IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i3p1371-d734915.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding Agri-Food Traceability System User Intention in Respond to COVID-19 Pandemic: The Comparisons of Three Models

Author

Listed:
  • Yafen Tseng

    (Digital Design and Information Management, Chung Hwa University of Medical Technology, Tainan 71703, Taiwan)

  • Beyfen Lee

    (Department of Hospitality Management, Chung Hwa University of Medical Technology, Tainan 71703, Taiwan)

  • Chingi Chen

    (Department of Health Care Administration, Chung Hwa University of Medical Technology, Tainan 71703, Taiwan)

  • Wang He

    (School of International Business, Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics, Nanchang 330013, China)

Abstract

Scientists believed the outbreak of COVID-19 could be linked to the consumption of wild animals, so food safety and hygiene have become the top concerns of the public. An agri-food traceability system becomes very important in this context because it can help the government to trace back the entire production and delivery process in case of food safety concerns. The traceability system is a complicated digitalized system because it integrates information and logistics systems. Previous studies used the technology acceptance model (TAM), information systems (IS) success model, expectation confirmation model (ECM), or extended model to explain the continuance intention of traceability system users. Very little literature can be found integrating two different models to explain user intention, not to mention comparing three models in one research context. This study proposed the technology acceptance model (TAM), technology acceptance model-information systems (TAM-IS) success, and technology acceptance model-expectation confirmation model (TAM-ECM) integrated models to evaluate the most appropriate model to explain agri-food traceability system during the COVID-19 pandemic. A questionnaire was designed based on a literature review, and 197 agri-food traceability system users were sampled. The collected data were analyzed by partial least square (PLS) to understand the explanatory power and the differences between the three models. The results showed that: (1) the TAM model has a fair explanatory power of continuance intention (62.2%), but was recommended for its’ simplicity; (2) the TAM-IS success integrated model had the best predictive power of 78.3%; and (3) the system providers should raise users’ confirmation level, so their continuance intention could be reinforced through mediators, perceived value, and satisfaction. The above findings help to understand agri-food traceability system user intention, and provide theoretical and practical implications for system providers to refine their system design.

Suggested Citation

  • Yafen Tseng & Beyfen Lee & Chingi Chen & Wang He, 2022. "Understanding Agri-Food Traceability System User Intention in Respond to COVID-19 Pandemic: The Comparisons of Three Models," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-20, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:3:p:1371-:d:734915
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/3/1371/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/3/1371/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ilyas Masudin & Anggi Ramadhani & Dian Palupi Restuputri & Ikhlasul Amallynda, 2021. "The Effect of Traceability System and Managerial Initiative on Indonesian Food Cold Chain Performance: A Covid-19 Pandemic Perspective," Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Springer;Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management, vol. 22(4), pages 331-356, December.
    2. Kamal, Syeda Ayesha & Shafiq, Muhammad & Kakria, Priyanka, 2020. "Investigating acceptance of telemedicine services through an extended technology acceptance model (TAM)," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    3. Manis, Kerry T. & Choi, Danny, 2019. "The virtual reality hardware acceptance model (VR-HAM): Extending and individuating the technology acceptance model (TAM) for virtual reality hardware," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 503-513.
    4. Chen, Shih-Chih & Lin, Chieh-Peng, 2019. "Understanding the effect of social media marketing activities: The mediation of social identification, perceived value, and satisfaction," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 22-32.
    5. Heyder, Matthias & Theuvsen, Ludwig & Hollmann-Hespos, Thorsten, 2012. "Investments in tracking and tracing systems in the food industry: A PLS analysis," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 102-113.
    6. Chen, Xiujuan & Wu, Linhai & Pan, Yu & Siu, Kin Wai Michael & Gong, Xiaoru & Zhu, Dian, 2018. "Consumer Acceptance of an Agricultural Products Traceability System: Evidence from China," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 273896, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Weili Han & Yun Gu & Wei Wang & Yin Zhang & Yuliang Yin & Junyu Wang & Li-Rong Zheng, 2015. "The design of an electronic pedigree system for food safety," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 275-287, April.
    8. Liao, Pei-An & Chang, Hung-Hao & Chang, Chun-Yen, 2011. "Why is the food traceability system unsuccessful in Taiwan? Empirical evidence from a national survey of fruit and vegetable farmers," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 686-693.
    9. William Jen & Rungting Tu & Tim Lu, 2011. "Managing passenger behavioral intention: an integrated framework for service quality, satisfaction, perceived value, and switching barriers," Transportation, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 321-342, March.
    10. William H. DeLone & Ephraim R. McLean, 1992. "Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 3(1), pages 60-95, March.
    11. Carlos Tam & Diogo Santos & Tiago Oliveira, 2020. "Exploring the influential factors of continuance intention to use mobile Apps: Extending the expectation confirmation model," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 243-257, February.
    12. Golan, Elise H. & Krissoff, Barry & Kuchler, Fred & Calvin, Linda & Nelson, Kenneth E. & Price, Gregory K., 2004. "Traceability In The U.S. Food Supply: Economic Theory And Industry Studies," Agricultural Economic Reports 33939, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    13. Mohammad Hamdi Al Khasawneh & Natalie Haddad, 2020. "Analysis of the effects of ease of use, enjoyment, perceived risk on perceived value and subsequent satisfaction created in the context of C2C online exchanges," International Journal of Electronic Marketing and Retailing, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 11(3), pages 217-238.
    14. Bejjar Mohamed Ali & Boujelbene Younes, 2013. "The Impact of Information Systems on user Performance: An Exploratory Study," Journal of Knowledge Management, Economics and Information Technology, ScientificPapers.org, vol. 3(2), pages 1-10, April.
    15. Shirley Taylor & Peter A. Todd, 1995. "Understanding Information Technology Usage: A Test of Competing Models," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 6(2), pages 144-176, June.
    16. Ken McEwan & Lynn Marchand & Max Shang & Delia Bucknell, 2020. "Potential implications of COVID‐19 on the Canadian pork industry," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(2), pages 201-206, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Jinmin Kim & AhRam Cho & Jaeyoung Kim, 2022. "Effect of the Standardization of Service Platforms for High-Involvement PropTech Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-18, April.
    2. Saak, Alexander E., 2016. "Traceability and reputation in supply chains," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 149-162.
    3. Yu-Ping Lee & Hsin-Yeh Tsai & Athapol Ruangkanjanases, 2020. "The Determinants for Food Safety Push Notifications on Continuance Intention in an E-Appointment System for Public Health Medical Services: The Perspectives of UTAUT and Information System Quality," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-15, November.
    4. Hasan, Rajibul & Lowe, Ben & Petrovici, Dan, 2020. "Consumer adoption of pro-poor service innovations in subsistence marketplaces," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 461-475.
    5. Lim, Joon Soo & Zhang, Jun, 2022. "Adoption of AI-driven personalization in digital news platforms: An integrative model of technology acceptance and perceived contingency," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    6. Nawal Abdalla Adam, 2016. "An Empirical Investigation of the Impact of Technological Factors on Computer ¨C Based Information Systems (CBIS) Usage by Managers in Banking Sector in Sudan," Journal of Social Science Studies, Macrothink Institute, vol. 3(1), pages 12-22, January.
    7. Cobelli, Nicola & Cassia, Fabio & Donvito, Raffaele, 2023. "Pharmacists' attitudes and intention to adopt telemedicine: Integrating the market-orientation paradigm and the UTAUT," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    8. Dalal Bamufleh & Maram Abdulrahman Almalki & Randa Almohammadi & Esraa Alharbi, 2021. "User Acceptance of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Systems in Higher Education Institutions: A Conceptual Model," International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems (IJEIS), IGI Global, vol. 17(1), pages 144-163, January.
    9. Barbara H. Wixom & Peter A. Todd, 2005. "A Theoretical Integration of User Satisfaction and Technology Acceptance," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 16(1), pages 85-102, March.
    10. Xu, Huinan & Sharma, Sushil K. & Hackney, Ray, 2005. "Web services innovation research: Towards a dual-core model," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 321-334.
    11. Dalal Bamufleh & Maram Abdulrahman Almalki & Randa Almohammadi & Esraa Alharbi, 2021. "User Acceptance of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Systems in Higher Education Institutions: A Conceptual Model," International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems (IJEIS), IGI Global, vol. 17(4), pages 138-157, October.
    12. Nguyen-Phuoc, Duy Quy & Su, Diep Ngoc & Tran, Phuong Thi Kim & Le, Diem-Trinh Thi & Johnson, Lester W., 2020. "Factors influencing customer's loyalty towards ride-hailing taxi services – A case study of Vietnam," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 96-112.
    13. Nripendra P. Rana & Yogesh K. Dwivedi & Banita Lal & Michael D. Williams & Marc Clement, 2017. "Citizens’ adoption of an electronic government system: towards a unified view," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 549-568, June.
    14. Nattakit Yuduang & Ardvin Kester S. Ong & Nicole B. Vista & Yogi Tri Prasetyo & Reny Nadlifatin & Satria Fadil Persada & Ma. Janice J. Gumasing & Josephine D. German & Kirstien Paola E. Robas & Thanat, 2022. "Utilizing Structural Equation Modeling–Artificial Neural Network Hybrid Approach in Determining Factors Affecting Perceived Usability of Mobile Mental Health Application in the Philippines," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-19, May.
    15. Luceri, Beatrice & (Tammo) Bijmolt, T.H.A. & Bellini, Silvia & Aiolfi, Simone, 2022. "What drives consumers to shop on mobile devices? Insights from a Meta-Analysis," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 178-196.
    16. J. H. Jung & Christoph Schneider & Joseph Valacich, 2010. "Enhancing the Motivational Affordance of Information Systems: The Effects of Real-Time Performance Feedback and Goal Setting in Group Collaboration Environments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(4), pages 724-742, April.
    17. Giang-Do Nguyen & Thu-Hien Thi Dao, 2024. "Factors influencing continuance intention to use mobile banking: an extended expectation-confirmation model with moderating role of trust," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-14, December.
    18. Zhong, Yongping & Oh, Segu & Moon, Hee Cheol, 2021. "Service transformation under industry 4.0: Investigating acceptance of facial recognition payment through an extended technology acceptance model," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    19. Heijden, Hans van der, 2000. "E-Tam : a revision of the Technology Acceptance Model to explain website revisits," Serie Research Memoranda 0029, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    20. Peters, Twan & Işık, Öykü & Tona, Olgerta & Popovič, Aleš, 2016. "How system quality influences mobile BI use: The mediating role of engagement," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 773-783.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:3:p:1371-:d:734915. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.