Determinants of the acceptance of sustainable production strategies among dairy farmers: Development and testing of a modified technology acceptance model

Sustainability (Switzerland)

Volumn 9, Issue 10, 2017, Pages

  Naspetti, Simona ^a   Mandolesi, Serena ^a   Buysse, Jeroen ^b   Latvala, Terhi ^c   Nicholas, Philippa ^d   Padel, Susanne ^e   Van Loo, Ellen J ^b   Zanoli, Raffaele ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÀ POLITECNICA DELLE MARCHE   (Italy)

^b GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^c FINNISH FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Finland)

^d ABERYSTWYTH UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^e Elm Farm   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Dairy farming; Organic farming; Structural equation modeling; Sustainability; Technology acceptance model

Indexed keywords

DAIRY FARMING; EUROPEAN UNION; FARMERS ATTITUDE; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; NUMERICAL MODEL; ORGANIC FARMING; PERCEPTION; PRODUCTION SYSTEM; STAKEHOLDER; SUSTAINABILITY; TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT; TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION; TESTING METHOD;

AUSTRIA; BELGIUM; DENMARK; FINLAND; ITALY; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 85030635826     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20711050     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/su9101805     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research; Addison-We.: Reading, MA, UK; 1975; ISBN 0201020890.
2. Fishbein, M. A theory of reasoned action: Some applications and implications. Nebr. Symp. Motiv. 1980, 27, 65-116.
3. Davis, F.D. Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Q. 1989, 13, 319-340, doi:10.2307/249008.
4. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179-211.
5. Taylor, S., Todd, P.A. Assessing IT usage: The role of prior experience. Manag. Inf. Syst. Q. 1995, 19, 561-570, doi:10.2307/249633.
6. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Q. 2003, 27, 425-478, doi:10.2307/30036540.
7. King, W.R., He, J. A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Inf. Manag. 2006, 43, 740-755, doi:10.1016/j.im.2006.05.003.
8. Li, Y., Qi, J., Shu, H. Review of Relationships Among Variables in TAM. Tsinghua Sci. Technol. 2008, 13, 273-278, doi:10.1016/S1007-0214(08)70044-0.
9. Nicholas, P.K., Mandolesi, S., Naspetti, S., Zanoli, R. Innovations in low input and organic dairy supply chains-What is acceptable in Europe? J. Dairy Sci. 2014, 97, 1157-1167, doi:10.3168/jds.2013-7314.
10. Mandolesi, S., Nicholas, P., Naspetti, S., Zanoli, R. Identifying viewpoints on innovation in low-input and organic dairy supply chains: A Q-methodological study. Food Policy 2015, 54, 25-34, doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.04.008.
11. Stephenson, W. The Study of Behavior; Q-Technique and Its Methodology; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1953.
12. Stephenson, W. Correlating Persons instead of Tests. J. Personal. 1935, 4, 17-24, doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1935.tb02022.x.
13. Davis, F.D. User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. Int. J. Man Mach. Stud. 1993, 38, 475-487, doi:10.1006/imms.1993.1022.
14. Porter, C.E., Donthu, N. Using the technology acceptance model to explain how attitudes determine Internet usage: The role of perceived access barriers and demographics. J. Bus. Res. 2006, 59, 999-1007, doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.06.003.
15. Kulshreshtha, S.N., Brown, W.J. Role of farmers' attitudes in adoption of irrigation in Saskatchewan. Irrig. Drain. Syst. 1993, 7, 85-98, doi:10.1007/BF00880869.
16. Simatupang, T.M., Sridharan, R. A benchmarking scheme for supply chain collaboration. Benchmark. Int. J. 2004, 11, 9-30, doi:10.1108/14635770410520285.
17. Naspetti, S., Lampkin, N., Nicolas, P., Stolze, M., Zanoli, R. Organic Supply Chain Collaboration: A Case Study in Eight EU Countries. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2011, 17, 141-162, doi:10.1080/10454446.2011.548733.
18. Bredahl, L. Determinants of consumer attitudes and purchase intentions with regard to genetically modified foods-Results of a cross-national survey. J. Consum. Policy 2001, 24, 23-61, doi:10.1023/A:1010950406128.
19. Davis, F., Bagozzi, R., Warshaw, P. Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1992, 22, 1111-1132.
20. Huh, H.J., (Terry) Kim, T., Law, R. A comparison of competing theoretical models for understanding acceptance behavior of information systems in upscale hotels. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2009, 28, 121-134, doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2008.06.004.
21. Tung, F.C., Chang, S.C., Chou, C.M. An extension of trust and TAM model with IDT in the adoption of the electronic logistics information system in HIS in the medical industry. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2008, 77, 324-335, doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2007.06.006.
22. Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D. A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: Development and test. Decis. Sci. 1996, 27, 451-481.
23. Amoako-Gyampah, K., Salam, A.F. An extension of the technology acceptance model in an ERP implementation environment. Inf. Manag. 2004, 41, 731-754.
24. Gao, T.T., Leichter, G., Wei, Y.S. Countervailing effects of value and risk perceptions in manufacturers' adoption of expensive, discontinuous innovations. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2012, 41, 659-668, doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.09.014.
25. Rezaei-Moghaddam, K., Salehi, S. Agricultural specialists' intention toward precision agriculture technologies: Integrating innovation characteristics to technology acceptance model. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2010, 5, 1191-1199, doi:10.5897/AJAR09.506.
26. Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations; 4th ed., (CLOTH) 0029266718 (PAPER); The Free Press: New York, NY, USA; 1995; ISBN 0028740742.
27. Padel, S. Conversion to Organic Farming: A Typical Example of the Diffusion of an Innovation? Sociol. Ruralis 2001, 41, 40-61, doi:10.1111/1467-9523.00169.
28. Sorensen, E., Grunert, K.G., Nielsen, N.A. The Impact of Product Experience, Product Involvement and Verbal Processing Style on Consumers' Cognitive Structures with Regard to Fresh Fish; MAPP working paper: Aarhus, DK; 1996.
29. Zanoli, R., Naspetti, S. Consumer motivations in the purchase of organic food: A means-end approach. Br. Food J. 2002, 104, 643-653.
30. Genius, M., Pantzios, C.J., Tzouvelekas, V. Information Acquisition and Adoption of Organic Farming Practices. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2006, 31, 93-113.
31. Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W. Structural equation modelling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 1988, 103, 411-423.
32. Finney, S., Distefano, C. Non-Normal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. In Structural Equation Modeling: A Second Course; Hancock, G.R., Mueller, R.O., Eds., 2006; pp. 269-312, ISBN 1070-5511.
33. Byrne, B.M. Structural Equation Modeling with Mplus: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming; Multivariate Applications Series; Routledge: London, UK; 2013; ISBN 9781136663451.
34. Adrian, A.M., Norwood, S.H., Mask, P.L. Producers' perceptions and attitudes toward precision agriculture technologies. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2005, 48, 256-271, doi:10.1016/j.compag.2005.04.004.
35. Flett, R., Alpass, F., Humphries, S., Massey, C., Morriss, S., Long, N. The technology acceptance model and use of technology in New Zealand dairy farming. Agric. Syst. 2004, 80, 199-211, doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2003.08.002.
36. Rahmann, G., Reza Ardakani, M., Bàrberi, P., Boehm, H., Canali, S., Chander, M., David, W., Dengel, L., Erisman, J.W., Galvis-Martinez, A.C., et al. Organic Agriculture 3.0 is innovation with research. Org. Agric. 2016, 169-197, doi:10.1007/s13165-016-0171-5.
37. Lockeretz, W. Organic Farming: An International History. In Organic Farming: An International History; CABI Publishing: Wallingford, UK; 2007; ISBN 085199833X, 9780851998336.
38. Padel, S., Vaarst, M., Zaralis, K. Supporting Innovation in Organic Agriculture: A European Perspective Using Experience from the SOLID Project. Sustain. Agric. Res. 2015, 4, 32, doi:10.5539/sar.v4n3p32.