Unlike most studies that focused on specific innovations, this study systematically analyzed farmers’ adoption of agricultural innovations in general. It reports willingness to pay (WTP; willingness to accept (WTA)) as a proxy for adoption, its determinants, applied methods, and statistical models. After searching and screening, 80 studies qualified for review. Majority (n = 30) of studies focused on farmers’ WTP for innovations in agricultural water provision or environmental and crop protection (n = 35), while the remaining studies handled crop or animal improvement innovations. Most studies were performed in developing countries, using stated preference methods for economic valuation, with 55% of the studies (n = 44) applying contingent valuation compared to 39% taking choice modeling approach. While farmers are generally willing to pay premium for improvement in agriculture technologies, WTP (WTA) depends on the innovation (system). For example, premiums ranged from about 0.125 to 2 USD/m3 of water depending on water supply (e.g. ground vs. surface water). Furthermore, the determinants of farmers’ WTP can be grouped into sociodemographic, biophysical, technological, institutional, and behavioral factors. As illustrated by relatively high WTP, the review demonstrates that farmers embrace most innovations, regardless of the context and methods applied.
AdenleAAAzadiHManningL (2018) The era of sustainable agricultural development in Africa: understanding the benefits and constraints. Food Reviews International34(5):411–433.
2.
AnderssonJAD’SouzaS (2014) From adoption claims to understanding farmers and contexts: a literature review of Conservation Agriculture (CA) adoption among smallholder farmers in southern Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment187:116–132.
3.
AsratSYesufMCarlssonF, et al. (2010) Farmers’ preferences for crop variety traits: lessons for on-farm conservation and technology adoption. Ecological Economics69(12):2394–2401.
4.
AubertBASchroederAGrimaudoJ (2012) IT as enabler of sustainable farming: an empirical analysis of farmers’ adoption decision of precision agriculture technology. Decision Support Systems54(1):510–520.
5.
Baumgart-GetzAProkopyLSFloressK (2012) Why farmers adopt best management practice in the United States: a meta-analysis of the adoption literature. Journal of Environmental Management96(1):17–25.
6.
BigliardiBGalatiF (2013) Innovation trends in the food industry: the case of functional foods. Trends in Food Science & Technology31(2):118–129.
7.
BogaleA (2015) Weather-indexed insurance: an elusive or achievable adaptation strategy to climate variability and change for smallholder farmers in Ethiopia. Climate and Development7(3):246–256.
8.
Bozorg-HaddadOMalmirMMohammad-AzariS, et al. (2016) Estimation of farmers’ willingness to pay for water in the agricultural sector. Agricultural Water Management177:284–290.
9.
BuckleyCHynesSMechanS (2012) Supply of an ecosystem service—farmers’ willingness to adopt riparian buffer zones in agricultural catchments. Environmental Science & Policy24:101–109.
10.
CarlettoGRuelMWintersP, et al. (2015) Farm-level pathways to improved nutritional status: introduction to the special issue. The Journal of Development Studies51(8):945–957.
11.
ChellappanSSudhaR (2015) Investment, adoption, attitude and extent of participation of farmers in soil conservation projects in the Western Ghats of India: revised topic. International Journal of Social Economics42(3):251–275.
12.
CollierPDerconS (2014) African agriculture in 50 years: smallholders in a rapidly changing world?World Development63:92–101.
13.
De SteurHWesanaJBlancquaertD, et al. (2016) Methods matter: a meta-regression on the determinants of willingness-to-pay studies on biofortified foods. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences1390(1):34–46.
14.
DouthwaiteBKeatingeJParkJ (2001) Why promising technologies fail: the neglected role of user innovation during adoption. Research Policy30(5):819–836.
15.
FederGUmaliDL (1993) The adoption of agricultural innovations: a review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change43(3-4):215–239.
16.
GiannoccaroGCastilloMBerbelJ (2015) An assessment of farmers’ willingness to participate in water trading in southern Spain. Water Policy17(3):520–537.
17.
GiupponiCGainAK (2017) Integrated spatial assessment of the water, energy and food dimensions of the sustainable development goals. Regional Environmental Change17(7):1881–1893.
18.
GloverDSumbergJAnderssonJA (2016) The adoption problem; or why we still understand so little about technological change in African agriculture. Outlook on Agriculture45(1):3–6.
19.
GulatiARaiSC (2015) Farmers’ willingness-to-pay towards soil and water conservation measures in agro-ecosystems of Chotanagpur Plateau, India. Water and Environment Journal29(4):523–532.
20.
HerathCS (2010) Motivation as a potential variable to explain farmers’ behavioral change in agricultural technology adoption decisions. E+M Ekonomie a Management13(3):62–70.
21.
HillRVHoddinottJKumarN (2013) Adoption of weather-index insurance: learning from willingness to pay among a panel of households in rural Ethiopia. Agricultural Economics44(4-5):385–398.
22.
JenkinsMShanksCBBrouwerR, et al. (2018) Factors affecting farmers’ willingness and ability to adopt and retain vitamin A-rich varieties of orange-fleshed sweet potato in Mozambique. Food Security10(6):1501–1519.
23.
KabungaNSDuboisTQaimM (2012) Heterogeneous information exposure and technology adoption: the case of tissue culture bananas in Kenya. Agricultural Economics43(5):473–486.
24.
KaczanDSwallowBM (2013) Designing a payments for ecosystem services (PES) program to reduce deforestation in Tanzania: an assessment of payment approaches. Ecological Economics95:20–30.
25.
KamrathCWesanaJBröringS, et al. (2019) What do we know about chain actors’ evaluation of new food technologies? A systematic review of consumer and farmer studies. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety18(3):798–816.
26.
KhanZRMidegaCAPittcharJO, et al. (2014) Achieving food security for one million sub-Saharan African poor through push–pull innovation by 2020. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences369(1639):20120284.
27.
KnowlerDBradshawB (2007) Farmers’ adoption of conservation agriculture: a review and synthesis of recent research. Food Policy32(1):25–48.
28.
KrishnaVVQaimM (2007) Estimating the adoption of Bt eggplant in India: who benefits from public–private partnership?Food Policy32(5):523–543.
29.
LarueBWestGETaminiLD, et al. (2014) Willingness to pay for BMP-induced water quality benefits and deviations around expected water quality outcomes. Canadian Water Resources Journal/Revue Canadienne des Ressources Hydriques39(4):437–448.
30.
LewisJJPattanayakSK (2012) Who adopts improved fuels and cookstoves? A systematic review. Environmental Health Perspectives120(5):637.
31.
LuskJLHudsonD (2004) Willingness-to-pay estimates and their relevance to agribusiness decision making. Review of Agricultural Economics26(2):152–169.
32.
MarrAWinkelAvan AsseldonkM, et al. (2016) Adoption and impact of index-insurance and credit for smallholder farmers in developing countries: a systematic review. Agricultural Finance Review76(1):94–118.
33.
MatuschkeIMishraRRQaimM (2007) Adoption and impact of hybrid wheat in India. World Development35(8):1422–1435.
34.
MauschKHarrisDHeatherE, et al. (2018) Households’ aspirations for rural development through agriculture. Outlook on Agriculture47(2):108–115.
35.
McIntoshCSarrisAPapadopoulosF (2013) Productivity, credit, risk, and the demand for weather index insurance in smallholder agriculture in Ethiopia. Agricultural Economics44(4-5):399–417.
36.
MeijerSSCatacutanDAjayiOC, et al. (2015) The role of knowledge, attitudes and perceptions in the uptake of agricultural and agroforestry innovations among smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability13(1):40–54.
37.
MercerDE (2004) Adoption of agroforestry innovations in the tropics: a review. Agroforestry Systems61(1):311–328.
38.
MogendiJBDe SteurHGellynckX, et al. (2016) A novel framework for analysing stakeholder interest in healthy foods: a case study on iodine biofortification. Ecology of Food and Nutrition55(2):182–208.
39.
MugambiwaSSTirivangasiHM (2017) Climate change: a threat towards achieving’ Sustainable Development Goal number two’(end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture) in South Africa. Jàmbá: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies9(1):1–6.
40.
MwangiMKariukiS (2015) Factors determining adoption of new agricultural technology by smallholder farmers in developing countries. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development6(5):208–216.
41.
OrCKKarshB-T (2009) A systematic review of patient acceptance of consumer health information technology. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association16(4):550–560.
42.
OsborneABlakeCFullenBM, et al. (2012) Prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders among farmers: a systematic review. American Journal of Industrial Medicine55(2):143–158.
43.
PandeyVLDevSMJayachandranU (2016) Impact of agricultural interventions on the nutritional status in South Asia: a review. Food Policy62:28–40.
44.
PannellDJLlewellynRSCorbeelsM (2014) The farm-level economics of conservation agriculture for resource-poor farmers. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment187:52–64.
45.
PannellDJMarshallGRBarrN, et al. (2006) Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture46(11):1407–1424.
46.
PatelRC (2012) Food sovereignty: power, gender, and the right to food. PLOS Medicine9(6):e1001223.
47.
PeekSTWoutersEJvan HoofJ, et al. (2014) Factors influencing acceptance of technology for aging in place: a systematic review. International Journal of Medical Informatics83(4):235–248.
48.
ProkopyLSFloressKKlotthor-WeinkaufD, et al. (2008) Determinants of agricultural best management practice adoption: evidence from the literature. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation63(5):300–311.
49.
QaimMDe JanvryA (2003) Genetically modified crops, corporate pricing strategies, and farmers’ adoption: the case of Bt cotton in Argentina. American Journal of Agricultural Economics85(4):814–828.
50.
RogersEM (1995) Attributes of innovations and their rate of adoption. In: RogersEM (ed) Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press, pp. 204–251.
51.
RosenstockTSLamannaCChestermanS, et al. (2016) The scientific basis of climate-smart agriculture: a systematic review protocol. Copenhagen: CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS).
52.
SaldíasCSpeelmanSVan HuylenbroeckG, et al. (2016) Understanding farmers’ preferences for wastewater reuse frameworks in agricultural irrigation: lessons from a choice experiment in the Western Cape, South Africa. Water SA42(1):26–37.
53.
ScaringelliMAGiannoccaroGProsperiM, et al. (2016) Adoption of biodegradable mulching films in agriculture: is there a negative prejudice towards materials derived from organic wastes?Italian Journal of Agronomy11(2):92–99.
54.
SiddiqueKHJohansenCTurnerNC, et al. (2012) Innovations in agronomy for food legumes. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development32(1):45–64.
55.
Stafford-SmithMGriggsDGaffneyO, et al. (2017) Integration: the key to implementing the sustainable development goals. Sustainability Science12(6):911–919.
56.
TamboJAAbdoulayeT (2012) Climate change and agricultural technology adoption: the case of drought tolerant maize in rural Nigeria. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change17(3):277–292.
57.
TeyYSBrindalM (2012) Factors influencing the adoption of precision agricultural technologies: a review for policy implications. Precision Agriculture13(6):713–730.
58.
Tur-CardonaJBonnichsenOSpeelmanS, et al. (2018) Farmers’ reasons to accept bio-based fertilizers: a choice experiment in seven different European countries. Journal of Cleaner Production197:406–416.
59.
VenkateshVDavisFD (2000) A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Management Science46(2):186–204.
60.
VillanuevaAJGómez-LimónJAArriazaM, et al. (2015) The design of agri-environmental schemes: farmers’ preferences in southern Spain. Land Use Policy46:142–154.
61.
WelchRMGrahamRD (2005) Agriculture: the real nexus for enhancing bioavailable micronutrients in food crops. Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology18(4):299–307.
62.
WongWCCheungCSHartGJ (2008) Development of a quality assessment tool for systematic reviews of observational studies (QATSO) of HIV prevalence in men having sex with men and associated risk behaviours. Emerging Themes in Epidemiology5(1):23.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
