Next Article in Journal
Experimental Study of the Usability of Recycling Marble Waste as Aggregate for Road Construction
Previous Article in Journal
RBF Neural Network Fractional-Order Sliding Mode Control with an Application to Direct a Three Matrix Converter under an Unbalanced Grid
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 6
10.3390/su14063194
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Determinants of Farmers’ Awareness and Adoption of Extension Recommended Wheat Varieties in the Rainfed Areas of Pakistan

by
Ayat Ullah
1,2,*,
Shahab E. Saqib
3 and
Harald Kächele
1,4
1
Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Institute of Socio-Economics, Eberswalder Strasse 84, 15374 Müncheberg, Germany
2
Department of Agricultural Extension Education and Communication, University of Agriculture, Peshawar 25000, Pakistan
3
Directorate of Commerce Education and Management Sciences, Higher Education Department Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar 25000, Pakistan
4
Department of Environmental Economics, Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development, Schicklerstraße 5, 16225 Eberswalde, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(6), 3194; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063194
Submission received: 30 January 2022 / Revised: 16 February 2022 / Accepted: 17 February 2022 / Published: 9 March 2022
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Scientific evidence suggests that there is room for eradicating poverty and hunger by increasing food production through the adoption of modern agricultural practices by farmers. This study aimed, first, to explore the relationship between the farmers’ awareness and adoption of improved wheat varieties. Second, it aimed to find the key factors that govern the farmers’ awareness and adoption of extension-recommended innovations in the rainfed cropping system of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Data were collected from 395 respondents. A binary logit model was used to analyze the effect of the farmers’ socioeconomic and farm-specific characteristics on their awareness and adoption of the extension-suggested wheat varieties. Moreover, qualitative data from 40 key informants were collected for in-depth analysis. The results show a strong association between the farmers’ awareness of a technology (improved wheat varieties) and its adoption. The results of the logit model show that their extension contacts, income from agriculture, and access to credit positively affected the farmers’ awareness, whereas their education and household sizes negatively affected their awareness. Moreover, the factors that positively influenced the farmers’ decision to adopt the technology included the extension contact, the confidence in the extension, the risk-bearing attitude, and the credit access, whereas the household size and education negatively affected it. The results of the key informant interviews reveal that the high incidence of poverty, the low soil fertility, the farmers’ inability to make effective decisions, the lack of accurate weather predictability in the rainfed farming system, the lack of government interest, and the asymmetric information in the inputs markets contributed to the farmers’ low levels of awareness and to their poor adoption of improved agricultural technologies. These results indicate that any intervention aimed at the awareness and adoption by farmers of improved technologies, such as new wheat varieties, should recognize the heterogeneity in the farmers’ socioeconomic and farm-specific characteristics.

1. Introduction

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with their aim of eradicating poverty in all its forms and ensuring zero hunger by 2030, are still the main challenge that the world faces [1]. The agricultural sector’s growth is key for improving rural livelihoods, alleviating poverty and hunger, and ensuring economic growth, especially in developing countries [1,2]. In this context, the roles of the awareness and the adoption of technological innovation by farmers cannot be ignored [3]. The awareness and adoption of agricultural technologies by farmers can support agriculture productivity, and can foster employment creation, which contribute to reducing poverty by raising productivity and the income of farmers, which ultimately improves their access to food [4,5].
Agricultural technologies have been regularly developed and their uses are promoted for the benefit of farmers and include the genetic improvements of seeds, climate-smart technologies, fertilizers, and integrated pest management strategies [4]. However, in the developing world especially, the adoption of these agricultural technologies has remained low [6]. The literature on technology adoption has focused on the estimation of the adoption rates in agricultural production. For instance, the relationship between the socioeconomic characteristics of farmers and the policy variables [4,7]. There is no doubt that these studies are useful for learning about the barriers to technology adoption [8]. Therefore, the farmers’ awareness of technologies, such as improved varieties and fertilizers, is an important indicator of their technology adoption [3].
The lack of awareness and appropriate knowledge from trusted sources, such as public extension service providers, creates the farmers’ dependencies on input providers for information. In such cases, the farmers place a higher emphasis on input intensification strategies, such as increasing the rate of agrochemicals and the selection of improper crop varieties, etc., which deteriorates the land use and sustainability, which impacts the food security [6]. In addition to this, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and agricultural input manufacturing companies have promoted the use of technologies instead of promoting suitable and sustainable technologies [9]. The previous literature has focused on the adoption or the rejection of improved agricultural technologies by farmers who are dependent on input providers for information/awareness in the rainfed districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) [3,6]. Therefore, more research is needed in order to better understand whether technologies, and combinations of technologies, are adopted by farmers who are dependent on public extension service providers for information/awareness. The majority of the studies focus on the adoption of improved technology (ies), such as improved seeds and fertilizer [3,4,6,10]. However, to the best of our knowledge, no studies discuss the adoption of various wheat varieties in the rainfed areas of Pakistan. Therefore, we analyzed the adoption of drought and heat-resistant wheat varieties, namely, shaker-13 and NIFA Lalma, by both aware and unaware farmers, by public extension service providers in the rainfed districts of KP. Therefore, to address this issue, the objectives were as follows: (1) The relationship between the farmers’ awareness and their adoption of improved agricultural technologies; (2) How the socioeconomic and farm-related factors determined the farmers’ awareness of the existence of the technologies; and (3) How the socioeconomic and farm-related characteristics determined the farmers’ adoption of the improved agricultural technologies (the shaker-13 and NIFA Lalma varieties of wheat).

2. Conceptual Framework

Our framework is based on the suggestion of researchers that awareness is an important aspect of the adoption decisions of farmers [11,12]. Previous findings have ascertained that any deliberate progress towards the adoption of improved agricultural technology necessitates that the farmers must have an adequate awareness of the technology [11,12]. Even if a farmer is a potential adopter, he/she may not adopt because of his/her low awareness of the technology and its benefits [3,6]. This implies that farmers have the option to adopt or to not to adopt the technology, and those who are not aware of the improved agricultural technology may acquire more information. Both the awareness and the adoption of improved agricultural technology, however, are affected by several factors [11]. For instance, factors such as the farmers’ socioeconomic, institutional, and informational aspects contain all those variables related to the characteristics of farmers, farms, and the institutional and agricultural settings [3,11]. The farmer’s awareness shapes a household’s positive or negative perceptions towards a technology [13]. Our conceptual framework proposes that a household’s positive perceptions about new agricultural technology can lead to the farmers’ intentions to adopt it, whereas a negative perception can lead to the opposite, where the farmers do not intend to adopt an improved technology. The major factors related to the farmers’ intentions to adopt technology are, again, the information provision, and the awareness dissemination about the availability, benefits, and risks connected with the adoption decision [11]. This means that an important aspect of the farmer’s decision to adopt any agricultural technology is the positive perception of the farmer towards that technology, which comes with awareness. Thus, it is hypothesized that the socioeconomic and institutional characteristics, such as age and farming experience, influence the household’s decision to adopt the technology, with the help of the influence of the farmers’ subjective perceptions and attitudes. The socioeconomic characteristics of the farmers directly influence their awareness and exercise an indirect influence on the their perceptions, which influences their positive or negative intentions towards the adoption of the technology (Figure 1).

3. Data and Methods

3.1. Study Area

The study was conducted in the Karak and Lakki Marwat districts of KP province of Pakistan (Figure 2). These districts were purposely selected as they are the primary rainfed areas of the KP province. The Karak District is situated in the south of the province, and its east is submountainous in topography. This district is relatively hot and receives less than 500 mm of annual rainfall. The southwestern part of the Karak District is composed of sandy soils, and the temperature reaches up to 42–45 °C in June and July [14]. In Lakki Marwat District, the average annual temperature is 24.21 °C, and the annual precipitation recorded is 326 mm [15].

3.2. Data and Sampling

3.2.1. Household Survey

The primary data were collected through a structured questionnaire survey and were pretested in the study area. The data collection was undertaken from September to December 2017. The sample size was 395 farmers. A multistage random sampling method was adopted for the sample selection. In the first stage, the Karak and Lakki Marwat Districts were purposefully selected. Second, four Union Councils from each district, and two villages from each Union Council were selected. In the final stage, a list of farmers was prepared from the villages, and 395 respondents were randomly selected using Yamane’s formula [16].

3.2.2. Key Informant Interviews

The key informant interviews were conducted in June 2017 with farmers’ councilors (farmers’ councilors are elected by the people through local body elections) (past and current), large farmers (having nearly 1500 acres of rainfed land), input providers (market owners), and the officials of the agricultural extension department. A total of 40 key informants (10 from each group) were interviewed using a quota sampling method. These key informants were knowledgeable about the issues and problems of the farmers, as well as about the extension services. The open-ended questions were used to collect information on the key question: “What factors contribute to the farmers’ inadequate awareness and poor adoption of improved agricultural technology?”

3.3. Statistical Analysis

We recognize the relationship between the farmers’ awareness of the existence of, and their willingness to adopt, the innovations, and the socioeconomic and institutional characteristics. The logit model was used because the dependent variable was binary: the farmers’ awareness of the existence of the innovations/adoption = 1, and 0 = otherwise. The explanatory variables included the farmers’ socioeconomic characteristics and the technical factors. We also recognize a binary variable, i.e., the farmers’ adoption of the wheat varieties, with the set of explanatory variables representing the farmers’ characteristics and the technical factors. The general logit model is shown in Equation (1) [17]:
logit p i =   ln p i 1 − p i = β 0 + β 1 x 1 ,   i   + ⋯ + β m x m ,   i  
where (pi) represents the probability that the farmer is associated with the observation, i, and is aware of, and has adopted, the improved wheat variety in the time period; and xm,i represents the value of the m-th independent variable for the observation, i.

3.4. Variables Used in the Study

3.4.1. Dependent Variables

This study has used two dependent variables: the farmers’ awareness, and their adoption of the extension-recommended wheat varieties. Out of the total of 395 respondents, 187 were aware of the existence of the extension-recommended wheat varieties, and 187 of them were adopters (Table 1). The farmers’ socioeconomic and farm-related characteristics, such as their ages, farm sizes, farming experience, credit access, education, household sizes, risk-bearing attitude, and extension contacts, were the factors that determined the adoption of improved agricultural technologies [18]. From the review of the literature, it is hypothesized that the adoption of the extension-recommended wheat varieties is determined by the farmers’ socioeconomic and farm-related characteristics (Table 1). However, for a farmer to adopt an innovation, he/she must be aware of the existence of the innovation [6]. The different socioeconomic and farm-related characteristics of farmers are likely to impact their access to credit, their contact with extension services, and their access to information about agricultural technologies, and, consequently, this may influence their decisions to adopt innovations to varying extents [18]. Therefore, we also hypothesize that the awareness of the extension-recommended wheat varieties can be determined by the farmers’ socioeconomic and farm-related characteristics, and it is the first step in the their adoption of the extension-recommended wheat varieties (Table 1).

3.4.2. Independent Variables

A description of the independent variables, the units of measurement, and their relationships with both of the dependent variables are presented below.

Age of a Farmer

The influence of the age of a farmer on his/her awareness and adoption of extension-recommended technologies is unclear. Some findings from previous studies have found a positive association between the farmers’ ages and their awareness and adoption of agricultural technologies [10,19], whereas some have found a negative association [20,21]. Thus, in our study, we hypothesize that the age of a farmer could have either a positive or a negative impact on his/her awareness of the recommended agricultural practices, and on his/her adoption of such practices. Age is measured in years and it is hypothesized that it positively or negatively influences a farmer’s awareness and his/her decision to adopt the recommended varieties in the study area.

Education of a Farmer

The literature reveals that farmers with higher educational levels are usually considered to be flexible, knowledgeable, and more informed about the improved agricultural practices and the benefits of adopting such practices [22,23]. In many adoption studies, researchers have found education to be a significant factor that positively influences the farmers’ awareness and their adoption decisions [24,25,26]. These studies have shown that because of the high awareness among educated farmers, they are more likely to adopt such practices. Thus, this study hypothesizes that the number of years of education will have a positive influence on the farmers’ awareness and on their adoption of the wheat varieties.

Household Size

The previous studies’ findings show mixed impacts of the household sizes on the farmers’ awareness and on their adoption of the extension-recommended agricultural practices [10,25,26]. One study reveals an insignificant association between the household sizes and the farmers’ awareness and adoption of the extension recommendations [10]. However, some studies report a negative effect of the household sizes on the farmers’ awareness and their adoption of extension-recommended agricultural technologies [25,26]. Thus, in our study, the household size is a continuous variable. It is hypothesized that a household’s size will have either a negative or positive influence on the awareness and adoption of extension-recommended agricultural practices (in this case, improved wheat varieties).

Farm Size

The literature available on the adoption of technology reveals that the farm size is an important factor that determines the farmers’ awareness and their adoption decisions [27,28,29,30]. These studies have shown that large farm sizes increase the ability of farmers to be aware of and to adopt agricultural practices for the potential benefit of their households. It is expected that farmers with large farm sizes have information about improved agricultural practices that they can adopt in order to increase their productivity [31]. The study measured the farm size as a continuous variable, which is defined as the acres of cropland cultivated by a respondent (household head) [32]. Therefore, in this study, we expect that there is a positive association between farm sizes and the farmers’ awareness of and decision to adopt extension-recommended wheat varieties.

Farming Experience

The farming experience is defined as the number of years of working farm occupation. It is measured as a continuous variable. The studies report the positive influence of the farming experiences on the farmers’ awareness and adoption decisions [33,34]. They further reveal that more farming experience increases the awareness of farmers and their ability to adopt improved agricultural practices. Therefore, it is expected that the farmers’ experiences will have a positive influence on their awareness and adoption of the extension-recommended agricultural practices. We expect, in this study, that increased farming experience will positively influence the farmers’ awareness and their decisions to adopt agricultural practices.

Monthly Farm Income

Previous studies on the adoption of improved agricultural practices and the awareness of farmers have shown that a farmer with more income from the agriculture sector tends to be more aware of the extension recommendations, and that they usually adopt such practices [34,35,36]. The studies mentioned reveal that on-farm income is positively associated with the farmers’ awareness and adoption of the extension recommendations. Income from the agriculture sector is inversely proportional to agricultural technology adoption [34]. Therefore, in this study, the farm income of farmers was expected to play a positive role in their awareness and in their adoption of the extension-recommended wheat varieties. Farm income is a continuous variable in this study, and it is measured in Pakistani rupees (PKR) (USD 1 = PKR 160).

Extension Contact

Previous studies have shown that the extension–farmer contact is an important source of the farmer’s awareness regarding new practices, and that it is a primary asset in facilitating the adoption of these practices [15,37,38]. Frequent extension–farmer contact can help farmers to become aware of new practices, and it can enhance their willingness to understand and adopt them [39]. Thus, in this study, it is hypothesized that the extension–farmer contact promotes the farmers’ awareness and improves their willingness to adopt the wheat varieties. This study uses the extension–farmer contact as a dummy variable, with D = 1 if a farmer has contacted extension service providers, and 0 = otherwise.

Confidence in Extension Worker

Previous studies have shown that confidence in extension service providers and their abilities is an important source of farmers’ awareness and their adoption of new practices [31,40]. An extension agent can disseminate information more effectively by building the farmer’s confidence in his/her abilities and can promote the adoption of improved practices [41]. A farmer with a higher confidence level in his/her extension services will probably be informed about improved agricultural practices and will usually adopt them [3,31]. Thus, in this study, it is hypothesized that the contact with extension service providers will promote the farmers’ awareness about the technology and their adoption of improved wheat varieties. The confidence in the extension service providers is used as a dummy variable in the study, with D = 1 if the farmer has confidence in the extension service providers, and 0 if otherwise.

Risk-Bearing Attitude

Generally, agriculture is a risky enterprise. Therefore, rainfed farmers are required to have a risk-bearing attitude while making adoption decisions in every agricultural process [42]. Farmers feel the risk of crop failure with the adoption of new ideas and practices, which usually negatively affect their adoption decisions [43]. The decision to adopt a new technology or practice depends on the risk-bearing attitude of the farmer [44]. Information on the benefits of the use of drought-tolerant crop varieties and cultivation practices are important for establishing the farmers’ risk-bearing attitudes for the timely adoption of new practices [9]. The decisions of farmers to invest in and adopt new practices and technologies in agriculture are positively influenced by their risk-bearing attitudes [40]. In the same way, a risk-bearing attitude increases the measures of the likelihood that the farmer will adopt the technology [45]. The farmer’s risk-bearing attitude is taken as a dummy variable, with D = 1 if a farmer is willing to adopt the extension-recommended wheat varieties despite the risk of crop failure, and 0 if otherwise. The effect of risk-bearing attitudes on the farmers’ awareness and their adoption of the improved wheat varieties is expected to be positive in this study.

Farmers’ Access to Credit

The literature shows that farmers’ access to credit determines the farmers’ awareness and adoption of the various extension-recommended technologies [14,46]. Farmers with easy and more access to credit are able to make use of the information to invest in the adoption of improved agricultural practices, such as drought-tolerant crop varieties [47]. Farmers with credit access were also found to be better able to solve financial constraints to meet their needs to change their practices [47,48]. Thus, the study hypothesizes that access to credit has a positive effect on the farmers’ awareness and adoption of the extension-recommended wheat varieties. The farmers’ access to credit was a dummy variable, with D = 1 if a farmer has access to credit, and 0 = otherwise.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Discriptive Satsitsics of the Study Varaibles

The farmers’ awareness is shown by “aware vs unaware”, and the adoption is shown by “adopters vs nonadopters” (Table 1). For the education, age, farming experience, household size, and monthly income, the results show significant differences among both groups concerning both variables, i.e., adopters and nonadopters, as well as aware and unaware farmers. The aware farmers and adopters had significantly higher mean ages, education levels, household sizes, farming experience, and monthly incomes, compared to the unaware farmers and nonadopters (Table 1). Furthermore, the results indicate that the aware famers who adopted the extension-recommended wheat varieties had risk-bearing attitudes and better extension contacts, as compared to the unaware farmers who did not adopt them. Out of a total of 47% of the aware farmers who adopted the wheat varieties, 43% were aware, and 44% were adopters showing risk-bearing attitudes (Table 1). Similarly, out of the total (47%), 40% were aware, and 42% of the adopters had extension contacts (Table 1). The results show significant associations between the farmers’ awareness and both their risk-bearing attitudes and extension contacts (Table 1). The risk-bearing attitudes and extension contacts also had a significant association with the farmers’ adoption of the extension-recommended wheat varieties (Table 1). The confidence in extension service providers was one of the important characteristics that was considered in this study. The results show that the confidence in extension service providers was high among adopters (46%), and among aware farmers (44%), compared to the unaware farmers who did not adopt (Table 1). The findings show significant associations between the farmers’ confidence in the extension service providers and their awareness and adoption of the improved wheat varieties (Table 1). Out of the total number (47%) of adopters and aware farmers, 40% showed access to credit. The farmers’ access to credit also showed a significant association with their awareness and their adoption of the extension-recommended wheat varieties (Table 1). These observations suggest that awareness and the adoption of the extension-recommended wheat varieties were higher among those farmers who had higher education, big household sizes, older ages, farming experience, and high incomes. The above results suggest that those farmers who usually had no extension contacts, no access to other information sources, such as mass media, no access to credit, and no confidence in the extension service providers had no awareness, and they did not adopt the extension-recommended wheat varieties.
Cross-tabulations and Yule Q statistics were run to explore the differences between the farmers who were aware of and adopted the extension-recommended wheat varieties, and the results are shown in Figure 3. The results show that out of a total of 187 adopters, 176 were aware that these wheat varieties were recommended by the agriculture extension department. Some adopters did not exactly remember the name of the variety; however, they had the seed sample of a used variety and claimed that they had sown the same variety that their neighbors had sown. They had taken these varieties from their neighbors, relatives, or input providers, without knowing what they were. Some of the farmers tried the extension-recommended wheat varieties because they were short of the seed for cultivation. There is a trend in the study areas that, when a farmer has a good-quality seed and another farmer does not have seed for cultivation, or money to buy seed, then the farmer having seed gives it to those people who do not have it, for free, for cultivation; however, they take it back in a similar quantity after harvesting. The results show a significant and strong positive correlation/association between the farmers’ awareness and their adoption of the extension-recommended innovations. The majority of farmers keep the same seed variety each year and cultivate it for the succeeding cropping season.

4.2. Factors Affecting Farmers’ Awareness and Adoption of Innovation

First, all of the variables used in the regression model were tested for multicollinearity. The variance inflation factors (VIF) showed no multicollinearity in the model. After testing for multicollinearity, the goodness-of-fit for the regression model was tested: the χ2-value for the awareness model was 24.715, with a p-value > 0.05, and the χ2 value for the adoption model was 40.131, with a p-value > 0.05. Thus, the models were a good fit.
As was stated earlier, a binary logit model was applied to study the characteristics of the respondents sampled in the rainfed districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (Table 2). The results show that the education of the respondents significantly and negatively influenced the likelihood of their awareness (p < 0.01) and adoption (p < 0.05) of the extension-recommended wheat varieties in the study area. The significant and negative influence might be because the area is rainfed (facing the problem of acute water shortage) and conflict-prone, with few employment and business opportunities. The area has unfertile sandy lands and the people have the common thinking that they can earn more while working as daily wagers in the cities, as many farmers report that farming is no longer a profitable business in these sands. The educated people usually move to the cities for the better lives of their children, and to keep them away from an environment of street fights and drug addiction, which were very common in the villages. Illiterate farmers and those who have low levels education and who lack skills usually stayed in the study area, i.e., in the villages [49]. The results agree somewhat with those of several other studies from the region that report that education has mixed effects on the farmers’ decision making and their adoption of technology, whereas it negatively affects the adoption of many technologies and innovations [43,50].
The household sizes of the respondents significantly and negatively influenced the probability of the farmers’ adoption (p < 0.01) and awareness (p < 0.01) of the extension-recommended wheat varieties (Table 2). This implies that the farmers with large household sizes are less likely to be aware of and to adopt the extension-recommended innovations. The farmers in the study area appear to be rather traditional and unaware of the existence of innovative technology, and they stick to older farming practices. These results are in accordance with previous studies, and they reveal a significant and negative correlation of the household sizes with the farmers’ adoption of the extension-recommended improved technology [40,51].
The farm size is one of the important factors that was expected to affect the adoption of the extension-recommended wheat varieties. However, this did not prove to be a significant factor in this study. Many studies have found the farm size to be a very important factor in their investigations, and they have attributed the higher adoption of improved agricultural technologies to large farm sizes [52,53]. Likewise, another study reveals that farmers with large farm sizes adopt improved varieties, which positively correlates with their consumption and their incomes, and thus impacts the welfare of poorer farming households [54]. In the study area, farmers usually have large farm sizes (Table 1); however, because of the soil fertility problems, they only grow wheat and chickpea (black) crops in the winter season (rabi crops) (rabi crops are those crops that are grown in the winter season (from October to March)). All of the farmers in the region practiced crop rotation among both crops, and the reason they cited is that it increases the soil fertility. The area is poverty-stricken and the farmers can hardly provide the basic necessities for their households. They spend all of the output from their farms on family consumption.
In addition, the monthly income of farmers from agriculture (including crops and livestock) had a significant and positive association with their awareness (p < 0.10) of the extension-recommended wheat varieties (Table 2). This implies that, with the increase in their incomes, the farmers’ abilities to invest in new technologies to reduce risks increase. More investment in improved agricultural technologies by farmers leads to considerable wealth and the availability of capital. The findings of the study are consistent with previous studies that have found that the adoption of new agricultural technologies increases incomes, which is associated with greater wealth, which, in turn, again, increases the likelihood of the farmers investing in extension-recommended innovations [55].
The extension contacts boost the likelihood that the farmers are aware (p < 0.01) and that they will adopt (p < 0.01) the extension-recommended wheat varieties. The farmers’ awareness and their adoption of new agricultural technology improved with their extension contacts (Table 2). These results imply that the extension contacts play a very important and effective role in the farmers’ awareness and in their adoption of new agricultural technologies. However, farmers with confidence in the extension service providers have an edge when it comes to adopting improved technologies and reaping their benefits (p < 0.10) through the boosting of their productivity and the provision of better situations for practicing modern agriculture (Table 2). The result implies that the extension contacts, which influence farmers’ confidence in the extension service providers, are the main sources of information. Likewise, extension contacts improve agricultural technologies adoption. The awareness and adoption of new agricultural practices are associated with greater contact with extension field staff [4,15].
The results show a positive and significant (p < 0.05) impact of the rainfed farmers’ risk-bearing attitudes on their adoption of the improved wheat varieties. It is apparent from our results that a farmer with a risk-bearing attitude is more likely to adopt the wheat varieties. This is because he/she might have the potential to face, or even reduce, the adverse effects of the probable negative consequences of the new practices. Therefore, the risk-bearing attitude of a farmer plays an important and effective role in the adoption of new agricultural technologies. One study associates the higher adoption of existing practices with the farmers’ risk-bearing attitudes [40].
As was expected, the access to agricultural credit positively and significantly influenced both the adoption and the awareness of the extension-recommended wheat varieties (Table 2). This implies that, as the access to agricultural credit increases, the likelihood of the farmers’ awareness of the technology and their adoption of the improved wheat varieties also increases. Previous literature has recognized the potentials of credit in enhancing the farmers’ awareness and their adoption of the improved wheat varieties [56]. The primary reason for the farmers’ low levels of awareness and their decisions to adopt, or to adopt poorly, is identified by the studies as poverty, whereas credit helps to alleviate financial constraints and enables farmers to access agricultural technologies [46,57]. Our findings are in agreement with previous studies. They reveal the positive and significant effect of access to credit on the adoption of agricultural technologies [4,14].

4.3. Key Informant Interview Results on Farmers’ Awareness and Improved Wheat Variety Adoption

The results of the data obtained from the key informants are mentioned below, and they are concerned with the key question of what restricts the farmers’ awareness and their adoption of improved agricultural technologies in the study area, taking improved wheat varieties as the case technology. In this case, the practice of wheat variety adoption is named specifically, whereas the general technologies are referred to generally.
The key informants specified many problems, such as poverty, low soil fertility, the farmers’ inability to make effective decisions, the lack of accurate weather predictability, the lack of government interest and funds allocation for extension services, and the asymmetric information in input markets.

4.3.1. Poverty

All of the key informants specified poverty as the main contributing factor to the farmers’ nonadoption of improved agricultural technologies, such as novel wheat varieties. They identified several problems, which included the farmers’ low motivation for acquiring information on and adopting new agricultural technologies in the study area. The foremost problem they identified was poverty; one of the key informants stated that:
“The poor farmers rent lands from the rich farmers. The tenants’ farmers are afraid that the rich farmers will not pay the prices for the new technology adoption. Their farming technologies’ adoption depends on the money available. Besides, they hardly have money to afford old technology. This results in farmers’ low interest in searching for information on new costly technologies. Neither have they adopted them.”
Our results on poverty and the adoption of new technology are supported by the previous literature. For instance, poverty creates barriers to the adoption of agricultural technology [58,59]. Studies have reported that poverty negatively affects agricultural technology adoption; however, promoting awareness through extension and policy interventions can create improved technology, such as novel crop varieties that are available to farmers, and can facilitate their adoption, which, in turn, can reduce poverty. Our findings are in agreement with previous research findings that have found that the poverty affecting adoption improved the awareness and the continued delivery of information through extension programs, which can improve the farmers’ adoption and target rural poverty [60].

4.3.2. Low Soil Fertility

Besides the poverty among the rainfed rural communities, low soil fertility was also a discouraging problem in the farmers’ motivation to search for information on improved agricultural technologies, and it has thus restricted their adoption. The farmers believed that if it did not rain, or if it rained at inappropriate times, that their crops would surely fail, no matter what technology they were utilizing. The key informant from the agriculture extension department stated that:
“The land is rainfed and extremely unfertile. The soil is sandy and due to this, the poor and tenant farmers do not see the benefits of a practice change or invest in improved agricultural technology and will only practice traditional agriculture on their fields. They think that the cost spent on improved technology will be more than the yield.”
The results indicate that the farmers frequently experience crop loss because of low soil fertility, which has resulted in their low motivation to search for information on innovations and to adopt them. Previous studies show that soil fertility, together with weather conditions, affect crops’ successes and failures [61,62]. Because of the low soil fertility, farmers sometimes face difficulties when deciding to invest in costly technologies, and they sometimes decide not to adopt [63].

4.3.3. Farmers’ Inabilities to Make Effective Decisions

The key informants also identified the farmers’ low capabilities of rational decision making. One of the farmers’ councilors stated that:
“Besides the unfertile land, the farmers don’t have decision-making capabilities. They are illiterate and they don’t have the abilities to think rationally and search for or even understand new information and therefore, they usually do not adopt the new technology.”
The adverse influence of the rainfed farmers’ inabilities to effectively make decisions with regard to the adoption of improved agricultural technologies is found here to be consistent with previous studies [64,65]. Likewise, the households have traditional crop varieties that they prefer over new crop varieties because of their inabilities to make rational decisions and the associations [66]. Furthermore, it is argued that the poor access of farmers to information media results in their low awareness and leads to poor decision making, and that, therefore, they choose traditional farming practices [67].

4.3.4. Lack of Accurate Weather Predictability

In rainfed agriculture, the success of farming is dependent on the rain system. Weather predictability plays an important role in the adoption of improved agricultural practices [68]. In the face of low land fertility, costly technology, and weather uncertainty, the rainfed farmers always describe agriculture as a very risky pursuit that usually delivers insufficient returns to farmers. The results of our key informants also reveal that weather predictability is one of the important factors in the farmers’ adoption of improved agricultural technologies. One of the farmers’ councilors revealed that:
“The unpredictable weather is a big problem for the farmers to invest in agricultural technology(ies). They know that they are solely at the mercy of the weather. They think that when they need water for crops, the rains do not happen, when they do not need water, it happens more and more. And that is why they do not adopt any technology since they know that the technology will cost them more than the yield they receive.”
One of the farmers’ councilors reported that:
“I have decided not to cultivate farm this year. It will be just a waste of money even if I spent it on buying low-quality old seeds or other technology. To be honest, this year, I have preferred not to spend money on buying costly technology and have not cultivated much of my acreage. I am surprised that how the some of the resource-poor farmers have adopted the improved technology?”
“In farmers’ view, if there is any chance for a lot of rains, it is better to cultivate and even search for information on new technology or practices. However, do not adopt new practices on dry days, because they believe that the crop will not do well even with adopting better practices.”
According to the key informants, heavy rainfall events in unwanted times, and the lack of rain at desirable times, were perceived as the major causes of crop failure and the farmers’ low interest in agricultural information and technology adoption. Consistent with the present result, past reports have described that the low awareness of weather conditions also affected the farmers’ adoption strategies in rainfed farming systems and resulted in poor agricultural practices [69,70]. In agreement with the present results, the reports from the study province also indicate that an unsustainable climate and weather situations affect the farmers’ adoption [71]. Together with uncertain weather conditions, nonadoption is reported as the proximate cause of crop failure [72]. Similarly, it has been reported that the perceptions of farmers towards the weather conditions in rainfed systems are the indirect cause of their low levels of the adoption of costly agricultural technology [73].

4.3.5. Lack of Government Interest in Technology Promotion and Inadequate Funds Allocation for Extension Services

The farmers’ councilors and the large farmers also explained that the government is not paying much attention to the promotion of agricultural technologies. The extension agents are usually connected to rich farmers with large farms. The officials of the extension department also agreed with this point. In addition, they also stated that our staff was low and inadequately prepared to reach all the farmers. Thus, we tried to connect only with those farmers that could further help with the distribution of the innovations. The large farmers and the farmers’ councilors stated that, even in most cases, untrained people were promoted or were assigned the tasks of technical professionals. Moreover, the extension department officials confirmed the statement about the low staff availability. The agricultural extension officials reported that there was a lack of funds for the promotion of awareness and for the adoption of improved agricultural technologies. One of the key informants from this department stated that:
“Demonstration plots and field visits especially along the key roads can help to promote awareness and dissemination of innovations. However, because of the non-availability of funds, we cannot afford the needed inputs. Also, there is very limited or in most cases no funding at all for providing training to at least key farmers. If a farmer decides to apply a new agricultural technology or inputs such as an improved wheat variety and he has no awareness or training on fertilizer application or even skills for weeding with a hoe. Although, the improved technology will be better, however, when there is little rain and farmers have low awareness and skills, they will not get benefits of new technology nor will they adopt a novel technology.”
Previous studies have also reported on the lack of government interest in technology promotion and the inadequate funds allocation for extension services as barriers to promoting the farmers’ awareness and their adoption of improved agricultural technology [74,75]. Moreover, extension organizations have a vital role in disseminating awareness and in improving the capacity building of farmers to adopt innovations [76]. For promoting awareness and the adoption of innovations, extension professionals are sources of connectivity between the farmers and the scientific community. Unless extension officers do not have a lot of responsibility in their job, such as they do not go directly to the farmers’ homes for knowledge dissemination, extension activities cannot be effective nor efficient. Such activities will result in low awareness and a low level of adoption of the improved agricultural technologies [76].

4.3.6. Input Market’s Asymmetric Information

The information asymmetry in input markets was also identified by all of the corresponding market owners as a problem in the adoption of improved agricultural technologies by many farmers. One of the market’s owners stated that:
“The extension agents largely ignore delivering information on the prices and quality of new agricultural technologies. They only invite large farmers to listen to the extension officers on the existence of new technologies. The small farmers have low awareness and understanding of the technologies and the market owners ignore them on these technologies. Ignoring the small farmers on quality and quantity of agricultural technologies result in farmers’ low trust in technology and leads to no adoption.”
The market owners further identified that many input providers provide information only on those technologies that benefit them, rather than farmers. These results are in agreement with previous findings that reveal that information asymmetry prevails in input markets, which affects the farmers’ adoption of improved agricultural technologies [6]. (See Figure 4).

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

The empirical findings show a strong association between the farmers’ awareness of a technology (such as an improved wheat variety) and its adoption. Furthermore, socioeconomic and farm-specific characteristics influenced the farmers’ awareness and their adoption of the extension-recommended wheat varieties. The study found that the monthly income from the agriculture sector, the extension contact, and the access to credit were positively associated with the farmers’ awareness of the extension-recommended wheat varieties, whereas the education of the farmer and the household sizes were negatively associated with it. The study’s findings further reveal that the farmers’ risk-bearing attitudes, extension contacts, access to credit, and their confidence in the extension service providers produced positive effects, whereas their education and household sizes showed negative impacts on the farmers’ adoption of the extension-recommended wheat varieties in the study area. The key informant interviews added the incidences of poverty, low soil fertility, the farmers’ inabilities to effectively make decisions, the lack of accurate weather predictability, the lack of government interest and funds allocation for extension services, and the asymmetric information in the input markets discouraged the farmers from acquiring information on and adopting the improved agricultural technology.
The study has policy implications for intervention. For instance, the farmers’ awareness and adoption of the improved technologies, such as the new wheat varieties in the study area, should take into consideration the heterogeneity in the farmers’ socioeconomic and farm-related characteristics. Moreover, the results suggest that the farmers’ awareness is an important factor in the adoption of the extension-recommended wheat varieties, and that any designed or extending strategy(ies) should pay more attention to the farmers’ awareness about the existence of the innovation in order to improve the adoption of agricultural technologies for better results. It is also important to improve the farmers’ confidence in the extension service providers and to better improve the extension contacts in order to diffuse information on the improved technologies, raise awareness, and increase their adoption in agriculture. Finally, effective policies that are aimed towards increasing farmers’ access to agricultural credit are essential for improving the adoption of farm innovations.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, resources, investigation and writing original draft, A.U.; Editing, S.E.S.; Supervision, H.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Higher Education Commission (HEC) of Pakistan, grant number I-8/HEC/HRD/2017/7900 and The APC was funded by the Open Access Fund of the Leibniz Association to Ayat Ullah.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan (HEC). The Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Germany, provided administrative support. We are grateful to the respondents who willingly provided the required information to carry out this research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Dhahri, S.; Omri, A. Foreign capital towards SDGs 1 & 2—Ending Poverty and hunger: The role of agricultural production. Struct. Chang. Econ. Dyn. 2020, 53, 208–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Honfoga, B.G. Agricultural policy and challenges to reducing food insecurity and poverty in Benin. In Reference Module in Food Science; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ullah, A.; Arshad, M.; Kächele, H.; Zeb, A.; Mahmood, N.; Müller, K. Socio-economic analysis of farmers facing asymmetric information in inputs markets: Evidence from the rainfed zone of Pakistan. Technol. Soc. 2020, 63, 101405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kumar, A.; Takeshima, H.; Thapa, G.; Adhikari, N.; Saroj, S.; Karkee, M.; Joshi, P. Adoption and diffusion of improved technologies and production practices in agriculture: Insights from a donor-led intervention in Nepal. Land Use Policy 2020, 95, 104621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Edeme, R.K.; Nkalu, N.C.; Idenyi, J.C.; Arazu, W.O. Infrastructural Development, Sustainable Agricultural Output and Employment in ECOWAS Countries. Sustain. Futures 2020, 2, 100010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ullah, A.; Arshad, M.; Kächele, H.; Khan, A.; Mahmood, N.; Müller, K. Information asymmetry, input markets, adoption of innovations and agricultural land use in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Land Use Policy 2020, 90, 104261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Sileshi, M.; Kadigi, R.; Mutabazi, K.; Sieber, S. Determinants for adoption of physical soil and water conservation measures by smallholder farmers in Ethiopia. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2019, 7, 354–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Simtowe, F.; Asfaw, S.; Abate, T. Determinants of agricultural technology adoption under partial population awareness: The case of pigeonpea in Malawi. Agric. Food Econ. 2016, 4, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Wainaina, P.; Tongruksawattana, S.; Qaim, M. Tradeoffs and complementarities in the adoption of improved seeds, fertilizer, and natural resource management technologies in Kenya. Agric. Econ. 2016, 47, 351–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Mango, N.; Makate, C.; Tamene, L.; Mponela, P.; Ndengu, G. Awareness and adoption of land, soil and water conservation practices in the Chinyanja Triangle, Southern Africa. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2017, 5, 122–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Adnan, N.; Nordin, S.M.; Rahman, I.; Noor, A. Adoption of green fertilizer technology among paddy farmers: A possible solution for Malaysian food security. Land Use Policy 2017, 63, 38–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Adnan, N.; Nordin, S.M.; Anwar, A. Transition pathways for Malaysian paddy farmers to sustainable agricultural practices: An integrated exhibiting tactics to adopt green fertilizer. Land Use Policy 2019, 90, 104255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Meijer, S.S.; Catacutan, D.; Ajayi, O.C.; Sileshi, G.W.; Nieuwenhuis, M. The role of knowledge, attitudes and perceptions in the uptake of agricultural and agroforestry innovations among smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2015, 13, 40–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ullah, A.; Mahmood, N.; Zeb, A.; Kächele, H. Factors Determining Farmers’ Access to and Sources of Credit: Evidence from the Rain-Fed Zone of Pakistan. Agriculture 2020, 10, 586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ullah, A.; Khan, A. Effect of Extension-Farmers Contact on Farmers’ Knowledge of Different Pest Management Practices in the Rain-Fed Districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Sarhad J. Agric. 2019, 35, 602–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Yamane, T. Statistics, an Introductory Analysis, 2nd ed.; Harper and Row: New York, NY, USA, 1967; p. 886. [Google Scholar]
  17. Gujarati, D.N.; Porter, D.C. Basic Econometrics, 4th ed.; United States Military Academy West Point: West Point, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  18. Keil, A.; Dsouza, A.; McDonald, A. Zero-tillage is a proven technology for sustainable wheat intensification in the Eastern Indo-Gangetic Plains: What determines farmer awareness and adoption? Food Secur. 2017, 9, 723–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Paustian, M.; Theuvsen, L. Adoption of precision agriculture technologies by German crop farmers. Precis. Agric. 2017, 18, 701–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Tang, J.; Folmer, H.; Xue, J. Estimation of awareness and perception of water scarcity among farmers in the Guanzhong Plain, China, by means of a structural equation model. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 126, 55–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Fisher, M.; Holden, S.T.; Thierfelder, C.; Katengeza, S.P. Awareness and adoption of conservation agriculture in Malawi: What difference can farmer-to-farmer extension make? Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2018, 16, 310–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Šūmane, S.; Kunda, I.; Knickel, K.; Strauss, A.; Tisenkopfs, T.; Rios, I.D.I.; Rivera, M.; Chebach, T.; Ashkenazy, A. Local and farmers’ knowledge matters! How integrating informal and formal knowledge enhances sustainable and resilient agriculture. J. Rural Stud. 2018, 59, 232–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ullah, A.; Zeb, A.; Saqib, S.E.; Kächele, H. Landscape co-management and livelihood sustainability: Lessons learned from the billion trees afforestation project in Pakistan. Land Use Policy 2022, 115, 106034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Junge, B.; Deji, O.; Abaidoo, R.; Chikoye, D.; Stahr, K. Farmers’ Adoption of Soil Conservation Technologies: A Case Study from Osun State, Nigeria. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 2009, 15, 257–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ali, J. Factors Affecting the Adoption of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) for Farming Decisions. J. Agric. Food Inf. 2012, 13, 78–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Uhunamure, S.E.; Nethengwe, N.S.; Tinarwo, D. Correlating the factors influencing household decisions on adoption and utilisation of biogas technology in South Africa. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 107, 264–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Mulimbi, W.; Nalley, L.; Dixon, B.; Snell, H.; Huang, Q. Factors Influencing Adoption of Conservation Agriculture in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 2019, 51, 622–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Ogada, M.J.; Mwabu, G.; Muchai, D. Farm technology adoption in Kenya: A simultaneous estimation of inorganic fertilizer and improved maize variety adoption decisions. Agric. Food Econ. 2014, 2, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Dhakal, A.; Cockfield, G.; Maraseni, T.N. Deriving an index of adoption rate and assessing factors affecting adoption of an agroforestry-based farming system in Dhanusha District, Nepal. Agrofor. Syst. 2015, 89, 645–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ghimire, R.; Wen-Chi, H.; Shrestha, R.B. Factors Affecting Adoption of Improved Rice Varieties among Rural Farm Households in Central Nepal. Rice Sci. 2015, 22, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Kassie, M.; Jaleta, M.; Shiferaw, B.; Mmbando, F.; Mekuria, M. Adoption of interrelated sustainable agricultural practices in smallholder systems: Evidence from rural Tanzania. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2013, 80, 525–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Afolami, C.A.; Obayelu, A.E.; Vaughan, I.I. Welfare impact of adoption of improved cassava varieties by rural households in South Western Nigeria. Agric. Food Econ. 2015, 3, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Allahyari, M.S.; Damalas, C.A.; Ebadattalab, M. Determinants of integrated pest management adoption for olive fruit fly (Bactrocera oleae) in Roudbar, Iran. Crop Prot. 2016, 84, 113–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Sardar, A.; Kiani, A.K.; Kuslu, Y. Does the adoption of climate-smart agriculture (CSA) practices improve farmers’ crop income? Assessing the determinants and its impacts in Punjab province, Pakistan. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2020, 23, 10119–10140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Marie, M.; Yirga, F.; Haile, M.; Tquabo, F. Farmers’ choices and factors affecting adoption of climate change adaptation strategies: Evidence from northwestern Ethiopia. Heliyon 2020, 6, e03867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Anang, B.T.; Bäckman, S.; Sipiläinen, T. Adoption and income effects of agricultural extension in northern Ghana. Sci. Afr. 2019, 7, e00219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Faborode, H.F.B.; Ajayi, A.O. Extension-Farmer-Input Linkage System for Better Communication and Uptake of Research Results in Nigerian Rural Agriculture. J. Agric. Food Inf. 2015, 16, 80–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kansiime, M.K.; Watiti, J.; Mchana, A.; Jumah, R.; Musebe, R.; Rware, H. Achieving scale of farmer reach with improved common bean technologies: The role of village-based advisors. Agric. Educ. Ext. 2018, 24, 215–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Sunny, F.A.; Huang, Z.; Karimanzira, T.T.P. Investigating Key Factors Influencing Farming Decisions Based on Soil Testing and Fertilizer Recommendation Facilities (STFRF)—A Case Study on Rural Bangladesh. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Ullah, A.; Sam, A.S.; Sathyan, A.R.; Mahmood, N.; Zeb, A.; Kächele, H. Role of Local Communities in Forest Landscape Restoration: Key Lessons from the Billion Trees Afforestation Project, Pakistan. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 772, 145613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Mills, J.; Gaskell, P.; Ingram, J.; Dwyer, J.; Reed, M.; Short, C. Engaging farmers in environmental management through a better understanding of behaviour. Agric. Hum. Values 2017, 34, 283–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Mukasa, A.N. Technology adoption and risk exposure among smallholder farmers: Panel data evidence from Tanzania and Uganda. World Dev. 2018, 105, 299–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ullah, A.; Zeb, A.; Liu, J.; Mahmood, N.; Kächele, H. Transhumant pastoralist knowledge of infectious diseases and adoption of alternative land use strategies in the Hindu-Kush Himalayan (HKH) region of Pakistan. Land Use Policy 2021, 109, 105729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Iqbal, M.A.; Ping, Q.; Abid, M.; Kazmi, S.M.M.; Rizwan, M. Assessing risk perceptions and attitude among cotton farmers: A case of Punjab province, Pakistan. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2016, 16, 68–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Emerick, K.; De Janvry, A.; Sadoulet, E.; Dar, M.H. Technological innovations, downside risk, and the modernization of agriculture. Am. Econ. Rev. 2016, 106, 1537–1561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Wossen, T.; Abdoulaye, T.; Alene, A.; Haile, M.G.; Feleke, S.; Olanrewaju, A.; Manyong, V. Impacts of extension access and cooperative membership on technology adoption and household welfare. J. Rural Stud. 2017, 54, 223–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Amare, A.; Simane, B. Determinants of smallholder farmers’ decision to adopt adaptation options to climate change and variability in the Muger Sub basin of the Upper Blue Nile basin of Ethiopia. Agric. Food Secur. 2017, 6, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Mariano, M.J.; Villano, R.; Fleming, E. Factors influencing farmers’ adoption of modern rice technologies and good management practices in the Philippines. Agric. Syst. 2012, 110, 41–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Malik, S.M. An Empirical Investigation of the Relationship between Food Insecurity, Landlessness, and Violent Conflict in Pakistan. Working Papers & Research Reports. 2011. Available online: https://www.pide.org.pk/pdf/Working%20Paper/WorkingPaper-71.pdf (accessed on 16 February 2022).
  50. Shah, A.A.; Ye, J.; Abid, M.; Ullah, R. Determinants of flood risk mitigation strategies at household level: A case of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) province, Pakistan. Nat. Hazards 2017, 88, 415–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Tsegaye, W.; LaRovere, R.; Mwabu, G.; Kassie, G.T. Adoption and farm-level impact of conservation agriculture in Central Ethiopia. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2017, 19, 2517–2533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ghimire, R.; Huang, W.C. Adoption pattern and welfare impact of agricultural technology: Empirical evidence from rice farmers in Nepal. South Asian Dev. 2016, 11, 113–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Tsinigo, E.; Behrman, J.R. Technological priorities in rice production among smallholder farmers in Ghana. NJAS-Wagening. J. Life Sci. 2017, 83, 47–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Bezu, S.; Kassie, G.T.; Shiferaw, B.; Ricker-Gilbert, J. Impact of improved maize adoption on welfare of farm households in Malawi: A panel data analysis. World Dev. 2014, 59, 120–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Tambo, J.A.; Abdoulaye, T. Climate change and agricultural technology adoption: The case of drought tolerant maize in rural Nigeria. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2012, 17, 277–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Missiame, A.; Nyikal, R.A.; Irungu, P. What is the impact of rural bank credit access on the technical efficiency of smallholder cassava farmers in Ghana? An endogenous switching regression analysis. Heliyon 2021, 7, e07102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Leng, C.; Ma, W.; Tang, J.; Zhu, Z. ICT adoption and income diversification among rural households in China. Appl. Econ. 2020, 52, 3614–3628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Asfaw, S.; Kassie, M.; Simtowe, F.; Lipper, L. Poverty reduction effects of agricultural technology adoption: A micro-evidence from rural Tanzania. J. Dev. Stud. 2012, 48, 1288–1305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Belay, M.; Mengiste, M. The ex-post impact of agricultural technology adoption on poverty: Evidence from north Shewa zone of Amhara region, Ethiopia. Int. J. Financ. Econ. 2021, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Suvedi, M.; Ghimire, R.; Kaplowitz, M. Farmers’ participation in extension programs and technology adoption in rural Nepal: A logistic regression analysis. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 2017, 23, 351–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Johnston, A.E.; Poulton, P.R. The importance of long-term experiments in agriculture: Their management to ensure continued crop production and soil fertility—The Rothamsted experience. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2018, 69, 113–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Bado, V.B.; Bationo, A. Integrated management of soil fertility and land resources in Sub-Saharan Africa: Involving local communities. Adv. Agron. 2018, 150, 1–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Senyolo, M.P.; Long, T.B.; Blok, V.; Omta, O. How the characteristics of innovations impact their adoption: An exploration of climate-smart agricultural innovations in South Africa. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 3825–3840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Bijttebier, J.; Ruysschaert, G.; Hijbeek, R.; Werner, M.; Pronk, A.; Zavattaro, L.; Bechini, L.; Grignani, C.; Berge, H.T.; Marchand, F.; et al. Adoption of non-inversion tillage across Europe: Use of a behavioural approach in understanding decision making of farmers. Land Use Policy 2018, 78, 460–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Roesch-McNally, G.E.; Basche, A.D.; Arbuckle, J.G.; Tyndall, J.C.; Miguez, F.E.; Bowman, T.; Clay, R. The trouble with cover crops: Farmers’ experiences with overcoming barriers to adoption. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2017, 33, 322–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Singh, S. Farmers’ perception of climate change and adaptation decisions: A micro-level evidence from Bundelkhand Region. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 116, 106475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Liu, T.; Bruins, R.J.; Heberling, M.T. Factors influencing farmers’ adoption of best management practices: A review and synthesis. Sustainability 2018, 10, 432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  68. Hermans, T.D.; Whitfield, S.; Dougill, A.J.; Thierfelder, C. Why we should rethink ‘adoption’ in agricultural innovation: Empirical insights from Malawi. Land Degrad. Dev. 2021, 32, 1809–1820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Ali, E. Farm Households’ Adoption of Climate-smart Practices in Subsistence Agriculture: Evidence from Northern Togo. Environ. Manag. 2021, 67, 949–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Kumar, S.; Ramilan, T.; Ramarao, C.A.; Rao, C.S.; Whitbread, A. Farm level rainwater harvesting across different agro climatic regions of India: Assessing performance and its determinants. Agric. Water Manag. 2016, 176, 55–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Ali, S.; Ying, L.; Nazir, A.; Abdullah; Ishaq, M.; Shah, T.; Ye, X.; Ilyas, A.; Tariq, A. Rural farmers perception and coping strategies towards climate change and their determinants: Evidence from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, Pakistan. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 291, 125250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Issahaku, G.; Abdulai, A. Adoption of climate-smart practices and its impact on farm performance and risk exposure among smallholder farmers in Ghana. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2020, 64, 396–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Sarr, M.; Ayele, M.B.; Kimani, M.E.; Ruhinduka, R. Who benefits from climate-friendly agriculture? The marginal returns to a rainfed system of rice intensification in Tanzania. World Dev. 2021, 138, 105160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Achandi, E.L.; Mujawamariya, G.; Agboh-Noameshie, A.R.; Gebremariam, S.; Rahalivavololona, N.; Rodenburg, J. Women’s access to agricultural technologies in rice production and processing hubs: A comparative analysis of Ethiopia, Madagascar and Tanzania. J. Rural Stud. 2018, 60, 188–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Adenle, A.A.; Wedig, K.; Azadi, H. Sustainable agriculture and food security in Africa: The role of innovative technologies and international organizations. Technol. Soc. 2019, 58, 101143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Pham, N.T.T.; Nong, D.; Garschagen, M. Farmers’ decisions to adapt to flash floods and landslides in the Northern Mountainous Regions of Vietnam. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 252, 109672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sustainability 14 03194 g001 550
Figure 1. Conceptual framework of a farmer’s awareness and adoption decision. Source: The authors’ formulation based on the existing literature.
Figure 1. Conceptual framework of a farmer’s awareness and adoption decision. Source: The authors’ formulation based on the existing literature.
Sustainability 14 03194 g001
Sustainability 14 03194 g002 550
Figure 2. Study area map.
Figure 2. Study area map.
Sustainability 14 03194 g002
Sustainability 14 03194 g003 550
Figure 3. Correlation between farmers’ awareness of the wheat varieties and their adoption of them (χ2 value = 311.68; Sig = 0.000; Yule Q statistics = 0.99).
Figure 3. Correlation between farmers’ awareness of the wheat varieties and their adoption of them (χ2 value = 311.68; Sig = 0.000; Yule Q statistics = 0.99).
Sustainability 14 03194 g003
Sustainability 14 03194 g004 550
Figure 4. Key informants perceptions of the factors affecting adoption of improved agricultural technologies.
Figure 4. Key informants perceptions of the factors affecting adoption of improved agricultural technologies.
Sustainability 14 03194 g004
Table
Table 1. Summary statistics of the study variables.
Table 1. Summary statistics of the study variables.
VariablesAware
n = 187		Unaware
n = 208		Test StatisticsAdopters
n = 187		Non-Adopters
n = 208		Test Statistics
Continuous variablesMean (SD)Mean (SD)t-valueMean (SD)Mean (SD)t-value
Age48.43 (14.23)45.59 (14.70)1.95 **48.52 (14.21)45.51 (14.70)2.063 **
Education4.72 (5.42)2.78 (4.08)4.03 ***4.65 (5.38)2.85 (4.17)3.72 ***
Household size13.74 (6.28)11.94 (4.95)3.17 ***13.72 (6.29)11.96 (4.94)3.10 ***
Farm size27.29 (31.98)25.25 (17.87)0.7928.38 (33.02)24.27 (15.87)1.59
Experience32.35 (13.76)29.36 (13.85)2.15 **32.70 (13.14)29.05 (14.31)2.63 ***
Monthly farm income32,291.91 (35,690.91)23,977.22 (19,843.24)2.89 ***34,381.93 (37,623.15)22,098.22 (15,085.53)4.33 ***
Categorical variablesMean (SD)χ2 valueMean (SD)χ2 value
Extension contact0.40 (0.23)255.80 ***0.42 (0.07)317.85 ***
Confidence in extension0.44 (0.47)119.87 ***0.46 (0.45)165.48 ***
Risk-bearing attitude0.43 (0.49)49.076 ***0.44 (0.49)66.84 ***
Access to credit0.40 (0.49)46.45 ***0.40 (0.49)49.41 ***
Note: Figures in parenthesis are standard deviations (SD); *** significance levels at 1%; ** significance levels at 5%.
Table
Table 2. Results of regression models of farmers’ awareness and adoption of innovations.
Table 2. Results of regression models of farmers’ awareness and adoption of innovations.
VariablesAwareness ModelAdoption Model
βStandard ErrorWald-χ2ORβStandard ErrorWald-χ2OR
Age−0.0160.0290.3230.9840.0510.0840.3641.052
Education−0.127 ***0.0448.5390.881−0.201 **0.0905.0530.818
Household size−0.116 ***0.0389.0580.891−0.252 ***0.0986.5740.777
Farm size0.0050.0110.2391.0050.0420.0262.5801.043
Experience0.0160.0280.3551.017−0.0630.0770.6700.939
Monthly farm income0.000 *0.0002.7731.0000.0000.0000.0721.000
Risk-bearing attitude0.5950.5351.2381.8134.454 **2.6462.83385.958
Extension contact5.465 ***0.64172.667236.38911.485 ***2.30924.73797,241.226
Confidence in extension service0.4000.5040.6301.4925.538 *3.1663.059254.076
Access to credit1.863 ***0.50813.4706.4424.791 ***1.9805.857120.451
Summary statistics−2 Log-Likelihood = 186.97; Pseudo R2 = 0.79;
Prob > χ2: 0.00		−2 Log-Likelihood = 44.163; Pseudo R2 = 0.96; Prob > χ2: 0.00
Note: *** = significance at 1%; ** = significance at 5%; and * = significance at 10%.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ullah, A.; Saqib, S.E.; Kächele, H. Determinants of Farmers’ Awareness and Adoption of Extension Recommended Wheat Varieties in the Rainfed Areas of Pakistan. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3194. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063194

AMA Style

Ullah A, Saqib SE, Kächele H. Determinants of Farmers’ Awareness and Adoption of Extension Recommended Wheat Varieties in the Rainfed Areas of Pakistan. Sustainability. 2022; 14(6):3194. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063194

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ullah, Ayat, Shahab E. Saqib, and Harald Kächele. 2022. "Determinants of Farmers’ Awareness and Adoption of Extension Recommended Wheat Varieties in the Rainfed Areas of Pakistan" Sustainability 14, no. 6: 3194. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063194

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop