A geografia de Milton Santos em estudos de cultura e consumo: um estudo em uma comunidade rural

Family farms are the main force that promotes the direct application of new agricultural technology to production. So what are the factors that affect the adoption of new agricultural technology by family farms, and can the adoption of new technology increase the operating income of family farms? Using cross-sectional data from 847 family farms, this study examines the determinants and impacts of multiple new agricultural technologies adoption on family farms’ income in China. To account for selection bias from both observable and unobservable factors, an endogenous switching regression model is employed to evaluate the effects of new agricultural technology on family farms’ income. The empirical results show that the adoption of new agricultural technology is affected by the endowment of farmers and the characteristics of family farms. After controlling for the selection bias, the adoption of new agricultural technologies has a positive and significant impact on family farms’ income. And the impact on the non-adopter family farms is much larger than adopter family farms. Heterogeneity analysis indicates that family farms with a larger area of arable land earn more from the adoption of new technologies than small farms. In all types of technology investigated, the new methods of pest control and the new chemical fertilizer technology have a relatively large impact on family farms’ income, while the new mechanical technology has the least impact on family farms’ income. The adoption of new technologies by family farms is more important for promoting the progress of agricultural science and technology. Therefore, it is necessary to take effective measures to overcome the obstacles to the adoption of new agricultural technologies and pay more attention to the use of new agricultural technologies to improve agricultural production efficiency.

More Recent History of Rapid Adoption of New Technology in Sports Medicine: Intra-Articular Pain Pumps

This qualitative research used a grounded theory approach to better understand how adoption of technologies that are new to the service organization can impact the nature of interactions between individuals in information technology (IT) and other functional areas; this study focuses on the interface between marketing and IT. Literature-based conceptual development informed in-depth interviews with executives from both functional areas at five growth-oriented service firms, in regard to periods of change related to adopting new marketing technologies. A total of 14 in-depth interviews were completed, with individuals representing dyads comprised of one manager from marketing and one from IT, who experienced the relationship changes that resulted. Findings suggest that, because of the demands of engaging in more intensive collaboration, there is a realized need to develop new workflow processes to assist in decision making and to reduce the likelihood of internal conflict. The enhanced flexibility and range required by individuals involved in the adoption of new promotional technologies were not always a good fit with their personal styles or goals. For instance, there was a decrease in felt power and independence of individuals in the marketing functional area, owing to the need for greater reliance on skills and capabilities of IT personnel. Individuals in each dyad described how they adapted to their new realities, including how they felt, what changes they had to make to adapt, and the resulting modifications in work processes. Perhaps the most interesting outcome of the research is the characterization of the revised internal interaction processes that were developed to allow for improved communication and understanding. The integration of future technology-based marketing tools into managerial decision making will most likely require similar adaptations of workflow processes. It is anticipated that adoption of new technologies at other internal boundaries may also result in similar need for change. Therefore, future research might empirically test the propositions and conceptual model, examining their applicability to technology adoption and workflow change at other internal boundaries as well as in other industries and other locations.

178 Book Reviews TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE a wide array of new technology. They experimented with different varieties of cotton until they found one appropriate for their partic­ ular soil and climatic conditions. They employed the latest hand tools and animal-drawn equipment, and they harnessed steam power to their cotton gins and presses. Some even attempted to preserve and to improve the quality of their soils by applying fertilizers, practicing crop rotation and contour plowing, and constructing drainage sys­ tems. Slave labor sometimes imposed special constraints on the adoption of new technology because it created the need for additional training in its use and for closer supervision to guard against sabotage. But Mississippi farmers and planters overcame these and other difficulties as they responded to the income-enhancing oppor­ tunities provided by technological developments. Moore’s is a synthetic rather than an empirical study. He weaves together the results of his own work and that of many others to present a comprehensive overview of Mississippi’s antebellum Cotton Kingdom. One might complain that the book is more anecdotal than analytical. This is especially true of the sections on the adoption of technology, which offer example stacked on example without attempting—or reporting on the attempts of others—to assess the results systematically. Moreover, Moore probably overstates the eager­ ness of Mississippians to embrace new technology; most historians see greater resistance to innovation than his description suggests. Moore also exaggerates the South’s dependence on outside sources of foodstuffs. Recent scholarship has all but settled that issue: the region was virtually self-sufficient. But this is quibbling. No one, no matter how well read in the relevant literature, can come away from this book without a deeper understanding of the antebellum South. Donald L. Winters Dr. Winters teaches in the Department of History at Vanderbilt University. Threshing in the Midwest, 1820—1940: A Study of Traditional Culture and Technological Change. By J. Sanford Rikoon. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988. Pp. xiv + 214; illustrations, tables, notes, appendixes, bibliography, index. $35.00. Prior to the mid-19th century, farmers who raised relatively small crops, particularly wheat, customarily threshed their grain with a flail. Those farmers generally postponed threshing to the winter months, because flailing took too much time during the busy harvest and plowing seasons. Large-scale producers, however, used horses or cattle to tread the grain from the heads, often in one operation. By the 1830s, hand-powered threshing machines and grain cleaners sped this agricultural task. In time, horsepowered sweeps and steam TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE Book Reviews 179 engines enabled farmers to use large-capacity threshing machines. As farmers adopted machines to improve their threshing efficiency, they also developed new social relationships to help order their lives, now significantly altered by this new technology. J. Sanford Rikoon, research associate in the Department of Rural Sociology at the University of Missouri, has written a perceptive history of technological and social changes in the Midwest relating to the threshing of small grains. He emphasizes the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa, although his study also has application for Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Missouri. Rikoon particularly notes the manner in which technology changed individual and group relationships and fostered cooperation. For him, threshing is both an agricultural process and a social experience. Rikoon intended to trace the social adjustments that midwestern grain farmers made to coincide with their adoption of new threshing technology from the early 19th to the mid-20th century. Intentionally, he emphasizes cultural rather than technological change, although he has devoted considerable attention to explaining the operational significance of new threshing equipment. More detailed attention to technological change, however, would have made his book more useful to historians of American technology who want to understand the workings of threshing hardware as well as its social and economic significance. In addition, greater emphasis on the technological aspects of this study might have prevented Rikoon from incorrectly explaining the technical principles of horsepowered sweeps and treadmills, an error that knowledgeable readers or editors for the press should have prevented. Rikoon is at his best when he analyzes the changing social relation­ ships among farmers as they adopted new technology to thresh their...

The diffusion of innovation in dentistry: A review using rotary nickel-titanium technology as an example

Author's Reply

Most food safety and consumer trust measures focus on information management in preparation for accidents and system structures focused on inspection records for hygiene management. Recognizing the provision of safe produce coupled to preventative rather than reactive measures as being more important, this research uses covariance structure analysis to explore decision making associated with the adoption of new technology by farmers. Survey items range from standard farm characteristics (such as scale of operation and volume of sales) to social psychological constructs (such as attitudes about various farm operational risks). Data drawn from greenhouse vegetable farmers (185 mail survey responses) are used to estimate our causal models. Overall, large farms tended to be more progressive in the adoption of new technology, even when they perceived high operational risks. In the future, assuming Japan will participate in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), regulations associated with vegetable imports will be eased and Japan’s greenhouse vegetable farmers will face fierce international competition. Food safety regulations will also likely be subjected to TPP guidelines. Under these circumstances, production technology for heightened food safety will be indispensable in order for Japan’s greenhouse vegetable farmers to continue to thrive. Government support to encourage the adoption of new technology will also be necessary. The results of this analysis contribute fundamental knowledge to the formulation of measures designed to encourage adoption.

Bringing New Technologies to Market: Hurdles and Solutions

There is a growing recognition that the adoption and extensive diffusion of new ITs and technological innovations that support social networking are critical to support the related growth of our information-rich society in a way that benefits people and organizations. Similarly important is how the emergence of new technological innovations changes the way that organizations survive and thrive in the highly competitive environment of the global economy. Another frontier for impact of new technologies is at the country level for sustainable social and economic development. Some examples include the emergence of mobile and Internet-based telephony, open software systems, infrastructure and application support for digital social networks, digital entertainment services on the Internet, and more intelligent hardware-based data storage systems. Their incorporation into innovative products and services has had dramatic benefits at all these different levels. The research literature on the adoption and diffusion of new technologies and innovations is voluminous and has identified numerous relevant factors associated with adoption and diffusion across multiple levels of analysis. For instance, the popular technology acceptance model has offered a parsimonious theory to explain individual-level adoption and use of new innovations. Similarly, research at the organizational and interorganizational levels has been able to explain the impetus for the adoption of technological innovations based on multiple relevant perspectives. They include theories of: organizational readiness; innovation ownership and co-investment considerations; the appropriation of value from contemporary versus future-oriented value flows associated with technology adoption; and the acceleration and deceleration of firm-level technology adoption in competitive markets. There still are many opportunities for theory development in the adoption and diffusion of new technological innovations though. Although much of the research in the Information Systems discipline up to the present has emphasized individual adoption of new technologies, a broader umbrella of research is appropriate that offers rich theory about technology adoption by accounting for the relevant technological, institutional, national and historical contexts. It is also appropriate to develop research on technology innovation and adoption that moves beyond the dominant paradigm of establishing the relationships between the independent variables of innovator profiles, and the dependent variables of innovation quantity and quality. Some of the promising opportunities for theory development involve such perspectives as contagion effects, management fashion, innovation mindfulness, technology ecosystems and innovation life cycles, innovation configurations, the evolution and impacts of standards organizations, and quality-led innovation and technology adoption. Our motivation for this special issue––actually the first of several for Information Technology and Management–– was to engage researchers from the international academic and business communities who are thought leaders and practice innovators to work collaboratively on the development of new theoretical perspectives and methods advances related to research on technology adoption. Through this effort, we were fortunate to have attracted R. J. Kauffman (&) W. P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA e-mail: rkauffman@asu.edu

The National Institute for Innovation in Manufacturing Biopharmaceuticals (NIIMBL) piloted a forum to encourage an exchange of information between the biopharmaceutical industry and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). To facilitate this exchange, NIIMBL conducted a survey of industry representatives around the perceived challenges associated with the adoption of new innovative technologies for biopharmaceutical manufacturing or for continuous improvement and then held an Active Listening session with industry and FDA stakeholders to share common themes. The scope was limited to biotechnology products regulated by the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). This manner of exchange has not been tested before and led to meaningful dialog between industry and the Agency and valuable takeaways by all involved. One of the general findings and key points of discussion was around the perceived lack of a business case for adoption of new technology in the manufacture of monoclonal antibodies and therapeutic proteins. Tight timelines were the primary constraints for hesitation around pre-approval implementation and the challenges associated with a global regulatory environment were the primary constraint around post-approval adoption of new technology. Mechanisms that would allow industry and regulatory scientists to develop a shared understanding of new technologies, outside of formal applications, could de-risk adoption of new technologies by the industry. The favorable response to this NIIMBL-facilitated exchange suggests that this format could be useful in establishing a more informal dialog between the FDA and industry on industry-wide challenges.

New technologies are constantly being introduced in radiation oncology primarily because they are new and not because they are clearly better than the technologies they are replacing. Often there is a “belief” that the new technology “ought” to be better but many believe that they should be widely adopted in the clinic only after evidence has shown that they are at least as safe and efficacious as existing technologies, which are often less expensive. This is the concern debated in this month's Point/Counterpoint. Arguing for the Proposition is Christopher Njeh, Ph.D. Dr. Njeh obtained his Ph.D. degree in Medical Physics from Sheffield Hallam University, UK, and, after graduation, he worked at the Addenbrooke's Hospital in Cambridge and Queen Elizabeth's Hospital, Birmingham, UK. He then came to the United States as a Visiting Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, where he was subsequently appointed as an Assistant Professor of Radiology. He later completed a Medical Physics residency at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and is currently Chief Medical Physicist at Texas Oncology in Tyler, TX, and holds an adjunct faculty position at the University of Texas at Tyler. Dr. Njeh is certified in Therapeutic Radiologic Physics by the ABR. His major research interests include image-guided radiation therapy and accelerated partial breast irradiation. He is author or coauthor of over 50 papers and 10 book chapters and is coeditor of two books. Arguing against the Proposition is Dr. Christian McDonald Langton. Dr. Langton obtained his M.Sc. degree in Medical Physics from the University of Aberdeen and his doctoral degrees from the University of Hull. After working in industry for two years, he returned to academia in the UK and ultimately attained the rank of Professor of Medical Physics at the University of Hull. In 2008, Dr. Langton was appointed Professor of Medical Physics at Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia, and Director of the Queensland Cancer Physics Collaborative. Dr. Langton's main research interest has been in quantitative bone imaging and characterization, and his work on the science, technology, and clinical utility of ultrasound assessment of cancellous bone and osteoporosis has resulted in over 1800 publication citations. He holds several related patents and there are seven commercial devices currently available adopting his broadband ultrasonic attenuation technique, with over 12 000 systems utilized worldwide. Medical technology encompasses all drugs, devices, and medical and surgical procedures used in medical care as well as the organizational supportive systems within which such care is provided.1 Radiation oncology has recently witnessed an explosion in innovation including but not limited to: proton therapy, CyberKnife, tomotherapy, IGRT, and IMRT. Efficacy, safety, and cost effectiveness, however, remains the focus in the provision of optimal care to patients. While some of these innovations offer unprecedented breakthroughs for some patients, they have the potential to also result in unintended harm if not used appropriately. It is, therefore, essential that adoption of these new technologies be evidence based. Evidence-based medicine can be perceived as “the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients.”2 Its practice presupposes the integration of individual clinical expertise with the best available external clinical evidence from systematic collection and synthesis of data, including patients’ values and expectations.3 The gold standard for the attainment of level 1 evidence is usually through randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analysis of such trials. There are many reported instances in the scientific literature where RCTs refuted evidence from theoretical, observational, physiologic studies or common sense. In the 1890s, Dr. William Halsted, for instance, developed radical mastectomy for breast cancer. His procedure was performed unchallenged for over 80 years. It was, however, not until an RCT was conducted in the late 1980s that it dawned upon the scientific community that radical mastectomy had no advantage over simpler forms of treatment for early-stage breast cancer.4 Another more recent example is vascular brachytherapy that was used to treat in-stent restenosis until an RCT showed that this therapy yielded comparatively inferior outcomes to polymer-based slow-release paclitaxel-eluting stents.5 Opponents of RCTs may be surprised to learn that not all new therapies amount to an improvement compared to the standard of therapy. For example, an analysis of outcome data from 58 RCTs, including a total of 12734 patients, conducted between 1968 and 2002 by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group, found that, overall, experimental and standard arms were equally successful.6 They also found that treatment-related mortality and morbidity were, on average, higher in the innovative arm. In contemplating these facts, we are reminded of the economist who once said “…man's wants are numerous but his means are limited.” His view is applicable to national health care. Were one to place the cost of new technology into proper context it would be safe to assert that U.S. health care costs have risen faster than the gross domestic product (GDP), often by a substantial margin. While in 1960 approximately 5% of the GDP of the United States was spent on medical care,1 by 2004 it accounted for over 15% and is expected to be as much as 20% of GDP by 2015.7 According to a landmark study by The Kaiser Family Foundation,8 new technology has been identified as one of the causes of this exponential rise in health care cost. I submit, therefore, that new technology needs to fulfill the triple condition of efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness so that our limited resources can be put to the most judicious use. Evidence-based medicine is commonly defined as “the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients.”9 These are admirable words, but what do they really mean? Are they a realistic aspiration for adoption of new technologies in radiation oncology? A key factor is the validity of the evidence, so variable in reality that a number of category levels are widely utilized. For example, the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force10 lists three levels of “quality of evidence,” the highest level being “evidence obtained from at least one properly designed randomized controlled trial.” For the laudable randomized clinical trial, there has been a dramatic expansion in the number of publications associated with “radiation oncology” alone. Considering “Web of Science” publications per year using the topic search category of (“RCT” or “randomized clinical trial” or “randomized control trial”) and (“radiation oncology” or “radiotherapy”) yields: 1989 = 2, 1994 = 32, 1999 = 55, 2004 = 107, and 2009 = 228. How do we arrive at a consensus based upon such a wealth of information? Will a comparison be made against an untarnished “gold standard” or with current practice? The latter will inevitably necessitate large cohort numbers in each study arm, often impracticable from a recruitment perspective. Is there potential for a high attrition rate? Will it be difficult to assign and maintain inclusion and exclusion criteria? Will it be difficult to avoid bias? Very few cases are truly “equivalent.” Noting the understandable need to maintain a primary focus on patient welfare, as circumstances potentially change, will it be difficult to maintain a rigid protocol? Will the protocol be readily and reliably transferable multicenter and multinational? How long will it be before the technique could be routinely adopted? Technology developments appear at a fast time rate and may evolve during the course of an RCT such that they are used differently at the end of a trial than at the beginning and might even become outdated before the trial is over. How important are factors such as quality of life and secondary cancer risk? Other criticisms of adopting “evidence-based medicine” include stagnation, bland uniformity, and lowering of standards through deskilling practitioners. Instead of using clinical judgment, they will be encouraged to follow protocols that treat all patients as essentially interchangeable.9 There is also a threat to the adoption of new techniques in radiation oncology through a growing movement of “lack-of-evidence based medicine” that has been used to restrict access to a number of therapies,11 particularly by the UK's National Institute of Clinical Excellence. Perhaps the hottest “new technology in radiation oncology” debate relates to proton verses photon IMRT, with a question raised as to whether large randomized phase III comparative trials should be performed?; that would inherently encompass a significant number of scientific and ethical issues11,12 — I will end with that thought! The sheer volume of information available in the literature is more reason for a unified and systematic approach to synthesize them. Recruitment bias can be avoided by proper randomization.13 EBM makes decision making more thoughtful and more transparent, providing a stronger scientific backbone to medical practice. Not all studies are carried out with the same degree of rigor (quality, quantity, and consistency) hence a need to grade the quality of the research such as required by SORT,14 GRADE,15 or the Center for Evidence Based Medicine. The FDA is not thorough enough in its technology approval process. Recent studies have shown that the FDA premarket approval process is often based on weak studies.16 Ethical dilemmas in RCTs are eliminated by the acknowledgement of the equipoise principle which assumes that the two arms in a study have an equal chance of performing well.17 This principle has been validated by the fact that only 25%–50% of new technology is better than traditional technology.18 Another issue with pursuing RCTs has to do with the vested interests of three players if the RCT proves that the procedure is ineffective: the physician (new technology is accompanied by higher reimbursement), the hospital (need to pay for the equipment), and the manufacturer (need to make a profit).19 In conclusion, obtaining the relevant high quality evidence is a challenging, demanding, time-consuming, and costly pursuit. Nevertheless, it is a rigorous process, which we must demand of new technology so as to remain accountable to our patients. Having carefully considered my opponent's Opening Statement, I am confident that the arguments provided within my own Opening Statement remain valid and wholly intact. There are two primary components of my opposition to the proposition. First, it is impossible in reality to acquire irrefutable evidence as to whether a “new technology” will indeed improve individual patient care. Second, it is impossible to create a single unifying consensus based upon reported data. Allied to this, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of evidence-based medicine derived “clinical guidelines,” so much so that there has been a call for “guidelines for clinical guidelines” within a British Medical Journal Editorial.20 A fundamental question that we must address is whether so-called “evidence-based medicine” serves its purpose of helping clinicians make better decisions for the individual patient; related not only to the primary factors of diagnosis and treatment, but also encompassing prognosis, benefit, risk, and cost. Continuing this somewhat broader perspective, I wish to consider another component of the proposition's title, specifically, what do we really mean by “new technology in radiation oncology”? Are many so-called “new technologies” simply part of a fundamentally evolutionary advancement process? Noting the age-old tenet of “maximally treating the cancer by maximally sparing normal tissue,” are we in danger of being distracted away from aspects of radiation oncology that are of greater importance from an individual patient's perspective? For example, are we in need of true “new technologies” that better target regions of a particular tumor or organ that require, or maybe do not require, “treatment;” and to determine how these relate to both static and temporal anatomy? In summary, while appreciating the ideological paradigm that “the adoption of new technology in radiation oncology should rely on evidence-based medicine,” in reality, this cannot be achieved and we should concentrate on the primary role of helping clinicians make better decisions for the individual patient.

Recently, real estate professionals are now faced with new strategies and more effective ways of managing and storing information for faster and more effective management. The aim of the paper is to explore the Effect of motivating factors influencing the use of ICT on adoption of the new technology by the real estate professionals, with a view to understanding how new technologies influence the modern real estate professional practice in Abuja Nigeria. The paper determined the motivating factors influencing the use of ICT in modern real estate profession in the Abuja. The study used quantitative design and data were collected through questionnaire survey from 260 real estate professionals, the study adopted convenient simple random sampling technique and SPSS software version 22 was used for data analysis and the results were presented in tables. The study observed that the motivating factors influencing the use of ICT in modern real estate profession were enhanced quality of customer services, improved decision making, the competitor’s pressure, increased productivity of staff and reduce overall cost ranked first to fifth respectively. The paper concluded that top three motivating factors enhanced customer service, improved decision making, and increased staff productivity, all focus on internal improvements within the real estate firm. This concludes that firms are primarily motivated by the benefits of ICT for their own operations rather than external pressures. Motivating factors influencing the use of ICT in modern real estate profession has a large effect size on the adoption of new technologies in the real estate profession. This implies that increasing motivating factors influencing the use of ICT in modern real estate profession can significantly promote the adoption of new tools and technologies by professionals. Real estate professionals should invest in training and education on advanced ICT tools and applications relevant to the real estate industry, such as virtual tours, property management software, and data analytics platforms. The paper recommended that the policymakers and industry should Provide access to affordable technology solutions and promote collaboration between technological companies and real estate firms.

Physicians’ Decision Making on Adoption of New Technologies and Role of Coverage with Evidence Development: A Qualitative Study

On the adoption of new technology to enhance counterterrorism measures: An attacker–defender game with risk preferences

This study aims to assess the impact of organic soil conservation (SC) practices on the yield and productivity of legumes among small producers in Kabare and Walungu in South Kivu Province. In this study, we used the Logit model, often used in technology adoption studies for convenience. The analysis of the adoption of zero tillage techniques, crop association techniques and fresh and decomposed manure use techniques; all organic soil conservation practices disseminated by CIALCA in South Kivu. The data used in this study are snapshot data collected by CIALCA through the baseline survey conducted in 2014. As for sampling, 404 households were randomly selected from the two study sites (Kabare and Walungu) based on the IITA database. The data collected were analyzed using STATA 14 software. The results of this study reveal that the average age of the people surveyed is 42.33 years and a standard deviation of 8.33 years in Kabare and the average age of the heads of households in Walungu is 64.84 ± 9.02 years. There is a significant difference between the average ages of heads of households in the two territories; (p < 0.05). This explains why the age of the heads of households is in the old age class in Walungu while in Kabare the age class is young. Regarding the size of the fields in Kabare; the average is 1.02 ha and the standard deviation is 1.21 and in Walungu the average is 0.75 ± 1.08 ha. The difference in the area of ​​operation is significant between the two territories, which characterizes smallholder agricultural households of less than 1 hectare. As for the number of years of schooling of children in the households surveyed, the average number is 4.91 ± 4.28 years of schooling as a standard deviation in the territory of Kabare and 3.94 ± 6.70 years in Walungu: this difference is not significant. It also appears that most of the respondents have a primary level of education, i.e. 48.65% of the respondents in Kabare and 51.35% in Walungu, this difference is not significant. The discontinuation of schooling is due to several factors in rural areas. The adoption rate of soil conservation technologies is 50.74% in the two sites selected for this study. The adoption rate is 54.46% in Kabare and 47.03% in Walungu. 54.36% of non-adopters are male and 55.50% of adopters are female. This is explained by the fact that agricultural activity in South Kivu is abandoned much more to women. Gender negatively influences the probability of adopting a new technology. It turns out that women are often marginalized in access to information. We noted that the variables retained in the regression explain 17.62% of the variability in the adoption of new soil conservation technologies. Among the variables retained in our model, only belonging to a group or association, having received training on new soil conservation technologies and the surface area of ​​the field (farmsize) are significant at the 0.01 and 0.05 thresholds. Regarding the impact of the adoption of new technologies on crop productivity, productivity was estimated at 66% for all adopters (treated) with a difference of 50% between the two groups for maize. The differences between the two groups (adopters and non-adopters) are respectively 70% for peanut speculation, 56% for beans and 40% for soybean. This increase attributed to the adoption status implies that the use of improved technologies disseminated by IITA has enabled farmers to increase their productivity. The impact of the adoption of new technologies on yield is estimated at 1768 kg/ha for the treated subpopulation and 1243 kg for the control with a difference of 524 kg between the two groups for maize. The differences are respectively 9 kg for soybean, 213 kg/ha for peanuts and 278 kg for beans between the groups of adopters and non-adopters. These differences would be attributed to the fact that adopters have maintained the maximum of their crops because they did not suffer the shocks linked to landslides. It should be noted in particular that for soybean producers, this crop being fertilizing, this allowed non-adopters not to have strayed too far from the production carried out by adopters. The adoption of organic soil conservation practices has a positive effect on increasing the production of the legume which leads to the well-being of small producers.