IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/joaaec/15400.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Poisson Count Models To Explain The Adoption Of Agricultural And Natural Resource Management Technologies By Small Farmers In Central American Countries

Author

Listed:
  • Ramirez, Octavio A.
  • Schultz, Steven D.

Abstract

Evaluations of the factors influencing the adoption of agricultural and natural resource management technologies among small farmers in developing countries have been mostly limited to qualitative discussions or simple descriptive statistics resulting in superficial and inconclusive findings. This study introduces the use of Poisson Count Regressions as a statistically appropriate procedure to analyze certain common types of adoption data. It uses them to assess the impact of key socio-economic, bio-physical, and institutional factors on the adoption of integrated pest management, agroforestry, and soil conservation technologies among small farmers in three Central American countries: Costa Rica, Panama, and El Salvador.

Suggested Citation

  • Ramirez, Octavio A. & Schultz, Steven D., 2000. "Poisson Count Models To Explain The Adoption Of Agricultural And Natural Resource Management Technologies By Small Farmers In Central American Countries," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 32(1), pages 1-13, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:joaaec:15400
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.15400
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/15400/files/32010021.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.15400?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. Current, Dean & Lutz, Ernst & Scherr, Sara J, 1995. "The Costs and Benefits of Agroforestry to Farmers," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 10(2), pages 151-180, August.
    2. Lutz, Ernst & Pagiola, Stefano & Reiche, Carlos, 1994. "The Costs and Benefits of Soil Conservation: The Farmers' Viewpoint," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 9(2), pages 273-295, July.
    3. 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.
    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. Boris Bravo & Horacio Cocchi & Daniel Solís, 2006. "Adoption of Soil Conservation Technologies in El Salvador: A cross-Section and Over-Time Analysis," OVE Working Papers 1806, Inter-American Development Bank, Office of Evaluation and Oversight (OVE).
    2. Templeton, Scott R. & Scherr, Sara J., 1999. "Effects of Demographic and Related Microeconomic Change on Land Quality in Hills and Mountains of Developing Countries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 27(6), pages 903-918, June.
    3. Grabowski, Philip P. & Kerr, John M. & Haggblade, Steven & Kabwe, Stephen, 2014. "Determinants of Adoption of Minimum Tillage by Cotton Farmers in Eastern Zambia," Food Security Collaborative Working Papers 188567, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Madhu Khanna, 2001. "Sequential Adoption of Site-Specific Technologies and its Implications for Nitrogen Productivity: A Double Selectivity Model," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(1), pages 35-51.
    7. 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.
    8. Swinton, Scott M. & Quiroz, Roberto, 2003. "Is Poverty to Blame for Soil, Pasture and Forest Degradation in Peru's Altiplano?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 31(11), pages 1903-1919, November.
    9. Marra, Michele & Pannell, David J. & Abadi Ghadim, Amir, 2003. "The economics of risk, uncertainty and learning in the adoption of new agricultural technologies: where are we on the learning curve?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 75(2-3), pages 215-234.
    10. Shively, Gerald E., 1999. "Risks and returns from soil conservation: evidence from low-income farms in the Philippines," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 21(1), pages 53-67, August.
    11. Pagiola, Stefano & Ramirez, Elias & Gobbi, Jose & de Haan, Cees & Ibrahim, Muhammad & Murgueitio, Enrique & Ruiz, Juan Pablo, 2007. "Paying for the environmental services of silvopastoral practices in Nicaragua," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 374-385, December.
    12. Abadi Ghadim, Amir K. & Burton, Michael P. & Pannell, David J., 1999. "More empirical evidence on the adoption of chick peas in Western Australia. or: Different ways of thinking about nothing," 1999 Conference (43th), January 20-22, 1999, Christchurch, New Zealand 121986, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    13. Swinton, Scott M., 2004. "Assessing Economic Impacts Of Natural Resource Management Using Economic Surplus," Staff Paper Series 11668, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    14. Teresa Serra & David Zilberman & José M. Gil, 2008. "Differential uncertainties and risk attitudes between conventional and organic producers: the case of Spanish arable crop farmers," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 39(2), pages 219-229, September.
    15. Kiptot, Evelyne & Hebinck, Paul & Franzel, Steven & Richards, Paul, 2007. "Adopters, testers or pseudo-adopters? Dynamics of the use of improved tree fallows by farmers in western Kenya," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 509-519, May.
    16. Molua, Ernest L., 2005. "The economics of tropical agroforestry systems: the case of agroforestry farms in Cameroon," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 199-211, February.
    17. Luis A. De los Santos‐Montero & Boris E. Bravo‐Ureta, 2017. "Productivity effects and natural resource management: econometric evidence from POSAF‐II in Nicaragua," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 41(4), pages 220-233, November.
    18. Templeton, Scott R. & Scherr, Sara J., 1997. "Population pressure and the microeconomy of land management in hills and mountains of developing countries:," EPTD discussion papers 26, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    19. Ray, M. & Maredia, M. & Shupp, R., 2018. "Risk Preferences and Climate Smart Technology Adoption: A Duration Model Approach for India," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277502, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. 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.

    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:joaaec:15400. 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/saeaaea.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.