Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 288

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Risk, uncertainty, and learning in adoption of a crop innovation

Ghadim, Amir K. Abadi, Pannell, David J., Burton, Michael P.·2005·Agricultural Economics

Abstract

Risk and uncertainty have often been suggested as causes of poor adoption of rural innovations, but empirical evidence has been scarce. This study focuses on a new crop‐type, chickpeas, in Western Australia to gather such evidence. The empirical models developed are based on a theoretical framework that conceptualizes adoption as a dynamic decision process involving information acquisition and learning‐by‐doing by growers who vary in their managerial abilities, risk preferences, and their perceptions of the profitability and riskiness of the innovation. Learning encompasses improvements in skill as well as reductions in uncertainty. An annual face‐to‐face survey of over 100 farmers was conducted over 3 years, eliciting the farmers' risk attitudes and their subjective distributions of yields and prices. Two limited dependent variable models, Tobit and Probit, are used to estimate the empirical model. There is a high degree of goodness‐of‐fit for both models. The study provides strong empirical support for the primarily economic character of the adoption decision, and highlight the importance of economic risk in the process. The two risk‐related factors with greatest impact on the adoption decision were risk aversion and relative riskiness of the innovation. Risk aversion tended to reduce adoption, and to do so to a greater extent as relative riskiness and scale increased. Results also reveal the key role that trialing of the innovation plays in adoption.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1574-0862.2005.00433.x

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Ghadim, A. K. A., Pannell, D. J., & Burton, M. P.
Venue
Agricultural Economics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-06-14
Volume
33
Issue
1
Pages
1-9
ISSN
  • 0169-5150 (ISSN-L)
  • 1574-0862
OpenAlex
W2030198620
Cited by
288
References
0
FWCI
32.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.