IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v15y2025i2p177-d1567290.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Factors Influencing Precision Agriculture Technology Adoption Among Small-Scale Farmers in Kentucky and Their Implications for Policy and Practice

Author

Listed:
  • Shreesha Pandeya

    (School of Agriculture and Natural Resources, College of Agriculture, Health and Natural Resources, Kentucky State University, Frankfort, KY 40601, USA)

  • Buddhi R. Gyawali

    (School of Agriculture and Natural Resources, College of Agriculture, Health and Natural Resources, Kentucky State University, Frankfort, KY 40601, USA)

  • Suraj Upadhaya

    (School of Agriculture and Natural Resources, College of Agriculture, Health and Natural Resources, Kentucky State University, Frankfort, KY 40601, USA)

Abstract

The increasing pressure on food security and environmental sustainability has emphasized the importance of effective farm resource usage. Precision agriculture technologies (PATs) have been considered as one of the solutions to these challenges. Multiple stakeholders and agencies working in the agriculture sector have implemented various initiatives to facilitate their adoption. Despite numerous initiatives, the adoption of PATs in small farms is shallow in the United States. It is important to understand what socio-economic and demographic factors influence their decision-making regarding PAT adoption. This research aimed to provide actionable insights that can help farmers overcome existing challenges and capitalize on the benefits of advanced agricultural practices, ultimately contributing to the resilience and sustainability of the agricultural sector. This study used a mixed approach (a combination of mail, in-person, and focus group discussion) to investigate factors influencing PAT adoption by small-scale farmers in Kentucky. The data were analyzed using the binary logistic regression method. The results revealed that farm size and longer years of farming experience increased the likelihood of PAT adoption, whereas farmers’ age negatively affected adoption. Other demographic variables, such as gender, income, and education, did not influence adoption significantly. To promote the adoption of PATs among small farmers in Kentucky, policies should focus on supporting younger farmers and building PATs suitable for operating in small farms and reducing barriers. Furthermore, providing targeted training and resources to small-scale farmers can help to promote the adoption of these technologies, thereby improving agricultural efficiency and sustainability.

Suggested Citation

  • Shreesha Pandeya & Buddhi R. Gyawali & Suraj Upadhaya, 2025. "Factors Influencing Precision Agriculture Technology Adoption Among Small-Scale Farmers in Kentucky and Their Implications for Policy and Practice," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-17, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:15:y:2025:i:2:p:177-:d:1567290
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/15/2/177/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/15/2/177/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Banerjee, Swagata (Ban) & Martin, Steven W. & Roberts, Roland K. & Larkin, Sherry L. & Larson, James A. & Paxton, Kenneth W. & English, Burton C. & Marra, Michele C. & Reeves, Jeanne M., 2008. "A Binary Logit Estimation of Factors Affecting Adoption of GPS Guidance Systems by Cotton Producers," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 40(01), pages 1-11, April.
    2. Fausti, Scott & Erickson, Bruce & Clay, Sharon & Schumacher, Leon & Clay, David & Skouby, Danielle, 2018. "Educator Survey: Do Institutions Provide the Precision Agriculture Education Needed by Agribusiness?," Journal of Agribusiness, Agricultural Economics Association of Georgia, vol. 36(01).
    3. Christopher B. Barrett, 2021. "Overcoming Global Food Security Challenges through Science and Solidarity," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(2), pages 422-447, March.
    4. Andrew J Tanentzap & Anthony Lamb & Susan Walker & Andrew Farmer, 2015. "Resolving Conflicts between Agriculture and the Natural Environment," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-13, September.
    5. Luís Loures & Alejandro Chamizo & Paulo Ferreira & Ana Loures & Rui Castanho & Thomas Panagopoulos, 2020. "Assessing the Effectiveness of Precision Agriculture Management Systems in Mediterranean Small Farms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-15, May.
    6. repec:cup:jagaec:v:40:y:2008:i:1:p:345-355_25 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Bell, Caroline D. & Roberts, Roland K. & English, Burton C. & Park, William M., 1994. "A Logit Analysis Of Participation In Tennessee'S Forest Stewardship Program," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 1-10, December.
    8. SOTO Iria & BARNES Andrew & BALAFOUTIS Athanasios & BECK Bert & SANCHEZ FERNANDEZ Berta & VANGEYTE Jurgen & FOUNTAS Spyros & VAN DER WAL Tamme & EORY Vera & GOMEZ BARBERO Manuel, 2019. "The contribution of precision agriculture technologies to farm productivity and the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions in the EU," JRC Research Reports JRC112505, Joint Research Centre.
    9. Yari Vecchio & Giulio Paolo Agnusdei & Pier Paolo Miglietta & Fabian Capitanio, 2020. "Adoption of Precision Farming Tools: The Case of Italian Farmers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-16, January.
    10. David Tilman & Kenneth G. Cassman & Pamela A. Matson & Rosamond Naylor & Stephen Polasky, 2002. "Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices," Nature, Nature, vol. 418(6898), pages 671-677, August.
    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. Silvia Macchia, 2022. "Unbundling the information needs of new-generation agricultural companies," MANAGEMENT CONTROL, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2022(2 Suppl.), pages 117-141.
    2. Miguel I. Gómez & Deishin Lee, 2023. "Transforming food supply chains for sustainability," Journal of Supply Chain Management, Institute for Supply Management, vol. 59(4), pages 79-92, October.
    3. Stemmler, Henry & Meemken, Eva-Marie, 2023. "Greenhouse farming and employment: Evidence from Ecuador," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    4. Elisa Morri & Riccardo Santolini, 2021. "Ecosystem Services Valuation for the Sustainable Land Use Management by Nature-Based Solution (NbS) in the Common Agricultural Policy Actions: A Case Study on the Foglia River Basin (Marche Region, It," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-23, December.
    5. Liu, Duan & Tang, Runcheng & Xie, Jun & Tian, Jingjing & Shi, Rui & Zhang, Kai, 2020. "Valuation of ecosystem services of rice–fish coculture systems in Ruyuan County, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    6. Shen Yuan & Shaobing Peng, 2017. "Exploring the Trends in Nitrogen Input and Nitrogen Use Efficiency for Agricultural Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-15, October.
    7. Ouellet, F. & Mundler, P. & Dupras, J. & Ruiz, J., 2020. "“Community developed and farmer delivered.” An analysis of the spatial and relational proximities of the Alternative Land Use Services program in Ontario," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    8. Katarina Arvidsson Segerkvist & Helena Hansson & Ulf Sonesson & Stefan Gunnarsson, 2021. "A Systematic Mapping of Current Literature on Sustainability at Farm-Level in Beef and Lamb Meat Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-14, February.
    9. Vainio, Annukka & Tienhaara, Annika & Haltia, Emmi & Hyvönen, Terho & Pyysiäinen, Jarkko & Pouta, Eija, 2021. "The legitimacy of result-oriented and action-oriented agri-environmental schemes: A comparison of farmers’ and citizens’ perceptions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    10. Hualin Xie & Yingqian Huang & Qianru Chen & Yanwei Zhang & Qing Wu, 2019. "Prospects for Agricultural Sustainable Intensification: A Review of Research," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-27, October.
    11. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    12. G. Cornelis van Kooten & Sabina Lee Shaikh & Pavel Suchánek, 2002. "Mitigating Climate Change by Planting Trees: The Transaction Costs Trap," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(4), pages 559-572.
    13. Aude Ridier & Caroline Roussy & Karim Chaib, 2021. "Adoption of crop diversification by specialized grain farmers in south-western France: evidence from a choice-modelling experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 265-283, September.
    14. Sabina Shaikh & Pavel Suchánek & Lili Sun & G. Cornelis van Kooten, 2003. "Does Inclusion of Landowners’ Non-Market Values Lower Costs of Creating Carbon Forest Sinks?," Working Papers 2003-03, University of Victoria, Department of Economics, Resource Economics and Policy Analysis Research Group.
    15. Paul L. G. Vlek & Asia Khamzina & Hossein Azadi & Anik Bhaduri & Luna Bharati & Ademola Braimoh & Christopher Martius & Terry Sunderland & Fatemeh Taheri, 2017. "Trade-Offs in Multi-Purpose Land Use under Land Degradation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, November.
    16. Diriba Shiferaw G., 2017. "Water-Nutrients Interaction: Exploring the Effects of Water as a Central Role for Availability & Use Efficiency of Nutrients by Shallow Rooted Vegetable Crops - A Review," Journal of Agriculture and Crops, Academic Research Publishing Group, vol. 3(10), pages 78-93, 10-2017.
    17. Gren, Ing-Marie & Carlsson, Mattias, 2012. "Revealed payments for biodiversity protection in Swedish forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 55-62.
    18. 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.
    19. Seufert, Verena & Ramankutty, Navin & Mayerhofer, Tabea, 2017. "What is this thing called organic? – How organic farming is codified in regulations," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 10-20.
    20. Jónsson, Jón Örvar G. & Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur & Nikolaidis, Nikolaos P. & Giannakis, Georgios V., 2019. "Tools for Sustainable Soil Management: Soil Ecosystem Services, EROI and Economic Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 109-119.

    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:gam:jagris:v:15:y:2025:i:2:p:177-:d:1567290. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.