Rice Science ›› 2015, Vol. 22 ›› Issue (1): 35-43.DOI: 10.1016/S1672-6308(14)60278-X
• Orginal Article • Previous Articles Next Articles
Ghimire Raju1, Wen-chi Huang2(), Shrestha RudraBahadur1
Received:
2014-01-23
Accepted:
2014-07-20
Online:
2015-01-10
Published:
2014-11-26
Ghimire Raju, Wen-chi Huang, Shrestha RudraBahadur. Factors Affecting Adoption of Improved Rice Varieties among Rural Farm Households in Central Nepal[J]. Rice Science, 2015, 22(1): 35-43.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: http://www.ricesci.org/EN/10.1016/S1672-6308(14)60278-X
Characteristic | Hill region | Terai region | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Kavre | Nuwakot | Chitwan | Rautahat | ||
Altitude (m) | 318-3018 | 457-5144 | 100-2000 | 122-244 | |
Climate | Sub-tropical | Sub-tropical | Tropical | Tropical | |
Annual rainfall (mm) | 1581 | 1200 | 2150 | 2125 | |
Temperature (ºC) | 10-32 | 8-30 | 10-41 | 12-43 | |
Cropping system | rice-vegetable-maize | rice-vegetable-maize | rice-wheat-rice | rice-wheat-rice | |
rice-fallow | rice-fallow | rice-wheat-maize | rice-wheat-maize | ||
rice-maize | rice-maize | rice-vegetable-maize | rice-vegetable-maize | ||
Major agricultural crop | rice, maize, subtropical fruits and vegetables | rice, maize, subtropical fruits and vegetables | rice, maize, wheat, tropical fruits and vegetables | rice, maize, wheat, tropical fruits and vegetables | |
Access to road | Some parts of selected sites | Some parts of selected sites | Yes | Yes |
Table 1 Agro-ecology and production environment of study sites.
Characteristic | Hill region | Terai region | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Kavre | Nuwakot | Chitwan | Rautahat | ||
Altitude (m) | 318-3018 | 457-5144 | 100-2000 | 122-244 | |
Climate | Sub-tropical | Sub-tropical | Tropical | Tropical | |
Annual rainfall (mm) | 1581 | 1200 | 2150 | 2125 | |
Temperature (ºC) | 10-32 | 8-30 | 10-41 | 12-43 | |
Cropping system | rice-vegetable-maize | rice-vegetable-maize | rice-wheat-rice | rice-wheat-rice | |
rice-fallow | rice-fallow | rice-wheat-maize | rice-wheat-maize | ||
rice-maize | rice-maize | rice-vegetable-maize | rice-vegetable-maize | ||
Major agricultural crop | rice, maize, subtropical fruits and vegetables | rice, maize, subtropical fruits and vegetables | rice, maize, wheat, tropical fruits and vegetables | rice, maize, wheat, tropical fruits and vegetables | |
Access to road | Some parts of selected sites | Some parts of selected sites | Yes | Yes |
Region | District | Village Development Committee /Village | Number of households sampled | Total | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Adopter | Non-adopter | ||||
Hill | Kavre | Kusadevi, Nala | 71 | 33 | 104 |
Nuwakot | Okharpuwa, Kakani | 66 | 38 | 104 | |
Terai | Chitwan | Khairahani, Gunjanagar | 82 | 22 | 104 |
Rautahat | Chapur, Judibela | 66 | 38 | 104 | |
Grand total | 285 (68.51%) | 131(31.49%) | 416 (100%) |
Table 2 Selected survey sites, Village Development Committees and adoption status by region and districtssurveyed in 2013.
Region | District | Village Development Committee /Village | Number of households sampled | Total | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Adopter | Non-adopter | ||||
Hill | Kavre | Kusadevi, Nala | 71 | 33 | 104 |
Nuwakot | Okharpuwa, Kakani | 66 | 38 | 104 | |
Terai | Chitwan | Khairahani, Gunjanagar | 82 | 22 | 104 |
Rautahat | Chapur, Judibela | 66 | 38 | 104 | |
Grand total | 285 (68.51%) | 131(31.49%) | 416 (100%) |
Variable | Description | Mean | SD | Hypothesized sign |
---|---|---|---|---|
Dependent variable | ||||
NIRVadoption | =1 if the respondent plants NIRVs, 0 otherwise | 0.68 | 0.46 | |
Independent variable | ||||
Household characteristic | ||||
Age | Age of the household head in years | 44.54 | 10.81 | + , - |
Gender | =1 if the household head is male, 0 otherwise | 0.71 | 0.45 | + |
Education | Years of formal education of the head | 7.86 | 3.38 | + |
Family labor | Active family members (between 15- 65 years) | 3.12 | 0.98 | + |
Farm and field characteristic | ||||
Farm size | Cultivated land area in the current year (hm2) | 0.51 | 0.43 | + |
Land type | =1 if household own low land, 0 otherwise | 0.46 | 0.49 | + |
Oxen | =1 if household own oxen, 0 otherwise | 0.55 | 0.49 | + |
Institutional and access related variable | ||||
Extension service | Number of extension visits received in the previous years | 6.8 | 6.09 | + |
Seed access | =1 if seed is available at local store,0 otherwise | 0.59 | 0.49 | + |
Seed cost | =1if NIRVs are expensive than the old one, 0 otherwise | 0.87 | 0.33 | - |
Distance to market | Distance to input/output markets (km) | 12.74 | 6.1 | - |
Off-farm work | =1 if participate in off-farm work, 0 otherwise | 0.76 | 0.42 | + |
Technology specific variable | ||||
Yield potential | =1 if the NIRVs to yield more than the old one | 0.81 | 0.38 | + |
Pest resistance | =1 if the NIRVs to be more resistant to field pests than the old one | 0.51 | 0.5 | + |
Palatability | =1 if the NIRVs perceived to be more palatable than the old one | 0.45 | 0.49 | + |
Acceptability | =1 if it is easier to sell grain from NIRVs compared with the old one | 0.51 | 0.5 | + |
Region dummy | =1 if household live in terai region, 0 otherwise | 0.50 | 0.5 | + , - |
Table 3 Descriptive statistics of variables and hypothesized effects fornew improved rice varieties(NIRVs) adoption surveyed in 2013.
Variable | Description | Mean | SD | Hypothesized sign |
---|---|---|---|---|
Dependent variable | ||||
NIRVadoption | =1 if the respondent plants NIRVs, 0 otherwise | 0.68 | 0.46 | |
Independent variable | ||||
Household characteristic | ||||
Age | Age of the household head in years | 44.54 | 10.81 | + , - |
Gender | =1 if the household head is male, 0 otherwise | 0.71 | 0.45 | + |
Education | Years of formal education of the head | 7.86 | 3.38 | + |
Family labor | Active family members (between 15- 65 years) | 3.12 | 0.98 | + |
Farm and field characteristic | ||||
Farm size | Cultivated land area in the current year (hm2) | 0.51 | 0.43 | + |
Land type | =1 if household own low land, 0 otherwise | 0.46 | 0.49 | + |
Oxen | =1 if household own oxen, 0 otherwise | 0.55 | 0.49 | + |
Institutional and access related variable | ||||
Extension service | Number of extension visits received in the previous years | 6.8 | 6.09 | + |
Seed access | =1 if seed is available at local store,0 otherwise | 0.59 | 0.49 | + |
Seed cost | =1if NIRVs are expensive than the old one, 0 otherwise | 0.87 | 0.33 | - |
Distance to market | Distance to input/output markets (km) | 12.74 | 6.1 | - |
Off-farm work | =1 if participate in off-farm work, 0 otherwise | 0.76 | 0.42 | + |
Technology specific variable | ||||
Yield potential | =1 if the NIRVs to yield more than the old one | 0.81 | 0.38 | + |
Pest resistance | =1 if the NIRVs to be more resistant to field pests than the old one | 0.51 | 0.5 | + |
Palatability | =1 if the NIRVs perceived to be more palatable than the old one | 0.45 | 0.49 | + |
Acceptability | =1 if it is easier to sell grain from NIRVs compared with the old one | 0.51 | 0.5 | + |
Region dummy | =1 if household live in terai region, 0 otherwise | 0.50 | 0.5 | + , - |
Variable | Adopter | Non-adopter | Difference | t-value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Age of household head (years) | 42.81 | 48.31 | 5.49 | 4.95** |
Gender of household head male (%) | 71.93 | 68.7 | -0.03 | -0.67 |
Years of schooling of household head (years) | 9.22 | 4.92 | -4.3 | -14.91** |
Active family members (number) | 3.17 | 3.01 | 0.16 | -1.59 |
Farm size (hm2) | 0.65 | 0.22 | -0.42 | -12.91** |
Land type (dummy) | 0.62 | 0.11 | 0.51 | -11.11** |
Access to seed (dummy) | 0.76 | 0.23 | -0.54 | -11.97** |
Oxen (dummy) | 0.72 | 0.17 | -0.55 | -12.31** |
Off-farm work participation (dummy) | 0.75 | 0.79 | 0.04 | 0.88 |
Distance to nearest input/output market (km) | 12.79 | 12.61 | -0.19 | -0.29 |
Access to extension services | 9.33 | 1.31 | -8.02 | -15.76** |
Table 4 Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of new improved rice varieties.
Variable | Adopter | Non-adopter | Difference | t-value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Age of household head (years) | 42.81 | 48.31 | 5.49 | 4.95** |
Gender of household head male (%) | 71.93 | 68.7 | -0.03 | -0.67 |
Years of schooling of household head (years) | 9.22 | 4.92 | -4.3 | -14.91** |
Active family members (number) | 3.17 | 3.01 | 0.16 | -1.59 |
Farm size (hm2) | 0.65 | 0.22 | -0.42 | -12.91** |
Land type (dummy) | 0.62 | 0.11 | 0.51 | -11.11** |
Access to seed (dummy) | 0.76 | 0.23 | -0.54 | -11.97** |
Oxen (dummy) | 0.72 | 0.17 | -0.55 | -12.31** |
Off-farm work participation (dummy) | 0.75 | 0.79 | 0.04 | 0.88 |
Distance to nearest input/output market (km) | 12.79 | 12.61 | -0.19 | -0.29 |
Access to extension services | 9.33 | 1.31 | -8.02 | -15.76** |
Variable | Parameter estimate | z-value | Average marginal effect |
---|---|---|---|
Age | 0.010 (0.014) | 0.7 | 0.001 |
Gender | 0.104 (0.289) | 0.36 | 0.009 |
Education | 0.252 (0.054) | 4.65*** | 0.023 |
Family labor | 0.177 (0.135) | 1.32 | 0.016 |
Farm size | 1.412 (0.865) | 1.63* | 0.131 |
Land type | 1.215 (0.348) | 3.49*** | 0.113 |
Oxen | 0.547 (0.274) | 1.99** | 0.051 |
Extension service | 0.079 (0.030) | 2.62*** | 0.007 |
Seed access | 0.532 (0.271) | 1.97** | 0.049 |
Seed cost | -0.232 (0.421) | -0.55 | -0.021 |
Distance to market | -0.038 (0.025) | -1.52 | -0.004 |
Off-farm work | -0.142 (0.313) | -0.45 | -0.013 |
Yield potential | 1.547 (0.410) | 3.77*** | 0.143 |
Pest resistance | 0.049 (0.295) | 0.17 | 0.004 |
Palatability | 0.286 (0.283) | 1.01 | 0.026 |
Acceptability | 0.447 (0.269) | 1.66* | 0.041 |
Region dummy | -0.272 (0.351) | -0.77 | -0.025 |
Constant | -5.303 (1.239) | -4.28*** | |
Log-likelihood | -70.438 | ||
LR chi2(17) | 377.43 | ||
Prob> chi2 | 0 | ||
Pseudo R2 | 0.728 | ||
Correctly predicted percent | 92.79 |
Table 5 Parameter estimates of adoption of new improved rice varieties.
Variable | Parameter estimate | z-value | Average marginal effect |
---|---|---|---|
Age | 0.010 (0.014) | 0.7 | 0.001 |
Gender | 0.104 (0.289) | 0.36 | 0.009 |
Education | 0.252 (0.054) | 4.65*** | 0.023 |
Family labor | 0.177 (0.135) | 1.32 | 0.016 |
Farm size | 1.412 (0.865) | 1.63* | 0.131 |
Land type | 1.215 (0.348) | 3.49*** | 0.113 |
Oxen | 0.547 (0.274) | 1.99** | 0.051 |
Extension service | 0.079 (0.030) | 2.62*** | 0.007 |
Seed access | 0.532 (0.271) | 1.97** | 0.049 |
Seed cost | -0.232 (0.421) | -0.55 | -0.021 |
Distance to market | -0.038 (0.025) | -1.52 | -0.004 |
Off-farm work | -0.142 (0.313) | -0.45 | -0.013 |
Yield potential | 1.547 (0.410) | 3.77*** | 0.143 |
Pest resistance | 0.049 (0.295) | 0.17 | 0.004 |
Palatability | 0.286 (0.283) | 1.01 | 0.026 |
Acceptability | 0.447 (0.269) | 1.66* | 0.041 |
Region dummy | -0.272 (0.351) | -0.77 | -0.025 |
Constant | -5.303 (1.239) | -4.28*** | |
Log-likelihood | -70.438 | ||
LR chi2(17) | 377.43 | ||
Prob> chi2 | 0 | ||
Pseudo R2 | 0.728 | ||
Correctly predicted percent | 92.79 |
1 | Adesina A A, Zinnah M M.1993. Technology characteristics, farmers’ perceptions and adoption decisions: A Tobit model application in Sierra Leone.Agric Econ, 9(4):297-311. |
2 | Asfaw S, Shiferaw B, Simtowe F, Lipper L.2012. Impact of modern agricultural technologies on smallholder welfare: Evidence from Tanzania and Ethiopia.Food Policy, 37(3): 283-295. |
3 | Becerril J, Abdulai A.2010. The impact of improved maize varieties on poverty in mexico: A propensity score-matching approach.World Dev,38(7): 1024-1035. |
4 | Besley T, Case A.1993. Modeling technology adoption in developing countries.Am Econ Rev, 83(2): 396-402. |
5 | Bohle HG, Adhikari J.1998. Rural livelihoods at risk: How Nepalese farmers cope with food insecurity.Mountain Res Dev, 18(4): 321-332. |
6 | CBS (Central Bureau of Statistics). 2011. Nepal Living Standard Survey. National Planning Commission Secretariat, Government of Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal. |
7 | Cunguara B, Darnhofer I.2011. Assessing the impact of improved agricultural technologies on household income in rural Mozambique.Food Policy, 36(3):378-390. |
8 | Doss C R.2006. Analyzing technology adoption using microstudies:Limitations, challenges, and opportunities for improvement.Agric Econ, 34(3):207-219. |
9 | Doss C R, Morris. M L.2000. How does gender affect the adoption of agricultural innovations?Agric Econ, 25(1):27-39. |
10 | Faltermeier L, Abdulai A.2009. The impact of water conservation and intensification technologies: Empirical evidence for rice farmers in Ghana.Agric Econ,40(3): 365-379. |
11 | FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2010. Assessment of Food Security and Nutrition Situation in Nepal. A Report Prepared for National Medium: Term Priority Framework (NMTPF), Kathmandu, Nepal. |
12 | Feder G, JustR E, Zilberman D.1985. Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries: A survey.Econ Dev Cul Change, 33(2):255-298. |
13 | Feleke S, Zegeye T.2006. Adoption of improved maize varieties in Southern Ethiopia: Factors and strategy options.Food Policy, 31(5): 442-457. |
14 | Foster AD, Rosenzweig M R.2010. Microeconomics of technology adoption.AnnRev Econ,2(1):395-424. |
15 | Gao X, Wailes E J, Cramer G L.1995. Double-hurdle model with bivariate normal errors: An application to US rice demand.J Agric ApplEcon, 27(2):363-376. |
16 | Gauchan D, Panta H K, Gautam S, Nepali M B.2012. Patterns of adoption of improved rice varieties and farm-level impacts in stress-prone rainfed areas of Nepal. In: Patterns of Adoption of Improved Rice Varieties and Farm-Level Impacts in Stress-Prone Rainfed Areas in South Asia. Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines: International Rice Research Institute: 37-103. |
17 | Gittelsohn J, Mookherji S, Pelto G.1998. Operationalizing household food security in rural Nepal.Food Nutri Bull, 19(3):210-222. |
18 | Greene W H.2012. Econometric Analysis. 7th edn. Princeton Hall: New York University. |
19 | Gumma M K, Gauchan D, Nelson A, Pandey S, Rala A.2011. Temporal changes in rice-growing area and their impact on livelihood over a decade: A case study of Nepal.Agric Ecosyst Environ, 142(3/4):382-392. |
20 | Janvry D A, Dustan A, Sadoulet E.. |
21 | Joshi G R, Pandey S.2006. Farmers’ perceptions and adoption of modern rice varieties in Nepal.Quart J Int Agric, 45(2):171. |
22 | Joshi K D, Conroy C, Witcombe J R.2012. Agriculture, seed, and innovation in Nepal: Industry and policy issues for the future. In: International food Policy Research Institure Project Paper: 60. |
23 | Just R E, Zilberman D.1988. The effects of agricultural development policies on income distribution and technological change in agriculture.J Dev Econ,28(2): 193-216. |
24 | Karanja D D, Renkow M, Crawford E W.2003. Welfare effects of maize technologies in marginal and high potential regions of Kenya.Agric Econ,29(3): 331-341. |
25 | Kassie M, Shiferaw B, Muricho G.2011. Agricultural technology, crop income, and poverty alleviation in Uganda.World Dev,39(10): 1784-1795. |
26 | Kohansal M R, Firoozzare A.2013. Applying multinomial logit model for determining socio-economic factors affecting major choice of consumers in food purchasing: The case of Mashhad.JAgric SciTechnol, 15:1307-1317. |
27 | Langyintuo A S, Mungoma C.2008. The effect of household wealth on the adoption of improved maize varieties in Zambia.Food Policy,33(6): 550-559. |
28 | Launio C, Redondo G, Beltran J,Morooka Y.2008. Adoption and spatial diversity of later generation modern rice varieties in the Philippines.Agron J, 100(5):1380-1389. |
29 | Mariano M J, Villano R, Fleming E.2012. Factors influencing farmers’ adoption of modern rice technologies and good management practices in the Philippines.Agric Syst, 110:41-53. |
30 | Mendola M.2007. Agricultural technology adoption and poverty reduction: A propensity-score matching analysis for rural Bangladesh.Food Policy,32(3): 372-393. |
31 | Mignouna D B, Manyong V M, Rusike J, Mutabazi K D S, Senkondo E M.2011. Determinants of adopting imazapyr-resistant maize technologies and its impact on household income in Western Kenya.AgBioForum,14(3):158-163. |
32 | MOAD (Ministry of Agriculture Development). 2012. Statistical Information on Nepalese Agriculture, Government of Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal. |
33 | Newman C, Henchion M, Matthews A.2003. A double-hurdle model of Irish household expenditure on prepared meals.Appl Econ, 35(9):1053-1061. |
34 | Noltze M, Schwarze S, Qaim M.2012. Understanding the adoption of system technologies in smallholder agriculture: The system of rice intensification (SRI) in Timor Leste.Agric Syst, 108:64-73. |
35 | Pandey S, Gauchan D, Malabayabas M, Bool-Emerick M, Hardy B.2012. Patterns of adoption of improved rice varieties and farm-level impacts in stress-prone rainfed areas of Nepal. In: Patterns of Adoption of Improved Rice Varieties and Farm-Level Impacts in Stress-Prone Rainfed Areas in South Asia. Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines: International Rice Research Institute. |
36 | Poudel M P, Chen SE, Ghimire R.2013. Rice yield distribution and risk assessment in South Asian countries: A statistical investigation.Int J Agric Manag Dev,3(1): 53-63. |
37 | Pyakuryal B, Roy D, Thapa Y.2010. Trade liberalization and food security in Nepal.Food Policy, 35(1):20-31. |
38 | Sall S, Norman D, Featherstone A M.2000. Quantitative assessment of improved rice variety adoption: The farmer’s perspective.Agric Syst, 66(2):129-144. |
39 | Sanogo I, Maliki A M.2010. Rice market integration and food security in Nepal: The role of cross-border trade with India.Food Policy, 35(4): 312-322. |
40 | Seddon D, Adhikari J.2003. Conflict and food security in Nepal: A preliminary analysis. A report to Rural Reconstruction Nepal, Kathmandu. |
41 | Uaiene R N, Arndt C, Masters W A.2009. Determinants of Agricultural Technology Adoption in Mozambique. Discussion papers(67E).National Directorate of Studies and Policy Analysis, Ministry of Planning and Development, Republic of Mozambique: 1-31. |
42 | Yen S T, Jones A M.1997. Household consumption of cheese: An inverse hyperbolic sine double-hurdle model with dependent errors.Am J Agric Econ,79(1):246-251. |
[1] | Julia Checco, Fathin Ayuni Azizan, Jaquie Mitchell, Ammar Abdul Aziz. Adoption of Improved Rice Varieties in the Global South: A Review [J]. Rice Science, 2023, 30(3): 186-206. |
[2] | Kwasi Bannor Richard, Amarnath Krishna Kumar Gupta, Oppong-Kyeremeh Helena, Abawiera Wongnaa Camillus. Adoption and Impact of Modern Rice Varieties on Poverty in Eastern India [J]. Rice Science, 2020, 27(1): 56-66. |
[3] | Ali Chandio Abbas, Yuansheng Jiang. Determinants of Adoption of Improved Rice Varieties in Northern Sindh, Pakistan [J]. Rice Science, 2018, 25(2): 103-110. |
[4] | Seyyed Ali Noorhosseini Niyaki1, Mohammad Sadegh Allahyari2. Logistic Regression Analysis on Factors Affecting Adoption of Rice-Fish Farming in North Iran [J]. RICE SCIENCE, 2012, 19(2): 153-160. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||