4.4 Article

Climate change and agricultural technology adoption: the case of drought tolerant maize in rural Nigeria

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11027-011-9325-7

关键词

Adoption; Climate change; Double hurdle model; Drought tolerant maize; Nigeria; Smallholder farmers

资金

  1. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) under Drought Tolerance Maize for Africa (DTMA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Climate change is a major problem undermining agricultural production in Africa. Consequently, efforts are being made to provide farmers with adaptation technologies, but little empirical research exists on the determinants of adopting such technologies. This article addresses this research gap, using the case of drought tolerant maize (DTM) technology in Nigeria. With survey data from 200 farm households and econometric techniques, we explore the determinants of whether to invest and how much to invest in adaptation technology by smallholder farmers. Results from the study indicate that among the key determinants of adoption are access to the technology, complementary inputs, extension services, and climate change information. We also show that off-farm income and wealth status of a household play a significant role in adoption, implying capital constraints; hence, it can be difficult for resource-poor farmers to adopt the technology. Moreover, the farmers identified cost of the technology and complementary inputs, particularly fertilizer as major constraints to adoption. We conclude that while the DTM technology is suitable and important in helping smallholder maize farmers to continue to produce under a changing climate, more support is needed for them to invest in the technology and overcome adoption constraints. Necessary interventions include improving access to information about climate change and the available adaptation technology, timely access to the technology and complementary inputs, and improving access to credit, particularly for the resource-poor farm households.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据