A discussion on the outcomes of adopted agricultural technological products and specific sustainable development goals: Evidence from Pakistan

Figures & data

Figure 1. Spatial locations of surveyed villages in three randomly selected subdistricts (tehsils) of Punjab. Source: Own data made by using QGIS software.

Table 1. Adoption and food security status of sampled households

Adoption status	Food security (HFIAS total score = 0 “zero” = exclusive food secure)
	Exclusive food-secure households =1	Food-insecure households =0	Total
Adopters (CMBs =1)	86	57	143
Non-adopters (SCPs/otherwise =0)	26	106	132
Total	112	163	275

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of variables

Variables names	Full sample (N =275)		Adopters =1 (N =143)		Non-adopters =0 (N =132)		Difference
	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Socio-demographic variables Age in years	43.53	12.92	44.17	12.94	42.84	12.90	−1.33
Marital status (yes =1; no =0)	0.84	0.36	0.81	0.39	0.88	0.31	0.07*
Education (years of schooling)	5.70	4.41	6.87	4.17	4.44	4.33	−2.42***
Household size (Hh size)	7.62	3.39	7.58	3.21	7.66	3.59	0.08
Total number of males in Hh	3.39	1.97	3.45	1.93	3.33	2.02	−0.12
Total number of females in Hh	4.22	2.23	4.12	2.08	4.33	2.38	0.20
Total adult family labour (agri-farming)	1.52	0.82	1.53	0.83	1.50	0.80	−0.03
Hired labor (permanent, yes =1; no =0)	0.10	0.30	0.13	0.34	0.07	0.26	−0.05
Total seasonal labour male (agri-farming)	2.85	2.76	3.41	3.09	2.23	2.22	−1.18***
Total seasonal labour female (agri-farming)	3.80	3.21	4.62	3.37	2.91	2.76	−1.70***
Access to credit (yes =1; no =0)	0.41	0.49	0.39	0.48	0.43	0.49	0.04
Credit received (yes =1; no =0)	0.29	0.45	0.23	0.42	0.35	0.48	0.11**
Credit from government bank (yes =1; no =0)	0.16	0.36	0.13	0.34	0.18	0.39	0.05
Agri–extension–info via radio (yes =1; no =0)	0.26	0.44	0.32	0.46	0.19	0.39	−0.12**
Cell phone own (yes =1; no =0)	0.10	0.31	0.11	0.31	0.10	0.30	−0.005
Farm distance from the village head (km)	1.32	1.32	1.16	1.18	1.50	1.43	0.34**
Farm distance from the main road (km)	1.10	1.07	0.98	1.13	1.23	1.00	0.25*
Number of males involved in off-farm income	0.60	0.77	0.65	0.74	0.55	0.80	−0.10
Off-farm income sources (yes =1; no =0)	0.45	0.49	0.51	0.50	0.39	0.49	−0.12**
Region1 (if Vehari =1; otherwise =0) ^a	0.29	0.45	0.36	0.48	0.21	0.41	−0.15***
Region2 (if Rahimyar Khan =1; otherwise =0) ^b	0.38	0.48	0.41	0.49	0.35	0.48	−0.05
Region3 (if Pakpattan =1; otherwise =0) ^c	0.32	0.46	0.22	0.41	0.43	0.49	0.20***
Farming capital variables
Area in acres (1 acre ~ 0.404 hectares)	3.20	1.38	3.27	1.35	3.13	1.41	−0.14
Area wheat in acres	2.29	1.28	2.38	1.31	2.19	1.24	−0.18
High quality wheat seed (yes =1; no =0)	0.60	0.48	0.74	0.43	0.45	0.49	−0.29***
Area sown cotton in acres	1.88	1.43	2.09	1.37	1.51	1.46	−0.71***
Cotton seed if GM (yes =1; no =0)	0.65	0.47	0.80	0.39	0.49	0.50	−0.31***
Area sown other crops in acres	1.27	1.77	1.05	1.62	1.50	1.90	0.44**
Area cotton-wheat in acres	4.17	2.32	4.60	2.33	3.71	2.22	−0.89***
Own capital stock (yes =1; otherwise =0)	0.73	0.44	0.78	0.41	0.68	0.46	−0.10*
Farm machinery (yes =1; otherwise =0)	0.23	0.42	0.32	0.46	0.13	0.34	−0.18***
Number of milk animals	1.26	1.60	1.20	1.37	1.31	1.82	0.10

Notes: The level of significance is *** p <0.01, ** p <0.05, * p <0.1. ^aRegion1 and ^cRegion3 plots in central Punjab, ^bRegion2 plots in southern Punjab. The average distance between the randomly selected central and southern Punjab regions is approximately 400 km via National Highway.

Table 3. Estimates of the endogenous switching probit model

Food security status
	Adoption status (1/0)	Adopter households	Non-adopter households
Total number of males in household	0.05(0.04)	0.01(0.05)	−0.02(0.07)
Total number of females in household	−0.08*(0.04)	−0.05(0.05)	0.05(0.05)
Marital status of respondent (yes =1, no =0)	−0.43(0.26)	−0.41(0.27)	−0.44(0.39)
Agri–extension-info via radio (yes =1, no =0)	0.43*(0.26)	0.24(0.24)	0.54(0.50)
Cell phone own (yes =1, no =0)	−0.36(0.36)	−0.33(0.38)	0.60(0.61)
Number of milk animals	−0.04(0.05)	0.10(0.07)	0.01(0.07)
Off-farm income sources (yes =1, no =0)	0.34*(0.19)	0.52**(0.21)	0.57*(0.30)
Credit received (yes =1, no =0)	−0.38**(0.19)	−0.55**(0.23)	−0.19(0.32)
Area in acres (1 hectare = 2.47 acres)	0.04(0.04)	0.06(0.04)	0.03(0.08)
Total seasonal labour male (agri-farming)	0.08**(0.03)	0.12***(0.03)	0.05(0.07)
Total seasonal labour female (agri-farming)	0.07**(0.02)	0.05(0.03)	0.01(0.06)
Farm machinery (yes =1; otherwise =0)	0.61**(0.24)	0.64**(0.25)	0.14(0.37)
Region1 (if Vehari =1; otherwise =0)	0.26(0.22)	0.67***(0.25)	−0.93**(0.36)
Region3 (if Pakpattan =1; otherwise =0)	−0.44*(0.23)	−0.43(0.27)	−0.54(0.37)
Farm distance from the village head (km)	−0.18***(0.06)
Farm distance from the main road (km)	−0.17**(0.07)
Log pseudo-likelihood	−277.75
Pseudo-R^2 (N =143)		0.20
Pseudo-R^2 (N =132)			0.22
Wald ${\chi }^2$ (16)	52.92***
Errors correlation coefficients		ρFS 0.99***	ρNFS −0.39
Wald test of independent equations ${\chi }^2$ (2)	7.24**

Notes: Robust standard errors are in parentheses. The level of significance is *** p <0.01, ** p <0.05, * p <0.1. ρ_FS indicates the error correlation coefficient for adopters and food-secure SHFHs, and ρ_NFS indicates the correlation coefficient for adopters and food-insecure SHFHs.

Table 4. Treatment effects of CMBs adoption on the food security status

	Decision stage
Sub-samples	To Adopt	Not to Adopt	Treatment Effects
Adopter SHFHs	0.31	0.09	TT = 0.22***
	(0.01)	(0.00)	(0.01)
Non-adopter SHFHs	0.20	0.39	TU = −0.19***
	(0.00)	(0.01)	(0.01)
Heterogeneity effects	BH1 = 0.11	BH2 = −0.30	TH = 0.41***
	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)

Notes: TT stands for treatment effect on treated, TU for treatment effect on untreated, BH1 and BH2 for base heterogeneity for the SHFHs those adopted CMBs and those who did not adopt, and TH for transitional heterogeneity. Standard errors are in parentheses. The level of significance is *** p <0.01, ** p <0.05, * p <0.1

Table A1. Rotated component loading from PCA

HFIAS Questions	Comp1	Comp 2	Unexplained
Q1. In the month of shortage, did you have anxiety that you and any of your household would not have enough food?	0.47		0.11
Q2. In the month of shortage, were you and any of your households remains unable to eat the specific types of foods you like due to resource constraints?	0.50		0.06
Q3. In the month of shortage did you and any of your households have to eat limited types of foods because of resource constraints?	0.48		0.07
Q4. In the month of shortage did you and any of your household have to eat some types of foods that you and they really not preferred to eat due to resource constraints to have other varieties of food?	0.35		0.13
Q5. In the month of shortage did you and any of your household have to eat a less quantity of meal than you felt you needed due to not enough food?	0.31		0.13
Q6. In the month of shortage did you and any of your household has to eat fewer meals in a day due to not enough food?			0.18
Q7. In the month of shortage, were you and your household remain foodless of any kind due to lack of resources to obtain food?		0.51	0.06
Q8. In the month of shortage did you and any of your household goes to sleep at night hungry due to not enough food?		0.54	0.03
Q9. In the month of shortage did you and any of your household remains hungry for full day and night due to not enough food?		0.54	0.05

Table A2. Correlation of selection instruments with adoption and food security status

Correlation of adoption status with demographic attributes
	Farm distance from the main road	Farm distance from the farm of the village head
Correlation	−0.11	−0.13
p-value	0.05	0.02
Correlation of food security status with demographic attributes
	Farm distance from the main road	Farm distance from the farm of the village head
Correlation	−0.04	−0.02
p-value	0.44	0.63

Table A3. The relevance and exogeneity conditions for selection instruments

Test	Null hypothesis	p-value
Wu-Hausman test	Exclusion instruments are exogenous	F = 0.43, p = 0.51
Wooldridge’s score test	Exclusion instruments are exogenous	${\chi }^2$=0.46, p = 0.49
Anderson canonical correlation statistic	Under identification	${\chi }^2$=7.33, p = 0.02
Sargan statistic	Overidentification	${\chi }^2$=0.03, p = 0.85
Anderson-Rubin’s test	Weak instrument robust test	${\chi }^2$=0.06, p = 0.96

Table A4. Falsification approach to validate selection instrument

Dependent variable
	Adoption status	Food security status (for non-adopters)
Farm distance from the main road	−0.13* (0.07)	−0.23 (0.17)
Farm distance from the farm of the village head	−0.15** (0.07)	−0.07 (0.12)
LR chi2	75.09***	30.87***
Wald test on selection instrument	${\chi }^2$=11.88***
Number of observations	275	132

Notes: Standard errors are given in parentheses. The level of significance is *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1

Table A5. Regression estimates of adoption of CMBs from a probit model (main model)

Adoption status (1/0)	Coefficient	Standard error
Total number of males in the household	0.05	0.05
Total number of females in the household	−0.07*	0.04
Marital status (yes = 1; no = 0)	−0.36	0.26
Agri–extension-info via radio (yes = 1; no = 0)	0.48**	0.24
Cell phone own (yes = 1; no = 0)	−0.34	0.34
Number of milk animals	−0.03	0.05
Off-farm income sources (yes = 1; no = 0)	0.38**	0.18
Credit received (yes = 1; no = 0)	−0.38**	0.19
Area in acres (1 hectare = 2.47 acres)	0.04	0.03
Total seasonal labour male (agri-farming)	0.06*	0.03
Total seasonal labour female (agri-farming)	0.07**	0.03
Farm machinery (yes = 1; otherwise = 0)	0.54**	0.22
Region1 (if Vehari = 1; otherwise = 0)	0.22	0.22
Region3 (if Pakpattan = 1; otherwise = 0)	−0.45**	0.22
Farm distance from the village head (km)	−0.15**	0.07
Farm distance from the main road (km)	−0.13*	0.07
Log pseudo-likelihood	−152.85
LR ${\chi }^2$	75.09***
Number of observations	275

Notes: The level of significance is *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1

Table A6. Treatment effects of CMBs adoption on food security status (reduced model excluding all potentially endogenous variables)

	Decision stage
Sub-samples	To Adopt	Not to Adopt	Treatment Effects
Adopter SHFHs	0.31	0.09	TT = 0.22***
	(0.01)	(0.00)	(0.01)
Non-adopter SHFHs	0.21	0.39	TU = −0.18***
	(0.00)	(0.01)	(0.01)
Heterogeneity effects	BH1 = 0.10	BH2 = −0.30	TH = 0.40***
	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)

Notes: TT stands for treatment effect on treated, TU for treatment effect on untreated, BH1 and BH2 for base heterogeneity for the SHFHs those adopted CMBs and those who did not adopt, and TH for transitional heterogeneity. Standard errors are in parentheses. The level of significance is *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1

Table A7. Estimates of the endogenous switching probit model (reduced model excluding all potentially endogenous variables)

Food security status
	Adoption status (1/0)	Adopter households	Non-adopter households
Total number of males in household	0.09**(0.04)	0.07(0.05)	0.01(0.07)
Total number of females in household	−0.06(0.04)	−0.01(0.05)	0.04(0.05)
Marital status (yes = 1; no = 0)	−0.33(0.24)	−0.33(0.26)	−0.37(0.39)
Agri–extension-info via radio (yes = 1; no = 0)	0.46*(0.25)	0.11(0.28)	0.57(0.48)
Cell phone own (yes = 1; no = 0)	−0.41(0.35)	−0.27(0.35)	0.51(0.60)
Area in acres (1 hectare = 2.47 acres)	0.03(0.03)	0.06(0.04)	0.01(0.07)
Total seasonal labour male (agri-farming)	0.09**(0.03)	0.12***(0.04)	0.04(0.07)
Total seasonal labour female (agri-farming)	0.07**(0.02)	0.05*(0.03)	0.00(0.06)
Region1 (if Vehari = 1; otherwise = 0)	0.25(0.22)	0.65***(0.25)	−0.79**(0.36)
Region3 (if Pakpattan = 1; otherwise = 0)	−0.51**(0.21)	−0.42*(0.24)	−0.54*(0.33)
Farm distance from the village head (km)	−0.18***(0.06)
Farm distance from the main road (km)	−0.18***(0.06)
Log pseudo-likelihood	−295.75
Wald ${\chi }^2$ (12)	61.54***
Errors correlation coefficients		ρFS 0.90***	ρNFS −0.46
Wald test of independent equations ${\chi }^2$ (2)	4.72*

Notes: Robust standard errors are in parentheses. The level of significance is *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1. ρ_FS indicates the correlation coefficient for adopters and food secure SHFHs, and ρ_NFS indicates the errors correlation coefficient for adopters and food insecure SHFHs.

Table A8. Treatment effects of exclusive CMBs adoption versus exclusive SCPs adoption on food security status (N = 222)

	Decision stage
Sub-samples	To Adopt	Not to Adopt	Treatment Effects
Adopter SHFHs	0.39	0.06	TT = 0.33***
	(0.01)	(0.00)	(0.02)
Non-adopter SHFHs	0.25	0.29	TU = −0.04***
	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.02)
Heterogeneity effects	BH1 = 0.14	BH2 = −0.23	TH = 0.37***
	(0.02)	(0.01)	(0.02)

Notes: TT stands for treatment effect on treated, TU for treatment effect on untreated, BH1 and BH2 for base heterogeneity for the SHFHs those adopted CMBs and those who did not adopt, and TH for transitional heterogeneity. Standard errors are in parentheses. The level of significance is *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1