Skip to main content
Log in

Farm and Operator Characteristics Affecting the Awareness and Adoption of Precision Agriculture Technologies in the US

  • Published:
Precision Agriculture Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Precision agriculture (PA) technologies have been commercially available since the early 1990s. However, not only has the pace of adoption in the US been relatively modest but a surprisingly large number of producers are not familiar with these technologies. Using farm level survey data, this study quantifies the role that awareness plays in the decision to adopt PA technology and allows us to explore the potential for public or private information programs to affect the diffusion of PA. PA adoption and awareness are modeled as jointly determined dichotomous variables and their determinants are estimated using a two-stage (i.e. instrumental variable) logistic specification. The first-stage logit model indicated that operator education and computer literacy, full-time farming, and farm size positively affected the probability of PA awareness while the effect of age was negative. Grain and oilseed farms (i.e. corn, soybean, and small grains) and specialty crop farms (i.e. fruits, vegetables, and nuts) as well as farms located in the Heartland and Northern Great Plains regions were most likely to be aware of PA technologies. The second-stage PA adoption logit model, which included an instrumental variable to account for the endogeneity of awareness, revealed that farm size, full-time farming, and computer literacy positively influenced the likelihood of PA adoption. Grain and oilseed farms were the most likely types of farms to adopt PA as were farms in the Heartland region. Awareness, as defined in this study, was not found to be limiting the adoption of PA, suggesting that farmers for whom the technology is profitable are already aware of the technology and that a sector-wide public or private initiative to disseminate PA information would not likely have a major impact on PA diffusion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adesina, A. A. and Zinnah, M. M. 1993. Technology characteristics, farmers' perceptions, and adoption decisions: A tobit model application in Sierra Leone. Agricultural Economics 9, 297-311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bard, S. K. and Berry, P. J. 1998, November. Developing a Scale for Assessing Farmers' Risk Attitudes. Working paper. University of Illinois. Center for Farm and Rural Business Finance. Prepared for the Economic Research Service, USDA.

  • Barry, P. J., Ellinger, P. N., Hopkins, J. A. and Baker, C. B. 1995. Financial Management in Agriculture, 5th edn. (Interstate Publishers, Inc., Danville, IL, USA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Batte, M. and Johnson, R. 1993. Technology and its impact on American agriculture. In: Size, Structure, and the Changing Face of American Agriculture, edited by A. Hallum (Westview Press Inc., Boulder, CO, USA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Beale, G. and Bolen, J. 1955. How Farm People Accept New Ideas. Cooperative Extension Report No. 15, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bultena, G. L. and Hoiberg, E. O. 1983. Factors affecting farmers' adoption of conservation tillage. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 38(3), 281-283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowan, T. 2000. Precision agriculture and site-specific management: Current status and emerging policy issues, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress RL30630 (Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, USA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Daberkow, S. G. and McBride, W. D. 1998. Socio-economic profiles of early adopters of precision agriculture technologies. Journal of Agribusiness 16(2), 151-168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daberkow, S. G. and McBride, W. D. 2000. Adoption of precision agriculture technologies by U.S. farmers. In: Proceeding (on CD) of the 5th International Conference on Precision Agriculture, edited by P. C. Robert, R. H. Rust and W. E. Larson (ASA/CSSA/SSSA, Madison, WI, USA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubman, R. W. 2000, April. Variance Estimation with USDA's Farm Costs and Return Surveys and Agricultural Resource Management Study Surveys. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. ERS Staff Paper AGES 00-01.

  • El-Osta, H. and Morehart, M. 1999. Technology adoption decisions in dairy production and the role of herd expansion. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 28(1), 84-95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feder, G. and Umali, D. L. 1993. The adoption of agricultural innovations: A review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 43, 215-239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feder, G. and O'Mara, G. 1981. Farm size and the diffusion of green revolution technology. Economic Development and Cultural Change 30, 59-76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feder, G. and O'Mara, G. 1982. On information and innovation diffusion: A Bayesian approach. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 64, 145-147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feder, G., Just, R. J. and Zilberman, D. 1985. Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries: A Survey. Economic Development and Cultural Change 33(2), 255-298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feder, G. and Slade, R. 1984. The acquisition of information and the adoption of new technology. Journal of American Agricultural Economics Association 66(3), 312-320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez-Cornejo, J., Beach, E. D. and Huang, W.-Y. 1994. The adoption of IPM techniques by vegetable growers in Florida, Michigan, and Texas. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 26, 158-172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, B. W., Saupe, W. E. and Klemme, R. M. 1989. Conservation tillage: The role of farm and operator characteristics and the perception of soil erosion. Land Economics 65, 167-182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, G., Sunding, D., Zilberman, D. and Parker, D. 1996. Explaining irrigation technology choices: A microparameter approach. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78, 1064-1072.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heckman, J. J. 1976. The common structure of statistical models of truncation, sample selection, and limited dependent variables and a simple estimator for such models. Annals of Economic and Social Measurement 5, 475-491.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiebert, L. D. 1974. Risk, learning, and the adoption of fertilizer responsive seed varieties. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 56, 764-768.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoppe, R., Perry, J. and Banker, D. 1999. The ERS farm typology: Classifying a diverse ag sector. Agricultural Outlook, (November) U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Just, R., Zilberman, D. and Rausser, G. 1980. A putty-clay approach to the distributional effects of new technology under risk. In: Operations Research in Agriculture and Water Resources, edited by D. Yaron and C. Tapiero (North Holland Publishing Company, New York, NY, USA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, M., Epough, O. F. and Hornbaker, R. 1999. Site-specific crop management: Adoption patterns and incentives. Review of Agricultural Economics 21(2), 455-472.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, M. and Zilberman, D. 1997. Incentives, precision technology, and environmental protection. Ecological Economics 23, 25-43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klotz, C., Saha, A. and Butler, L. J. 1995. The role of information in technology adoption: The case of rbST in the California dairy industry. Review of Agricultural Economics 17, 287-298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, D. and Lowenberg-DeBoer, J. 2000. Precision Agriculture Profitability Review. http://mollisol.agry.purdue.edu/SSMC/, September, 15, 2000, Site-specific Management Center, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowenberg-DeBoer, J. and Swinton, S. 1997. Economics of site-specific management in agronomic crops. In: The State of Site-Specific Management for Agriculture, edited by F. Pierce and E. Sadler (ASA Misc. Pub.:369-396. ASA/CSSA/SSSA, Madison, WI, USA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynne, G. D., Shonkwiler, J. S. and Rola, L. R. 1988. Attitudes and farmer conservation behavior. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70, 12-19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maddala, G. S. 1992. Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics (Cambridge University Press, UK).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, C. 1966. Industrial Research and Technological Innovation (Norton, New York, NY, USA).

    Google Scholar 

  • McBride, W. D., Daberkow, S. G. and Christensen, L. A. 1999. Attitudes about precision agriculture innovations among U.S. corn growers. In: Precision Agriculture '99: Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Precision Agriculture, Part 2, edited by J. V. Stafford (Sheffield Academic Press, UK), pp. 927-936.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, K. T., Wetzstein, M. E. and Douce, G. K. 1991. Factors affecting peanut producer adoption of integrated pest management. Review of Agricultural Economics 13 129-139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgenstern, R. D. 1996. Does the provision of free technical information really influence firm behavior. Discussion Paper 96-16 (Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, USA).

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). 1997. Precision Agriculture in the 21st Century: Geospatial Technologies in Crop Management (NRC National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, USA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, P. E. and Batie, S. S. 1987. Virginia farmers' soil conservation decisions: An application of Tobit analysis. Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics 19, 79-90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowak, P. and Korsching, P. 1998. The human dimension of soil and water conservation: A historical and methodological perspective. In: Advances in Soil and Water Conservation, edited by F. J. Pierce and W. W. Frye (Sleeping Bear Press and Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea, MI, USA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, F. and Nowak, P. 1999. Aspects of precision agriculture, Advances in Agronomy, Vol. 67 (Academic Press, New York, NY, USA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. 1995. Diffusion of Innovations, 4th edn. (Free Press, New York, NY, USA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, J. T. 1999. Farm operators' utilization of debt repayment capacity: A leading indicator of farm financial stress. In: Financing Agriculture and Rural America: Issues of Policy, Structure, and Technical Change. Proceedings of Regional Committee NC-221, edited by S. H. Lence (Department of Economics, College of Agriculture, Iowa State University, USA), pp. 175-185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thrikawala, S., Weersink, A., Kachanoski, G. and Fox, G. 1999. Economic feasibility of variable-rate technology for nitrogen on corn. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 81, 914-927.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. 2000. Acreage. Report Cr Pr 2–5, June 30, 2000 (National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington, DC, USA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, S. and Nowak, P. 1995. Development of information intensive agri-chemical management services in Wisconsin. Environmental Management 19(3), 371-382.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Daberkow, S.G., McBride, W.D. Farm and Operator Characteristics Affecting the Awareness and Adoption of Precision Agriculture Technologies in the US. Precision Agriculture 4, 163–177 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024557205871

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024557205871

Navigation