IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v157y2023ics1389934123001727.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Drones take flight in forests: Uncovering the ‘tree’-mendous potential and ‘timber’-rific challenges for German forest managers by applying the technology acceptance model

Author

Listed:
  • Michels, Marius
  • Wever, Hendrik
  • Musshoff, Oliver

Abstract

This pioneering study addresses the underexplored topic of adoption of drones by forest managers. Surveying 215 German forest managers from December 2021 to February 2022, the research sheds light on factors influencing intention to use drones. Only 10% of the respondents use a drone for forestry purposes. Users of drones rank the possibility to timely response to calamities as the highest benefits of drone use. Regarding barriers, it was found that lack of technical know-how and equipment were the highest ranked reasons for non-use of drones. Using partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM), an extended Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) was employed to analyze the data. The results demonstrate that perceived usefulness for forest management is the most influential factor driving forest managers' intention to use drones. The TAM framework explains 43% of the variation in their intentions, indicating its efficacy in capturing the decision-making process. The study's implications are important for policymakers, extension services, researchers, and practitioners. The findings offer valuable insights into the factors shaping forest managers' intention for drone adoption in forestry and highlight the need for addressing technical knowledge gaps and equipment limitations as primary barriers.

Suggested Citation

  • Michels, Marius & Wever, Hendrik & Musshoff, Oliver, 2023. "Drones take flight in forests: Uncovering the ‘tree’-mendous potential and ‘timber’-rific challenges for German forest managers by applying the technology acceptance model," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:157:y:2023:i:c:s1389934123001727
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2023.103077
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934123001727
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2023.103077?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde & Jürgen Schupp & Gert G. Wagner, 2011. "Individual Risk Attitudes: Measurement, Determinants, And Behavioral Consequences," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 9(3), pages 522-550, June.
    2. Laakkonen, Anu & Zimmerer, Rebekah & Kähkönen, Tanja & Hujala, Teppo & Takala, Tuomo & Tikkanen, Jukka, 2018. "Forest owners' attitudes toward pro-climate and climate-responsive forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-10.
    3. Musshoff, Oliver & Maart-Noelck, Syster Christin, 2014. "An experimental analysis of the behavior of forestry decision-makers — The example of timing in sales decisions," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 31-39.
    4. Sarstedt, Marko & Ringle, Christian M. & Smith, Donna & Reams, Russell & Hair, Joseph F., 2014. "Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): A useful tool for family business researchers," Journal of Family Business Strategy, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 105-115.
    5. Sauter, Philipp A. & Hermann, Daniel & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2018. "Are foresters really risk-averse? A multi-method analysis and a cross-occupational comparison," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 37-45.
    6. Sauter, Philipp A. & Möllmann, Torsten B. & Anastassiadis, Friederike & Mußhoff, Oliver & Möhring, Bernhard, 2016. "To insure or not to insure? Analysis of foresters' willingness-to-pay for fire and storm insurance," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 78-89.
    7. Verma, Pranay & Sinha, Neena, 2018. "Integrating perceived economic wellbeing to technology acceptance model: The case of mobile based agricultural extension service," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 207-216.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Adisak Suvittawat, 2024. "Investigating Farmers’ Perceptions of Drone Technology in Thailand: Exploring Expectations, Product Quality, Perceived Value, and Adoption in Agriculture," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-25, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sauter, Philipp A. & Hermann, Daniel & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2018. "Are foresters really risk-averse? A multi-method analysis and a cross-occupational comparison," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 37-45.
    2. Peter John Robinson & W. J. Wouter Botzen & Fujin Zhou, 2021. "An experimental study of charity hazard: The effect of risky and ambiguous government compensation on flood insurance demand," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 63(3), pages 275-318, December.
    3. Kimmich, Christian & Fischbacher, Urs, 2016. "Behavioral determinants of supply chain integration and coexistence," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 55-77.
    4. Patrice Loisel & Marielle Brunette & Stéphane Couture, 2020. "Insurance and Forest Rotation Decisions Under Storm Risk," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 76(2), pages 347-367, July.
    5. Feng, Xin & Dai, Yongwu, 2019. "An innovative type of forest insurance in China based on the robust approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 23-32.
    6. M. Brunette & M. Hanewinkel & R. Yousefpour, 2020. "Risk aversion hinders forestry professionals to adapt to climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 162(4), pages 2157-2180, October.
    7. Sauter, Philipp & Hermann, Daniel & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2015. "Risk attitudes of foresters, farmers and students: An experimental multimethod comparison," DARE Discussion Papers 1514, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    8. M. Brunette & S. Couture & J. Foncel & S. Garcia, 2020. "The decision to insure against forest fire risk: an econometric analysis combining hypothetical real data," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 45(1), pages 111-133, January.
    9. Sauter, Philipp A. & Möllmann, Torsten B. & Anastassiadis, Friederike & Mußhoff, Oliver & Möhring, Bernhard, 2016. "To insure or not to insure? Analysis of foresters' willingness-to-pay for fire and storm insurance," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 78-89.
    10. Cipollaro, Maria & Sacchelli, Sandro, 2018. "Demand and potential subsidy level for forest insurance market in Demand and potential subsidy level for forest insurance market in Italy," 2018 Seventh AIEAA Conference, June 14-15, Conegliano, Italy 275647, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA).
    11. Herrmann, Tabea & Hübler, Olaf & Menkhoff, Lukas & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2016. "Allais for the poor," Kiel Working Papers 2036, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    12. Giuseppe Attanasi & Ylenia Curci & Patrick Llerena & Maria del Pino Ramos-Sosa & Adriana Carolina Pinate & Giulia Urso, 2019. "Looking at Creativity from East to West: Risk Taking and Intrinsic Motivation in Socially and Culturally Diverse Countries," Working Papers of BETA 2019-38, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    13. Jirjahn, Uwe & Chadi, Cornelia, 2016. "Risk Attitude and Nonmarital Birth," IZA Discussion Papers 10316, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Heineck, Guido & Süssmuth, Bernd, 2013. "A different look at Lenin’s legacy: Social capital and risk taking in the Two Germanies," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 789-803.
    15. Nour El Houda Ben Amor & Mohamed Nabil Mzoughi, 2023. "Do Millennials’ Motives for Using Snapchat Influence the Effectiveness of Snap Ads?," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(3), pages 21582440231, July.
    16. Johannes Abeler & Armin Falk & Fabian Kosse, 2021. "Malleability of Preferences for Honesty," CESifo Working Paper Series 9033, CESifo.
    17. Becchetti, Leonardo & Degli Antoni, Giacomo & Ottone, Stefania & Solferino, Nazaria, 2013. "Allocation criteria under task performance: The gendered preference for protection," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 96-111.
    18. Wojciech Hardy & Michal Krawczyk & Joanna Tyrowicz, 2015. ""Thou shalt not leech" Are digital pirates conditional cooperators?," Working Papers 2015-26, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    19. Cardak, Buly A. & Martin, Vance L., 2023. "Household willingness to take financial risk: Stockmarket movements and life‐cycle effects," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    20. Ioana Gutu & Daniela Tatiana Agheorghiesei & Alexandru Tugui, 2023. "Assessment of a Workforce Sustainability Tool through Leadership and Digitalization," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(2), pages 1-30, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:157:y:2023:i:c:s1389934123001727. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.