Adoption and Abandonment of Conservation Technologies

in Developing Economies: The Case of South Asia

Alwin Dsouza,
Graduate Student and Graduate Research Assistant,
Arizona State University,
adsouza3@asu.edu

Ashok K. Mishra,
Professor and Marley Foundation Chair,
Arizona State University,
ashok.k.mishra@asu.edu

Selected Paper prepared for presentation at the 2016 Agricultural & Applied Economics Association
Annual Meeting, Boston, Massachusetts, July 31-August 2

Copyright 2016 by Alwin Dsouza and Ashok K. Mishra. All rights reserved. Readers may make verbatim
copies of this document for non-commercial purposes by any means, provided that this copyright notice
appears on all such copies.

1
Introduction

Malthus, a 19th century pastor and scholar claimed in his “An Essay on the Principle of Population”

that if population growth was not checked, it would grow exponentially while the resources would

grow arithmetically leading to food insecurity and social problems. This seemed to be true during

the 1960s in South Asia when high population growth and food scarcity became a serious issue,

particularly, during which India was at the brink of famine (Khush, 2001). But the claim stood

falsified when “miracle seeds” also known as high yielding varieties (HYV) of maize, rice and

wheat crops were introduced in South Asia (Jacoby, 1972). As the adoption of HYV spread across

South and East Asian countries, productivity of rice, wheat and maize rose significantly, along

with increased use of labor and land. In addition, the growing periods for these crops became

shorter resulting in increased scope for multiple cropping (Pinstrup-Anderson & Hazell, 1985).

This phenomenon led to increased yields and profits of farmers, in South Asian countries,

especially in states of Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh, India.

A requirement for HYV is that farmers have to use higher amounts of fertilizer and water.

Over four decade use of HYV seeds has led to an over exploitation of water resources and soil—

drastically lowering ground water table and degrading soil fertility, especially in areas of rice-

wheat cropping system (Byerlee & Siddiq, 1994; Hobbs & Morris, 1996; Rahman, 2003; Morris,

Dubin, & Pokhrel, 1994). Increased fertilizer use, however, did not compensate the over-use of

soil. HYV rapidly deplete micronutrients from soils and chemical fertilizers, unlike organic

manures which contain a wide range of trace elements, did not compensate for the losses of

micronutrients. Five decades later farmers in South Asia and India in particular, are facing several

problems and the need for resource conservation is paramount. With falling yields, increasing

energy, fertilizer and input costs, agriculture in South Asia is becoming an unprofitable

2
proposition. This would have an adverse impact not only on the income of farmers but also poses

a greater threat to food security of smallholder and marginal farmers. Food security for a growing

population in most South Asian countries, while sustaining agricultural systems under the current

scenario of depleting natural resources, increasing costs of inputs, and climate variability calls for

a paradigm shift in farming practices. This requires eliminating unsustainable parts of conventional

agriculture (ploughing/tilling the soil, removing all organic material, monoculture) and adopting

agricultural systems that conserves resources for productive agriculture.

Conservation Agriculture (CA) is one such agricultural system which has been claimed to

be sustainable (Hobbs, Sayre, & Gupta, 2008). CA is defined as resource saving food production

system aiming at intensification of production with high yields. It also entails an enhancement of

the natural resource base through compliance with three interrelated principles which is (1)

permanent or semi-permanent soil cover through crop residues or crop covers; (2) minimal soil

disturbance; (3) crop rotations (Hobbs, Sayre, & Gupta, (2008), Abrol & Sangar, (2006)).

Technologies pertaining to CA not only have the potential to lower input usage but also preserve

the environment (Stevenson et.al, 2014; Pannel et. al., 2013). While the literature on CA is

extensive (mostly adoption of CA technology), it does not offer insights in three key issues. First,

the “partial” adoption and abandonment of CA technologies, especially in developing economies.

We defined “partial” as adopting one or more technologies or practices under CA rather than the

full package. Second, the role of social networks in the “partial” adoption and abandonment of CA

technologies/practices. Third, the role of spouses with regard to the “partial” adoption and

abandonment of CA technologies.

Herein lies the objective of the study. First, to assess the role of social networks and (2)

role of spouses in “partial” adoption and abandonment of CA technologies/practices. CA has

3
evolved overtime with the joint efforts of farmers, farm advisors and farm supply representatives

through constant feedback and knowledge sharing. This has led researchers to believe that CA

system is not “an individual creation” but a “network product” Coughenour, (2003). We also argue

that the success of CA needs testing through trials, successive assessment and tentative

conclusions. This is because there exist no prescribed steps which is required to be followed. Any

alternative can be adopted which suits the local conditions but satisfying the theme of resource

conservation. And therefore CA has been claimed to be a loosely coupled system in which social

networks play a significant role. Therefore, ignoring the social heterogeneity in CA may lead to

biased results (Coughenour, 2003).

On the other hand, spouses have been taking up more responsibilities related to the decision

making of major agricultural activities. For example, spouses are making decisions when it comes

to marketing of agricultural products, selection of crop varieties, purchase of machinery, adoption

of new technologies, purchasing, leasing and selling of land (Lu, 2011). Trends also suggest that

they are replacing men as principal operators of farms, not only in the United States but in the

developing economies as well (Lu, 2011; Jiggins, 1998; Lastarria-Cornhiel, 2006). High migration

of male household heads to other countries or urban areas for off-farm work, such as construction

and manufacturing jobs, may have led to this change. Conventional gender models focus mainly

on the gender of the head of the household. This approach does not reveal spouse’s role in the

decision making of farming operation and welfare (Doss and Morris, 2001). Recently, Campos,

Covarrubias, & Patron, (2016) concluded that for better understanding of the contribution of

spouse’s in agriculture, one must closely study the dynamics of household decision making in

relation to major agricultural activities (Udry, 1995 ;Campos, A, & Patron, 2016). We study the

spouses’ role in “partial” adoption or abandonment of CA technologies/practices.

4
 The paper is divided into four sections. Section 1 presents literature review of conservation

agriculture, contribution of social networks and its importance in CA followed by studies focusing

on the importance of spouse’s role in agriculture. Section 2 presents the methodology used while

Section 3 specifies the model. Descriptive statistics differentiating adopters/non-adopters and

abandoners/non-abandoners of “partial” CA is presented in Section 4. Econometric analysis of the

factors influencing the adoption and abandonment of CA is discussed in Section 5. The last section

concludes the study and provides some policy implications.

Literature Review

Adoption of conservation agriculture in developing countries

There is an extensive literature on the adoption of agricultural technologies particularly in the

context of developing countries (Feder & Umali, 1993; Feder, Just, & Zilberman, 1985; Batte,

Jones and Schnitkey, 1990). Farmer’s decision to adopt new technologies are generally derived

from the maximization of expected utility subject to the land, credit, labor and other relevant

constraints in a given period. Similarly farmers abandon technologies if the cost of using

technoloiges is greater than the benefits. But adoption of appropriate technologies are especially

relevant to countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America as this is expected to shift their production

frontier outward for a given level of inputs. This results in the increase in yield and therefore have

a positive impact on their income (Pretty, Morison, & Hine, 2003).

A survey study by Feder, Just, & Zilberman, (1985) on the adoption of agricutural

technologies conjectured that factors such as marginal farm holdings, limited access to

information, averseness to risk, inadequate human capital, labor shortages, credit constraint, land

tenure arrangement, supply constraints are integral to the adoption of any agricultural technologies

in developing countries. However, factors such as size of the farm, tenure status, education,

5
extension access and credit was in fact relevant only during the first phase of diffusion and

becomes insignificant in the later stages (Feder & Umali, 1993). During later stages, small farmers

become adopters by observing large farmers and therefore land size and related factors became

insignificant. For example, adoption of modern varieties of rice in Bangladesh (Alauddin &

Tisdell, 1988).

However, in this study we focus on technologies pertaining to CA only. CA features

minimum soil disturbance and permanent soil cover also known as mulching along with crop

rotation and is considered to be most sustainable cultivation system (Hobbs, 2006). CA has been

claimed to have the benefits of allowing water intrusion, reducing soil erosion, promoting

biological tillage and reducing the growth of weeds. Additionally, CA reduces production costs,

saves time and augments yield through timely planting, decreases incidents of pest attack and

reduces carbon emissions (Hobbs 2006). Finally, CA has been promoted as a sustainable

agricultural system which can increase food production with more economic use of resources and

having negligible impact on environment. Given these benefits, adopting CA has increased the

Indo-Gangetic Plains of South Asia and Northwest Mexico (Hobbs, Sayre, & Gupta, 2008).

However, the benefits of CA has long been a contentious issue. There are studies both

confirming and refuting these the benefits of CA. For exaple Pretty, et. al. (2006) found that CA

leads to increased yield gains in water use effeciency, decline in pesticide usage and increased

gains in carbon sequestering especially for small farmers in developing countries, refutes the claim

to solving food security. Gathala et. al. (2015) found that ZT direct seeded rice with residue

retention resuted in similar yield as puddled and transplanted rice. However, the authors show that

direct seeded rice lowered production costs, reduced water used and subsequently higher incomes.

Similar results were observed under ZT maize and ZT wheat. But in case of ZT wheat though it

6
resulted in increased productivity and profitability but it depended on crop management along with

residue retention.

Several studies in a recent issue of Agricultural, Ecosystem and Environment (2015)

concluded that the benefits of CA are context specific and varies from region to region. Moreover

farmers are not expected to reap significant benefits in the short run (Corbeels et. al. , 2015).

Additionally, most studies have considered different components of CA such as effects of zero

tillage (Erestein & Laxmi, 2008), (Krishna & Veettil, 2014); direct seeding (Mazid et. al. , 2002),

(Pandey, Velasco, & Suphanchaimat, 2002); practices such as crop rotation and minimum soil

distrubance (Arslan et. al. , 2014) in isolation which actually underestimates the actual effect of

CA rather than considering CA as a package of techologies and practices. In a recent study,

Pannell, Llewellyn and Corbeels (2014) concluded that CA should be considered as a package,

partial or full, as various components of CA tend to complement each other. Additionally, the

authors note that adopting CA as a “full” package is not practically feasible for smallholder farmers

in developing economies like India and Bangladesh, given the financial, land, and risk related

constraints (Pannell, Llewellyn, & Corbeels, 2014). Similar conclusion can be drawn for Sub-

Saharan Africa and South Asia (Kirkegaarda, Conyersb, Hunta, Kirkbya, & al., 2014). In this study

we will be considering “partial” adoption of the technology/practices.

In this study we also investigate the abandonment of CA technologies. Though there has

been a comprehensive literature on adoption of CA technologies/practices but there exists a

significant gap specific to the abandonment of CA technologies/practices. However, it should be

noted that it is not just pertaining to CA but literature on any abandonment of

technologies/practices. With the exception of few papers (Walton, et al., 2008; Dinar & Yaron,

1992; Walton J. C., et al., 2009) the issue of abandonment of CA technologies/practices have been

7
overlooked by researchers. In order to avoid wastage of scare resources and duplication of efforts,

the study of abandonment of any technology is needed. Abandonment can happen due to many

reasons, such as financial constraint, lack of sufficient information, and unsuitable environment.

According to Rogers (1983), abandonment of technologies happens due to “disenchantment

discontinuance” or when the benefits accruing from using the technology is less than the costs of

using it.

Abandonment may also happen when farmers replace current technology with a more

efficient technology or “replacement discontinuance”. For example, Walton J. C., et al. (2008)

concluded that farmers were likely to abandon grid soil sampling as they have been using for

longer duration and planting cotton crops in relatively smaller . This is because greater efforts

would be required to manage the detailed soil sample information. In another study, Dinar &

Yaron, (1992) estimated technology cycles for different irrigation technologies for citrus groves

in Israel and found that it is the technology related factors and not the prevailing physical

conditions that determined the length of the technology cycle. Authors concluded that in order to

avoid the binding constraint faced by rice cultivators, policies pertaining to improvements in

irrigation efficiencies needs to be implemented.

Adoption and abandonemnt of technologies are mostly driven by economic and structural

considerations Lapple & Donnellan (2009). For example, respect to the organic farming, full-time

farmers managing a more intensive farming system are less likely to abandon. The authors also

notes that better access to market outlets and quality of information are important factors than

subsidies in encouraging farmers to adopt organic farming. While Barham et. al. (2004) concluded

that abandonemnt is less likely to happen in technologies which involve significant sunk costs.

8
Nevertheless, it should be noted that the authors did not address the issue of abandonment when it

comes to “partial” abandonment of CA technology/practices.

Another important factor which influences the diffusion of adoption of any technology

especially in the presence of information failures, is social network. In agriculture, farmers

interested in using new technology may not possess sufficient information about the technologies

(Bardhan & Udry, 1999; Evenson & Westphal, 1995; Feder, Just, & Zilberman, 1985). This

problem exists in developing countries because of limited reach of the agricultural extention

services and low education attainment of farmers. In such situation farmer’s own social network

of family, friends and neighbours becomes a major source of information (Stephens E. , 2008).

Specifically, farmers adopt new technologies by closely observing their neighbours through a

process of social learning (Coonley & Udry, 2001). Yishay et. al. (2013) experimented with three

different groups of people in order to test the most efficient information source of information.

The group included government employed extension workers, lead farmers who are educated and

peer farmers representing the general population with respect to land sizes. The authors concluded

that peer farmers were most efficient in convincing other farmers to adopt new technologies. This

is because peer farmers and the other recepient farmers were similar with respect to farm size and

input usage.

However, farmers were motivated to persuade others only if they were provided with small

incentives such as small bags of seeds. To this end Bandiera & Rasul (2006) stress that social

network influences decision making both endogenously and exogenousy. Endogenously when a

member has an influence on other member’s decision making and exogenously through gender

and education. (Hobbs, Sayre, & Gupta, 2008). Additionally, a study by Stephens E. C. (2008) and

Deorian (2002) further confirms the existence of positive relationship between profits earned by

9
farmers and strength of social networks (Matuschke & Qaim, 2009). These studies recommend

that policymakers should invest in policies that encourage network formation in order to improve

the spread of information on new technologies and practices. The contribution of social networks

to CA is significantly different than any other technologies/practices. CA entails a qualitative

reform in the agricultural system engaging multiple actors, institutions and farming environment.

CA involves a complete overhaul of the agricultural practices. CA or no tillage systems

entails “loosely-coupled1” farming systems with “tightly coupled components2” (Coughenour,

2003). More importance is given to the management skills and the shared knowledge among

various stakeholders. In other words, the model termed as “network model of innovation” is

different from the traditional models of innovation-diffusion. Under this the focus shifts from

farmers learning new techniques to farmers learning from collaboration of agricultural scientists,

advisors and professional soil conservationists and agribusiness technicians, through the exchange

of their experiences. In this context, networks play an important role in promoting CA (Warriner

& Moul ,1992 and Pannell et. al. ,2006). On the other hand, when a farmer is planning to abandon

CA, social networks can also prove to be useful channel of better quality of information, and

therefore may prevent farmers from abandoning CA technologies/practices.

Involvement of women or spouses may also play an important role both in the adoption

and abandonment of technologies. For example, Ogunlana (2004) found that female farmers were

more likely to adopt alley farming. In a current study, Koirala, Mishra, & Mohanty (2016) found

that female headed households relative to male headed households performed better in restraining

1
Conservation tillage system involves selection of crops and planting methods based on the choice of the farmer and
his fields which may vary across different years. The objective is to produce sufficient quantities of residue and
including practices of no tilling (Coughenour, 2003).
2
One of the components of CA ie. No Till wheat drill involves activities which needs to be followed in exact terms
without any ambiguity (Coughenour, 2003).

10
farming costs and were more likely to adopt improved varieties of rice in Phillipines. This issue

was also confirmed by a study on rice farmres in Cote d’Ivoire wherein women farmers were

considered of having relatively better absolute allocative efficiency compared to men, even though

the overall economic efficiency was almost similar (Adesina & Djato,1997). A recent World Bank

study (Larson, Savastano, & Murray, 2015) argued that women farmers with better information

and better access to markets were more likely to influence productivity in farming community.

Recall that, better access to markets provides information on input prices, technologies and also

act as a channel for surplus production (Larson, Savastano, & Murray, 2015).

Along with these studies on women and their contribution in agriculture, there have been

studies on whether women have concerns for environment. In a study, Mohai, (1992) examined

gender differences in the matters related to environmental concern and activism. He concluded

that women were more concerned about protecting the environment than men. With all issues

related to women’s contribution to agriculture and concern for environment, there have been

computational concerns related to the correct evaluation of women farmers’ contribution.

Women farmers’ contribution may vary significantly under roles of household heads, a plot

managers or joint owners of plots. Under the role of household heads, females are the worse off as

they face severe constraints with respect to the access of land and inputs. But if these constraints

are removed, then women farmers as household heads could become technological innovators

(Kumar, 1994). Whereas spouses in the role plot managers or joint owners are better endowed

compared to those heading households. But there still exists heterogeneity among them with

respect to their roles in the decision making of various major agricultural activities. Kumar (1994)

in his study on the intra-household decision making in Zambia with respect to hybrid maize and

local maize cultivation concluded that women farmers were less likely to involve in activities

11
related to the hybrid maize cutlivation. They were also more likely to involve themselves in labour

hiring decisions than decisions on the use of inputs since they lacked easy access to extesion.

Majority of the proceeds from the crop sales would go to men rather than women even if they were

jointly involved in the cultivation of that particular crop. Other than this study, most of the

literature studying the gender models considered only the household head’s gender for the analysis.

They assumed that the allocation of resources within the household would be Pareto efficient, but

this could be flawed (Udry, 1995 ; Campos, A, & Patron, 2016; Quisumbing, 1996).

Additionally, in the case of developing economies, the decision making power among

women as spouses in recent years have changed due to high rates of migration of males to other

countries or urban areas in search of work. As a result, spouses are increasingly undertaking more

farm related activities such as seeding, weeding, application of pesticides, harvesting, and

marketing of produce (Lu, 2011). This phenomenon has been taking place at a faster rate as noticed

by Lastarria-Cornhiel, (2006); Binswanger-Mkhize & Dsouza, (2012). Equal access to land along

with open access to credits and efficient markets would go a long way in improving agricultural

productivity (Brauw, et. al., 2008; Kumar, 1994).

Our study incorporates this dimension in the analysis by including the involvement of

spouses in the decision making of major agriultural activities in the analysis.

Conceptual Framework

We considered two stages of decision-making specifically, adoption of “partial” CA

technologies/practices and abandonment of “partial” CA technologies/practices. We assume the

decision maker is rational and therefore maximize utility through adoption/abandonment

decisions. With respect to “partial” CA technologies/practices, the decision to adopt happens when

12
the expected profits from adoption is greater than non-adoption and the opposite is true for the

decisions to abandon. Specifically, the selection equation is:

𝑦𝑖 𝐴𝐷 = 𝑓(𝑍𝐴𝐷 )

𝑦𝑖 ∗𝐴𝐷 = 𝑍𝐴𝐷 𝐴 + ∈𝐴𝐷

Where 𝑦𝑖 ∗𝐴𝐷 is the unobservable latent variable which is a function of observable exogenous

variables 𝑍𝐴𝐷 . A is a vector of unknown parameters and ∈𝐴𝐷 is a random disturbance term for the

adoption stage and follows standard normal distribution. Specifically, the decision to adopt

“partial” CA technologies/practices observable is given by:

𝑌𝑖 𝐴𝐷 = 1 𝑖𝑓 𝑦𝑖 ∗𝐴𝐷 > 0 (0 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒),

Now let us consider the outcome equation the decision on abandonment of “partial” CA

conditional on for those households who have adopted “partial” CA. However, since abandonment

of CA can happen only when it has been adopted, the estimation process should account for the

potential biases originating from the self-selection process. This may happen due to some

unobservable factors that might influence both adoption and abandonment decisions. Also, the

second stage (abandonment) is observed for a subset of individuals which were non-randomly

selected and with unobserved factors unevenly distributed among underrepresented groups (Gaeta,

2015). Therefore, Heckman two stage sample selection (Heckman 1979; Ven and Pragg, 1981)

was considered in our study. Specifically,

𝑌𝑖 𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝐴𝐵 = 𝑍𝐴𝐵 𝐵 + ∈𝐴𝐵 ,

Where 𝑌𝑖 𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝐴𝐵 is dichotomous variable on abandonment; is a function of observable exogenous

variables 𝑍𝐴𝐵 . B is a vector of unknown parameters and ∈𝐴𝐵 is random disturbance term for the

abandonment stage and has a standard normal distribution. The estimates of the outcome equation

13
(abandonment in our case) depicts probability of abandoning, conditional on the probability of

having “partially” adopted CA.

If the correlation between ∈𝐴𝐷 and ∈𝐴𝐵 is not equal to zero, then there exists unobserved

factors jointly affecting both stages of adoption and abandonment. In such a case, Heckman two

stage sample selection method needs to be applied to obtain unbiased estimates. If the correlation

is equal to zero then independent probit models for the two stages would provide consistent

estimates.

Data and Model Specification:

The data for our study was obtained from a baseline farm household survey, conducted under the

aegis of Cereal Systems Initiative for South Asia (CSISA)3 in late 2010 and early 2011. CSISA

was launched in 2009 with the support from Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and USAID. The

main purpose of the project was to promote sustainable and efficient technologies in the rice-wheat

belt of Indo-Gangetic Plain with a view to improve food supply and livelihood of smallholder farm

households. The survey was conducted across CSISA hub centers located in Haryana, Punjab,

eastern Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Tamil Nadu in India; Dinajpur and Gazipur in Bangladesh and

the Terai region of central Nepal. The survey collected information on the existing production

farming practices, livelihood of farmers along with their socio-economic status. The dataset

covered 2567 smallholder farm households across different regions and countries. The novelty of

this dataset is that it had information on adoption and abandonment of each of the CA

technologies/practices.

With regard to CA, only 936 farm household members were considered for this study; 432

were “partial” adopters of CA and 117 had abandoned CA technologies/practices. The “partial”

3
http://csisa.org/resources/csisa-phase-i-baseline-data/ accessed on 6/1/2016

14
adoption of CA technologies/practices were identified as those using one or more technologies/

practices strictly following the principles of CA. In the case of abandonment, we considered

smallholder farm households who were not eager to continue using any technologies/practices that

they had adopted. CA technologies/practices considered here are direct seeded rice, zero tillage,

lazer land leveling, bed planting, double no till, leaf color, nutrient management, relay cropping,

seed treatment and turbo seeder. These “partial” CA technologies/practices are consistent with

other studies in the literature (FAO July, 2010, Pannell et. al., 2006; Kassam et. al. , 2009).

𝑌𝑖 𝐴𝐷 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑌𝑖 𝐴𝐵 represent adoption and abandonment decisions of the ith farmer specifically,

𝑌𝑖 𝐴𝐷 = 1 , 𝑖𝑓 𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑜𝑟 𝑚𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝐶𝐴 𝑡𝑒𝑐ℎ𝑛𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑖𝑒𝑠/𝑝𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑒𝑠 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑎𝑑𝑜𝑝𝑡𝑒𝑑, 0 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒

𝑌𝑖 𝐴𝐵 = 1 , 𝑖𝑓 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑒𝑐ℎ𝑛𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑖𝑒𝑠/𝑝𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑑𝑜𝑝𝑡𝑒𝑑 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑎𝑏𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑑, 0 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒

Based on the literature, following variables are expected to have a positive effect on the “partial”

adoption of CA. (1) agricultural experience of head of household head, education, farm size,

quality of information on technologies/practices pertaining to CA, farm diversification (number of

crops grown in a year), labor constraint, social networks, cost of irrigation (unit either through

electricity or diesel), amount borrowed as loans and involvement of spouses in agricultural

activities. On other hand the age of household head is expected to have a negative impact on

adoption of “partial” CA technologies/practices. However, the opposite is true for the

abandonment stage. For the abandonment stage, labor constraint was excluded as this was not

expected to affect abandonment. This was also done for the identification of the outcome equation.

Additionally, average years of use (Walton J. C., et al., 2008) and ownership of CA

technologies/practices were considered as explanatory variables in the abandonment stage. Both

the factors are expected to affect abandonment of CA technologies/practices negatively. Finally,

15
crop residues left as mulch in the fields, is an important component of CA (Hobbs, Sayre, & Gupta,

2008) and was therefore included in our model.

Descriptive Statistics

(a) Attributes of “partial” CA adopters and non-adopters

Overall the adoption rate of CA was around 46%. The average age of CA adopters was about 51

years and owned relatively larger cultivated area compared to the non-adopters (Table 1). About

14% of CA adopters had education higher than 13 years. For measuring quality of information

regarding CA technologies/practices, Likert scale of 0 (not useful at all), 1 (low), 2 (medium) and

3 (high) was used. According to the data, on an average adopters were better informed about CA

as depicted by value of 2.14 representing medium quality of information as compared to the non-

adopters who received low quality of information. Therefore, suggesting that poor quality of

information may be an impeding factor in the adoption of CA technologies/practices. Adopters

also seem to diversify more by planting more crops than non-adopters. It was also observed that

almost 82% of the adopters faced labor constraints especially during rice/wheat/maize cultivation

while the proportion was about 63% for non-adopters (p > 0.001). Findings here may suggest that

labor shortages may be one of the reasons for adopting CA technologies/practices, as use of Zero

tillage and laser land leveling reduces the demand for labor. Table 1 also shows that higher

proportion of adopters of CA have membership in farmer’s unions or in other groups compared to

the non-adopters (p > 0.001). Group membership may act as a source of valuable information

especially in case of new technologies/practices. Recall that adoption of CA technologies/practices

needs to be customized so as to adapt to local conditions, and in this respect peer farmers or co-

members of farm unions may act as a valuable source of experiences. Table 1 also reported that

the cost of irrigation is significantly higher for adopters than for non-adopters (p > 0.001). Note

16
that CA technologies/practices require less water for irrigation and therefore may be one of the

reasons for adoption. Adopters of CA technologies/practices are also most likely to borrow more

money (both from formal and informal sources) compared to those not adopting farmers. This may

be because purchasing CA technologies/practices may be expensive. Also it is seen that higher

proportion of adopter’s spouses get involved with major agricultural activities. Table 1 shows that

on an average 96% of adopter’s spouses gets involved in farming activities. These activities

include selecting crop varieties, purchasing of machinery, adopting new crop technologies,

employing laborers in farm, selling of grains, and sale of livestock, sale and leasing of land. The

difference was statistically different from the non-adopters (p > 0.1). Now we study the

characteristics of those abandoning CA.

(b) Attributes of “partial” CA4 abandoners and non-abandoners

Turning our attention to abandoners and non-abandoners, table 1 reveals that on average, 27% of

smallholder farmers in the sample abandoned it. Table 1 reveals that abandoners and non-

abandoners are significantly different with respect to age, farm size (cultivated acreage), and

educational attainment. Specifically, on average abandoners are likely to be older, own small

farms, and have low educational attainment (primary school or less) compared to non-abandoners

of “partial” CA technologies/practices. Additionally, note that 18% of non-abandoners of CA have

13 or more years of education. When it comes to quality of information among abandoners and

non-abandoners, abandoners had received relatively poor quality of information, about CA

technologies/practices, compared to non-abandoners (p > 0.01). Interestingly, most abandoners

did not own CA technologies while about 50% of non-abandoners owned CA technologies (Table

1). However, table 1 reports that there was no significant difference between abandoners and non-

4
Here CA adoption and abandonment follows similar partial definition.

17
abandoners with respect to crop residues being left as mulch on fields. This is an important

component of CA practices—presumably it increases soil fertility.

Both abandoners and non-abandoners cultivated around three to four crops, on an average,

in a year, however, the difference between them is not statistically significant. Finally, when it

comes to group membership which we assume here social network, table 1 reports that abandoners

were less likely to be interacting with other farmers—be a member of farmer groups. In addition,

abandoners faced low cost of irrigation and borrowed less money, compared to the non-abandoners

of “partial” CA technologies/practices. Lastly, there was not much difference between the

proportions of spouses of these two groups being involved in the major agricultural activities.

In the next section, we report the findings from econometric analysis of the factors explaining both

“partial” adoption and abandonment of CA technologies/practice in Bangladesh, India and Nepal.

Results and Discussion

Table 2 presents the parameter estimates of factors affecting the decision of “partial” adoption of

CA (stage 1) and abandonment (stage 2), respectively. Although explanatory power of a regression

is not directly provided by the Heckman Probit method, but using simple probit analysis indicates

that almost 63% of the cases of adoption of “partial” CA technologies/practice and 75% cases of

the non-adopters of “partial” CA technologies/practice were correctly predicted. Overall, the

predictive power of successful cases was about 69%, suggesting a high explanatory power. 5

Additionally, we used delayed labor (labor shortage) as an instrumental variable in the second

stage (Abandonment). Recall that one of the advantages of CA technologies/practices was to

5
Additionally, Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) for both stages was 8.73 and 7.81, respectively, suggesting no
significant signs of multicollinearity among the explanatory variables (Meyers, 1990).

18
reduce labor requirement. Therefore, labor shortages (delayed labor) 6 may affect the adoption

process but is it is less likely to affect the abandonment of “partial” CA technologies/practices.

The Wald test statistics was significant (p > 0.01) suggesting the presence of correlation

(ρ=-0.71) between the two-stages of adoption and abandonment of “partial” CA

technologies/practices. The findings here are as expected and suggests potential sample selection

bias. Therefore, a comparison of parameters was made using a Probit model for the abandonment

stage (Table 4). The signs of all significant variables in the Heckman Probit model were consistent

with those of the Probit model in table 4. This justifies the use of two-stage Heckman selection

model. Additionally, factors explaining both adoption and abandonment of “partial” CA

technologies/practices may not satisfy the assumptons of separability. Therefore, bivariate probit

modeling approach may not be sutiable in our case. For robustness check (Table 3) , logged cost

of irrigation was dropped from the model, there was no changes in the sign of the significant

varibles, suggesting a stable model.

Factors affecting adoption and abandonment of “partial” CA technologies/abandonment

We begin by reporting the findings of our variables of interest. These include social networking

and role of spouses in decision making in farming. Results in table 2 show that the coefficient of

social network is positive and statistically significant at the 1% level of significance in the adoption

of “partial” CA technologies/practices. An additional membership in clubs and unions increases

adoption of “partial” CA technologies/practices by 0.15 (marginal effect). Findings indicate that

household heads who belong to clubs or unions were more likely adopt to “partial” adoption of

CA technologies/practices. A plausible explanation is that farmers belonging to social networks

get better and reliable information about new technologies/practices and therefore were more

6
Delayed variable (or labor shortage) variable was also included for full identification of the model (Ven and Pragg,
1981). However, this labor shortage (delayed labor) variable was insignificant in the abandonment stage.

19
likely to adopt “partial” adoption of CA technologies/practices. Recall that the flow of information

is integral to CA, as there is no single procedures that can fit to all local conditions. Experence

with different procedures and methods is often shared by members of clubs and unions—social

networking.7

Results in table 2 show that the coefficient of spouses is positive and statistically significant

at the 5% level of significance in the “partial” adoption of CA technologies/practices. Resuts

indicate that presence of spouses and their active role in farmign activities (such as in selecting

crop varieties, purchasing of machinery, adopting new crop technologies, employing laborers in

farm, selling of grains, sale of livestock, sale and leasing of land) increases the likelihood of

adoption of “partial” CA teachnologies/practices. Recall that the role of spouses (women) is in

agriculture have been increasing in developing countries. This phenomena is seen to have an

increasing trend in developing countries and therefore has been termed as feminization of

agriculture.8 A possible explanation is that spouses may show more concerned for the environment

and reducing operational costs. Our finding is consistent with Teklewold, Kassie, and Shiferaw

(2013) who found that spouses were more likely to adopt conservation tillage. On the other hand,

the coefficient of spouses is negative but insignificant in the “partial” abandonment of CA

technologies/practices. The results underscore the important role spouses (women) play in

technology adoption decisions in developing countries.

Results in table 2 show that although farm size (cultivated acerage) has no significant

impact on the adoption of “partial” CA technologies/practices, it has a negative and statistically

significant imapct on the abandonment of “partial” CA technologies/practices. Findings suggest

7
Anecdotal evidence suggests that farmers often discuss their experiences with technology with others and they are
likely to get more and better information with larger number of peers.
8
Zepeda and Castillo (1997) note that farm technology adoption decisions may not only be made by the head of the
household, but can be part of an overall household strategy.

20
that farmers with large land holding were less likely to abandon “partial” CA

technologies/practices. Recall that CA is a relatively new technology/practice and is generally

adopted by wealthy farmers with large land holdings. Our finding is consisient with previous study

(Feder, Just, & Zilberman, 1985). We classifed educational attainemnt of head of hosueholds into

primary (0-5 years of schooling), secondary (6–12 years of schooling) and tertiary (13 or more

years of schooling) categories. Results in table 2 reveal that, compared to head of households with

primary education, head of households with secondary and tertiary education were more likely to

adopt “partial” CA technologies/practices. The coefficients are highly significant—at the 1% level

of significance. Interestingly, the marginal effect (=2.4) of head of households with tertiary

education have most imapct on the adoption of “partial” CA technologies/practice. Findings are

consistent with technology adoption literature (Feder, Just, & Zilberman, 1985). On the other hand,

the coefficients of secondary and tertiary education are negative and statistically significant at the

1% level of significance. Findings suggest that more educated heads of hoseuholds are less likely

to abondon “partial” CA technologies/practices. Additionally, the margianl effect for secondary is

slightly smaller (0.19) and slighlty higher for tertiary education (0.27). Our finding is consisient

with previous studies (Feder, Just, & Zilberman, 1985; Walton J. C., et al., 2008). Again findings

undersocres the importance of education in technology adoiption and abandonment decsions,

espacially in the “partial” CA teachnologies/practices.

Table 2 shows that the coefficient of quality of information is positive and statistically

significant at the 5% level of significance. The marginal effect is about (0.082). Findings suggest

that smallholder farm households with better quality of information 9 were more likely to adopt

9
Recall that quality of information is perception based indicator. Farmers were asked to rank the quality of
information they received from their most trusted source (e.g., extension agents, cooperative union, farmer
associations, etc.) regarding CA technology/practices. The rank as from 0 to 4; 4 being the best.

21
“partial” CA technologies/practices. It is likely that better quality of information keeps farmers

interested and engaged in the technology as noted by Adesina & Forson-Baidu (1995). Quality of

information is integral to the farmers’ perception formation regarding “partial” CA

technologies/practices. On the other hand, results in table 2 (column 5) reveals that the coefficient

of quality of information is negative and statistically significant at the 1% level of significance.

Findings suggest that farmers with better quality of information are less likely to abandon “partial”

CA technologies/practices; the marginal effect is higher (=0.11) than the one obtained in the

adoption equation.

The coefficients of both diversification (total number of crops grown) and delayed labor

(or labor shortage) is positive and statsitically significant at the 1% level of significance. Findings

confirm anecdotal evidence that labor costs may be one of the drivers of adotpion of “partial” CA

tachnologies/practices. Shortage of agricultural labor and high agricutural wages have forced

farmers to either depend upon family members to perform farm operations or seek technologies

that reduced labor requirement; including “partial” CA technologies/practices. With regard to

credit constraint (defined as total amount money borrowed from formal and informal sources)

coefficient is positive and statistically significnat at the 5% level of signficance (table 2, column

5). Results suggest that the likelihood of abandoning “partial” CA technologies/practice increases

with total amount of borrowed money. Perhaps, farmer may not be able to service the debt and

would like to get out of the debt trap. This is highly likely as informal sources charge exhorbitantly

high interest rates. Our finding is consistent with previous studies (Feder, Just, & Zilberman, 1985;

Feder & Umali, 1993).

Finally, the coefficient of residue as mulch is negative and statistically significant at the

1% level of significance. The marginal effect is about (0.26). Results suggest that leaving residue

22
on the field as mulch decreases the likelihood of abandonment of “partial” CA

technologies/practice. Recall that leaving the residues on the field as mulch is an important practice

under CA. One explanation is that residue mulch increases soil fertility by promoting biological

activity and reducings weed infestation (Hobbs, Sayre, & Gupta, 2008); presence of mulch

decreases water requirement (Gathala, et al., 2015) and increases yield (Giller, et al., 2009).

Conclusion and policy recommendation

With falling yield and increasing energy and fertilizer costs, agriculture in South Asia is becoming

an unprofitable proposition. This would have an adverse impact not only on the incomes of farmers

but is likely to pose a threat to the food security of marginal farmers who are highly dependent on

agriculture for their livelihood. Therefore, attaining food security for a growing population in most

South Asia countries, while sustaining agricultural systems under the current scenario of depleting

natural resources, increasing costs of inputs, and climate variability, calls for a paradigm shift in

farming practices. This includes eliminating unsustainable parts of conventional agriculture

(ploughing/tilling the soil, removing all organic material, monoculture) for future productivity

gains, while sustaining natural resources.

CA is a resource saving food production system that aims for production intensification

and high yields while enhancing the natural resource base through the compliance with three

interrelated principles (Abrol and Sangar, 2006). Technologies pertaining to CA not only have the

potential to lower input usage but also preserve the environment (Stevenson et.al, 2014; Pannel et.

al., 2013). While the literature on CA is extensive (mostly adoption of CA technology), it does not

offer insights in three key issues. First, the partial adoption and abandonment of CA technologies,

especially in developing economies. Second, the role of social networks in the adoption and

abandonment of CA technologies. Third, the role of spouses with regard to the adoption and

23
abandonment of CA technologies. In our study, we considered partial adoption and abandonment

of CA technologies/practices as due to labor, land, credit constraints, farmers in developing

countries are not able to adopt CA as a full package.

Our study found that across the Indo-Gangetic plains which includes the states of Punjab,

Haryana, Bihar of India, Tamil Nadu, Bangladesh and Nepal, 46% of the households had adopted

CA while 27% of those adopted had abandoned it. Our results further suggest that social networks

play an influential role in both the adoption and the abandonment of CA technologies/practices.

While involvement of spouses just influenced the adoption stage.

Social networks was found to positively influence adoption of CA and negatively in the

case of abandonment of CA. Social networks may provide better quality and trustworthy

information from peer-groups and co-members on network. Moreover, developing social network

is integral to conservation agriculture. It is claimed to be a “network model of innovation” as

farmers needs to collaborate with agricultural scientists, advisors and professional soil

conservationists and agribusiness technicians in successfully implementing CA. This is done as

CA needs to be tailored to fit to local conditions. Therefore, in this context, relationships play an

important role in promoting CA. On similar intuition, social networks may discourage farmers

from abandoning CA technologies/practices. Therefore, farmers with memberships at the farmers’

union needs to be targeted.

Our results also show that if spouses are involved in the decision making—with regard to

marketing of agricultural products, selection of crop varieties, purchase of machinery, adoption of

new technologies, purchasing, leasing and selling of land—then it is more likely that farmers adopt

CA technologies/practices. However, the influence of spouses on the abandonment stage was

negative but statistically insignificant. The findings suggest that spouses may show more concern

24
for the conserving the environment and in reducing the operational costs of major agricultural

activities. The involvement of spouses in agriculture have recently increased due to the increasing

feminization of agriculture. They are involving themselves either partially or fully in the major

decision making of agricultural activities in the absence of male household heads. Therefore,

policy makers should be cognizant of this transformation and promote equal access of land along

with open access of credits and efficient markets.

Results also reveal that household heads with better education, better quality of information

and facing labor constraints are more likely to adopt CA technologies/practices. Whereas, those

facing credit constraints, poor quality of information, owning relatively less cultivated area were

likely to abandon CA technologies/practices. We also found empirical evidence that those who left

residue as mulch on fields were less likely to abandon. Mulching is an integral part of CA and has

been claimed that without mulching a significant fall in yield may be expected.

Therefore, for the purpose of targeting, educated households owning large cultivable land and

having memberships in farmer’s unions may be chosen. Policies favoring equal access of land

along with open access to credit and markets may be promoted. More awareness campaigns and

demonstration may be organized in villages to enhance the existing information about CA. During

these awareness drives, special attention may be provided to inform farmers about the benefits of

mulching. These may help in increasing the uptake of CA and reduce instances of abandonment.

25
Bibliography
Abrol, I., & Sangar, S. (2006). Sustaining Indian agriculture-conservation agriculture the way
forward. Current Science , 1020-2015.
Adesina, A., & Djato, K. K. (1997). Relative efficiency of women as farm managers: Profit
function analysis in Cote d'Ivoire. Agricultural Economics , 47-53.
Adesina, A., & Forson-Baidu, J. (1995). Farmers' perception and adoption of new agricultural
technology: evidence from analyis in Burkina Faso and Guinea, West Africa. Agricultural
Economics, 1-9.
Ahmad, M.-u.-D., Masih, L., & Giordano, M. (2015). Constraints and opportunities for water
savings and increasing productivity through resource conservation technologies in
Pakistan. Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environment , 106-115.
Alauddin, M., & Tisdell, C. A. (1988). Dynamics of adoption and diffusion of HYV technologies:
New evidence of inter-farm differences in Bangladesh. Research report or occasional
paper (University of Newcastle (N.S.W.). Dept. of Economics) ; no. 155. (pp. 26-29).
Newcastle, N.S.W. : University of Newcastle, Dept. of Economics.
Arslan, A., McCarthy, N., Lipper, L., Asfaw, S., & Cattaneo, A. (2014). Adoption and intensity of
adoption of conservation farming practices in Zambia . Agriculture, Ecosystem and
Environment , 72-86.
Bandiera, O., & Rasul, I. (2006). Social Netowrks and Technology Adoption in Northern
Mozambique. The Economic Journal , 862-902.
Bardhan, P., & Udry, C. (1999). Development microeconomics. Oxford University Press.
Barham, B., Foltz, J., Jackson-Smith, D., & Moon, S. (1990). The Dynamics of Agricultural
Biotechnology Adoption: Lessons from rBST Use in Wisconsin. American Journal of
Agricultural Economics, 935-945.
Batte, M. T., Jones, E., & Schnitkey, G. (1990). Computer Use by Ohi Commercial Farmers.
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 935-945.
Binswanger-Mkhize, H., & Dsouza, A. (2012). Structural Transformation and Agricultural
Productivity in India . In K. O. Fuglie, S. L. Wang, & V. E. Ball, Productivity growth in
agriculture. Oxfordshire, UK.: CABI .
Brauw, A. d., Li, Q., Liu, C., Rozelle, S., & Zhang, L. (2008). Feminization of Agriculture on
China? Myths Surrounding Women's Participation in Farming . The China Quarterly , 327-
348.
Brouder, S. M., & Gomez-Macpherson, H. (2015). The impact of conservation agriculture on small
holder agriculture yields: A scoping review of the evidence . Agriculture, Ecosystem and
Environment , 11-32.

26
Byerlee, D., & Siddiq, A. (1994). Has the green revolution been sustained? The quntitative impact
of the seed-fertilizer revolution in Pakistan revissited. World Development , 1345-1361.
Campos, A. P., A, C. K., & Patron, A. P. (2016). Analysis of Gender differences in agricultural
productivity? Evidence from Uganda. World Development , 17-33.
Campos, A. P., Covarrubias, K. A., & Patron, A. P. (2016). How does the choice of the gender
indicator affect the analysis of gender diffences in agricultural productivtiy? Evidence from
Uganda. World Development , 17-33.
Conley, T., & Udry, C. (2000). Learning About a New Technology: Pineapple in Ghana. Working
Paper, Yale University.
Coonley, T., & Udry, C. (2001). Social learning through networks: the adoption of new agricutural
technologies in Ghana. American Journal of Agricultural Economics .
Corbeels, M., Graaff, J. d., Ndah, H., Penot, E., & Baudron, F. e. (2015). Understanding the impact
and adoption of conservation agriculture in Africa: A multi-scale analysis . Agriculture,
Ecosystem and Environment , 155-170.
Coughenour, C. M. (2003). Innovation Conservation Agriculture: The Case of No-Till Cropping.
Rural Sociology, 278-304.
Daberkow, S. G., & McBride, W. (2003). Farm and Operator Characteristics Affecting the
Awareness and Adoption of Precision Agricultural Technologies in the US. Precision
Agriculture, 163-177.
Dalton, T., Yahaya, I., & Naab, J. (2015). Perceptions and performance of conservation agriculture
practices in northwestern Ghana. Agricuture, Ecosystem and Environment , 67-71.
Deorian, F. (2002). Formation of Social Networks and Diffusion of innovations. Research Policy.
Dinar, A., & Yaron, D. (1992). Adoption and Abandonment of irrigation technologies.
Agricultural Economics, 315 - 332.
Erestein, O., & Laxmi, V. (2008). Zero tillage impacts in India's rice-wheat systems: a review. Soil
and Tillage Research, 1-14.
Evenson, R. E., & Westphal, L. E. (1995). Technological change and technology strategy . In T.
N. Srinivasan, & J. Behrman, Handbook of Development Economics. Amsterdam , North
Holland.
Feder, G., & Umali, D. L. (1993). The adoption of agricultural innovations . Technological
Forecasting and Social Change , 215-239.
Feder, G., Just, R. .., & Zilberman, D. (1985). Adoption of agricultural innovation in developing
countries: A survey . Economic Development and Cultural Change , 255-298.
Feder, G., Just, R., & Zilberman, D. (1985). Adoption of Agricultural Innovtions in Developing
Countries: A Survey. Economic Development and Cultural Change , 255 - 298.

27
Foster, A. D., & Rosenzweig, M. (1995). Learning by doing and learning from others: human
capital and technical change in agriculture . Journal of Politcal Economy, 1176-1209.
Friedrich, T., Derpsch, R., & Kassam, A. (2012). Overview of the global spread of conservation
agriculture . The Journa of Field Actions, Field Actions Science Reports Special Issue 6.
Gaeta, G. L. (2015). Was it worth it? An empirical analysis of over education among PhD
recipients in Italy. Interntational Journal of Social Economics, 222-238.
Gathala, M., Kumar, V., Sharma, P., & Saharawat, Y. .. (2015). Reprint of "Optimizing intensive
cereal-based cropping system addresskng current and future drivers of agricultural change
in the Northwestern Indo-Gangetic Plains of India". Agriculture, Ecosystem & Ecosystem
, 33-46.
Giller, K. E., Witter, E., Corbeels, M., & Tittonell, P. (2009). Conservation agriculture and
smallholder farming in Africa: The heretic' view. Field Crops Research, 23-34.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). Strength of weak ties . American Journal of Sociology, 1360-1380.
Hobbs, P. R. (2007). Conservation agriculture: What is it and why is it important for future
sustainable food production? . Journal of Agricultural Science , 127-147.
Hobbs, P. R., Sayre, K., & Gupta, R. (2008). The role of conservation agriculture in sustainable
agriculture. The Royal Society Publishing.
Hobbs, P. R., Sayre, K., & Gupta, R. (2008). The role of conservation agriculture in sustainable
agriculture . Philosophical Transactions B, The Royal Society Publishing .
Hobbs, P., & Morris, M. (1996). Meeting South Asia's future food requirements from rice-wheat
cropping systems: Priority issues facing researchers in the post-green revolution era.
CIMMYT Institutional Multimedia Publications Repository.
Jacoby, E. H. (1972). Effects of the Green Revolution in South and South-East Asia. Modern Asian
Studies, 63-69.
Jiggins, J. (1998). The Feminization of Agriculture. The Brown Journal of World Affairs.
Khush, G. .. (2001). Green revolution: the way forward. Nature Reviews Genetics, 815-822.
Kirkegaarda, J. A., Conyersb, M. K., Hunta, J. R., Kirkbya, C. A., & al., e. (2014). Sense and
nonsense in conservation agriculture: Principles,pragmatism and productivity in Australian
mixed farming systems. Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environment , 133-145.
Koirala, K. H., Mishra, A., & Mohanty, S. (2016). The Role of Gender in Agricultural Productivity
in the Philippines: The Average Treatment Effect. Southern Agricutural Economics
Association 2015. Atlanta Georgia.
Krishna, V., & Veettil, P. (2014). Productivity and efficiency impacts of conservation tillage in
northwest Indo-Gangetic Plain. Agricultural Systems, 126-138.

28
Lapple, D., & Donnellan, T. ( 2009). Adoption and Abandonment of Organic Farming: An
Empirical Investigation of the Irish Drystock Sector. 83rd Annual Conference of the
Agricultural Economics Society. Dublin.
Larson, D., Savastano, S., & Murray, S. (2015). Are Women Less Productive Farmers? How
Markets and Risk Affect Fertilizer Use, Productivity and Measured Gender Effects in
Uganda. Policy Research Working Paper 7241, World Bank Group.
Lastarria-Cornhiel, S. (2006). Feminization of Agriculture: Trends and Driving Forces .
Backgroud Paper for the world development report.
Lu, J. L. (2011). Relations of Feminization of Agriculture and Women's Occupational Health: The
Case of Women Farmers in the Philippines. Journal of International Women's Studies.
Mazid, M. A., Bhuyian, S. I., Mannan, M. A., & Wade, T. J. (2002). Dry seeded rice for enhancing
productivity of rainfed drought prone lands: Lessons from Bangladesh and Philippines. In
S. Pandey, M. Mortimer, L. Wade, T. P. Tuong, K. Lopez, & B. Hardy, Direct Seeding:
Research Strategies and Opportunities (pp. 185 - 200). Manila, Philippines: Internationa
Rice Research Institute .
Mohai, P. (1992). Men, women and the environment: An exaination of the Gender Gap in
environmental concern and activism. Society and Natural Resources, 1-19.
Morris, M., Dubin, H., & Pokhrel, T. (1994). Returns to wheat breeding research in Nepal.
Agricultural Economics, 269-282.
Ogunlana, E. (2004). The technology adoption behavior of women farmers: the case of alley
farming in Nigeria. Renewable agriculture and food systems, Cambridge Journals, 57.
Palm, C., Blanco-Canqui, H., DeClerck, F., Gatere, L., & Grace, P. (2015). Conservation
agriculture and ecosystem services: An overview . Agriculture, Ecosystem and
Environment , 87-105.
Pandey, S., Velasco, L., & Suphanchaimat, N. (2002). Economics of direct seeding in northeast
Thailand . In S. Pandey, M. Mortimer, L. Wade, T. .. Tuong, K. Lopez, & B. Hardy, Direct
Seeding: Research Strategies and Opportunities (pp. 139 - 160). Manila, Philippines :
International Rice Research Institute .
Pannell, D. J., Marshall, G. R., Barr, N., Curtis, A., & al., e. (2006). Understanding and promoting
adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders. Australian Journal of
Experimental Agricuture , CSIRO Publishing, 1407-1424.
Pannell, D., Llewellyn, R. S., & Corbeels, M. (2014). The farm-level economics of conserving
agriculture for resource-poor farmers. Agiculture, Ecosystem and Environment , 52-64.
Pinstrup-Anderson, P., & Hazell, P. B. (1985). The impact of the green revolution and prospects
for the future. Food Reviews International, 1-25.

29
Pretty, J. N., Morison, J., & Hine, R. E. (2003). Reducing food poverty by increasing agricultural
sustainability in developing countries . Agricultural, Ecosystem and Environment , 217-
234.
Quisumbing, A. (1996). Male-female differences in agricultural productivity: Methodological
issues and empirical evidence . World Development , 1579-1595.
Rahman, S. (2003). Environmental impacts of modern agricultural technology diffusion in
Bangladesh: an analysis of farmers' perceptions and their determinants. Journal of
Environment Management , 183-191.
Rosenstock, T. S., Mpanda, M., Rioux, J., & Aynekulu, E. e. (2015). Targeting conservatio
agriculture in the context of livelihoods and landscapes . Agriculture, Ecosystem and
Environment , 47-51.
Schultz, T. W. (1975). The Value of the Ability to Deal with Disequilibrium . Journal of Economic
Literature, 827-846.
Stephens, E. (2008). Feedback Relationships between new technology use and Information
Networks: Evidence from Ghana. Woking Paper, Pitzer College.
Teklewold, H., Kassie, M., and Shiferaw, B. (2013). Adoption of Multiple Sustainable Agricultural
Practices in Rural Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vo. 64(3): 597-623.

Walton, J. C., Lambert, D. M., Roberts, R. K., Larson, J. A., English, B., Larkin, S., . . . Reeve, J.
M. (2009). Grid soil sampling adoption and abandonemnt in cotton prodction . Precision
Agriculture, 135- 147.
Walton, J. C., Lambert, D. M., Roberts, R. K., Larson, J. A., English, B., Larkin, S., . . . Reeves,
J. M. (2008). Adoption and Abandonment of Precision Soil Sampling . Journal of
Agricultural and Resource Economics, 428 - 448.
Warriner, G. K., & Moul, T. M. (1992). Kinship and personal communication network influences
on the adoption of agriculture conservation technology. Journal of Rural Studies , 279-291.
Yishay, A. B., & Mobarak, M. A. (2013). Communicating with Farmers through Social Networks.
Working Paper, Yale University .
Yishay, Ariel Ben; Mobarak, A. Mushfiq. (2013). Communicating with Farmers through Social
Networks. Woring Paper, Stanford Univeristy.
Zepeda, L. and Castillo, M. ‘The role of husbands and wives in farm technology adoption’, American
Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 79, (1997) pp. 583–588.

30
 Table 1. Definitions and summary statistics of variables, CSISA Data 2010-11
Stage 1: Stage 2:
CA Adoption (N= 936) CA Abandonment (N=432)
Variable Definition Adopters Non-
Overall Non- Overall Abandoners
(N=432) t-test1 Abandoners t-test1
Mean Adopters Mean (N=117)
(N=316)
(N=504)
Dependent variables
=1 if HH2 head adopted any 0.46 1 0 - - - -
CA adoption technology/practice3 related to CA, 0
otherwise
=1 if HH head abandoned any - - - - 0.27 1 0 -
CA abandon technology/practice3 related to CA, 0
otherwise
Farm Attribute
Area owned Total cultivated area (acres)4 2.53 3.31 1.86 *** 3.28 1.57 3.91 ***
Human capital
Age Age of HH head (years) 48.59 50.65 46.82 *** 50.63 54.53 49.19 ***
Primary =1 if years of schooling between 0 to 5 0.69 0.57 0.79 *** 0.58 0.86 0.47 ***
education years
Secondary =1 if years of schooling between 6 to 0.22 0.29 0.17 *** 0.29 0.12 0.35 ***
education 12 years
Tertiary 0.09 0.14 0.05 *** 0.14 0.02 0.18 ***
=1 if years of schooling >= 13 years
education
Factors specific to CA
Quality Average quality of information 1.97 2.14 1.83 *** 2.14 2.02 2.18 **
information regarding technologies/practices
Average tech Average years of technologies or - - - - 1.25 1.28 1.24 n.s
usage practices used
=1 if HH head owned technologies - - - - 0.44 0.27 0.50 ***
Ownership
pertaining to CA
Total number of crops cultivated in a 3.41 3.60 3.26 ** 3.60 3.75 3.55 n.s
Diversification
year

31
 =1 if HH head faced labour constraint 0.71 0.82 0.63 *** - - -
Delayed labour in farming operations during rice or
wheat crop cultivation
1 if HH head left residue on fields after - - - - 0.97 0.98 0.97 n.s
Residue mulch
rice, wheat and maize cultivation
Other Factors
1 if HH head is member of farmer’s 0.35 0.47 0.24 *** 0.46 0.21 0.56 ***
Social network
union or other social groups
Total cost of irrigating from own tube- 106 202 25 *** 201 71 249 n.s
Cost of
well using electricity or diesel per unit5
irrigation
(Rupees)
Total amount borrowed from formal 30,318 48,117 15061 *** 48,135 28,400 55,441 **
Credit
and informal sources (Rupees)3
Gender =1 if spouse/woman actively involved 0.87 0.90 0.84 *** 0.90 0.88 0.91 ns
(Women) in agricultural activities6
1
*, **, *** asterisks indicate significant at 10%, 5% and 1% level of significance.
2
HH = Household.
3
Conservation technologies/practices considered include: direct seeded rice, zero tillage, laser land leveling, bed planting, double no till, leaf color, nutrient
management, relay cropping, seed treatment, turbo seeder.
4
For ease of interpretation, summary statistics are provided for the unlogged variable.
5
Exchange rates: 1 BDT = 0.84780 INR, 1 NPR = 0.62501 (http://www.exchange-rates.org/) accessed on 5/1/2016
6
Activities include: selecting crop varieties, purchasing of machinery, adopting new crop technologies, employing laborers in farm, selling of grains, sale of
livestock, sale and leasing of land.

32
Table 2. Maximum Likelihood estimates of Heckman Probit selection model explaining adoption of CA (1 st stage) and
abandonment of CA conditional on adoption (2 nd stage) in Nepal, India and Bangladesh
Stage 1:Dependent Variable: CA Adoption Stage 2:Dependent Variable: CA Abandonment
Marginal Marginal
Variable Coefficient z-value2 Coefficient z-value1
effects effects
Ln owned 0.002 0.001 0.18 -0.031 -0.008 -1.76*
cultivated area
Age 0.035 0.012 1.15 -0.031 -0.008 -0.60
Age squared -0.0001 -0.00004 -0.49 0.0003 0.0001 0.69
Secondary education d 0.590 0.196 3.93*** -0.732 -0.191 -4.28***
d
Tertiary education 0.708 0.236 3.36*** -1.042 -0.271 -3.83***
Quality information 0.245 0.082 2.46** -0.414 -0.108 -2.66**
Average tech usage - - - -0.062 -0.016 -1.19
d
Ownership - - - -0.010 -0.003 -0.06
Diversification 0.070 0.023 1.88* -0.056 -0.014 -1.03
Delayed labor d 0.439 0.146 3.37*** - - -
Residue as mulch d - - - -0.980 -0.255 -4.04***
d
Social network 0.455 0.152 3.07*** -0.582 -0.152 -3.26***
Ln cost of irrigation 0.011 0.004 1.03 -0.020 -0.005 -1.45
Ln credit 0.002 0.0005 0.37 0.013 0.003 2.17**
d
Gender (Women) 0.371 0.124 2.76*** -0.312 -0.081 -1.28
Number of observations = 936
Number uncensored obs. (2nd stage) = 432
Wald chi-square (14) = 93.61***
Wald test of independent equations: chi-square (1) = 6.59**
1st stage explanatory power: 2nd stage explanatory power:
Cases of CA adopters correctly predicted = 62.04% Cases of CA abandoners correctly predicted = 58.97%
Cases of CA non-adopters correctly predicted = 74.60% Cases of CA non-abandoners correctly predicted =
Overall cases correctly predicted = 68.80% 90.82%
Overall cases correctly predicted = 82.22%
*,**,*** asterisk indicate significant at the 10%, 5%, 1% level of significance
1
Based on robust standard errors adjusted for 113 village-level clusters.
d
Dummy variable.

33
Table 3. Robustness check for the Heckman Probit selection model
Stage 1 Stage 2
Dependent Variable: CA Adoption Dependent Variable: CA Abandonment
Marginal Marginal
Variable Coefficient z-value2 Coefficient z-value1
effects effects
Ln owned 0.005 0.002 -0.033 -0.009 -1.85*
cultivated area
Age 0.033 0.011 1.06 -0.026 -0.007 -0.49
Age squared -0.0001 -0.00004 -0.42 0.0003 0.0001 0.59
Secondary education d 0.624 0.209 4.20*** -0.753 -0.197 -4.32***
Tertiary education d 0.731 0.245 3.51*** -1.085 -0.284 -3.81***
Quality information 0.251 0.084 2.54** -0.421 -0.110 -2.68***
Average tech usage - - - -0.072 -0.019 -1.34
Ownership d - - - -0.135 -0.035 -0.84
Diversification 0.807 0.027 2.14** -0.067 -0.018 -1.25
d
Delayed labor 0.439 0.147 3.36*** - - -
Residue as mulch d - - - -1.072 -0.275 4.09***
Social network d 0.448 0.150 3.03*** -0.565 -0.148 -3.10***
Ln cost of irrigation2 - - - - - -
Ln credit 0.002 0.0008 0.54 0.013 0.003 2.03*
Gender (Women) d 0.368 0.123 2.77*** -0.288 -0.075 -1.19
Number of observations = 936
Number uncensored obs. (2nd stage) = 432
Wald chi-square (13) = 77.62***
Wald test of independent equations: chi-square (1) = 5.61**
*,**,*** asterisk indicate significant at the 10%, 5%, 1% level of significance
1
Based on robust standard errors adjusted for 113 village-level clusters.
d
Dummy variable.
2
for robustness check logged cost of irrigation was dropped from the model

34
Table 4: Estimates of Probit model of the abandonment stage without correcting for sample selection bias
Dependent Variable: CA Abandonment
Factors
Coefficient Marginal effects z-value1
Ln owned area -0.016 -0.003 -1.20
Age 0.052 0.008 1.22
Age squared -0.0003 -0.0001 -0.77
Secondary education d -0.108 -0.016 -0.65
d
Tertiary education -0.444 -0.051 -2.01**
Quality information -0.087 -0.013 -0.75
Average tech usage 0.339 0.051 3.28***
Ownership d -0.141 -0.021 -0.79
Diversification 0.015 0.002 0.37
Delayed labor d - - -
Residue as mulch d -0.545 -0.072 -2.71***
d
Social network -0.294 -0.041 -1.79*
Ln cost of irrigation -0.023 -0.004 -1.63*
Ln credit 0.0163 0.002 2.84***
Gender (Women) d 0.079 0.011 0.52

*,**,*** asterisk indicate significant at the 10%, 5%, 1% level of significance

1
Based on robust standard errors adjusted for 113 village-level clusters.
d
Dummy variable.

35
36