IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/endesu/v23y2021i4d10.1007_s10668-020-00808-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Use of biologic inputs among cereal farmers: application of technology acceptance model

Author

Listed:
  • Asghar Bagheri

    (University of Mohaghegh Ardabili)

  • Abolmohammad Bondori

    (University of Mohaghegh Ardabili)

  • Mohammad Sadegh Allahyari

    (Rasht Branch, Islamic Azad University)

  • Jhalukpreya Surujlal

    (Deputy Dean Research and Innovation, North-West University)

Abstract

This study sought to determine whether the technology acceptance model (TAM) could adequately explain the adoption and use of biological inputs (BI). A sample of 150 cereal farmers from Bilehsavar County of Ardabil Province, Iran, participated in this study for data collection. Two key components of TAM, i.e., perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEOU), along with attitudes, intentions and usage behavior, were measured using five-point Likert-type scales and modeled using structural equation modeling (SEM). Generally, scores on all scales indicated that behavioral intention was not well known and used by farmers. Intention to use and usage behavior indicated the lowest mean scores, implying that few farmers intended to use or were using BI. PEOU showed the lowest mean score suggesting respondents perceived that BI was not easy to use. Attitude and PU scores indicated that most of the respondents had fairly negative to neutral attitudes and perceptions toward the usefulness of BI. Attitudes and intentions accounted for 52% of the variance in farmers’ behavior. Attitude and PU, in turn, accounted for 56% of variability in intentions. PU and PEOU also accounted for 64% of the variability in attitudes. Based on these findings, an extension education program to facilitate the application of BI will improve PEOU and promote farmers’ PU and intentions. Visits to demonstration farms and discussion sessions are useful to improve farmers’ attitudes and thereby to promote their intention to adopt useful technologies. Removing agrochemicals’ subsidies, providing farmers with incentives for reducing agrochemicals and increasing BI use are essential to encourage farmers in the adoption and application of BI.

Suggested Citation

  • Asghar Bagheri & Abolmohammad Bondori & Mohammad Sadegh Allahyari & Jhalukpreya Surujlal, 2021. "Use of biologic inputs among cereal farmers: application of technology acceptance model," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 5165-5181, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:23:y:2021:i:4:d:10.1007_s10668-020-00808-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s10668-020-00808-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10668-020-00808-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10668-020-00808-9?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. Sinden, Jack A. & King, David A., 1990. "Adoption of Soil Conservation Measures in Manilla Shire, New South Wales," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 58(02-03), pages 1-14, December.
    2. Simona Naspetti & Serena Mandolesi & Jeroen Buysse & Terhi Latvala & Philippa Nicholas & Susanne Padel & Ellen J. Van Loo & Raffaele Zanoli, 2017. "Determinants of the Acceptance of Sustainable Production Strategies among Dairy Farmers: Development and Testing of a Modified Technology Acceptance Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-16, October.
    3. Meredith Niles & Margaret Brown & Robyn Dynes, 2016. "Farmer’s intended and actual adoption of climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 135(2), pages 277-295, March.
    4. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    5. Fred D. Davis & Richard P. Bagozzi & Paul R. Warshaw, 1989. "User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(8), pages 982-1003, August.
    6. Meredith T. Niles & Margaret Brown & Robyn Dynes, 2016. "Farmer’s intended and actual adoption of climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 135(2), pages 277-295, March.
    7. Liljander, Veronica & Polsa, Pia & van Riel, Allard, 2009. "Modelling consumer responses to an apparel store brand: Store image as a risk reducer," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 281-290.
    8. Flett, Ross & Alpass, Fiona & Humphries, Steve & Massey, Claire & Morriss, Stuart & Long, Nigel, 2004. "The technology acceptance model and use of technology in New Zealand dairy farming," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 199-211, May.
    9. Jörg Henseler & Marko Sarstedt, 2013. "Goodness-of-fit indices for partial least squares path modeling," Computational Statistics, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 565-580, April.
    10. Austin, E.J. & Willock, J. & Deary, I.J. & Gibson, G.J. & Dent, J.B. & Edwards-Jones, G. & Morgan, O. & Grieve, R. & Sutherland, A., 1998. "Empirical models of farmer behaviour using psychological, social and economic variables. Part II: nonlinear and expert modelling," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 225-241, October.
    11. Austin, E.J & Willock, J & Deary, I.J & Gibson, G.J & Dent, J.B & Edwards-Jones, G & Morgan, O & Grieve, R & Sutherland, A, 1998. "Empirical models of farmer behaviour using psychological, social and economic variables. Part I: linear modelling," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 203-224, October.
    12. Viswanath Venkatesh & Fred D. Davis, 2000. "A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(2), pages 186-204, February.
    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. Veronika Hannus & Johannes Sauer, 2021. "Understanding Farmers’ Intention to Use a Sustainability Standard: The Role of Economic Rewards, Knowledge, and Ease of Use," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-21, September.

    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. Flett, Ross & Alpass, Fiona & Humphries, Steve & Massey, Claire & Morriss, Stuart & Long, Nigel, 2004. "The technology acceptance model and use of technology in New Zealand dairy farming," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 199-211, May.
    2. Asrar Ahmed Sabir & Iftikhar Ahmad & Hassan Ahmad & Muhammad Rafiq & Muhammad Asghar Khan & Neelum Noreen, 2023. "Consumer Acceptance and Adoption of AI Robo-Advisors in Fintech Industry," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-24, March.
    3. Schaak, Henning & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2018. "Understanding the adoption of grazing practices in German dairy farming," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 230-239.
    4. Bagheri, Asghar & Teymouri, Ali, 2022. "Farmers’ intended and actual adoption of soil and water conservation practices," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 259(C).
    5. Kamrath, Carolin & Rajendran, Srinivasulu & Nenguwo, Ngoni & Afari-Sefa, Victor & Broring, Stefanie, 2018. "Adoption behavior of market traders: an analysis based on Technology Acceptance Model and Theory of Planned Behavior," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 21(6), July.
    6. Veronika Hannus & Johannes Sauer, 2021. "Understanding Farmers’ Intention to Use a Sustainability Standard: The Role of Economic Rewards, Knowledge, and Ease of Use," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-21, September.
    7. Kelly, Edel & Heanue, Kevin & Buckley, Cathal & O'Gorman, Colm, 2015. "Proven Science versus Farmer Perception," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 229067, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Ivonne Angelica Castiblanco Jimenez & Laura Cristina Cepeda García & Maria Grazia Violante & Federica Marcolin & Enrico Vezzetti, 2020. "Commonly Used External TAM Variables in e-Learning, Agriculture and Virtual Reality Applications," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-21, December.
    9. Akhmadiyeva, Zarema & Herzfeld, Thomas, 2021. "Understanding the Role of Perceived Land Rights in the Formation of Farmers’ Intentions: Evidence from Central Asia," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315076, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Mäntymäki, Matti & Salo, Jari, 2013. "Purchasing behavior in social virtual worlds: An examination of Habbo Hotel," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 282-290.
    11. Joan Torrent-Sellens & Cristian Salazar-Concha & Pilar Ficapal-Cusí & Francesc Saigí-Rubió, 2021. "Using Digital Platforms to Promote Blood Donation: Motivational and Preliminary Evidence from Latin America and Spain," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(8), pages 1-17, April.
    12. Sanjeev Verma, 2015. "Harnessing the Benefit of Social Networking Sites for Intentional Social Action: Determinants and Challenges," Vision, , vol. 19(2), pages 104-111, June.
    13. Sarv Devaraj & Ming Fan & Rajiv Kohli, 2002. "Antecedents of B2C Channel Satisfaction and Preference: Validating e-Commerce Metrics," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 13(3), pages 316-333, September.
    14. Muhammad Ali & Syed Ali Raza & Chin-Hong Puah & Mohd Zaini Abd Karim, 2017. "Islamic home financing in Pakistan: a SEM-based approach using modified TPB model," Housing Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(8), pages 1156-1177, November.
    15. Chua Chang Jin & Lim Chee Seong & Aye Aye Khin, 2019. "Factors Affecting the Consumer Acceptance towards Fintech Products and Services in Malaysia," International Journal of Asian Social Science, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 9(1), pages 59-65, January.
    16. Hongping Yuan & Yu Yang & Xiaolong Xue, 2019. "Promoting Owners’ BIM Adoption Behaviors to Achieve Sustainable Project Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-18, July.
    17. Viswanath Venkatesh, 2000. "Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 11(4), pages 342-365, December.
    18. Gao, Tao (Tony) & Rohm, Andrew J. & Sultan, Fareena & Pagani, Margherita, 2013. "Consumers un-tethered: A three-market empirical study of consumers' mobile marketing acceptance," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(12), pages 2536-2544.
    19. Liébana-Cabanillas, Francisco & Marinkovic, Veljko & Ramos de Luna, Iviane & Kalinic, Zoran, 2018. "Predicting the determinants of mobile payment acceptance: A hybrid SEM-neural network approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 117-130.
    20. Deborah Compeau & Barbara Marcolin & Helen Kelley & Chris Higgins, 2012. "Research Commentary ---Generalizability of Information Systems Research Using Student Subjects---A Reflection on Our Practices and Recommendations for Future Research," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 1093-1109, December.

    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:spr:endesu:v:23:y:2021:i:4:d:10.1007_s10668-020-00808-9. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.