Field observation and verbal exchange as different peer effects in farmers’ technology adoption decisions

IF 4.5 3区 经济学 Q1 AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY Agricultural Economics Pub Date : 2024-07-08 DOI:10.1111/agec.12847
Anna Massfeller, Hugo Storm
{"title":"Field observation and verbal exchange as different peer effects in farmers’ technology adoption decisions","authors":"Anna Massfeller,&nbsp;Hugo Storm","doi":"10.1111/agec.12847","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Farmers’ adoption of novel technologies is influenced by other farmers’ behavior, a phenomenon known as peer effects. Although such effects have been studied intensively, the literature does not clearly distinguish between those that result (1) from verbal exchanges with other farmers and (2) from field observations, including the application of technology, its outcomes, and field conditions. We extend existing theoretical concepts and hypothesize that verbal information exchanges and field observations are two types of peer effects. Using data from an online survey of German sugar beet farmers’ application of mechanical weeding from early 2022, we find that the likelihood of adopting mechanical weeding increases across all model specifications by around 26%–28% if at least one adopter is known and by approximately 30%–32% if at least one field is observed. The two types of peer effects complement and reinforce each other in explaining adoption decisions. The effects increase with the number of adopters known and fields observed but decrease with larger distances to the observed fields. The findings can support designing extension services and future peer effects research that should consider the distinction between peer effects arising from verbal exchanges and field observations.</p>","PeriodicalId":50837,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural Economics","volume":"55 5","pages":"739-757"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/agec.12847","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Agricultural Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/agec.12847","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Farmers’ adoption of novel technologies is influenced by other farmers’ behavior, a phenomenon known as peer effects. Although such effects have been studied intensively, the literature does not clearly distinguish between those that result (1) from verbal exchanges with other farmers and (2) from field observations, including the application of technology, its outcomes, and field conditions. We extend existing theoretical concepts and hypothesize that verbal information exchanges and field observations are two types of peer effects. Using data from an online survey of German sugar beet farmers’ application of mechanical weeding from early 2022, we find that the likelihood of adopting mechanical weeding increases across all model specifications by around 26%–28% if at least one adopter is known and by approximately 30%–32% if at least one field is observed. The two types of peer effects complement and reinforce each other in explaining adoption decisions. The effects increase with the number of adopters known and fields observed but decrease with larger distances to the observed fields. The findings can support designing extension services and future peer effects research that should consider the distinction between peer effects arising from verbal exchanges and field observations.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
实地观察和口头交流作为农民采用技术决策中不同的同伴效应
农民采用新技术会受到其他农民行为的影响,这种现象被称为同伴效应。尽管对这种效应进行了深入研究,但文献并未明确区分以下两种效应:(1) 来自与其他农民的口头交流;(2) 来自实地观察,包括技术应用、技术成果和实地条件。我们扩展了现有的理论概念,并假设口头信息交流和实地观察是同伴效应的两种类型。利用 2022 年初对德国甜菜种植农应用机械除草情况的在线调查数据,我们发现,在所有模型规范中,如果至少有一个采用者为人所知,则采用机械除草的可能性会增加约 26%-28%;如果至少观察到一块田地,则采用机械除草的可能性会增加约 30%-32%。这两种同行效应在解释采用决策时相互补充、相互加强。随着认识的采用者和观察到的田块数量的增加,效应也随之增加,但随着与观察到的田块距离越远,效应就越小。研究结果可为设计推广服务和未来的同伴效应研究提供支持,这些研究应考虑区分口头交流和实地观察所产生的同伴效应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Agricultural Economics
Agricultural Economics 管理科学-农业经济与政策
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
4.90%
发文量
62
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Agricultural Economics aims to disseminate the most important research results and policy analyses in our discipline, from all regions of the world. Topical coverage ranges from consumption and nutrition to land use and the environment, at every scale of analysis from households to markets and the macro-economy. Applicable methodologies include econometric estimation and statistical hypothesis testing, optimization and simulation models, descriptive reviews and policy analyses. We particularly encourage submission of empirical work that can be replicated and tested by others.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Livelihood diversification and household welfare among farm households in the Philippines Growing importance of price: Investigating food values before and during high inflation in Germany An experimental approach to farmer valuation of African rice genetic resources Designated market makers and agricultural futures market quality: Evidence from China's Dalian commodity exchange
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1