Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:17:02.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Technology Adoption Against Invasive Species

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Ram Ranjan
Ram Ranjan*
Affiliation:
CSIRO/Land and Water, Wembley, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article looks at technology adoption in agriculture that is specifically targeted against invasive species. The analysis involves predicting the long-term distribution of technology choices when technology can be adopted and disadopted based on current and expected agricultural profits influenced by pest infestation. The theoretical analysis is based on an extension of two authors' findings in 1993 and incorporates the possibility that psychological factors, such as complacency, have a significant impact on technology adoption and hence disease establishment. An empirical application is performed for soybean rust.

Keywords

adoption psychologyinvasive speciespopularity weightingsoybean rusttechnology adoptionQ16
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 39 , Issue s1 , October 2007 , pp. 47 - 60
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ellison, G., and Fudenberg, D.. “Rules of Thumb for Social Learning.” Journal of Political Economy 101,4(1993):612-43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellison, G., and Fudenberg, D.. “Word of Mouth Communication and Social Learning.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 100,1(1995):93–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandez-Cornejo, J., and McBride, W.D.. “Adoption of Bioengineered Crops.” Agricultural Economics Report (AER810) 67 (May 2002). Internet site: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer810/.Google Scholar
Geoffard, P.Y., and Philipson, T.. “Disease Eradication: Private Versus Public Eradication.” American Economic Review 87,1(1997):222-30.Google Scholar
Livingston, M., Johanssson, R., Daberkow, S., Roberts, M., Ash, M., and Breneman, V.. “Economic and Policy Implications of Wind-Borne Entry of Asian Soybean Rust into the United States.” Electronic Outlook Report from the Economic Research Service, OCS-04D-02, 2004.Google Scholar
Longo, R. “Information Transfer and the Adoption of Agricultural Innovations.” Journal of Agricultural Society for Informational Science 41(1990):1–9.3.0.CO;2-D>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sterman, J., and Booth, L. Sweeny. “Cloudy Skies: Assessing Public Understanding of Global Warming.” System Dynamic Review 18(2002): 207-40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sterman, J., and Sweeny, L. Booth. “Understanding Public Complacency about Climate Change: Adults' Mental Models of Climate Change Violate Conservation of Matter.” Working Paper, MIT Sloan School of Management. Internet site: http://web.mit.edu/jsterman/www/StermanSweeney.pdf (Accessed 2005).Google Scholar
Sunding, D., and Zilberman, D.. The Agricultural Innovation Process: Research and Technology Adoption in a Changing Agricultural Sector. Internet site: http://www.are.berkeley.edu/%7Ezilber/innovationchptr.pdf (Accessed 2000).Google Scholar
USDA-ERS (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service). Internet site: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Features/SoyBeanRust (Accessed 2004).Google Scholar
USDA-NASS (U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service). Internet site: http://www.nass.usda.gov/index.asp.Google Scholar
Wherspann, J. “The Technology Factor.” Farm Industry News. February 15, 2003.Google Scholar