Research article Special Issues

Statistical Approaches Used to Assess the Equity of Access to Food Outlets: A Systematic Review

  • Received: 24 March 2015 Accepted: 19 July 2015 Published: 28 July 2015
  • Background
    Inequalities in eating behaviours are often linked to the types of food retailers accessible in neighbourhood environments. Numerous studies have aimed to identify if access to healthy and unhealthy food retailers is socioeconomically patterned across neighbourhoods, and thus a potential risk factor for dietary inequalities. Existing reviews have examined differences between methodologies, particularly focussing on neighbourhood and food outlet access measure definitions. However, no review has informatively discussed the suitability of the statistical methodologies employed; a key issue determining the validity of study findings. Our aim was to examine the suitability of statistical approaches adopted in these analyses.
    Methods
    Searches were conducted for articles published from 2000-2014. Eligible studies included objective measures of the neighbourhood food environment and neighbourhood-level socio-economic status, with a statistical analysis of the association between food outlet access and socio-economic status.
    Results
    Fifty-four papers were included. Outlet accessibility was typically defined as the distance to the nearest outlet from the neighbourhood centroid, or as the number of food outlets within a neighbourhood (or buffer). To assess if these measures were linked to neighbourhood disadvantage, common statistical methods included ANOVA, correlation, and Poisson or negative binomial regression. Although all studies involved spatial data, few considered spatial analysis techniques or spatial autocorrelation.
    Conclusions
    With advances in GIS software, sophisticated measures of neighbourhood outlet accessibility can be considered. However, approaches to statistical analysis often appear less sophisticated. Care should be taken to consider assumptions underlying the analysis and the possibility of spatially correlated residuals which could affect the results.

    Citation: Karen E. Lamb, Lukar E. Thornton, Ester Cerin, Kylie Ball. Statistical Approaches Used to Assess the Equity of Access to Food Outlets: A Systematic Review[J]. AIMS Public Health, 2015, 2(3): 358-401. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2015.3.358

    Related Papers:

    [1] Mansour Hani A, Osama A. Nofal, Maybelle S. Gaballah, Adel B. El-Nasharty . Management of two irrigation systems and Algae Foliar application on wheat plant growth. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2019, 4(3): 824-832. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.3.824
    [2] Nionela V. Kononenko, Aleksandra A. Sharova, Larisa I. Fedoreyeva . Tissue damage to wheat seedlings (Triticum aestivum) under salt exposure. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2020, 5(3): 395-407. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2020.3.395
    [3] Admasu F. Worku, Karta K. Kalsa, Merkuz Abera, Habtu G. Nigus . Effects of storage strategies on physicochemical properties of stored wheat in Ethiopia. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2019, 4(3): 578-591. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.3.578
    [4] Robert Ugochukwu Onyeneke, Mark Umunna Amadi, Francis Chidi Anosike . Biofortification in Nigeria: A systematic review. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2019, 4(4): 892-906. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.4.892
    [5] Penda Sissoko, Gry Synnevag, Jens B. Aune . Effects of low-cost agricultural technology package on income, cereal surplus production, household expenditure, and food security in the drylands of Mali. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2022, 7(1): 22-36. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2022002
    [6] Robert Ugochukwu Onyeneke, Chinyere Augusta Nwajiuba, Chukwuemeka Chinonso Emenekwe, Anurika Nwajiuba, Chinenye Judith Onyeneke, Precious Ohalete, Uwazie Iyke Uwazie . Climate change adaptation in Nigerian agricultural sector: A systematic review and resilience check of adaptation measures. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2019, 4(4): 967-1006. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.4.967
    [7] Loïc Parrenin, Christophe Danjou, Bruno Agard, Robert Beauchemin . Future trends in organic flour milling: the role of AI. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2023, 8(1): 48-77. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2023003
    [8] Afsaneh Merat, Mohammad Sadegh Allahyari, Alireza Seidavi, William Hubbard . Factors influencing the adoption of sericulture by farmers in Guilan Province, Iran. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2018, 3(1): 26-40. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2018.1.26
    [9] A. Burhan, G. Rasul, T. Qadir, S. Hussain, M. Saqib, S.A.A. Bukhari . Environmental policies to protect pollinators: attributes and actions needed to avert climate borne crisis of oil seed agriculture in Pakistan. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2017, 2(3): 233-250. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2017.3.233
    [10] Shadrack Mubanga Chisenga, Tilahun Seyoum Workneh, Geremew Bultosa, Mark Laing . Characterization of physicochemical properties of starches from improved cassava varieties grown in Zambia. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2019, 4(4): 939-966. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.4.939
  • Background
    Inequalities in eating behaviours are often linked to the types of food retailers accessible in neighbourhood environments. Numerous studies have aimed to identify if access to healthy and unhealthy food retailers is socioeconomically patterned across neighbourhoods, and thus a potential risk factor for dietary inequalities. Existing reviews have examined differences between methodologies, particularly focussing on neighbourhood and food outlet access measure definitions. However, no review has informatively discussed the suitability of the statistical methodologies employed; a key issue determining the validity of study findings. Our aim was to examine the suitability of statistical approaches adopted in these analyses.
    Methods
    Searches were conducted for articles published from 2000-2014. Eligible studies included objective measures of the neighbourhood food environment and neighbourhood-level socio-economic status, with a statistical analysis of the association between food outlet access and socio-economic status.
    Results
    Fifty-four papers were included. Outlet accessibility was typically defined as the distance to the nearest outlet from the neighbourhood centroid, or as the number of food outlets within a neighbourhood (or buffer). To assess if these measures were linked to neighbourhood disadvantage, common statistical methods included ANOVA, correlation, and Poisson or negative binomial regression. Although all studies involved spatial data, few considered spatial analysis techniques or spatial autocorrelation.
    Conclusions
    With advances in GIS software, sophisticated measures of neighbourhood outlet accessibility can be considered. However, approaches to statistical analysis often appear less sophisticated. Care should be taken to consider assumptions underlying the analysis and the possibility of spatially correlated residuals which could affect the results.


    1. Introduction

    Presently, developing countries are facing two key challenges such as ensuring food security and poverty alleviation. The enhancement of crop production is considered an important for improving the welfare of small-scale farmers in these countries. With rapidly growing population rate and limited cultivable farm land, in the agriculture sector technological involvement seems to be the only viable option for developing economies to feed the increasing population and generate employment. The adoption rate of high-yield varieties by large and smallholder farmers is expected to provide impetus to increase crop production, which can help to reduce poverty and increase rural household food security [1,2,3]. Pakistan's economy is primarily based on agriculture sector and this sector accounts for almost 19.5% to the GDP and employs 42.3% of the labor force. An estimated population of Pakistan is 199.1 million. Out of total population 80.72 million lives in urban areas whereas 118.38 million lives in rural areas, which are directly or indirectly engaged in farming related activities for their livelihood [4]. In terms of the cultivated area, production and yield, wheat is the largest and main staple food crop followed by rice and maize in Pakistan. Wheat crop alone contributes 9.6% value addition in agriculture and 1.9% to the GDP of Pakistan [4]. For 2016–2017, area sown for wheat is estimated at 9052 (000 hectares), 1.9% lower than last year's area sown of 9224 (000 hectares). The estimated wheat production remained 25.750 million tonnes, indicating an increase 0.5% over the last year's production of 25.633 million tonnes (GOP, 2017) (Table 1).

    Table 1. Area, production and yield of wheat in Pakistan.
    Year Area Production Yield
    (000 Hectares) Change (%) (000 Tonnes) Change (%) (Kgs/Hec.) Change (%)
    2010–2011 8,901 −2.5 25,214 8.2 2833 11.0
    2011–2012 8,650 −2.8 23,473 −6.9 2714 −4.2
    2012–2013 8,660 0.1 24,211 3.1 2796 3.0
    2013–2014 9,199 6.2 25,979 7.3 2824 1.0
    2014–2015 9,204 0.1 25,086 −3.4 2726 −3.5
    2015–2016 9,224 0.2 25,633 2.2 2779 1.9
    2016–2017a 9,052 −1.9 25,750 0.5 2845 2.4
    Note: a Provisional (July–March). Source: GOP (2014, 2017 p. 28, 24)
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    In Pakistan, since 1971 almost one hundred and seven (107) improved wheat varieties have been developed and released. About 25 percent leads to increase in wheat productivity by using improved varieties [5]. The main varieties grown throughout the Sindh province of Pakistan are such as Benazir, Galaxy, TD1, SKD1 (Sakrand-I), Kiran, Abdul Sattar, Maxi, Sahher and local Sindhi respectively [6,7,8]. However, rate of adoption of improved high-yield wheat varieties is quite low in developing countries like Pakistan. The small-scale wheat farmers make use of traditional varieties whose productivity is quite low as compared to the improved wheat varieties. It is due to various technical and socio-economic constraints including limited supply of improved seeds varieties, less adoption of modern agricultural technology, high prices of fertilizers and inadequate credit facilities for purchase of agricultural inputs are the major socio-economic constraints [9,10,11].

    Farooq et al. [10] observed that less accessibility and high prices of improved wheat varieties are the main reasons for its quite low adoption and resulted in lower wheat production in Pakistan. Similarly, Pandit et al. [12] observed that replacement of traditional wheat varieties with improved and certified varieties increased wheat productivity. The extensively adoption of improved wheat varieties will manifold the wheat production in Bangladesh. Adoption of IWVs compared to the conventional varieties increased the wheat production and doubled the returns for wheat crop growers [13]. To solve these problems, public seed sectors such as Pakistan Agricultural Research Council (PARC), Punjab Seed Corporation (PSC), Sindh Seed Corporation (SSC), NWFP Agricultural Development Authority (ADA), Balochistan Department of Agriculture (BDA), and private seed sectors including 367 national seed companies including 5 multinational seed companies have made restless efforts to bring about change in agricultural production system of the farmers. They have introduced modern agricultural technologies like use of improved high-yield varieties, fertilizers and as well as improved farm implements, in relation to crops, which seem to increase in yield. This shows that there are various factors directly or indirectly affecting adoption of modern agricultural technologies that are believed to bring about change in farmers' productivity [14]. Improving agricultural productivity at the household level is important to achieve food security [15]. The determinants of adoption of IWVs has been examined for several countries in different regions of the world including China [16], India [17], Turkey [18], Ethiopia [19,20,21,22], Nigeria [23], Ghana [24], Kenya [25], Sudan [26], Tanzania [27] and Eastern Zambia [28], respectively. In Pakistan few studies have done [6,7,8,29,30,31], but they examined technical efficiency of yield of wheat and impact of agricultural credit on the yield of wheat. Several socioeconomic factors affecting adoption of wheat varieties such as farm size [18,32,33,34,35], farm assets like tube-well and tractor-ownership [36,37], household savings [38], off-farm income [39,40,41], financial constraints [42], accessibility of credit [8,43,44,45], ownership of livestock [46], own farmland, non-farm work [47], gender of the household head [3,48,49,50], formal education, family size, experience, market distance, appropriate usage of fertilizers, better irrigation systems, hired labour, fertility of soil, climatic conditions [7,39,51,52,53], contact with extension agents, participating in several agricultural related programs and trainings, membership to farmer groups [54], field visit days [55] and use of information communication technology (ICT) [56,57,58], respectively. Therefore, the main purpose of the present paper is to assess the determinants of adoption of improved wheat varieties in Sindh, Pakistan.


    2. Materials and methods


    2.1. Study area and sampling method

    The field survey was conducted in two districts of Sindh province of Pakistan namely Shaheed Benazirabad previously known as Nawabshah and Naushahro Feroze. The total area of district Shaheed Benazirabad is 4502 Sq.Kms whereas total population is 1,071,533 persons. Out of total population, 282,359 (26.35 percent) live in urban areas while 789,174 (83.19%) live in rural areas. The average family size of this district is 6.0 [59]. On the other hand, the area of district Naushahro Feroze is 2945 Sq.Kms. Further, total population of this district is 1,087,571 persons. Out of total population, 192,404 (17.69 percent) live in urban areas and 895,167 (82.31 percent) live in villages. The average family size of this district is 5.8 [59]. Agriculture is the main activity in these two districts of Sindh province of Pakistan and main crops grown are wheat, sugarcane, rice, maize vegetables and fruits, respectively. Agriculture sector of these districts is in transition phase and modern agricultural technology is being adopted quite rapidly by large and smallholder farmers and as a consequence the crops production as well as the food security situation improved over the last few years. The present paper used survey data, which was collected from two districts of Sindh province of Pakistan during November to December, 2016. The data were collected using multi-stage random sampling method. At the first stage, Sindh province was purposely selected. At the second stage, two districts (Shaheed Benazirabad and Naushahro Feroze) were randomly selected for this study, where wheat is one of the major crops grown. Eight villages from each district were randomly selected at the third stage. At the final stage, 240 wheat farmers from selected villages (15 wheat farmers from each village) were personally interviewed using the well-designed detailed survey questionnaires. The survey covered a number of socioeconomic characteristics information of the sampled wheat farmers such as age formal education, family size, farming experience, farm size, market distance, credit availability, extension, tractor ownership and tube-well ownership, respectively. The data was analyzed utilizing probit regression model to determine the factor influencing adoption of IWVs in the study area.


    2.2. Theoretical and empirical framework

    Adoption of modern agricultural technology and usage of main farm inputs are the outcomes of optimization by heterogeneous agents [60,61]. This optimization takes place in the existence of information, accessibility of formal credit, constraint budget and the availability of modern agricultural technology and other farm inputs. Consequently, farmers are assumed to maximize their utility function subject to these constraints [62]. The variance among the utility from adoption of improved varieties (UiA) and the utility from not adoption of modern agricultural technology (UiN) may be represented as (Ui*) such that a utility maximizing the rural household, i, will choose to adopt modern agricultural technology if the utility gained from adopting is higher than the utility from not adopting modern agricultural technology $({\rm{U}}_{\rm{i}}^{\rm{*}}{\rm{}} = {\rm{}}{{\rm{U}}_{{\rm{iA}}}} - {{\rm{U}}_{{\rm{iN}}}} > 0)$. Meanwhile these utilities are unobservable, they can be shown as a function of observable elements in the latent variable model as expressed in Eq.1. By following studies [61,62,63,64,65] the adoption decision can be modeled in a random utility framework as follows:

    $ Ui=Xiϕ+μiUi={1 if U>00 otherwise}
    $
    (1)

    Where, Ui* is the latent variable which denotes the probability of the farmer's decision to adopt IWVs, and takes the value '1' if the farmers adopt IWVs, '0' otherwise. The term X'i indicates explanatory variables explaining the adoption decision, ϕ is a vector of parameters to be estimated, and μi denotes the error term assumed to be independent and normally distributes as μi~N(0, σ2). Based on the above mentioned theoretical model and earlier studies experiences [62,63,65,66,67,68,69] we selected our explanatory variables and specified an empirical probit regression model as follows:

    $Ui=ψ0+ψ1X1+ψ2X2+ψ3X3+ψ4X4+ψ5X5+ψ6X6+ψ7X7+ψ8X8+ψ9X9+ψ10X10+ξi
    $
    (2)

    Where, Ui is adoption of improved wheat varieties (1 if the farmer adopts improved wheat varieties and 0 otherwise), X1 denotes age of household head in (years), X2 represents household head's schooling in (years), X3 represents farming experience in (years), X4 represents household size in (numbers), X5represents farm size in (acres), X6 represents market distance in (Km), X7 represents tractor ownership (1 for ownership, 0 otherwise), X8 represents tube-well (1 for ownership, 0 otherwise), X9 represents extinction (1 for contact to extension, 0 otherwise), X10 represents credit facility (1 if household have availed credit facility, 0 otherwise), ψ0 to ψ10 are the coefficient terms and ξi is the error term.


    3. Results and discussion


    3.1. Descriptive analysis

    Summary statistics and explanation of the variables are displayed in Table 2. The results show that the average age of the household head is 42 years while an average of 7 years, farmers had formal education. Whereas, the average farming experience of the farmers is 25 years. The average family size is almost 9 persons in the study area. Further, land assets are very much important endowment for rural households; an average farm size is almost 14 acres. The mean distance from village to the inputs market is about 8 kilometers. Additionally, about 37 percent respondents had tractor ownership. After the tractor ownership, tube-well ownership of the respondents is the next very important farm asset and about 53 percent of the respondents had their own tube-wells. Finally, about 48 percent of the wheat farmers had access to extension services while 68 percent had availed credit facility.

    Table 2. Socio-economic characteristics of the wheat growers.
    Variable Description Mean SD
    Age Age of household head in years 42.875 11.565
    Education Household head's schooling in years 7.008 4.818
    Experience Experience of the sample respondents in years 25.795 7.623
    Household size Number of total family members in the household 8.916 2.569
    Farm size Area under wheat crop in acres 13.621 12.921
    Distance Distance of market in kilometers 8.033 4.550
    Tractor 1 if farmer has tractor ownership, 0 otherwise 0.379 0.486
    Tube-well 1 if farmer has tube-well ownership, 0 otherwise 0.533 0.499
    Extension 1 if farmer has extension contact, 0 otherwise 0.483 0.500
    Credit facility 1 if farmer has availed credit facility, 0 otherwise 0.683 0.466
    Source: Survey results, 2016.
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Table 3 reports the difference in a number of socioeconomic characteristics of the sampled farmers that adopted the improved wheat varieties and those that did not adopt in the study area. The results show that the difference in formal education is negative and statistically significant at 1% between adopters and non-adopters of improved wheat varieties. Likewise, the difference in farming experience is negative and significant at 5 percent. Similarly, the mean area allocated to adopters and non-adopters of improved wheat varieties is 17.48 and 11.62 acres and the difference in farm size is negative and significant at 5 percent. Additionally, the results show that the difference in distance of inputs market is positive and statistically significant at 10 percent, demonstrating that not adopters of improved wheat varieties farmers are farther away from main inputs markets compared to adopters of improved wheat varieties in the study area. In addition, most of adopter of improved wheat varieties had farm assets ownership like tractor and tube-well ownership and had more access to credit, compared with non-adopters of improved wheat varieties. Finally, there is no significant difference in age, household size and access to extension services between both groups of adopters and non-adopters of improved wheat varieties in the study area.

    Table 3. Difference in socioeconomic characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of IWVs.
    Variable Adopter Non-adopter Difference t-value
    Age 44.3443 43.3770 −0.96721 −0.418
    Education 8.6066 6.4754 −2.13115 −2.625***
    Experience 27.5246 24.5410 −2.98361 −2.396**
    Household size 9.1475 9.0164 −0.13115 −0.277
    Farm size 17.4867 11.6269 −5.85984 −2.237**
    Access to credit 0.9016 0.6557 −0.24590 −3.223***
    Access to extension service 0.3934 0.4426 0.04918 0.477
    Distance to market 8.3443 9.6885 1.34426 1.673*
    Tractor ownership 0.4262 0.2623 −0.16393 −1.800*
    Tube-well ownership 0.4754 0.2459 −0.22951 −2.425***
    Note: ***, ** and * imply 1, 5 and 10 percent level of significance, respectively.
    Source: Survey results, 2016.
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    3.2. Empirical analysis


    3.2.1. Determinants to the adoption of improved wheat varieties

    In Sindh, Pakistan, improved wheat varieties are produced and marketed by the formal sectors and directly purchased by rural households from public like Sindh Seed Cooperation (SSC) and private companies include Bayer Pakistan (Private) Limited, FMC, Syngenta and Four Brothers Seeds Corporation Pakistan under a better quality assurance system was defined as improved or certified seed. In Rabi season (October–November), wheat is mainly grown in over all areas of Sindh, Pakistan and is harvested in March and May [6,7,70]. Probit regression model was employed in estimating factors that affect adoption of improved wheat varieties. The empirical results of the model are reported in Table 4. This study used dummy dependent variable, which takes the value 1 if the farmer adopted improved wheat varieties and 0 otherwise. The LR chi2 value is statistically highly significant at 1 percent level, demonstrating the robustness of variables included in the probit regression model. Education plays a fundamental role in adopting of new agricultural technology; the coefficient of education is significant at 10 percent and positively associated to the adoption of improved wheat varieties. This results show that better educated farmers get technical information on new technology from research stations and extension contact. Further, educated farmers more likely to adopt improved wheat varieties, which is consistent with the findings of the studies [71,72,73,74], they found significant relation of education with adoption of improved wheat varieties. The coefficient of farming experience variable is significant at 5 percent and showing positive association with adoption of improved wheat varieties. This result implies that more experienced wheat growers have better technical knowledge, able to assess the ricks related with use of modern agricultural technology and are more likely to be getting possible profits from investment in new technology [37,75,76]. The study further shows that the coefficient of farm size variable is also significant at 5 percent and positively associated with adoption of improved wheat varieties. The land as a basic input shows that large landholding farmers are more likely to have more opportunities to learn about modern technologies by first experimenting with innovations to see their results before adopting on large scale. This finding is confirmatory with the findings of the studies [8,19,72,73], who found positive effects of farm size on adoption of the new technology. The coefficient of distance to market is statistically insignificant and showing right positive linked with adoption of IWVs in the study area; this means distance increase to inputs market increase transaction and information costs, thus, reducing the likelihood of the farmers to adopt new wheat technology [64,72,77,78,79,80]. The coefficient of tube-well ownership is found to be significant at 5 percent, while the coefficient of extension contact is positive but not significant. Finally, the coefficient of credit facility is found to be significant at 5 percent and showing positive association with adoption of IWVs. Credit availability is a very important factor in adoption of new technology. This result implies that those wheat growers with credit facilities are more likely to adopt improved wheat varieties in the study area. This result is confirmatory with the findings of the studies [23,72,81].

    Table 4. Parameter estimates the adoption of improved wheat varieties.
    Variable Coefficient z P > |z| [95% Conf. Interval]
    Age −0.0078 (0.0136) −0.57 0.567 −0.0346818 0.0189987
    Education 0.0402 (0.0236) 1.70* 0.089 −0.0060631 0.0865111
    Experience 0.0396 (0.0209) 1.89** 0.059 −0.0014363 0.080819
    Household size 0.0737 (0.0589) 1.25 0.211 −0.0417276 0.189311
    Farm size 0.0273 (0.0135) 2.01** 0.044 0.0007342 0.0539923
    Distance 0.0035 (0.0241) 0.15 0.884 −0.0438694 0.0509503
    Tractor ownership −1.0944 (0.3004) −3.64*** 0.000 −1.683318 −0.5055991
    Tube-well ownership 0.5327 (0.2725) 1.96** 0.051 −0.0013344 1.066876
    Extension 0.1368 (0.2182) 0.63 0.530 −0.2907848 0.5645794
    Credit 0.4422 (0.2333) 1.90** 0.058 −0.015149 0.8997058
    Constant −1.1119 (0.6444) −1.73* 0.084 −2.374994 0.1511511
    LR chi2 (10)
    >Prob > chi2
    >Pseudo R2
    >Pseudo likelihood
    32.19
    >0.0004
    >0.1488
    >−92.04176
    Note: Robust standard errors in parentheses. ***, ** and * imply 1, 5 and 10 percent level of significance, respectively.
    Source: Survey results, 2016.
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    3.2.2. Marginal effect analysis

    Adoption of improved wheat varieties is likely to be influenced by several socioeconomic characteristics of the wheat farmers. Table 5 reports the results of marginal effects analysis. The findings of marginal effects estimation show that education, farming experience, household size, landholding size, tube-well ownership, extension contact and credit availability positively influenced the adoption rate of improved wheat varieties in the study area. The marginal coefficients of education level is (β2 = 0.0082), which imply that 1 percent increase in formal education, the probability of adopting improved wheat varieties will increase at 0.0082 percent. Likewise, the coefficient of farming experience is (β3 = 0.0081); this implies that 1 percent increase in farming experience; the adopting probability of the wheat grower would increase by 0.0081 percent. Whereas, the coefficient of household size is (β4 = 0.0150). Further, the coefficient of farm size is (β5 = 0.00055); this results implies that 1 percent increase in farm size the adopting probability of the wheat grower would increase by 0.0055 percent. The coefficients of tube-well ownership, extension contact and credit availability were positive and significant. These results imply that 1 percent increase in these variables the probability of adopting of improved wheat varieties will enhance by 0.11, 0.02 and 0.09 percent, respectively.

    Table 5. Determining adoption of improved wheat varieties (Marginal Effect).
    Variable Marginal effect z P > |z| [95% Conf. Interval]
    Age −0.0016 (0.0028) −0.57 0.568 −0.007093 −0.007093
    Education 0.0082 (0.0047) 1.73* 0.084 −0.0011 0.01753
    Experience 0.0081 (0.0041) 1.94** 0.053 −0.000094 0.016306
    Household size 0.0150 (0.0119) 1.26 0.209 −0.00842 0.038561
    Farm size 0.0055 (0.0026) 2.10** 0.036 0.000368 0.010809
    Distance 0.0007 (0.0049) 0.15 0.884 −0.008963 0.010409
    Tractor ownership −0.2584 (0.0745) −3.47*** 0.001 −0.404576 −0.112353
    Tube-well ownership 0.1111 (0.0574) 1.93** 0.053 −0.001456 0.223758
    Extension 0.0279 (0.0446) 0.63 0.532 −0.05958 0.115437
    Credit 0.0997 (0.0576) 1.73* 0.084 −0.013241 0.212803
    Note: Robust standard errors in parentheses. ***, ** and * imply 1, 5 and 10 percent level of significance, respectively.
    Source: Survey results, 2016.
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    4. Conclusions and policy implications

    Adoption of improved high-yield variety is a key input factor for the enhancement of crop production and food security status of the farmers in Pakistan. On the other hand, in rural Pakistan, rate of adoption of improved wheat varieties is relatively low, especially among smallholder farmers. The main purpose of this research is to examine the determinants of adoption of improved wheat varieties in Sindh, Pakistan by using the probit model. This study used a random sampling method to collect the data from 240 wheat growers through a face to face interview. The results drawn from the estimations reveal that the adoption of improved wheat varieties by farmers in the study area was positively and significantly influenced by education, farming experience, landholding size, tube-well ownership, extension contact and access to credit. Based on the empirical findings of this paper, our study suggests that public and private sectors should encourage access to extension service to improve of dissemination of certified seed of wheat crop among the growers through trainings, workshops and seminars, respectively. Credit availability was found as one of the very important factors influencing the adoption of improved wheat varieties in the study areas. In rural areas of Pakistan, agricultural credit is mainly provided to the farmers by ZTBL, Commercial Banks, Domestic Private Banks, Microfinance Institutions and NGOs, respectively. Credit facilities are very important for the growth of agricultural sector and rural development. Therefore, it is also recommend that formal sources of credit should supply timely and easy agricultural credit to farmers at the sowing time of wheat crop and farmers get more benefit.


    Acknowledgments

    The authors of this paper are sincerely thanks the editor and anonymous reviewers for their insight comments that have significantly improved the manuscript. The authors are also thankful to the College of Economics, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, China for its financial and moral support.


    Conflict of interest

    The authors of this research work declare that they have no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.


    [1] Lemmens VEPP, Oenema A, Klepp KI, et al. (2008) A systematic review of the evidence regarding efficacy of obesity prevention interventions among adults. Obes Rev 9: 446-455. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2008.00468.x
    [2] Shaw K, O'Rourke P, Del Mar C, et al. (2005) Psychological interventions for overweight or obesity. Cochrane Database Syst Rev: CD003818.
    [3] Swinburn B, Egger G, Raza F (1999) Dissecting obesogenic environments: the development and application of a framework for identifying and prioritizing environmental interventions for obesity. Prev Med 29: 563-570. doi: 10.1006/pmed.1999.0585
    [4] McLaren L (2007) Socioeconomic status and obesity. Epidemiol Rev 29: 29-48. doi: 10.1093/epirev/mxm001
    [5] Block JP, Scribner RA, DeSalvo KB (2004) Fast food, race/ethnicity, and income: a geographic analysis. Am J Prev Med 27: 211-217.
    [6] Cummins SCJ, McKay L, MacIntyre S (2005) McDonald's restaurants and neighborhood deprivation in Scotland and England. Am J Prev Med 29: 308-310. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2005.06.011
    [7] Zenk SN, Schulz AJ, Israel BA, et al. (2005) Neighborhood racial composition, neighborhood poverty, and the spatial accessibility of supermarkets in metropolitan Detroit. Am J Public Health 95: 660-667. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.042150
    [8] Smith DM, Cummins S, Taylor M, et al. (2010) Neighbourhood food environment and area deprivation: spatial accessibility to grocery stores selling fresh fruit and vegetables in urban and rural settings. Int J Epidemiol 39: 277-284. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyp221
    [9] Powell LM, Slater S, Mirtcheva D, et al. (2007) Food store availability and neighborhood characteristics in the United States. Prev Med 44: 189-195. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2006.08.008
    [10] Black C, Moon G, Baird J (2013) Dietary inequalities: What is the evidence for the effect of the neighbourhood food environment? Health Place.
    [11] Beaulac J, Kristjansson E, Cummins S (2009) A systematic review of food deserts, 1966-2007. Prev Chron Dis 6: A105.
    [12] Black JL, Macinko J (2008) Neighborhoods and obesity. Nutr Rev 66: 2-20. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-4887.2007.00001.x
    [13] Larson NI, Story MT, Nelson MC (2009) Neighborhood environments disparities in access to healthy foods in the U.S. Am J Prev Med 36: 74-81. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2008.09.025
    [14] Walker RE, Keane CR, Burke JG (2010) Disparities and access to healthy food in the United States: A review of food deserts literature. Health Place 16: 876-884. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.04.013
    [15] Fleischhacker SE, Evenson KR, Rodriguez DA, et al. (2011) A systematic review of fast food access studies. Obes Rev 12: e460-e471. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2010.00715.x
    [16] Fraser LK, Edwards KL, Cade J, et al. (2010) The geography of fast food outlets: a review. Int J Environ Res Publ Health 7: 2290-2308. doi: 10.3390/ijerph7052290
    [17] Hilmers A, Hilmers DC, Dave J (2012) Neighborhood disparities in access to healthy foods and their effects on environmental justice. Am J Public Health 102: 1644-1654. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2012.300865
    [18] Ford PB, Dzewaltowski DA (2008) Disparities in obesity prevalence due to variation in the retail food environment: three testable hypotheses. Nutr Rev 66: 216-228. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-4887.2008.00026.x
    [19] Wells CS, Hintze JM (2007) Dealing with assumptions underlying statistical tests. Psychol Schools 44: 495-502. doi: 10.1002/pits.20241
    [20] Havlicek LL, Peterson NL (1974) Robustness of t test - a guide for researchers on effect of violations of assumptions. Psychol Rep 34: 1095-1114. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1974.34.3c.1095
    [21] Burgoine T, Alvanides S, Lake AA (2013) Creating‘obesogenic realities’; do our methodological choices make a difference when measuring the food environment? Int J Health Geogr 12: 33. doi: 10.1186/1476-072X-12-33
    [22] Fotheringham AS, Brunsdon C, Charlton M (2002) Geographically weighted regression: the analysis of spatially varying relationships: Chichester, England: John Wiley, 2002.
    [23] Glanz K, Sallis JF, Saelens BE, et al. (2005) Healthy nutrition environments: concepts and measures. Am J Health Promot 19: 330-333, ii. doi: 10.4278/0890-1171-19.5.330
    [24] Holsten JE (2009) Obesity and the community food environment: a systematic review. Public Health Nutr 12: 397-405.
    [25] Lennon JJ (2000) Red-shifts and red herrings in geographical ecology. Ecography 23: 101-113. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2000.tb00265.x
    [26] Dale MRT, Fortin MJ (2002) Spatial autocorrelation and statistical tests in ecology. Ecoscience 9: 162-167.
    [27] Chi G, Zhu J (2008) Spatial regression models for demographic analysis. Popul Res Policy Rev 27: 17-42. doi: 10.1007/s11113-007-9051-8
    [28] Dormann CF (2007) Effects of incorporating spatial autocorrelation into the analysis of species distribution data. Global Ecol Biogeogr 16: 129-138. doi: 10.1111/j.1466-8238.2006.00279.x
    [29] Cushon J, Creighton T, Kershaw T, et al. (2013) Deprivation and food access and balance in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Chronic Dis Inj Can 33: 146-159.
    [30] Lee G, Lim H (2009) A spatial statistical approach to identifying areas with poor access to grocery foods in the city of Buffalo, New York. Urban Stud 46: 1299-1315. doi: 10.1177/0042098009104567
    [31] Schneider S, Gruber J (2013) Neighbourhood deprivation and outlet density for tobacco, alcohol and fast food: first hints of obesogenic and addictive environments in Germany. Public Health Nutr 16: 1168-1177. doi: 10.1017/S1368980012003321
    [32] Bower KM, Thorpe RJ, Jr., Rohde C, et al. (2014) The intersection of neighborhood racial segregation, poverty, and urbanicity and its impact on food store availability in the United States. Prev Med 58: 33-39. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2013.10.010
    [33] Thornton L, Pearce J, Kavanagh A (2011) Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to assess the role of the built environment in influencing obesity: a glossary. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 8: 71. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-8-71
    [34] Moore LV, Diez Roux AV (2006) Associations of neighborhood characteristics with the location and type of food stores. Am J Public Health 96: 325-331. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.058040
    [35] Anchondo TM, Ford PB (2011) Neighborhood deprivation, neighborhood acculturation, and the retail food environment in a US-Mexico border urban area. J Hunger Environ Nutr 6: 207-219. doi: 10.1080/19320248.2011.576214
    [36] Morland K, Wing S, Diez Roux A, et al. (2002) Neighborhood characteristics associated with the location of food stores and food service places. Am J Prev Med 22: 23-29. doi: 10.1016/S0749-3797(01)00403-2
    [37] Powell LA, Chaloupka FJ, Bao Y (2007) The availability of fast-food and full-service restaurants in the United States - Associations with neighborhood characteristics. Am J Prev Med 33: S240-S245. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2007.07.005
    [38] Hurvitz PM, Moudon AV, Rehm CD, et al. (2009) Arterial roads and area socioeconomic status are predictors of fast food restaurant density in King County, WA. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 6.
    [39] Kawakami N, Winkleby M, Skog L, et al. (2011) Differences in neighborhood accessibility to health-related resources: A nationwide comparison between deprived and affluent neighborhoods in Sweden. Health Place 17: 132-139. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.09.005
    [40] Black JL, Carpiano RM, Fleming S, et al. (2011) Exploring the distribution of food stores in British Columbia: associations with neighbourhood socio-demographic factors and urban form. Health Place 17: 961-970. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2011.04.002
    [41] Svastisalee CM, Nordah H, Glumer C, et al. (2011) Supermarket and fast-food outlet exposure in Copenhagen: associations with socio-economic and demographic characteristics. Public Health Nutr 14: 1618-1626. doi: 10.1017/S1368980011000759
    [42] Molaodi OR, Leyland AH, Ellaway A, et al. (2012) Neighbourhood food and physical activity environments in England, UK: Does ethnic density matter? Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 9: 75. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-9-75
    [43] Lisabeth LD, Sanchez BN, Escobar J, et al. (2010) The food environment in an urban Mexican American community. Health Place 16: 598-605. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.01.005
    [44] Kwate NO, Yau CY, Loh JM, et al. (2009) Inequality in obesigenic environments: fast food density in New York City. Health Place 15: 364-373. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2008.07.003
    [45] Baker EA, Schootman M, Barnidge E, et al. (2006) The role of race and poverty in access to foods that enable individuals to adhere to dietary guidelines. Prev Chronic Dis 3: A76.
    [46] Jaime PC, Duran AC, Sarti FM, et al. (2011) Investigating environmental determinants of diet, physical activity, and overweight among adults in Sao Paulo, Brazil. J Urban Health 88: 567-581. doi: 10.1007/s11524-010-9537-2
    [47] Macintyre S, McKay L, Cummins S, et al. (2005) Out-of-home food outlets and area deprivation: case study in Glasgow, UK. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2: 16. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-2-16
    [48] Apparicio P, Cloutier MS, Shearmur R (2007) The case of Montréal's missing food deserts: evaluation of accessibility to food supermarkets. Int J Health Geogr 6: 4. doi: 10.1186/1476-072X-6-4
    [49] Sharkey JR, Horel S, Han D, et al. (2009) Association between neighborhood need and spatial access to food stores and fast food restaurants in neighborhoods of colonias. Int J Health Geogr 8.
    [50] Hill JL, Chau C, Luebbering CR, et al. (2012) Does availability of physical activity and food outlets differ by race and income? Findings from an enumeration study in a health disparate region. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 9.
    [51] Howard PH, Fulfrost B (2007) The density of retail food outlets in the central coast region of California: associations with income and Latino ethnic composition. J Hunger Environ Nutr 2: 3-18. doi: 10.1080/19320240802077789
    [52] Ball K, Timperio A, Crawford D (2009) Neighbourhood socioeconomic inequalities in food access and affordability. Health Place 15: 578-585. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2008.09.010
    [53] Pearce J, Blakely T, Witten K, et al. (2007) Neighborhood deprivation and access to fast-food retailing: A national study. Am J Prev Med 32: 375-382. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2007.01.009
    [54] Pearce J, Witten K, Hiscock R, et al. (2007) Are socially disadvantaged neighbourhoods deprived of health-related community resources? Int J Epidemiol 36: 348-355. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyl267
    [55] Pearce J, Witten K, Hiscock R, et al. (2008) Regional and urban-rural variations in the association of neighbourhood deprivation with community resource access: a national study. Environ Plann A 40: 2469-2489. doi: 10.1068/a409
    [56] Smoyer-Tomic KE, Spence JC, Raine KD, et al. (2008) The association between neighborhood socioeconomic status and exposure to supermarkets and fast food outlets. Health Place 14: 740-754. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2007.12.001
    [57] Burns CM, Inglis AD (2007) Measuring food access in Melbourne: access to healthy and fast foods by car, bus and foot in an urban municipality in Melbourne. Health Place 13: 877-885. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2007.02.005
    [58] Cubbin C, Jun J, Margerison-Zilko C, et al. (2012) Social inequalities in neighborhood conditions: spatial relationships between sociodemographic and food environments in Alameda County, California. Journal of Maps 8: 344-348. doi: 10.1080/17445647.2012.747992
    [59] Dai D, Wang F (2011) Geographic disparities in accessibility to food stores in Southwest Mississippi. Environ Plann B 38: 659-677. doi: 10.1068/b36149
    [60] Larch M, Walde J (2008) Lag or error? - Detecting the nature of spatial correlation. In: Preisach C, Burkhardt H, Schmidt-Thieme L et al., editors. Data analysis, machine learning and applications: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. pp. 301-308.
    [61] Anselin L (2001) A companion to theoretical econometrics. Chapter 14: Spatial econometrics; Baltagi BH, editor. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
    [62] Getis A, Ord JK (1992) The analysis of spatial association by use of distance statistics. Geogr Anal 24: 189-206.
    [63] Bader MDM, Purciel M, Yousefzadeh P, et al. (2010) Disparities in neighborhood food environments: implications of measurement strategies. Econ Geogr 86: 409-430. doi: 10.1111/j.1944-8287.2010.01084.x
    [64] Berg N, Murdoch J (2008) Access to grocery stores in Dallas. Int J Behav Healthc Res 1: 22-37. doi: 10.1504/IJBHR.2008.018449
    [65] Daniel M, Kestens Y, Paquet C (2009) Demographic and urban form correlates of healthful and unhealthful food availability in Montréal, Canada. Can J Public Health 100: 189-193.
    [66] Gordon C, Purciel-Hill M, Ghai NR, et al. (2011) Measuring food deserts in New York City's low-income neighborhoods. Health Place 17: 696-700. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.12.012
    [67] Gould AC, Apparicio P, Cloutier M-S (2012) Classifying neighbourhoods by level of access to stores selling fresh fruit and vegetables and groceries: identifying problematic areas in the city of Gatineau, Quebec. Can J Public Health 103: e433-e437.
    [68] Hemphill E, Raine K, Spence JC, et al. (2008) Exploring obesogenic food environments in Edmonton, Canada: The association between socioeconomic factors and fast food outlet access. Am J Health Prom 22: 426-432. doi: 10.4278/ajhp.22.6.426
    [69] Jones J, Terashima M, Rainham D (2009) Fast food and deprivation in Nova Scotia. Can J Public Health 100: 32-35.
    [70] Larsen K, Gilliland J (2008) Mapping the evolution of ‘food deserts’ in a Canadian city: supermarket accessibility in London, Ontario, 1961-2005. Int J Health Geogr 7: 16. doi: 10.1186/1476-072X-7-16
    [71] Macdonald L, Cummins S, Macintyre S (2007) Neighbourhood fast food environment and area deprivation-substitution or concentration? Appetite 49: 251-254. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2006.11.004
    [72] Macdonald L, Ellaway A, Macintyre S (2009) The food retail environment and area deprivation in Glasgow City, UK. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 6: 52. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-6-52
    [73] Macintyre S, Macdonald L, Ellaway A (2008) Do poorer people have poorer access to local resources and facilities? The distribution of local resources by area deprivation in Glasgow, Scotland. Soc Sci Med 67: 900-914.
    [74] Meltzer R, Schuetz J (2012) Bodegas or bagel shops? Neighborhood differences in retail and household services. Econ Devel Quart 26: 73-94.
    [75] Mercille G, Richard L, Gauvin L, et al. (2013) Comparison of two indices of availability of fruits/vegetable and fast food outlets. J Urban Health 90: 240-245. doi: 10.1007/s11524-012-9722-6
    [76] Pearce J, Day P, Witten K (2008) Neighbourhood provision of food and alcohol retailing and social deprivation in urban New Zealand. Urban Policy Res 26: 213-227. doi: 10.1080/08111140701697610
    [77] Reidpath DD, Burns C, Garrard J, et al. (2002) An ecological study of the relationship between social and environmental determinants of obesity. Health Place 8: 141-145. doi: 10.1016/S1353-8292(01)00028-4
    [78] Richardson AS, Boone-Heinonen J, Popkin BM, et al. (2012) Are neighbourhood food resources distributed inequitably by income and race in the USA? Epidemiological findings across the urban spectrum. BMJ Open 2: e000698.
    [79] Rigby S, Leone AF, Hwahwan K, et al. (2012) Food deserts in Leon County, FL: Disparate distribution of supplemental nutrition assistance program-accepting stores by neighborhood characteristics. J Nutr Educ Behav 44: 539-547. doi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2011.06.007
    [80] Sharkey JR, Horel S (2008) Neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation and minority composition are associated with better potential spatial access to the ground-truthed food environment in a large rural area. J Nutr 138: 620-627.
    [81] Sharkey JR, Johnson CM, Dean WR, et al. (2011) Focusing on fast food restaurants alone underestimates the relationship between neighborhood deprivation and exposure to fast food in a large rural area. Nutr J 10: 10. doi: 10.1186/1475-2891-10-10
    [82] Lumley T, Diehr P, Emerson S, et al. (2002) The importance of the normality assumption in large public health data sets. Annu Rev Public Health 23: 151-169. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.23.100901.140546
    [83] Lamb KE, White SR (2015) Categorisation of built environment characteristics: the trouble with tertiles. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 12: 19. doi: 10.1186/s12966-015-0181-9
    [84] Lamb KE, Ogilvie D, Ferguson NS, et al. (2012) Sociospatial distribution of access to facilities for moderate and vigorous intensity physical activity in Scotland by different modes of transport. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 9: 55. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-9-55
    [85] Ogilvie D, Lamb KE, Ferguson NS, et al. (2011) Recreational physical activity facilities within walking and cycling distance: Sociospatial patterning of access in Scotland. Health Place 17: 1015-1022. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2011.07.003
    [86] Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW, et al. (2006) SAS® for mixed models: SAS Institute.
    [87] Drukker DM, Prucha IR, Raciborski R (2013) Maximum likelihood and generalized spatial two-stage least-squares estimators for a spatial-autoregressive model with spatial-autoregressive disturbances. The Stata Journal 13: 221-241.
    [88] Drukker DM, Peng H, Prucha IR, et al. (2013) Creating and managing spatial-weighting matrices with the spmat command. The Stata Journal 13: 242-286.
    [89] Bivand R (2014) spdep: Spatial dependence: weighting schemes, statistics and models. R package version 0.5-74 http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=spdep.
    [90] Anselin L, Syabri I, Kho Y (2006) GeoDa: An introduction to spatial data analysis. Geogr Anal 38: 5-22. doi: 10.1111/j.0016-7363.2005.00671.x
    [91] Kaluzny SP, Vega SC, Cardoso TP, et al. (1998) S+ SpatialStats user's manual for Windows and UNIX.; SolutionMetrics Pty Ltd, editor. New York: Springer.
    [92] Pace RK, Barry R (1997) Sparse spatial autoregressions. Stat Probabil Lett 33: 291-297. doi: 10.1016/S0167-7152(96)00140-X
    [93] Walde J, Larch M, Tappeiner G (2008) Performance contest between MLE and GMM for huge spatial autoregressive models. J Stat Comput Sim 78: 151-166. doi: 10.1080/10629360600954109
    [94] Fortin M-J, Dale MRT (2005) Spatial analysis: a guide for ecologists: New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
    [95] Kleinschmidt I, Sharp B, Mueller I, et al. (2002) Rise in malaria incidence rates in South Africa: a small-area spatial analysis of variation in time trends. Am J Epidemiol 155: 257-264. doi: 10.1093/aje/155.3.257
    [96] Rytkönen M, Moltchanova E, Ranta J, et al. (2003) The incidence of type 1 diabetes among children in Finland-rural–urban difference. Health Place 9: 315-325. doi: 10.1016/S1353-8292(02)00064-3
    [97] Salcedo N, Saez M, Bragulat B, et al. (2012) Does the effect of gender modify the relationship between deprivation and mortality? BMC Public Health 12: 574. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-574
    [98] Gerstner K, Dormann CF, Václavík T, et al. (2014) Accounting for geographical variation in species–area relationships improves the prediction of plant species richness at the global scale. Journal of Biogeography 41: 261-273. doi: 10.1111/jbi.12213
    [99] Pioz M, Guis H, Crespin L, et al. (2012) Why did bluetongue spread the way it did? Environmental factors influencing the velocity of bluetongue virus serotype 8 epizootic wave in France. PLoS One 7: e43360.
    [100] Liebhold AM, McCullough DG, Blackburn LM, et al. (2013) A highly aggregated geographical distribution of forest pest invasions in the USA. Diversity and Distributions 19: 1208-1216. doi: 10.1111/ddi.12112
    [101] Kissling WD, Carl G (2008) Spatial autocorrelation and the selection of simultaneous autoregressive models. Global Ecol Biogeogr 17: 59-71.
    [102] Wall MM (2004) A close look at the spatial structure implied by the CAR and SAR models. J Stat Plan Infer 121: 311-324. doi: 10.1016/S0378-3758(03)00111-3
    [103] Mur J, Angulo AM (2007) Clues for discriminating between moving average and autoregressive models in spatial processes. Span Econ Rev 9: 273-298. doi: 10.1007/s10108-006-9018-7
    [104] Austin SB, Melly SJ, Sanchez BN, et al. (2005) Clustering of fast-food restaurants around schools: A novel application of spatial statistics to the study of food environments. Am J Public Health 95: 1575-1581. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.056341
    [105] Spielman S (2006) Appropriate use of the K-function in urban environments. Am J Public Health 96: 205-205. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2005.078857
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Negussie E. Gurmessa, Mary Bundi, Use of plant clinic advice among farmers in Ethiopia: implications for sustainable pest management service, 2021, 0967-0874, 1, 10.1080/09670874.2020.1869348
    2. Francis Kadipo Kaloi, Hezron Nyarindo Isaboke, Charles Nyambane Onyari, Lucy Karega Njeru, Jiban Shrestha, Determinants Influencing the Adoption of Rice Intensification System among Smallholders in Mwea Irrigation Scheme, Kenya, 2021, 2021, 2314-7539, 1, 10.1155/2021/1624334
    3. Abbas Ali Chandio, Yuansheng Jiang, Abdul Rehman, Using the ARDL-ECM approach to investigate the nexus between support price and wheat production, 2019, 26, 2515-964X, 139, 10.1108/JABES-10-2018-0084
    4. Diwas Poudel, Ritesh Kumar Yadav , Bibhor Gauli , Apil Chhetri, Sudip Poudel, Assessment of adoption of improved wheat production technology in Nawalparasi (West) district, Nepal, 2021, 2, 25828053, 69, 10.52804/ijaas2021.2211
    5. Patricia Pinamang Acheampong, Monica Addison, Camillus Abawiera Wongnaa, Assessment of impact of adoption of improved cassava varieties on yields in Ghana: An endogenous switching approach, 2022, 10, 2332-2039, 10.1080/23322039.2021.2008587
    6. Aklilu Atinafu, Messeret Lejebo, Abera Alemu, Adoption of improved wheat production technology in Gorche district, Ethiopia, 2022, 11, 2048-7010, 10.1186/s40066-021-00343-4
    7. Natson Eyram Amengor, Dadson Awunyo-Vitor, Bright Owusu Asante, Camillus Abawiera Wongnaa, Awareness and adoption of drought tolerant Maize in Guinea Savanna and Forest-Savanna Transition zone in Ghana, 2022, 8, 2331-1932, 10.1080/23311932.2022.2147476
    8. Yasir A. Nasereldin, Abbas Ali Chandio, Maurice Osewe, Muhammad Abdullah, Yueqing Ji, The Credit Accessibility and Adoption of New Agricultural Inputs Nexus: Assessing the Role of Financial Institutions in Sudan, 2023, 15, 2071-1050, 1297, 10.3390/su15021297
    9. Masithembe Sigigaba, Lelethu Mdoda, Asanda Mditshwa, Adoption Drivers of Improved Open-Pollinated (OPVs) Maize Varieties by Smallholder Farmers in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa, 2021, 13, 2071-1050, 13644, 10.3390/su132413644
    10. Toritseju Begho, Using Farmers’ Risk Tolerance to Explain Variations in Adoption of Improved Rice Varieties in Nepal, 2021, 16, 0973-1741, 171, 10.1177/09731741211023636
    11. P.K. Sarma, Farmer behavior towards pesticide use for reduction production risk: A Theory of Planned Behavior, 2022, 1, 27728013, 100002, 10.1016/j.clcb.2021.100002
    12. Bukola Chete Oluwatoyin, Factors influencing adoption of improved maize seed varieties among smallholder farmers in Kaduna State, Nigeria, 2021, 13, 2141-2170, 107, 10.5897/JAERD2019.1032
    13. S MEHBOOB, MN KHALID, I AMJAD, GENETIC DIVERSITY ASSAY OF THE LOCAL WHEAT VARIETIES AND CHINESE CROSSES FOR YIELD LINKED ATTRIBUTES UNDER LOCAL CONDITIONS, 2022, 2020, 2521-0092, 10.54112/bbasr.v2020i1.19
    14. Murni Po, David J. Pannell, Iain Walker, Sorada Tapsuwan, Fiona Dempster, Daniel S. Mendham, Chris Beadle, Tran Lam Dong, Anh Hai Tran, Hanh Le Thi, Dang Thi Hai Ha, Supporting smallholder acacia farmers in Viet Nam to transition to sawlog production: Opportunities and challenges, 2023, 26667193, 100384, 10.1016/j.tfp.2023.100384
    15. Marena Ceballos-Rasgado, Subhan Ajmal, Usman Mahboob, E. Louise Ander, Munir Zia, Victoria Hall Moran, Edward J. M. Joy, Mukhtiar Zaman, Heather Ohly, Nicola M. Lowe, Farmers’ and millers’ experiences and attitudes towards the production and processing of zinc biofortified wheat in Pakistan: a mixed methods study, 2023, 10, 2296-861X, 10.3389/fnut.2023.1158156
    16. O.A. Adeleke, H.M. Adeleke, D.T. Fajobi, R.O. Akintola, M.I. Ayantola, E.O. Olawuyi, A. J. Odugbemi, Determinants of Wheat Production in Nigeria (1981 – 2019): A Bounds Testing Approach, 2023, 1, 2786-7447, 1305, 10.59324/ejtas.2023.1(4).121
    17. Zahra Jabeen, Shanza Javaid, Shaziqa Javaid, Ghulam Abbas, Sidra Rehman, Amjad Farooq, Application of glycine betaine loaded chitosan nanoparticles mitigates lead toxicity and promotes plant growth in wheat, 2025, 1522-6514, 1, 10.1080/15226514.2025.2497900
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2015 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(8526) PDF downloads(1383) Cited by(15)

Article outline

Figures and Tables

Figures(1)  /  Tables(3)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog