IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i10p5749-d812083.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sustainable Innovations: A Qualitative Study on Farmers’ Perceptions Driving the Diffusion of Beneficial Soil Microbes in Germany and the UK

Author

Listed:
  • Ursula Ploll

    (Institute for Food and Resource Economics, Agricultural and Food Market Research, University of Bonn, 53115 Bonn, Germany)

  • Miguel Arato

    (INOQ GmbH, 29465 Schnega, Germany)

  • Jan Börner

    (Institute for Food and Resource Economics, Center for Development Research, University of Bonn, 53115 Bonn, Germany)

  • Monika Hartmann

    (Institute for Food and Resource Economics, Agricultural and Food Market Research, University of Bonn, 53115 Bonn, Germany)

Abstract

Legislation and consumer preference for more sustainability in the food system require farmers to adopt more stringent sustainably measures without sacrificing business profitability. Scientific and technological innovations, such as beneficial soil microbes for in-field application, may help to achieve this goal, but adoption rates have remained slow thus far. The adopter’s perspective is essential to understanding why. This research investigates factors that drive the perceptions of soil microbe solutions across three groups of (potential) adopters as an input to the design of effective communication strategies to accelerate technology diffusion. Factors included in the analyses are relative advantage , compatibility , complexity , trialability , observability and image of applying soil microbes at the farm level. The analysis is based on 28 in-depth qualitative interviews in Germany and the UK, and a focus group discussion in the UK. Data were analysed via content analysis using deductive and inductive processes. Deductive codes were derived from the diffusion of innovations theory. Our results show that soil microbes are still perceived as a challenging product in all three adopter groups, despite the acknowledgement of several advantages and benefits. Predominantly, farmers evaluate the innovation as complex. Furthermore, the observability of the soil microbes was perceived as challenging, which also transfers to the trialability of the innovation. Despite this, in all adopter groups the need for the innovation was recognized.

Suggested Citation

  • Ursula Ploll & Miguel Arato & Jan Börner & Monika Hartmann, 2022. "Sustainable Innovations: A Qualitative Study on Farmers’ Perceptions Driving the Diffusion of Beneficial Soil Microbes in Germany and the UK," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-23, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:10:p:5749-:d:812083
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/10/5749/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/10/5749/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. J Blasch & B van der Kroon & P van Beukering & R Munster & S Fabiani & P Nino & S Vanino, 2022. "Farmer preferences for adopting precision farming technologies: a case study from Italy," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(1), pages 33-81.
    2. Jeffrey Barber, 2003. "Production, Consumption and the World Summit on Sustainable Development," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 63-93, March.
    3. Kuehne, Geoff & Llewellyn, Rick & Pannell, David J. & Wilkinson, Roger & Dolling, Perry & Ouzman, Jackie & Ewing, Mike, 2017. "Predicting farmer uptake of new agricultural practices: A tool for research, extension and policy," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 115-125.
    4. Läpple, Doris & Rensburg, Tom Van, 2011. "Adoption of organic farming: Are there differences between early and late adoption?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(7), pages 1406-1414, May.
    5. Montes de Oca Munguia, Oscar & Pannell, David J. & Llewellyn, Rick & Stahlmann-Brown, Philip, 2021. "Adoption pathway analysis: Representing the dynamics and diversity of adoption for agricultural practices," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    6. Gary C. Moore & Izak Benbasat, 1991. "Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 192-222, September.
    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. Brown, Brendan & Paudel, Gokul P. & Krupnik, Timothy J., 2021. "Visualising adoption processes through a stepwise framework: A case study of mechanisation on the Nepal Terai," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    2. Nuray Cakirli Akyüz & Ludwig Theuvsen, 2020. "The Impact of Behavioral Drivers on Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Practices: The Case of Organic Farming in Turkey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-20, August.
    3. Ludemann, Cameron, 2022. "Estimated Annual Value of a Forage Cultivar Selection Decision Tool for New Zealand Sheep and Beef Farmers," AFBM Journal, Australasian Farm Business Management Network, vol. 19(1), April.
    4. Rodríguez-Barillas, María & Klerkx, Laurens & Poortvliet, P. Marijn, 2024. "What determines the acceptance of Climate Smart Technologies? The influence of farmers' behavioral drivers in connection with the policy environment," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    5. Hannus, Veronika & Sauer, Johannes, 2021. "It is not only about money —– German farmers' preferences regarding voluntary standards for farm sustainability management," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    6. Brown, Philip & Roper, Simon, 2017. "Innovation and networks in New Zealand farming," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 61(3), July.
    7. Aziz Barhmi & Omar Hajaji, 2023. "Multidisciplinary Approach to Supply Chain Resilience: Conceptualization and Scale Development," Central European Business Review, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2023(5), pages 43-69.
    8. Venugopal Gopalakrishna-Remani & Robert Paul Jones & Kerri M. Camp, 2019. "Levels of EMR Adoption in U.S. Hospitals: An Empirical Examination of Absorptive Capacity, Institutional Pressures, Top Management Beliefs, and Participation," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 21(6), pages 1325-1344, December.
    9. Elbanna, Amany & Newman, Mike, 2022. "The bright side and the dark side of top management support in Digital Transformaion –A hermeneutical reading," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    10. Cuong Le Van & Nguyen To The, 2019. "Farmers’ adoption of organic production," Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 33-59, February.
    11. Manda, Julius & Feleke, Shiferaw & Mutungi, Christopher & Tufa, Adane H. & Mateete, Bekunda & Abdoulaye, Tahirou & Alene, Arega D., 2024. "Assessing the speed of improved postharvest technology adoption in Tanzania: The role of social learning and agricultural extension services," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    12. Morosan, Cristian, 2016. "An empirical examination of U.S. travelers’ intentions to use biometric e-gates in airports," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 120-128.
    13. Sarv Devaraj & Robert F. Easley & J. Michael Crant, 2008. "Research Note ---How Does Personality Matter? Relating the Five-Factor Model to Technology Acceptance and Use," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 19(1), pages 93-105, March.
    14. Michael J. Motta, 2021. "Diffusion and Typology: The Invention and Early Adoption of Medicinal Marijuana and Offshore Wind Policies," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(1), pages 567-584, January.
    15. Paul Juinn Bing Tan, 2013. "Applying the UTAUT to Understand Factors Affecting the Use of English E-Learning Websites in Taiwan," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(4), pages 21582440135, October.
    16. Schweizer, T.S., 2002. "Managing interactions between technological and stylistic innovation in the media industries, insights from the introduction of ebook technology in the publishing industry," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2002-16-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    17. Severin Oesterle & Arne Buchwald & Nils Urbach, 2022. "Investigating the co-creation of IT consulting service value: empirical findings of a matched pair analysis," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(2), pages 571-597, June.
    18. Vincent Sennes & Jacques Breillat & Francis Ribeyre & Sandrine Gombert, 2009. "Local policies for reducing the ecological impact of households: the case study of a suburban area in France," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 11(5), pages 1031-1049, October.
    19. Neus Vila-Brunet & Josep Llach, 2020. "OSS-Qual: Holistic Scale to Assess Customer Quality Perception When Buying Secondhand Products in Online Platforms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-15, November.
    20. Shi, Yuwei & Herniman, John, 2023. "The role of expectation in innovation evolution: Exploring hype cycles," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).

    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:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:10:p:5749-:d:812083. 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.