E., W.A. Kerr, and M.T Yeung. 2009. Public and Private Goods: The Canadian Livestock and Poultry Traceability Program. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, CAT: A34-13/2009E-PDF, 31 August, 39 pp. ISBN: 978-1-1000-14090-2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howley, P., C.O. Donoghue, and K. Heanue. 2012. Factors Affecting Farmers’ Adoption of Agricultural Innovations: A Panel Data Analysis of the Use of Artificial Insemination Among Dairy Farmers in Ireland. Journal of Agricultural Science 4 (6): 171–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Igbal, M., M.A. Khan, and M.Z. Anwar. 2002. Zero -Tillage Technology and Farm Profits: A Case Study of Wheat Growers in the Rice Zone of Punjab. The Pakistan Development Review 41 (4 part II): 665–682.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonanovic, B. 1997. Learning and Growth. In Advances in Economics and Econometrics: Theory and Applications, ed. Kreps and Wallis, vol. 2, 318. Econometric Society Monograph. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaaya, H., B. Bashaasha, and D. Mutetikka. 2005. Determinants of Utilisation of Artificial Insemination (AI) Services Among Ugandan Dairy Farmers. African Crop Science Conference Proceedings 7: 561–567.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khanal, A.R., and J.M. Gillespie. 2011. Adoption and Profitability of Breeding Technologies on United States Dairy Farms, Southern Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Corpus Christi, TX, 5–8 Feb 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lafond, G.P., S.M. Boyetchko, S.A. Brandt, G.W. Clayton, and M.H. Entz. 1996. Influence of Changing Tillage Practices on Crop Production. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 76: 641–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Légér, A. 2007. Intellectual Property Rights and Innovation Around the World: Evidence from Panel Data. Discussion Paper 696, German Institute for Economic Research, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lleras-Muney, Adriana, and Frank Lichtenberg. 2002. The Effect of Education on Medical Technology Adoption: Are the More Educated More Likely to Use New Drugs? NBER Working Paper #9185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malik, R.K., and S. Singh. 1995. Littleseed Canarygrass Resistance to Isoproturon in India. Weed Technology 9: 419–425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, E. 1961. Technical Change and the Rate of Imitation. Econometrica 29 (4): 741–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1963. The Speed of Response of Firms to New Techniques. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 77 (2): 290–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, E., M. Schwartz, and S. Wagner. 1981. Imitation Costs and Patenting: An Empirical Study. The Economic Journal 91: 907–918.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marra, M., Pardey, P.G. and Alston, J.M. (2002). The Payoffs to Agricultural Biotechnology: An Assessment of Evidence. EPDT Discussion Paper No. 87, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mensah, C.C., and M.K. Wohlgenant. 2009. A Market Impact Analysis of Soybean Technology Adoption. Research in Business and Economics Journal 2: 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millar, J. 2010. The Role of Extension for Improving Natural Resource Management: The Australian Experience. In Shaping Change: Natural Resource Management, Agriculture and the Role of Extension, ed. J. Jennings, R. Packham, and D. Woodside, 102–110. Wodonga: Australasia-Pacific Extension Network (APEN).

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, T., and G. Tolley. 1989. Technology Adoption and Agricultural Price Policy. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 71 (4): 847–857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moser, C.M., and C.B. Barrett. 2003. The Disappointing Adoption Dynamics of a Yield-Increasing, Low External-Input Technology: The Case of SRI in Madagascar. Agricultural Systems 76 (3): 1085–1100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moshini, G., H. Lapan, and A. Sobolevsky. 2000. Roundup Ready Soybeans and Welfare Effects in the Soybean Complex. Agribusiness 16 (1): 33–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nadiri, M.I. 1993. Innovation and Technological Spillovers. NBER Working Paper No. 4423. Washington, DC: NBER.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ochieng, B.J., and J.E. Hobbs. 2016. Incentives for Cattle Producers to Adopt an E.Coli Vaccine: An Application of Best-Worst Scaling. Food Policy 59: 78–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pannell, D.J., G.R. Marshall, N. Barr, A. Curtis, F. Vanclay, and R. Wilkinson. 2006. Understanding and Promoting Adoption of Conservation Practices by Rural Landholders. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 46 (11): 1407–1424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips-McDougall. 2011. The Cost and Time Involved In The Discovery, Development and Authorization of a New Plant Biotechnology Derived Trait. A Consultancy Study for Crop Life International, September 2011. Available at: https://croplife.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf_files/Getting-a-Biotech-Crop-to-Market-Phillips-McDougall-Study.pdf.

  • Powell, C. 2011. Irradiation is Back on the Table. Canadian Grocer. Available at: http://www.canadiangrocer.com/top-stories/irradiation-is-back-on-the-table-12160. Accessed 9 June 2016.

  • Rogers, E.M. 1983. Diffusion of Innovation. 3rd ed, 236. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2003. Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E.M., and J.D. Stanfield. 1968. Adoption and Diffusion of New Products: Emerging Generalizations and Hypotheses. In Applications of the Sciences in Marketing, ed. Frank M. Bass, Charles W. King, and Edgar A. Pessemier, 227–250. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romer, P. 1990. Endogenous Technological Change. Journal of Political Economy 98: S71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubas, D. 2004. Technology Adoption: Who is likely to Adopt and How Does the Timing Affect Benefits. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of the Texas A & M University, August 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture. 1990–2012. Farm Machinery Custom and Rental Rate Guide, Published Yearly. Government of Saskatchewan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauer, J., and D. Zilberman. 2010. Innovation Behaviour at Farm Level – Selection and Identification, 114th EAAE Seminar ‘Structural Change in Agriculture’, Berlin, 15–16 April 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, F.M., S.E. Herzstein, A.W. Dreyfoos, W.G. Whitney, O.J. Bachman, C.P. Pesek, C.J. Scott, T.G. Kelly, and J.J. Galvin. 1959. Patents and the Corporation: A Report on Industrial Technology Under Changing Public Policy. Cambridge: Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherry, L., and D. Gibson. 2002. The Path to Teacher Leadership in Educational Technology. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [Online serial] 2(2). Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/volume-2/issue-2-02/general/the-path-to-teacher-leadership-ineducational-Technology.

  • Stoneman, P. 1981. Intra-Firm Diffusion, Bayesian Learning and Profitability. The Economic Journal 91 (362): 375–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sunding, D., and D. Zilberman. 2001. The Agricultural Innovation Process: Research and Technology Adoption in a Changing Agricultural Sector. In Handbook of Agricultural Economics, vol. 1, ed. B. Gardner and G. Rausser. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B.V.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C.T., and Z.A. Silberston. 1973. The Economic Impact of the Patent System. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tietenberg, T.H. 2000. Environmental and Natural Resource Economics. 5th ed. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uaiene, R.N. 2011. Determinants of Agricultural Technology Adoption in Mozambique. Paper Presented at “Dialogue on Promoting Agricultural Growth in Mozambique.” International Food Policy Research Institute, July, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ugochukwu, A.I. 2015. Essays on Collective Reputation and Authenticity in Agri-Food Markets. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Saskatchewan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vishwanath, R. 2003. Artificial Insemination: The State of the Art. Theriogenology 59 (2): 571–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wozniak, Gregory D. 1987. Human Capital, Information, and the Early Adoption of New Technology. Journal of Human Resources 22 (1): 101–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zavale, H., E. Mabaya, and R. Christy. 2005. Adoption of Improved Maize Seed by Smallholder Farmers in Mozambique. Staff Papers, Department of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University, Ithaca.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeller, M., A. Diagne, and C. Mataya. 1997. Market Access by Smallholder Farmers in Malawi: Implications for Technology Adoption, Agricultural Productivity, and Crop Income. International Food Policy Research Institute: FCND Discussion Paper No. 35, September 1997.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada

    Albert I. Ugochukwu & Peter W. B. Phillips

Authors
  1. Albert I. Ugochukwu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter W. B. Phillips
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter W. B. Phillips .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, USA

    Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes

  2. Department of Information Systems and Technology Management, GWU School of Business, Washington, DC, USA

    Elias G. Carayannis

  3. School of Production Engineering & Management, Technical University of Crete, Chania, Crete, Greece

    Evangelos Grigoroudis

  4. Institute of Soil Science and Plant Cultivation, IUNG-PIB, Pulawy, Poland

    Stelios Rozakis

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Ugochukwu, A.I., Phillips, P.W.B. (2018). Technology Adoption by Agricultural Producers: A Review of the Literature. In: Kalaitzandonakes, N., Carayannis, E., Grigoroudis, E., Rozakis, S. (eds) From Agriscience to Agribusiness. Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67958-7_17

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation