Understanding Ethiopian farmers' intention to adopt biofortified orange-flesh sweet potatoes
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21295628 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Lidya Samuel (0009-0000-8736-5851), Marcia Dutra De Barcellos (0000-0002-4311-2921), Mulugeta Damie Watabaji (0000-0003-3512-2385), Hans De Steur (0000-0003-1340-0882) |
| Year | 2025 |
| Publication date | 2025-02-25 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | British Food Journal (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0007-070X • E-ISSN: 1758-4108 |
| Publisher | Emerald (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1108/bfj-04-2024-0384 |
| OpenAlex | W4407890227 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 82 |
Purpose Biofortification is a promising strategy for addressing malnutrition and food insecurity by enriching staple crops with nutrients. However, farmers’ adoption is crucial for their success. This study aims to shed light on Ethiopian farmers' intentions to adopt biofortified orange-fleshed sweet potatoes (OFSP) using the motivation, opportunity and ability (MOA) framework. Design/methodology/approach This study used data from a cross-sectional survey of 370 sweet potato farmers in Ethiopia. Binary logistic regression analysis was employed to examine the factors influencing farmers' intention to adopt OFSP. Findings Ability-, motivation- and opportunity-related factors significantly influenced adoption intention. Specifically, knowledge of OFSP benefits, production skills, crop characteristics and access to institutional services positively influences adoption. However, farming experience has a negative effect. Practical implications These findings emphasize the importance of educating farmers about OFSP’s high vitamin A content and favourable agronomic features. Additionally, understanding farmers' experiences and enhancing their production skills are crucial for increasing adoption rates. Targeted educational programs and support services can address these gaps and deficiencies. Originality/value This study is the first to analyse Ethiopian farmers' adoption of OFSP using an MOA framework. It offers a novel approach to understanding the complex interplay of psychological factors that influence adoption intentions. Furthermore, this study provides valuable insights into the Ethiopian context, filling a gap in the literature. These findings contribute to the development of targeted strategies for promoting biofortified crops in Ethiopia and other similar global contexts
Advertising · Agricultural economics · Biology · Business · Economics · Flesh · Orange (colour) · Agricultural Innovations and Practices · Food Science · Marketing
Adaptive management in agricultural innovation systems
The theory of planned behavior
Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology
Drivers and barriers for the adoption of hazard-resistant construction knowledge in Nepal
Factors influencing farmers’ dis-adoption and retention decisions for biofortified crops
Modeling farmers’ adoption of low-carbon agricultural technology in Jianghan Plain, China
What determines consumption of nutritious foods by the urban poor in Africa
Effect of Farmers’ Multidimensional Beliefs on Adoption of Biofortified Crops
National incidence, prevalence and disability-adjusted life years (Dalys) of common micronutrient deficiencies in Ethiopia from 1990 to 2017
Adoption of Precision Farming Tools
Motivations and Mental Models Associated with Smallholder Farmers’ Adoption of Improved Agricultural Technology
Impacts of extension access and cooperative membership on technology adoption and household welfare
Farmers’ valuation of transgenic biofortified sorghum for nutritional improvement in Burkina Faso
Land constraints and agricultural intensification in Ethiopia
Adoption of agricultural technology in the developing world
Identifying effective message-framing techniques in behaviour change communication for healthy diets
Climate-smart cowpea adoption and welfare effects of comprehensive agricultural training programs
Golden Rice and technology adoption theory
Exploratory Factor Analysis
Limits to biofortification
| Highly cited | No |
|---|