Adoption of improved irrigation scheduling methods in Alberta: An empirical analysis

Figures & data

Table 1. Adoption of irrigation scheduling methods and its intensity in southern Alberta.

	Adoption	Adoption intensity
	Percentage of households (%)	Percentage of total irrigated area (%)
Traditional method – visual monitoring	33.17	48.46
Improved methods	66.83	51.54
Feel and appearance method	60.80	43.15
Monitoring instruments	4.52	3.24
Computer/phone	0.50	0.03
Web-based programs	1.01	0.15
Private consultants	8.04	4.97

Note:

Data source: field survey data collected by the University of Lethbridge.

Table 2. Information sources, support services, social capital and their association with adoption decisions.

			Adoption	Adoption intensity
			Adopting or not adopting^a	Proportion of irrigated area adopted^b
Information sources
	Extension agencies	Yes	0.74***	0.58**
		No	0.55	0.42
	Other government	Yes	0.58	0.53
		No	0.68	0.51
	Individual farmers or farmers’ associations	Yes	0.73	0.52
		No	0.63	0.51
	Media	Yes	0.78*	0.57
		No	0.64	0.50
Support service
	Receiving support service	Yes		0.68***
		No		0.45
Social capital
	Member of a water planning advisory council or watershed stewardship group	Yes	0.64	0.54
		No	0.67	0.51
	Member of an environmental or conservation group	Yes	0.76	0.58
		No	0.66	0.51
	Member of a recreational or social organization	Yes	0.73	0.56
		No	0.62	0.48
	Attending farm meetings	Yes	0.76**	0.59**
		No	0.61	0.46

Note:

^a When a household adopted the feel and appearance method, monitoring instruments, computer/phone, web-based programs or private consultants, it was thought to adopt improved irrigation scheduling methods.

^b The proportion of irrigated area with improved irrigation scheduling methods to the total irrigated area.

^* Absolute value of the t-statistics is significant at the 10% level;

^** absolute value of the t-statistics is significant at the 5% level;

^*** absolute value of the t-statistics is significant at the 1% level.

Table 3. Farm and household characteristics and their association with adoption decisions.

		Adoption	Adoption intensity
		Whether or not to adopt^a	Proportion of irrigated area adopted^b
Farm characteristics
Farm size (ha)
	<180	0.51	0.38
	180–560	0.70**	0.56**
	>560	0.79***	0.61***
Farm type
	Corporation	0.83***	0.69***
	Partnership	0.63	0.45
	Sole	0.51	0.35
Irrigated land as proportion of total land area
	<0.39	0.58	0.43
	0.39–0.94	0.69	0.55*
	>0.94	0.74**	0.57**
Has a livestock enterprise that uses output of crops or forages
	Yes	0.67	0.51
	No	0.66	0.52
Household characteristics
Family size (number)
	<3	0.61	0.46
	3–4	0.7	0.54
	>4	0.82**	0.66**
Number of generations with ownership of this farm
	0–1	0.52	0.42
	2	0.73**	0.53
	>2	0.73**	0.57**
Age (years)
	<52	0.77	0.56
	52–58	0.7	0.57
	>58	0.54***	0.42**
Education (bachelor’s or higher degree)
	Yes	0.74	0.61*
	No	0.65	0.49
Off-farm work
	Yes	0.56**	0.41**
	No	0.72	0.57
Farm experience (years)
	<24	0.61	0.44
	24–36	0.73	0.61**
	>36	0.67	0.49
Operating the farm before taking over its management
	Yes	0.73**	0.56*
	No	0.56	0.44
Current status of father/father-in-law (1 = working farmer; 0 = not working farmer)
	Yes	0.65	0.5
	No	0.70	0.53

Note:

^a When a household adopted the feel and appearance method, monitoring instruments, computer/phone, web-based programs or private consultants, it was thought to adopt improved irrigation scheduling methods.

^b The proportion of irrigated area with improved irrigation scheduling methods to the total irrigated area.

^* Absolute value of the t-statistics is significant at the 10% level;

^** absolute value of the t-statistics is significant at the 5% level;

^*** absolute value of the t-statistics is significant at the 1% level.

Table 4. Regression results of the determinants of farmers’ decisions on adopting improved irrigation scheduling methods (Logit model) in Alberta, Canada.

	Adoption: whether or not to adopt (1 = yes; 0 = no)
	Model 1			Model 2
	Coefficient	Marginal effect		Coefficient	Marginal effect
Information sources
Extension agencies (1 = yes; 0 = no)	0.736	0.142		0.676	0.129
	(1.50)	(1.50)		(1.35)	(1.35)
Other government (1 = yes; 0 = no)	–0.978	–0.213		–1.010	–0.219
	(1.43)	(1.43)		(1.44)	(1.44)
Individual farmers or farmers’ association (1 = yes; 0 = no)	1.293***	0.220***		1.356***	0.227***
	(2.58)	(2.58)		(2.60)	(2.60)
Media (1 = yes; 0 = no)	0.590	0.101		0.457	0.079
	(1.05)	(1.05)		(0.82)	(0.82)
Social capital
Member of a water planning advisory council or watershed stewardship group (1 = yes; 0 = no)	0.110	0.020		0.347	0.059
	(0.15)	(0.15)		(0.46)	(0.46)
Member of an environmental or conservation group (1 = yes; 0 = no)	0.727	0.116		0.897	0.135
	(1.03)	(1.03)		(1.22)	(1.22)
Member of a recreational or social organization (1 = yes; 0 = no)	–0.154	–0.029		0.097	0.018
	(0.21)	(0.21)		(0.13)	(0.13)
Attends farm meetings (1 = yes; 0 = no)	0.429	0.078		0.291	0.053
	(0.56)	(0.56)		(0.37)	(0.37)
Farm characteristics
Farm size (ha)	0.0002	0.00004		0.002*	0.0003*
	(0.75)	(0.75)		(1.96)	(1.96)
Farm type
Corporation (1 = yes; 0 = no)	1.652***	0.286***		2.213***	0.368***
	(2.98)	(2.98)		(3.29)	(3.29)
Partnership (1 = yes; 0 = no)	0.727	0.121		1.361*	0.199*
	(1.26)	(1.26)		(1.95)	(1.95)
Cross variables
Farm size × corporation				–0.001*	–0.0003*
				(1.71)	(1.71)
Farm size × partnership				–0.002*	–0.0003*
				(1.83)	(1.83)
Irrigated land as proportion of total land area	1.130	0.211		1.492*	0.275*
	(1.48)	(1.48)		(1.87)	(1.87)
Has livestock enterprise that uses output of crops or forages (1 = yes; 0 = no)	0.021	0.004		–0.108	–0.020
	(0.05)	(0.05)		(0.24)	(0.24)
Household characteristics
Family characteristics
Family size (number)	–0.081	–0.015		–0.133	–0.024
	(0.51)	(0.51)		(0.80)	(0.80)
Number of generations who have had ownership of this farm	–0.131	–0.024		–0.078	–0.014
	(0.46)	(0.46)		(0.27)	(0.27)
Farmers’ personal characteristics
Age (years)	–0.046*	–0.009*		–0.052*	–0.010*
	(1.73)	(1.73)		(1.90)	(1.90)
Education (bachelor’s or higher degree) (1 = yes; 0 = no)	0.910	0.149		0.936	0.150
	(1.62)	(1.62)		(1.62)	(1.62)
Off-farm work (1 = yes; 0 = no)	–0.605	–0.118		–0.518	–0.099
	(1.24)	(1.24)		(1.02)	(1.02)
Farm experience (years)	–0.020	–0.004		–0.017	–0.003
	(1.28)	(1.28)		(1.09)	(1.09)
Operated the farm before taking over its management (1 = yes; 0 = no)	1.093*	0.217*		1.009	0.197
	(1.81)	(1.81)		(1.63)	(1.63)
Current status of father/father-in-law (1 = working farmer; 0 = not working farmer)	–0.922**	–0.166**		–0.918**	–0.163**
	(2.08)	(2.08)		(2.02)	(2.02)
Irrigation district dummy (versus private region)
Bow River (1 = yes; 0 = no)	0.159	0.029		0.115	0.021
	(0.20)	(0.20)		(0.14)	(0.14)
Eastern (1 = yes; 0 = no)	–0.643	–0.128		–0.668	–0.132
	(0.83)	(0.83)		(0.84)	(0.84)
Lethbridge Northern (1 = yes; 0 = no)	1.503	0.198		1.667	0.207
	(1.40)	(1.40)		(1.52)	(1.52)
Raymond (1 = yes; 0 = no)	1.619	0.201		1.699	0.203
	(1.42)	(1.42)		(1.44)	(1.44)
St. Mary River (1 = yes; 0 = no)	0.338	0.059		0.387	0.066
	(0.37)	(0.37)		(0.41)	(0.41)
Western (1 = yes; 0 = no)	–1.276	–0.288		–1.291	–0.290
	(1.29)	(1.29)		(1.32)	(1.32)
Other irrigation district (1 = yes; 0 = no)	–1.147	–0.258		–1.131	–0.252
	(0.91)	(0.91)		(0.86)	(0.86)
Constant	1.754			1.388
	(0.82)			(0.64)
Observations	199			199
Pseudo R^2	0.3259			0.3424

Note:

Model 1 does not include the interaction variables between farm size and farm type, while model 2 includes their interaction variables. Absolute value of t statistic in parentheses:

^* significant at 10%,

^** significant at 5%,

^*** significant at 1%.

Table 5. Regression results of the determinants of the adoption intensity of farmers’ decisions on adopting improved irrigation scheduling methods (Tobit model) in Alberta, Canada.

	Adoption intensity Proportion of irrigated area adopted
	Model 1	Model 2
Information sources
Extension agencies (1 = yes; 0 = no)	0.108	0.089
	(1.23)	(1.02)
Other government (1 = yes; 0 = no)	–0.136	–0.133
	(1.01)	(1.00)
Individual farmers or farmers’ association (1 = yes; 0 = no)	0.197**	0.201**
	(2.28)	(2.35)
Media (1 = yes; 0 = no)	0.108	0.080
	(1.11)	(0.83)
Support services
Access to support service (1 = yes; 0 = no)	0.224**	0.200**
	(2.54)	(2.28)
Social capital
Member of a water planning advisory council or watershed stewardship group (1 = yes; 0 = no)	–0.052	–0.020
	(0.41)	(0.16)
Member of an environmental or conservation group (1 = yes; 0 = no)	0.176	0.196
	(1.40)	(1.54)
Member of a recreational or social organization (1 = yes; 0 = no)	–0.071	–0.045
	(0.56)	(0.36)
Attends farm meetings (1 = yes; 0 = no)	0.142	0.137
	(1.10)	(1.07)
Farm characteristics
Farm size (ha)	0.000	0.000**
	(1.16)	(2.27)
Farm type
Corporation (1 = yes; 0 = no)	0.341***	0.447***
	(3.74)	(4.09)
Partnership (1 = yes; 0 = no)	0.125	0.270**
	(1.13)	(2.04)
Cross variables
Farm size × corporation		–0.0003*
		(1.92)
Farm size × partnership		–0.0004**
		(2.10)
Irrigated land as proportion of total land area	0.284**	0.336**
	(2.01)	(2.36)
Has a livestock enterprise that uses output of crops or forages (1 = yes; 0 = no)	–0.061	–0.083
	(0.76)	(1.03)
Household characteristics
Family characteristics
Family size (number)	–0.003	–0.007
	(0.11)	(0.27)
Number of generations who have had ownership of this farm	–0.026	–0.016
	(0.55)	(0.35)
Farmers’ personal characteristics
Age (years)	–0.005	–0.005
	(1.09)	(1.14)
Education (bachelor’s or higher degree) (1 = yes; 0 = no)	0.196**	0.192**
	(2.17)	(2.15)
Off-farm work (1 = yes; 0 = no)	–0.120	–0.098
	(1.35)	(1.09)
Farm experience (years)	–0.004	–0.004
	(1.65)	(1.47)
Operated the farm before taking over its management (1 = yes; 0 = no)	0.114	0.105
	(1.09)	(1.02)
Current status of father/father-in-law (1 = working farmer; 0 = not working farmer)	–0.134*	–0.120
	(1.69)	(1.54)
Irrigation district dummy (versus private region)
Bow River (1 = yes; 0 = no)	–0.053	–0.083
	(0.37)	(0.59)
Eastern (1 = yes; 0 = no)	–0.249*	–0.271*
	(1.71)	(1.88)
Lethbridge Northern (1 = yes; 0 = no)	0.074	0.074
	(0.44)	(0.45)
Raymond (1 = yes; 0 = no)	0.228	0.209
	(1.19)	(1.10)
St. Mary River (1 = yes; 0 = no)	0.112	0.098
	(0.69)	(0.61)
Western (1 = yes; 0 = no)	–0.442**	–0.443**
	(2.15)	(2.20)
Other irrigation district (1 = yes; 0 = no)	–0.298	–0.310
	(1.28)	(1.35)
Constant	0.351	0.230
	(0.98)	(0.64)
Observations	199	199
Pseudo R^2	0.2576	0.2701

Note:

Model 1 does not include the interaction variables between farm size and farm type, while model 2 includes their interaction variables. Absolute value of t statistic in parentheses:

^* significant at 10%,

^** significant at 5%,

^*** significant at 1%.