IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i11p4431-d1400458.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Digital Technologies Adoption and Economic Benefits in Agriculture: A Mixed-Methods Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Wenxuan Geng

    (Agricultural Information Institute, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, No. 12 Zhongguancun South St., Beijing 100081, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Liping Liu

    (Agricultural Information Institute, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, No. 12 Zhongguancun South St., Beijing 100081, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Junye Zhao

    (Agricultural Information Institute, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, No. 12 Zhongguancun South St., Beijing 100081, China)

  • Xiaoru Kang

    (Agricultural Information Institute, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, No. 12 Zhongguancun South St., Beijing 100081, China)

  • Wenliang Wang

    (Agricultural Information Institute, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, No. 12 Zhongguancun South St., Beijing 100081, China)

Abstract

Governments globally aim to boost productivity and enhance farmers’ livelihoods, addressing challenges like climate change, food security, and labor shortages through digital technologies. However, adoption rates in developing countries remain low due to uncertainties regarding expected returns and obstacles stemming from subjective and objective factors among farmers. This study takes China as a case study to examine the internal and external factors influencing growers’ adoption intensity of digital technology and its impact on enhancing economic benefits, aiming to provide valuable insights for the promotion of digital technology in other countries and regions. This study employs a mixed-methods approach, integrating qualitative and quantitative methodologies, utilizing data from Shandong and Liaoning provinces. The findings underscore the significant role of growers’ knowledge, technology compatibility, government support, and competitive pressure in driving the adoption of digital technology among growers, with male growers and those managing larger cultivation areas demonstrating higher adoption intensity. Digital technologies can enhance growers’ economic benefits by reducing labor and input costs, increasing yields, and improving quality, with a 30.4% increase in economic benefits for each unit increase in adoption intensity of digital technologies. Technology promoters can use these findings to enhance growers’ awareness, highlight the practical benefits, and offer agricultural socialized services to promote digital technology adoption.

Suggested Citation

  • Wenxuan Geng & Liping Liu & Junye Zhao & Xiaoru Kang & Wenliang Wang, 2024. "Digital Technologies Adoption and Economic Benefits in Agriculture: A Mixed-Methods Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(11), pages 1-24, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:11:p:4431-:d:1400458
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/11/4431/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/11/4431/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lioutas, Evagelos D. & Charatsari, Chrysanthi & De Rosa, Marcello, 2021. "Digitalization of agriculture: A way to solve the food problem or a trolley dilemma?," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    2. Rose, David C. & Sutherland, William J. & Parker, Caroline & Lobley, Matt & Winter, Michael & Morris, Carol & Twining, Susan & Ffoulkes, Charles & Amano, Tatsuya & Dicks, Lynn V., 2016. "Decision support tools for agriculture: Towards effective design and delivery," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 165-174.
    3. Lee Cronbach, 1951. "Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 16(3), pages 297-334, September.
    4. Louisa Prause & Sarah Hackfort & Margit Lindgren, 2021. "Digitalization and the third food regime," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(3), pages 641-655, September.
    5. Gerli, Paolo & Clement, Jessica & Esposito, Giovanni & Mora, Luca & Crutzen, Nathalie, 2022. "The hidden power of emotions: How psychological factors influence skill development in smart technology adoption," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    6. Henry Kaiser, 1974. "An index of factorial simplicity," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 39(1), pages 31-36, March.
    7. Abate, Gashaw T. & Abay, Kibrom A. & Chamberlin, Jordan & Kassim, Yumna & Spielman, David J. & Paul Jr Tabe-Ojong, Martin, 2023. "Digital tools and agricultural market transformation in Africa: Why are they not at scale yet, and what will it take to get there?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    8. Dixit, Krishna & Aashish, Kumar & Kumar Dwivedi, Amit, 2023. "Antecedents of smart farming adoption to mitigate the digital divide – extended innovation diffusion model," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    9. Uwe Deichmann & Aparajita Goyal & Deepak Mishra, 2016. "Will digital technologies transform agriculture in developing countries?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 47(S1), pages 21-33, November.
    10. Chernozhukov, Victor & Hansen, Christian, 2008. "Instrumental variable quantile regression: A robust inference approach," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 142(1), pages 379-398, January.
    11. Kevin Zhu & Kenneth L. Kraemer & Sean Xu, 2006. "The Process of Innovation Assimilation by Firms in Different Countries: A Technology Diffusion Perspective on E-Business," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(10), pages 1557-1576, October.
    12. McFadden, Jonathan & Njuki, Eric & Griffin, Terry, 2023. "Precision Agriculture in the Digital Era: Recent Adoption on U.S. Farms," USDA Miscellaneous 333550, United States Department of Agriculture.
    13. Jiang, Kangqi & Chen, Zhongfei & Rughoo, Aarti & Zhou, Mengling, 2022. "Internet finance and corporate investment: Evidence from China," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    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. Cuiping He & Huicheng Hao & Yanhui Su & Jiaxuan Yang, 2024. "A Study on Factors Influencing Farmers’ Adoption of E-Commerce for Agricultural Products: A Case Study of Wuchang City," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(21), pages 1-22, October.

    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. Jayaram, Jayanth & Tan, Keah-Choon, 2010. "Supply chain integration with third-party logistics providers," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(2), pages 262-271, June.
    2. Eunice Kabahinda & Rogers Mwesigwa, 2023. "Trust Mediates the Relationship Between Stakeholder Behavior and Stakeholder Management of Public Private Partnership Projects in Uganda," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 245-263, March.
    3. Dyego Carlos Souza Anacleto de Araújo & Sylmara Nayara Pereira & Willian Melo dos Santos & Pedro Wlisses dos Santos Menezes & Kérilin Stancine dos Santos Rocha & Sabrina Cerqueira-Santos & André Faro , 2021. "Brazilian version of the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension: Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation among healthcare students," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(2), pages 1-13, February.
    4. Jaime Martín-Martín & Bella Pajares-Hachero & Emilio Alba-Conejo & Nuria Ribelles & Antonio I. Cuesta-Vargas & Cristina Roldán-Jiménez, 2023. "Validation of the Upper Limb Functional Index on Breast Cancer Survivor," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(6), pages 1-10, March.
    5. Kanishka Gupta & Abdul Wajid & Dolly Gaur, 2024. "Determinants of continuous intention to use FinTech services: the moderating role of COVID-19," Journal of Financial Services Marketing, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 29(2), pages 536-552, June.
    6. Nuno Garoupa & Rok Spruk, 2024. "Measuring Political Institutions in the Long Run: A Latent Variable Analysis of Political Regimes, 1810–2018," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 173(3), pages 867-914, July.
    7. Hauck, Jana & Suess-Reyes, Julia & Beck, Susanne & Prügl, Reinhard & Frank, Hermann, 2016. "Measuring socioemotional wealth in family-owned and -managed firms: A validation and short form of the FIBER Scale," Journal of Family Business Strategy, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 133-148.
    8. Hasnan Baber, 2020. "FinTech, Crowdfunding and Customer Retention in Islamic Banks," Vision, , vol. 24(3), pages 260-268, September.
    9. Fen Ren & Kexin Wang, 2022. "Modeling of the Chinese Dating App Use Motivation Scale According to Item Response Theory and Classical Test Theory," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-15, October.
    10. Popa, Simona & Soto-Acosta, Pedro & Perez-Gonzalez, Daniel, 2018. "An investigation of the effect of electronic business on financial performance of Spanish manufacturing SMEs," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 355-362.
    11. Naruemon Choochinprakarn, 2015. "Strategic Uses of Electronic Commerce for Thai Travel Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs)," Proceedings of Business and Management Conferences 2303915, International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences.
    12. Schmidt, Sebastian & Saraceni, Adriana, 2024. "Consumer acceptance of drone-based technology for last mile delivery," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    13. Ernest Bielinis & Jianzhong Xu & Aneta Anna Omelan, 2020. "A Novel Anti-Environmental Forest Experience Scale to Predict Preferred Pleasantness Associated with Forest Environments," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-18, September.
    14. Nguyen Ba Chien & Nguyen Nghi Thanh, 2022. "The Impact of Good Governance on the People’s Satisfaction with Public Administrative Services in Vietnam," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-12, February.
    15. Raveenajit Kaur A. P. & Kalvant Singh & Alberto Luis August, 2021. "Exploring the Factor Structure of the Constructs of Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge (TPACK): An Exploratory Factor Analysis Based on the Perceptions of TESOL Pre-Service Teachers at ," Research Journal of Education, Academic Research Publishing Group, vol. 7(2), pages 103-115, 06-2021.
    16. Ricardo Figueiredo Belchior & Roisin Lyons, 2021. "Explaining entrepreneurial intentions, nascent entrepreneurial behavior and new business creation with social cognitive career theory – a 5-year longitudinal analysis," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 1945-1972, December.
    17. Cemil Kuzey, 2018. "Impact of Health Care Employees Job Satisfaction on Organizational Performance Support Vector Machine Approach," Journal of Economics and Financial Analysis, Tripal Publishing House, vol. 2(1), pages 45-68.
    18. Katharina Fellnhofer & Kaisu Puumalainen & Helena Sjögrén, 0. "Entrepreneurial orientation in work groups – effects of individuals and group characteristics," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-37.
    19. Jesús Antonio López Cabrera & Francisco Gabriel Villarreal & Diego Cardoso López, 2023. "Una propuesta de medición de la inclusión financiera en México," Remef - Revista Mexicana de Economía y Finanzas Nueva Época REMEF (The Mexican Journal of Economics and Finance), Instituto Mexicano de Ejecutivos de Finanzas, IMEF, vol. 18(3), pages 1-41, Julio - S.
    20. Silvia Mariela Méndez-Prado & Vanessa Rodriguez & Kevin Peralta-Rizzo & Patricia Everaert & Martin Valcke, 2023. "An Assessment Tool to Identify the Financial Literacy Level of Financial Education Programs Participants’ Executed by Ecuadorian Financial Institutions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-24, 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:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:11:p:4431-:d:1400458. 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.