Journal of Rural Studies xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Rural Studies

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jrurstud

Drivers of farmers’ intention to adopt technological innovations in Italy: The

role of information sources, perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of use
Federica Caffaroa,∗, Margherita Micheletti Cremascob, Michele Roccatoc, Eugenio Cavallod
a
Department of Education, University of Roma Tre, Via del Castro Pretorio 20, 00185, Rome, Italy
b
Department of Life Sciences and Systems Biology, University of Torino, Via Accademia Albertina 13, 10123, Torino, Italy
c
Department of Psychology, University of Torino, Via Verdi 10, 10124, Torino, Italy
d
Institute for Agricultural and Earthmoving Machines (IMAMOTER) of the National Research Council (CNR) of Italy, Strada delle Cacce 73, 10135, Torino, Italy

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Smart Farming Technologies (SFTs) can improve production output while minimising costs and preserving re-
Perceived ease of use (PEU) sources; however, they are scarcely adopted by farmers. In the present study, the factors affecting farmers'
Perceived usefulness (PU) intentions to adopt two types of SFTs (Type 1: drones, sensors for data acquisition and automatic download, and
Smart farming agricultural apps; Type 2: agricultural robots and autonomous machines) were investigated within the frame-
Sources of information
work of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), considering the role played by different sources of in-
Technology acceptance model (TAM)
formation, Perceived Ease of Use (PEU), and Perceived Usefulness (PU). A questionnaire assessing the PEU and
PU of the two types of SFTs, farmers' previous exposure to different impersonal and personal (formal and in-
formal) sources of information, and farmers' intentions to adopt SFTs was administered to a sample of Italian
farmers (n = 314). A mediated model, built on the TAM, showed that the PU affected farmers’ intention to adopt
a technology and that personal sources of information, both formal and informal, affected the PU; however,
while formal sources increased the PU, informal sources decreased the PU. The model was invariant across the
two types of SFTs considered. The implications for the proposal of new technologies are discussed.

1. Introduction
Smart farming is the application of a large set of technologies, such
as sensors and actuators, geo-positioning systems, aerial and terrestrial
autonomous vehicles, robotics, Information and Communication
Technologies (ICT), the Internet of Things (IoT), big data analytics, and
cloud computing (Pierpaoli et al., 2013; Wolfert et al., 2017) to agri-
culture. These technologies, together with synthetic biology, neuro-
technologies, nanomaterials, advanced energy and storage technolo-
gies, are expected to disrupt and greatly affect economies and societies
in the immediate future (10–15 years), resulting in effects on many
fronts, including the agricultural business (Manyika et al., 2013; Or-
ganisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] 2016).
Indeed, Smart Farming Technologies (SFTs) have a real potential to
deliver more sustainable agricultural production and to boost agri-
cultural productivity based on a more precise and resource-efficient
approach. SFTs can also represent a new lever to enhance common or
growing trends in agricultural exploitations, such as family and organic
farming (Knickel et al., 2017; The White House, 2014).
Despite the relevance and benefits of SFTs, previous research has
reported low acceptance and rare adoption of these technologies among
farmers (Cavallo et al., 2014; Cullen et al., 2013; Sneddon et al., 2011;
Wheeler, 2008). To interpret these results, previous studies have mainly
focused on the effects of farmer and farm characteristics and economic
variables (García-Cortijo et al., 2019; Tey and Brindal, 2012). The
adoption of SFTs has been reported to be lower among older and less-
educated farmers (O'Donoghue and Heanue, 2018; Walton et al., 2008)
and in small holdings (Paustian and Theuvsen, 2017; Robertson et al.,
2012; Walton et al., 2008), since small size and land fragmentation
prevent the achievement of adeguate economies of scale for the im-
plementation of technologies (Giannakis et al., 2016). Perceived high
investments and poor returns were shown to significantly lower SFT
adoption; in a survey performed among farmers in 7 European coun-
tries, the most frequently mentioned barriers to SFT adoption were the
high cost and a lack of clarity with regard to cost–benefit and SFT added
value (Kernecker et al., 2019). Although economic benefit is the de-
ciding factor for SFT adoption, the extant literature often highlights the
seemingly irrational and inefficient outcomes of technological

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: federica.caffaro@uniroma3.it (F. Caffaro), margherita.micheletti@unito.it (M. Micheletti Cremasco), michele.roccato@unito.it (M. Roccato),
eugenio.cavallo@cnr.it (E. Cavallo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.04.028
Received 2 July 2019; Received in revised form 30 March 2020; Accepted 14 April 2020
0743-0167/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Federica Caffaro, et al., Journal of Rural Studies, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.04.028
F. Caffaro, et al.
innovation adoption. For instance, successfully adopted technologies
and innovations may be nevertheless rejected by users who revert to the
original practice even when benefits were being enjoyed (Cullen et al.,
2013; Sneddon et al., 2011; Wheeler, 2008).
The failure of the models focused on economic triggers has led to an
increase in the application of new approaches in agricultural studies
(Baumgart-Getz et al., 2012; Burton, 2004), which have emphasized the
importance of considering the role of social-psychological constructs,
such as perceptions, intentions, and goals, in farmers' decision-making
to contribute to the rural development process (Jafry and O'Neill, 2000;
Unay Gailhard and Bojnec, 2016).
The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB; Ajzen, 1991) and its fore-
runner, the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA; Ajzen and Fishbein,
1980), are social-psychological theories that have been extensively used
to explain and predict peoples' behaviours across many settings,
through the role of beliefs, attitudes and intentions. An adaptation of
the TRA specifically developed to explain why users accept or reject
information technology is the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
proposed by Davis et al. (1989). TAM is a causal model that proposes
that an individual's system usage is determined by behavioural inten-
tion, which is, in turn, determined by two key components: perceived
usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEU) (Venkatesh et al.,
2003). PU is the extent to which a person believes that using a parti-
cular technology will enhance his/her job performance while PEU is the
extent to which a person believes that using a new technology “will be
free from effort” (Davis, 1989, p. 320). Both PU and PEU are distinct
psychological constructs that exert direct effects on the intention to
adopt an information system, and the PU has a stronger effect than the
PEU (Brosnan, 1999). The impact on behavioural intention to adopt a
technology of other external variables is fully mediated by the PU and
PEU (Venkatesh et al., 2003). The TAM has been used to explain in-
dividuals' intention to adopt technological innovations in many dif-
ferent contexts, among which are e-learning services (Roca et al.,
2006), fault diagnosis in manufacturing (Kluge and Termer, 2017), and
Web-based management systems (Mun and Hwang, 2003). The validity
of the TAM is well established (Venkatesh et al., 2003). However, as
reported by Pierpaoli et al. (2013), a limited amount of empirical re-
search adopted the TAM to predict farmers' intentions towards the
adoption of technological innovations in developing and developed
countries. In these few studies, the link between PU, PEU and intention
to adopt has shown variable patterns, with PU and PEU being either
equally crucial in determining farmers' intentions or with only PU re-
porting a significant effect (Pierpaoli et al., 2013).
The few extant studies adopting the TAM investigated the relation
of socio-demographic (such as education, age, and previous experience
with technology), financial (such as perceived benefit) and competitive
factors (such as trialability or technical support) with PU and PEU and
with the behavioural intention of adopting a technology (for a review,
see Pierpaoli et al., 2013). The potential users’ exposition to different
sources of information has been nearly neglected in these studies, al-
though this variable was shown to be a key factor in the adoption of
innovations in agriculture (Daberkow and McBride, 2003; Rogers and
Beal, 1958; Reichardt et al., 2009; Toma et al., 2016), since it can re-
duce uncertainty regarding innovation and provide users with the ne-
cessary skills to manage it.
According to Rogers (2003), innovation adoption begins with
sharing information with potential users through two main channels,
one impersonal channel (i.e., without a direct face-to-face exchange,
such as mass media) and one personal channel (i.e., communication
contacts that involve a direct face-to face exchange). Personal con-
tacts—that may be further categorised into informal contacts with re-
latives and peers and formal contacts with institutionalised sources,
such as farmers' organisations and consultants–have greater effective-
ness compared to impersonal sources in affecting users’ perceptions
regarding usefulness and ease of use of an innovation, since impersonal
sources can be more easily avoided or ignored (McBride and Daberkow,
2
Journal of Rural Studies xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
2003; Unay Gailhard et al., 2015).
Regarding agriculture, the few studies available have shown mass
media to be the primary source of technological awareness, while
personal information sources were found to have the most critical role
in technology adoption (Cavallo et al., 2014; McBride and Daberkow,
2003). The research on the role played by personal information sources
led to partially contrasting results (Kountios et al., 2018): Caffaro et al.
(2019) and McBride and Daberkow (2003) reported that participation
in formal institutions (e.g., farmers' associations and organisations) and
extension service affiliation are the most powerful determinants of
farmers' adoption of different types of innovations. On the contrary,
Leeuwis and Aarts (2011) and Unay Gailhard et al. (2015) noted that
frequent informal contacts among farmers promote the adoption of
farming innovations more than formal communication occasions (i.e.,
farmers' associations or extension service events). In most of these
studies, the effects of the mass media and personal communications on
farmers' intentions to adopt a technology were analysed together with
farm's and operator's characteristics (e.g., operator education and farm
size, see Daberkow and McBride, 2003), overlooking farmers' percep-
tions as essential drivers for decisions (Pierpaoli et al., 2013).
1.1. Aims and context of this study
To the best of our knowledge, the relationship between the three
different sources of information as defined by Rogers (2003) and the
determinants of users' intention to adopt a technological innovation as
modelled by the TAM (i.e. the PU and PEU) has not yet been in-
vestigated among farm operators. In addition, previous studies in-
vestigating the role of the information environment on SFTs adoption
usually referred to discrete choice (logit or probit) models (Daberkow
and McBride, 2003; McBride and Daberkow, 2003; Unay Gailhard et al.,
2015). These models consider all the variables at the same hierarchical
level, not considering that farmers’ perceptions may simultaneously be
the outcomes of some, and predictors of other, variables whereas only
mediated models (such as the TAM) allow the researcher to detect the
reason for the association between the independent and dependent
variables.
Based on the previous considerations, the present study used the
TAM as a primary reference to build and empirically test a fully
mediated model aimed at predicting farmers' intention to adopt SFTs as
a function of farmers’ impersonal and personal (formal and informal)
information sources, with the mediation of the PEU and the PU of such
technologies. In particular, several hypotheses were tested as follows:
based on Daberkow and McBride (2003), a positive association between
having received information on the one hand and the PEU (H1) and PU
(H2) on the other, was expected. Given the inconsistent results of
previous literature, no specific hypotheses regarding the association
between each different source of information and the PEU and PU were
made. Furthermore, based on the TAM (Davis, 1989), the PEU and PU
were expected to show a positive association with the intention to adopt
SFTs (H3 and H4, respectively).
Furthermore, to provide a representative view of farmers’ behaviour
and to determine if the decision-making process varies for different
technologies, the observed relationships among the variables of interest
were tested across two types of SFTs: management information systems
(e.g., technologies for collecting, storing, processing, and disseminating
data for decision making) versus in-field advanced working tools (such
as robots and autonomous machines and traditional machines, e.g.,
tractors embedded with precision agriculture devices/systems).
Technological change is associated with enhanced opportunities for
higher productivity and income. Thus, understanding the processes by
which farmers become aware of new technologies and the detection of
the different information sources that may affect the perception of
usefulness and ease of use and the intention to adopt technological
innovations on a farm is of interest to the private sector, researchers
and policymakers (Daberkow and McBride, 2003). Indeed, noting the
F. Caffaro, et al.
critical factors in the causal chain leading to the intention to adopt new
technologies could highlight critical issues to be addressed with tar-
geted interventions to encourage the adoption of technology among the
agricultural population (Tey and Brindal, 2012).
The aforementioned issues were investigated in a sample of Italian
farmers. Europe is a particularly relevant context in which to in-
vestigate the issues related to SFT adoption: indeed, despite the wide
range of SFTs being offered, statistics show that while in the USA some
kind of SFT is used on up to 50 per cent of all corn and soybean farms
(Schimmelpfennig, 2016), among the farmers in the European Union,
the rate is no higher than 25% (European Parliament, 2016), probably
because of smaller farms for which capital requirements and costs as-
sociated with the technologies are higher (Lowenberg-DeBoer and
Erickson, 2019). The adoption of SFTs, therefore, represents a strategic
priority of EU policies, and a Horizon 2020 thematic network has been
developed (Smart-AKIS, Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation
System) to bridge the gap between the field and research on the iden-
tification and delivery of new smart farming solutions to meet farmers’
needs (Eip-Agri, 2017).
Within Europe, Italy is the second-ranked agricultural power in the
EU-28, with a turnover of more than EUR 55 billion in 2015 (Eurostat,
2016). Technological innovation struggles to spread among Italian farm
operators (Long et al., 2016); the last agricultural census showed that
only 61,000 out of 1.6 million Italian farms recorded in the census were
using ICT, noting the need to further support the development and
adoption of technology in this sector (Censimento Agricoltura, 2010).
In 2017, the Italian Ministry of Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policies
developed some guidelines in line with the EU's agricultural policy to
support the adoption of SFTs among Italian farmers, with the aim to
increase the adoption from the current 1%–10% of the national Utilised
Agricultural Area (UAA) by 2021 (Italian Ministry of Agricultural, Food
and Forestry Policies, 2017).
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Participants and setting
The study involved a sample of 314 male farm operators
(Mage = 40.04 years, SD = 17.48). The participants have been working
in agriculture for 20.22 years (SD = 16.93). The participants were
recruited among the visitors of the 36th National Exhibition of
Agricultural Mechanization in Savigliano, the largest agricultural ma-
chinery exhibition in the Piedmont region, Northwest Italy. The 2017
show was attended by over 60,000 visitors, and it had an exhibition
area of approximately 49,000 m2. The Savigliano Exhibition is a public
event that mostly features equipment but also attracts people and fa-
milies because of its recreational and entertaining activities.
Agricultural exhibitions play an essential role in the life of Italian small
country towns, where they often combine amusement elements,
breeding stock exhibitions, and sports events with lectures, seminars
and conferences. Since the agricultural population is spread across the
country and has varying operating schedules, agricultural machinery
exhibitions are among the few occasions at which a large and wide-
ranging group of agricultural workers comes together. Such events,
therefore, provide a suitable place for surveys and other data collection
activities (Caffaro et al., 2018; Görücü et al., 2014; Reichardt and
Jürgens, 2009).
2.2. Instrument
The participants were administered a 69-item paper-and-pencil
questionnaire to collect information regarding the sources of informa-
tion on SFTs they referred to, the PEU and PU of the SFTs and their
intention to adopt these technologies. The sections and items of the
questionnaire were developed considering previous instruments
(Adrian et al., 2005; Davis, 1989; Kernecker et al., 2019) and the
3
Journal of Rural Studies xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
critical issues raised in previous studies regarding innovation adoption
in agriculture (Pierpaoli et al., 2013; Unay Gailhard et al., 2015). The
questionnaire was pilot-tested with a group of 9 operators before being
submitted to the sample of the present investigation.
The questionnaire was composed of 4 sections and started with the
presentation of two groups of images depicting two types of SFTs. The
two groups of SFTs were defined based on the range of technological
solutions encompassed by the definition of smart farming (Fountas
et al., 2015; Pierpaoli et al., 2013) and considering previous evidence
from Kernecker et al. (2019) on the most relevant SFTs for farm op-
eration according to European farmers. In Type 1, recording and
mapping technologies such as drones, which collect site-specific data
for subsequent application, and apps, which integrate and connect farm
management and information systems with mobile devices for easier
farm monitoring and management were represented. In Type 2, images
of autonomously operating machines (e.g. harvesting robots) and
tractor GPS and connected tools that use real-time kinetics to appro-
priately apply variable rates of inputs and accurately guide tractors
were shown. Both these types of technologies were reported as critical
by the European farmers interviewed by Kernecker et al. (2019) since
they are related to high investment costs, a lack of clarity with regard to
the added value they could bring and not easily available. Based on
Kernecker et al. (2019), the participants were asked to choose one of
these two groups of images because they had direct experience with the
represented SFT, used it or heard about it from someone else.
In the first section of the questionnaire, building on Adrian et al.
(2005) and Davis (1989), the participants had to report using a 4-point
scale (ranging from 1 = not at all agree to 4 = completely agree) their
agreement with 9 statements regarding the chosen group of SFTs, i.e., it
is useful for farm operations; it increases productivity; it lowers pro-
duction costs; it allows one to work more quickly; it reduces workload;
it is easy to learn; it is controllable; it is understandable; and it is easy to
become skilful in. These items were designed to represent the different
aspects of the constructs of the PU and PEU (Davis, 1989), which are
known to influence the intention to adopt information technologies in
many fields.
In the second section of the questionnaire, as was previously done
by Adrian et al. (2005), the participants were asked whether they were
going to adopt the chosen SFT during the following year on a 4 point-
scale (0 = surely not, 1 = probably not, 2 = probably yes, and
3 = surely yes). In the third section, the participants had to indicate
using a 4-point scale (from 0 = never to 3 = routinely) how often they
were exposed to different sources of information about the chosen SFT,
such as trade journals, advertisements, training courses, internet/social
media, exhibitions, and discussions with peers, consultants, trade or-
ganisations, and relatives. These sources of information were selected
based on those emerging from the literature and previous instruments
as the most recurrent sources of information among farmers regarding
technology and innovation (Cavallo et al., 2014; Kernecker et al., 2019;
Rogers, 2003; Rogers and Beal, 1958; Unay Gailhard et al., 2015).
Based on Rogers and Beal (1958), we expected the correlations among
the items of the battery to converge into the following factors: discus-
sions with peers and discussions with relatives to load on one factor
(i.e., “‘personal-informal’); training courses, discussion with con-
sultants, and discussion with trade organisations to load on another
factor (i.e., ‘personal-formal’); and trade journals, advertisements, web/
social media, and exhibitions to load on another factor (i.e., ‘im-
personal’). A standard socio-demographic form, assessing the partici-
pants' relation with work (profession, years of experience in the agri-
cultural sector, farm size, and a sole farmer or not), ended the
questionnaire.
2.3. Procedure
Trained research assistants handed out the questionnaire to people
walking through the exhibition stands and pavilions. The assistants
F. Caffaro, et al.
explained the aims of the study and informed the participants that the
questionnaire was anonymous. The questionnaire was in Italian, and its
completion required approximately 7–8 min. No incentive was offered
to induce visitors to participate in the survey. The response rate was
approximately 80%.
2.4. Data analysis
In the present study, we decided to test our hypotheses by means of
a mediation analysis (Hayes, 2009). A mediation model seeks to iden-
tify and explain the mechanism that underlies an observed relationship
between an independent variable and a dependent variable via the
inclusion of a third variable, which is known as a mediator. Rather than
a direct causal relationship between the independent and dependent
variables, a mediation model proposes that the independent variable
influences the mediator variable, which in turn influences the depen-
dent variable, allowing the researcher to identify the reason for the
association between the independent and dependent variables.
The Structural Equations Model (SEM) approach was used to test the
hypotheses, combining a measurement model (the exposition to dif-
ferent sources of information the PU and PEU were modelled as latent
variables, measured by the items administered to the participants) and
a dependence model (predicting participants’ intention to use the
chosen technology as a function of the PU and PEU and predicting the
latter variables as a function of the exposition to the sources of in-
formation). The model was tested using Amos 20 (Arbuckle, 2014). The
parameters with an associated p level < .05 were considered sig-
nificant. The model fit was tested by combining different indices: the
Incremental Fit Index (IFI; Bollen, 1990); the Comparative Fit Index
(CFI; Bentler, 1990), and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
(RMSEA; Steiger, 1980). Based on Bentler (1990), the IFI and the CFI
were considered satisfactory if it was higher than 0.90. The RMSEA was
considered satisfactory if it was lower than 0.05 and acceptable if lower
than 0.08. Fig. 1 shows the tested model. When evaluating the overall
model fit, χ2 was not take into consideration, in that its significance
depends on the sample size (N).
Moreover, the structural invariance of the model was tested across
the two types of technologies considered. As suggested by Reise et al.
(1993), first the fit of a baseline model was tested, in which the model
was simultaneously tested on participants who answered the ques-
tionnaire making reference to SFT Type 1 (drones, sensors for data
acquisition and automatic download, and agricultural apps) and Type 2
(agricultural robots, autonomous machines and tractors equipped with
CAN-bus) technology. Subsequently, the fit of an invariant model was
tested, in which all of the parameters were constrained to be equal
across the two technology groups. The model was considered invariant
if the difference in the χ2 of the invariant and of the baseline model did
not reach statistical significance for a number of degrees of freedom
(DF) equal to the difference in the DF of the two models. In this case,
indeed, it can be concluded that constraining the model's parameters to
be equal across the two groups of participants did not lead to a sig-
nificant worsening of the model's fit. This use of χ2 did not lead to a
distortion, in that the N of the two models was the same.
3. Results
Regarding the investigated SFTs, 36.6% of the participants focused
on SFT Type 1, whereas 62.1% chose SFT Type 2. Overall, 29.0% of
those interviewed reported they were planned to adopt the type of SFTs
they had chosen during the following year, whereas 34.1% were not
going to adopt the SFT (another 26.1% probably will not adopt, and
10.8% probably will adopt). A preliminary confirmatory factor analysis
confirmed the three-factor structure of the battery on the sources of
information χ2 (45) = 216.89, p = .001, IFI = 0.90, CFI = 0.90, and
RMSEA = 0.05 (90% CI = 0.04, 0.06). Table 1 reports the analytical
parameters. The three factors (F) were labelled as personal-informal
4
Journal of Rural Studies xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
(discussions with peers and relatives, F1), personal-formal (training
courses, discussion with consultants and trade organisations, F2), and
impersonal (trade journals, advertisements, web/social media, and ex-
hibitions, F3).
A SEM showed that the model displayed in Fig. 1 could not be ac-
cepted. Indeed, the path linking the latent factor impersonal (F3) to the
PU did not reach statistical significance: b = 0.55, SE = 0.41, and
p = .17. The same held true for the link between such factor and the
PEU: b = 0.66, SE = 0.42, and p = .12. Even if the model fit was
satisfactory, χ2 (48) = 212.45, p < .001, IFI = 0.92, CFI = 0.92, and
RMSEA = 0.04 (90% CI = 0.03 and 0.05), the model was not con-
sidered acceptable, and the analysis was rerun after deleting F3, as it
did not help in predicting the subsequent variables in the chain of as-
sociations in which it was involved.
All of the parameters of the resultant model were significant with
p < .001 (see Fig. 2, in which the standardised parameters are shown).
The model fit was satisfactory: χ2 (41) = 81.45, IFI = 0.91,
CFI = 0.90, and RMSEA = 0.06 (90% CI = 0.04 and 0.07). The total
effect F1 exerted on the dependent variable was significant, i.e., total
effect = 0.15 and p = .020, while that exerted by G3 on the dependent
variable was not, i.e., total effect = −0.17 and p = .15. The indirect
effect of F1 on the dependent variable was negative and fully sig-
nificant, i.e., indirect effect = −0.17 and p = .02, while that of F3 on
the dependent variable was positive and marginally significant, i.e.,
indirect effect = 0.15 and p = .08. Parallel analyses showed that the
associations between the participant's education (measured as years of
formal education) on the one hand, and the PU and the dependent
variable, on the other hand, did not reach statistical significance, as the
betas, respectively, = 0.09 and p = .18 and = 0.08 and p = .15.
The model's parameters were invariant across the type of technol-
ogies. Indeed, the fit of the baseline model, χ2 (82) = 134.34 and
p = .000, was statistically equal to that of the invariant model, χ2
(92) = 145.41, p < .001, Δχ2 (10) = 11.07, and p = .35.
4. Discussion
In this study, we complemented Davis’ (1989) TAM with variables
assessing farmers' exposure to different kinds of information regarding
SFTs (Rogers, 2003), to provide a novel contribution to the knowledge
of the driving forces, and the reasons for their effectiveness, of tech-
nology adoption in agriculture, a sector in which technological in-
novation is growing much more rapidly than the rate of implementation
among farmers (Cullen et al., 2013; European Parliament, 2016).
Structural equation modelling was used to predict farmers’ intentions to
adopt SFTs as a function of exposure to different sources of information
via the mediation of PU and PEU.
Exposure to personal sources of information, both informal and
formal, was associated with the PU of the SFT, which in turn was po-
sitively associated with the intention to adopt that technology. In par-
ticular, exposure to informal sources had a negative association with
the PU, whereas formal contacts had a positive association with the PU.
Impersonal sources showed no significant relation with either farmers’
perceptions or intention to adopt the technology.
As a whole, the present results confirmed Unay Gailhard et al.’s
(2015) idea that interpersonal communication is necessary to persuade
most farmers to adopt technological innovations. In more detail, and
consistent with the literature on innovations adoption in agriculture
(see McBride and Daberkow, 2003), a positive indirect association was
observed between exposure to formal personal sources of information
(e.g., farmers' associations and training courses) and the intention to
adopt SFTs, via the mediation of the PU. Based on this result, formal
personal sources of information could be the most effective lever for
change in the SFT domain, emphasizing the need to involve farmers'
associations and consultants in the organisation of informative events
and focused training activities to convey the concrete advantages of
adopting SFTs. As noted by the debate reported in the literature
F. Caffaro, et al. Journal of Rural Studies xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 1. Model tested in the present study: personal (informal and formal) and impersonal sources of information predict the intention to adopt SFTs through the
mediation of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use.

regarding the appropriateness of advisory systems providing knowledge 2016).

and access to innovation resources for different categories of farmers in
the European Union (Klerkx et al., 2017), it is essential to complement
commercial with public advisory services that reach different types of
farmers, such as small farmers or farmers who do not engage in active
information-seeking behaviour (Cofré-Bravo et al., 2019; Prager et al.,
Initially, the negative indirect effect linking exposure to informal
personal sources of information to the dependent variable was some-
what surprising, since a positive effect is usually reported in the lit-
erature regarding innovations adoption in agriculture (Leeuwis and
Aarts, 2011; Unay Gailhard et al., 2015). However, three observations

Table 1
Measurement model.
Personal-informal source of Personal-formal source of Impersonal source of Perceived usefulness Perceived ease of use
information information information

Relatives 1.00
Other farmers .32***
Trade magazines .53***
Advertisement .51***
Internet/other media .31***
Agricultural exhibitions .46***
Seminars/formation courses .37***
Consultants .83***
Farmers' organisations .55***
Useful for farm operations .52***
Increases productivity .68***
Lowers production costs .46***
Allows to work more quickly .52***
Reduces workload 41***
Easy to learn .64***
Controllable .71***
Understandable .73***
Easy to become skilful in .63***

5
F. Caffaro, et al.
Fig. 2. Final model: personal (informal and formal) sources of information predict the intention to adopt SFTs through the mediation of perceived usefulness.
from the extant literature should be considered when interpreting this
result. First, previous evidence noted the numerous behavioural/psy-
chological barriers experienced by potential users of farming tech-
nology (Long et al., 2016). Second, the data of the last Italian agri-
cultural census showed that the majority of Italian farmers were
actually potential, rather than actual, users of technological solutions
(Censimento Agricoltura, 2010), thus reasonably bearing the afore-
mentioned barriers. Third, innovation diffusion is more a process of
imitation than of innovation throughout different productive sectors
(Sultan et al., 1990). In this light, therefore, informal contacts may have
acted as negative ‘cues to action’ (Suratman et al., 2016), providing
participants with a motivational incentive not to adopt SFTs, by using
appropriate reminder systems, promoting awareness, or providing in-
formation. Should future studies confirm this interpretation, it may be
concluded that the proposal of new technologies in the market should
be based on targeted information campaigns and training activities to
introduce the innovation to the public in a manner that could make
farmers aware of the benefits related to the adoption of technological
innovations, promoting positive perceptions in potential users, which
may later spread during informal conversations (Reichardt et al., 2009).
The non-significant effect of impersonal sources of communication
in the model deserves specific discussion. This result is consistent with
previous results in the agricultural sector (McBride and Daberkow,
2003), and it may be interpreted by considering that media are more
passive information sources that mainly provide simple awareness in-
formation rather than “how-to” information, seldom leading to adop-
tion (Daberkow and McBride, 2001). Before ‘closing the book’ on this
variable, more research is needed; in particular, those studies showing
that the adoption process is composed of different stages, from
awareness to trial, should be considered (Rogers, 2003; Rogers and
Beal, 1958). According to the literature, impersonal sources are im-
portant particularly during the awareness stage, the first stage through
which an individual passes during the process of adopting a new idea or
practice, in which he/she is initially exposed to the innovation but lacks
details about it (Rogers, 2003). Personal formal sources of information
play their most important role during the information and trial stages
while informal communication is most important during the application
stage, when potential users have to consider the advantages of new
practices over those of other alternatives (Rogers and Beal, 1958).
Considering that different communication channels play different
roles during various stages of the innovation-decision process (Rogers,
2003), in future research, the effectiveness of each source of informa-
tion could be investigated during each of the stages of the adoption
process (i.e., awareness, information, application, trial and adoption,
6
Journal of Rural Studies xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Rogers, 2003; Rogers and Beal, 1958) to better identify those sources
that need to be enhanced to maximise their effect during each stage.
Consistent with previous evidence on precision agriculture tech-
nologies (Adrian et al., 2005), the PEU did not show an association with
the intention to adopt an SFT, whereas the PU did. As reported in the
literature, in the TAM, the PEU corresponds to the internal factor of
skill, and it is less likely to capture external control issues that can re-
present barriers to adoption (Davis, 1989; Mathieson, 1991). Thus, it
may be that for our participants, other external factors, such as the
availability of the technology on the market, played a role in affecting
the intention to adopt, despite their perceptions of having the necessary
skills to manage the adoption of new technologies. Currently, to the
best of our knowledge, there is no systematic data regarding the
availability of the considered technologies on the Italian market;
however, future research could further investigate this issue and the
role played by this variable. The possibility of reducing workload, in-
creasing productivity and reducing costs appeared to be the most re-
levant issues affecting farmers’ intention to adopt a technological so-
lution on their farm. Therefore, information campaigns and training
activities should mainly focus on these aspects, showing farmers how to
use new technologies on their farm to increase economic benefits, save
time, and reduce physical workload. With regard to this, previous re-
search in different sectors pointed out the efficacy of visual tools in
encouraging the adoption of new work behaviors and innovations
among workers and management (Caffaro et al., 2017a; Eppler and
Hoffmann, 2013).
Importantly, the present model of SFT adoption was invariant across
the two different types of SFTs considered. Further investigations,
widening the range of SFTs surveyed, will be of interest. At the moment,
however, since the present results suggest that innovation diffusion is a
general process that shows patterns and regularities and is not bound by
the type of innovation studied (Rogers, 2004), it may be provisionally
concluded that communication interventions aimed at widening the
adoption of SFTs do not need to be tailored to the characteristics of the
specific SFT one aims to promote.
4.1. Limitations and possible developments of the study
Some limitations of the present study should be taken into account.
First, the surveyed sample was only composed of farmers from the
Piedmont region. Previous research showed that agricultural and for-
estry operators from the Piedmont region nicely represent the structural
characteristics of the Italian farming population (Caffaro et al., 2017b;
Ferrari et al., 2012). In addition, selecting participants from one
F. Caffaro, et al.
geographical area only allowed us to survey participants with a similar
cultural background and, thus, provided more comparable data.
Moreover, the very peculiar characteristics of the Savigliano exhibition
(which combines amusement elements with seminars and conferences)
attracts both farm operators more interested in innovative/new ideas
and those who mainly want to engage in fun and amusement activities,
thus nicely representing both ‘innovative’ and ‘unwilling’ adopters of
technological innovations (Cavallo et al., 2014). Second, a re-
presentative random sampling of the farming population would not
have been possible, since a full list of the entire population to be studied
is not available. Third, we were interested in studying the relations
between variables in at least bivariate analyses, and not their absolute
state, as a result of univariate analyses. In these cases, the bias stem-
ming from the lack of complete representativeness of the sample is
significantly less impactful (Roccato, 2008). Thus, on the whole, we are
confident regarding the validity of our results. However, further studies
performed in additional areas and regions of Italy to obtain more
generalisable results will be welcome.
The findings of this study need to be interpreted with caution due to
the collection of cross-sectional data, which does not allow the estab-
lishment of causal links between the investigated variables. To address
this issue, in future research, a longitudinal design with a weekly re-
cording of the exposure to different sources of information about SFTs
(e.g., exhibitions, training courses, and informal communications)
could be developed (similar to that completed by Glasscock et al.
(2006) for farm accidents).
Moreover, some authors working in the Theory of Planned
Behaviour framework have suggested controlling for the effect of in-
dividual variables, such as education and socioeconomic status
(Baumgart-Getz et al., 2012; Burton, 2004). Parallel analyses showed
that participants' education did not have an association with the PU and
the dependent variable. In our dataset, no other socioeconomic vari-
ables were available. A replication of this research, performed while
maintaining control of participants’ socioeconomic status, would be of
interest.
Finally, it may be argued that the choice to investigate farmers’
intention to adopt SFTs, rather than the actual adoption behaviour of
farmers, could be considered a limitation of the study. A recent sys-
tematic review of the literature on the TAM showed that the PEU and
PU were more likely to be associated with the intention to use com-
pared to the actual usage (Turner et al., 2010). Furthermore, the
adoption of SFTs is still low among Italian farm operators (Long et al.,
2016; Italian Ministry of Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policies,
2017). In this light, the dependent variable considered in the in-
vestigation should be considered an advantage, rather than a dis-
advantage, of the study. However, future studies predicting both the
intention to adopt SFT and its actual adoption would be of interest.
5. Conclusions
The rapid revolution of SFTs has sparked research in many areas.
These areas include the evaluation of these technologies, the develop-
ment of their appropriate uses, the demographic patterns of their use,
and their economic and environmental benefits (OECD 2016). Limited
research has been conducted considering the role of sources of in-
formation about SFTs and their relation with the two key components
of the TAM, the PEU and PU. These perceptions have been shown to
have a profound impact on subsequent individual behaviours towards
information technology; hence, they are clearly worth investigation
(Daberkow and McBride, 2003). The results of the present study
showed that the PU affects farmers' intention to adopt an SFT. Personal
sources of information, both formal and informal, affect the PU; how-
ever, while formal sources increase the PU, informal sources decrease it.
Understanding which sources of information affect the potential users'
perceptions and intentions towards adoption of SFTs, and how and in
which direction they exert this effect, can help stakeholders (politicians,
7
Journal of Rural Studies xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
governmental offices, extension agents, and vendors) to develop many
appropriate means to demonstrate the advantages of SFTs and promote
their adoption. These findings suggest the use of cooperative extension
service agents and vendors, the most common change agents in Italian
agriculture, to promote information campaigns and training activities,
as the most effective means to increase the intention to adopt these
technologies. The same approach used in the present study could be
replicated in other productive sectors and with regard to other types of
technologies which are struggling to spread, to understand potential
users’ perceptions formation process and how different information
sources could affect it, leading to an understanding of what industry
and researchers may focus on to promote the adoption of these tech-
nologies.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Federica Caffaro: Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation,
Methodology, Writing - original draft. Margherita Micheletti
Cremasco: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing - review &
editing. Michele Roccato: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing
- review & editing. Eugenio Cavallo: Conceptualization, Project ad-
ministration, Writing - review & editing.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.04.028.
References
Adrian, A.M., Norwood, S.H., Mask, P.L., 2005. Producers' perceptions and attitudes to-
ward precision agriculture technologies. Comput. Electron. Agric. 48 (3), 256–271.
Agricoltura, Censimento, 2010. Data Warehouse. http://dati-censimentoagricoltura.istat.
it/Index.aspx last, Accessed date: 2 November 2018.
Ajzen, I., 1991. Theory of planned behaviour. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50 (2),
179–211.
Ajzen, I., Fishbein, M., 1980. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour.
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Arbuckle, J.L., 2014. Amos (Version 20.0) [Computer Program]. IBM SPSS, Chicago.
Baumgart-Getz, A., Prokopy, L.S., Floress, K., 2012. Why farmers adopt best management
practice in the United States: a meta-analysis of the adoption literature. J. Environ.
Manag. 96 (1), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.10.006.
Bentler, P.M., 1990. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol. Bull. 107 (2),
238–246.
Bollen, K.A., 1990. Overall fit in covariance structure models: two types of sample size
effects. Psychol. Bull. 107, 256–259.
Brosnan, M.J., 1999. Modelling technophobia: a case for word processing. Comput. Hum.
Behav. 15, 105–121.
Burton, R.J.F., 2004. Reconceptualising the “behavioural approach” in agricultural stu-
dies: a socio-psychological perspective. J. Rural Stud. 20 (3), 359–371. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2003.12.001.
Caffaro, F., Bagagiolo, G., Micheletti Cremasco, M., Cavallo, E., 2017a. Participatory
ergonomic design of a safety training tool for migrant workers in agriculture.
Chemical Engineering Transactions 58, 25–30. https://doi.org/10.3303/
CET1758005.
Caffaro, F., Micheletti Cremasco, M., Roccato, M., Cavallo, E., 2017b. It does not occur by
chance: a mediation model of the influence of workers' characteristics, work en-
vironment factors, and near misses on agricultural machinery-related accidents. Int.
J. Occup. Environ. Health 23 (1), 52–59.
Caffaro, F., Schmidt, S., Murphy, D., Cavallo, E., 2018. Comprehension rate of safety
pictorials affixed to agricultural machinery among Pennsylvania rural population.
Saf. Sci. 103, 162–171.
Caffaro, F., Roccato, M., Micheletti Cremasco, M., Cavallo, E., 2019. An ergonomic ap-
proach to sustainable development: the role of information environment and social-
psychological variables in the adoption of agri-environmental innovations. Sustain.
Dev. 27 (6), 1049–1062.
Cavallo, E., Ferrari, E., Bollani, L., Coccia, M., 2014. Attitudes and behavior of adopters of
technological innovations in agricultural tractors: a case study in Italian agricultural
system. Agric. Syst. 130, 44–54.
Cofré-Bravo, G., Klerkx, L., Engler, A., 2019. Combinations of bonding, bridging, and
linking social capital for farm innovation: how farmers configure different support
networks. J. Rural Stud. 69, 53–64.
Cullen, R., Forbes, S.L., Grout, R., 2013. Non-adoption of environmental innovations in
wine growing. N. Z. J. Crop Hortic. Sci. 41 (1), 41–48.
Daberkow, S.G., McBride, W.D., 2001. Information and the adoption of precision farming
technologies. In: Selected Paper for Presentation at the 2001 AAEA Meetings, August
F. Caffaro, et al.
5-8.
Daberkow, S.G., McBride, W.D., 2003. Farm and operator characteristics affecting the
awareness and adoption of precision agriculture technologies in the US. Precis. Agric.
4 (2), 163–177.
Davis, F.D., 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology. MIS Q. 13 (3), 319–339.
Eip-Agri, 2017. Smart Farming Thematic Network. European Commission. https://ec.
europa.eu/eip/agriculture/en/news/smart-farming-thematic-network last, Accessed
date: 16 October 2018.
Eppler, M.J., Hoffmann, F., 2013. Strategies for business model innovation: challenges
and visual solutions for strategic business model innovation. In: Pfeffermann, N.,
Minshall, T., Mortara, L. (Eds.), Strategy and Communication for Innovation.
Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 3–14.
European Parliament, 2016. Precision Agriculture and the Future of Farming in Europe.
Scientific Foresight Study. STOA IP/G/STOA/FWC-2013-1/Lot 7/SC5. European
Parliamentary Research Service, Scientific Foresigh Unit (STOA), Brussels. http://
www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/581892/EPRS_STU(2016)
581892_EN.pdf last, Accessed date: 30 October 2018.
Eurostat, 2016. Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery Statistics. Publications Office of the
European Union, Luxemburg. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/
KS-FK-13-001/EN/KS-FK-13-001-EN.PDF last, Accessed date: 12 November 2018.
Ferrari, E., Spinelli, R., Cavallo, E., 2012. Attitudes towards mechanized Cut-to-Length
technology among logging contractors in Northern Italy. Scand. J. For. Res. 27 (8),
800–806.
Fountas, S., Carli, G., Sørensen, C.G., Tsiropoulos, Z., Cavalaris, C., Vatsanidou, A., et al.,
2015. Farm management information systems: current situation and future per-
spectives. Comput. Electron. Agric. 115, 40–50.
García-Cortijo, M.C., Castillo-Valero, J.S., Carrasco, I., 2019. Innovation in rural Spain.
What drives innovation in the rural-peripheral areas of southern Europe? J. Rural
Stud. 71, 114–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.02.027.
Giannakis, E., Bruggeman, A., Djuma, H., Kozyra, J., Hammer, J., 2016. Water pricing
and irrigation across Europe: opportunities and constraints for adopting irrigation
scheduling decision support systems. Water Sci. Technol. Water Supply 16 (16),
245–252.
Glasscock, D.J., Rasmussen, K., Carstensen, O., Hansen, O.N., 2006. Psychosocial factors
and safety behaviour as predictors of accidental work injuries in farming. Work.
Stress 20, 173–189.
Görücü, S., Cavallo, E., Murphy, D., 2014. Perceptions of tilt angles of an agricultural
tractor. J. Agromed. 19 (1), 5–14.
Hayes, A.F., 2009. Beyond baron and kenny: statistical mediation analysis in the new
millennium. Commun. Monogr. 76, 408–420.
Italian Ministry of Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policies, 2017. Guidelines for the
Development of Precision Agriculture in Italy. (In Italian) Available online at: www.
politicheagricole.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/12069.
Jafry, T., O'Neill, D.H., 2000. The application of ergonomics in rural development: a
review. Appl. Ergon. 31 (3), 263–268.
Kernecker, M., Knierim, A., Wurbs, A., Kraus, T., Borges, F., 2019. Experience versus
expectation: farmers' perceptions of smart farming technologies for cropping systems
across Europe. Precis. Agric. 1–17.
Klerkx, L., Petter Stræte, E., Kvam, G.T., Ystad, E., Butli Hårstad, R.M., 2017. Achieving
best-fit configurations through advisory subsystems in AKIS: case studies of advisory
service provisioning for diverse types of farmers in Norway. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 23
(3), 213–229.
Kluge, A., Termer, A., 2017. Human-centered design (HCD) of a fault-finding application
for mobile devices and its impact on the reduction of time in fault diagnosis in the
manufacturing industry. Appl. Ergon. 59, 170–181.
Knickel, K., Ashkenazy, A., Chebach, T.C., Parrot, N., 2017. Agricultural modernization
and sustainable agriculture: contradictions and complementarities. Int. J. Agric.
Sustain. 15, 575–592.
Kountios, G., Ragkos, A., Bournaris, T., Papadavid, G., Michailidis, A., 2018. Educational
needs and perceptions of the sustainability of Precision Agriculture: survey evidence
from Greece. Precis. Agric. 19 (3), 537–554.
Leeuwis, C., Aarts, N., 2011. Rethinking communication in innovation processes: creating
space for change in complex systems. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 17 (1), 21–36.
Long, T.B., Blok, V., Coninx, I., 2016. Barriers to the adoption and diffusion of techno-
logical innovations for climate-smart agriculture in Europe: evidence from The
Netherlands, France, Switzerland and Italy. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 9–21.
Lowenberg-DeBoer, J., Erickson, B., 2019. How does European adoption of precision
agriculture compare to worldwide trends? In: Stafford, J.V. (Ed.), Precision
Agriculture’19. Wageningen Academic Publishers, pp. 7–20.
Manyika, J., Chui, M., Bughin, J., Dobbs, R., Bisson, P., Marrs, A., 2013. Disruptive
Technologies: Advances that Will Transform Life, Business, and the Global Economy.
McKinsey Global Institute. http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/publications/
multimedia/last, Accessed date: 3 October 2018.
Mathieson, K., 1991. Predicting user intentions: comparing the technology acceptance
model with the theory of planned behavior. Inf. Syst. Res. 2 (3), 173–191.
McBride, W.D., Daberkow, S.G., 2003. Information and the adoption of precision farming
technologies. J. Agribus. 21 (1), 21–38.
Mun, Y.Y., Hwang, Y., 2003. Predicting the use of web-based information systems: self-
efficacy, enjoyment, learning goal orientation, and the technology acceptance model.
Journal of Rural Studies xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 59 (4), 431–449.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2016. OECD Science,
Technology and Innovation Outlook 2016. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/
10.1787/sti_in_outlook-2016-en last , Accessed date: 13 November 2018.
O'Donoghue, C., Heanue, K., 2018. The impact of formal agricultural education on farm
level innovation and management practices. J. Technol. Tran. 43 (4), 844–863.
Paustian, M., Theuvsen, L., 2017. Adoption of precision agriculture technologies by
German crop farmers. Precis. Agric. 18 (5), 701–716.
Pierpaoli, E., Carli, G., Pignatti, E., Canavari, M., 2013. Drivers of precision agriculture
technologies adoption: a literature review. Procedia Technology 8, 61–69.
Prager, K., Labarthe, P., Caggiano, M., Lorenzo-Arribas, A., 2016. How does commer-
cialisation impact on the provision of farm advisory services? Evidence from Belgium,
Italy, Ireland and the UK. Land Use Pol. 52, 329–344.
Reichardt, M., Jürgens, C., 2009. Adoption and future perspective of precision farming in
Germany: results of several surveys among di erent agricultural target groups. Precis.
Agric. 10, 73–94.
Reichardt, M., Jürgens, C., Klöble, U., Hüter, J., Moser, K., 2009. Dissemination of pre-
cision farming in Germany: acceptance, adoption, obstacles, knowledge transfer and
training activities. Precis. Agric. 10 (6), 525.
Reise, S.P., Widaman, K.F., Pugh, R.H., 1993. Confirmatory factor analysis and item re-
sponse theory: two approaches for exploring measurement invariance. Psychol. Bull.
114 (3), 552–566.
Robertson, M.J., Llewellyn, R.S., Mandel, R., Lawes, R., Bramley, R.G.V., Swift, L.,
O'Callaghan, C., 2012. Adoption of variable rate fertiliser application in the
Australian grains industry: status, issues and prospects. Precis. Agric. 13 (2),
181–199.
Roca, J.C., Chiu, C.M., Martínez, F.J., 2006. Understanding e-learning continuance in-
tention: an extension of the Technology Acceptance Model. Int. J. Hum. Comput.
Stud. 64 (8), 683–696.
Roccato, M., 2008. L'uso della statistica nella ricerca in psicologia sociale [Using statistics
in social‐psychological research]. In: In: Di Maio, A., Gallo, M., Simonetti, B. (Eds.),
Metodi, modelli e tecnologie dell'informazione a supporto delle decisioni [Methods,
models, and information technologies as a support for the decision‐making], vol. 2.
Franco Angeli, Milan, Italy, pp. 183–191.
Rogers, E.M., 2003. Diffusion of Innovations, fifth ed. Simon and Schuster, New York, NY.
Rogers, E.M., 2004. A prospective and retrospective look at diffusion model. J. Health
Commun. 9 (1), 13–19.
Rogers, E.M., Beal, G.M., 1958. The importance of personal influence in the adoption of
technological changes. Soc. Forces 36 (4), 329–335.
Schimmelpfennig, D., 2016. Farm Profits and Adoption of Precision Agriculture. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service ERR-217.
Sneddon, J., Soutar, G., Mazzarol, T., 2011. Modelling the faddish, fashionable and ef-
ficient diffusion of agricultural technologies: a case study of the diffusion of wool
testing technology in Australia. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 78 (3), 468–480.
Steiger, J.H., 1980. Structural model evaluation and modification: an interval estimation
approach. Multivariate Behav. Res. 25 (2), 173–180.
Sultan, F., Farley, J.U., Lehmann, D.R., 1990. A meta-analysis of applications of diffusion
models. J. Market. Res. 27 (1), 70–77.
Suratman, S., Ross, K.E., Babina, K., Edwards, J.W., 2016. The effectiveness of an edu-
cational intervention to improve knowledge and perceptions for reducing organo-
phosphate pesticide exposure among Indonesian and South Australian migrant
farmworkers. Risk Manag. Healthc. Pol. 9, 1–12.
Tey, Y.S., Brindal, M., 2012. Factors influencing the adoption of precision agricultural
technologies: a review for policy implications. Precis. Agric. 13 (6), 713–730.
Toma, L., Barnes, A.P., Sutherland, L.A., Thomson, S., Burnett, F., Mathews, K., 2016.
Impact of information transfer on farmers' uptake of innovative crop technologies: a
structural equation model applied to survey data. J. Technol. Tran. 1–18.
Turner, M., Kitchenham, B., Brereton, P., Charters, S., Budgen, D., 2010. Does the tech-
nology acceptance model predict actual use? A systematic literature review. Inf.
Software Technol. 52 (5), 463–479.
Unay Gailhard, İ., Bojnec, Š., 2016. Sustainable participation behaviour in agri-environ-
mental measures. J. Clean. Prod. 138, 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.
2015.09.003.
Unay Gailhard, I., Bavorova, M., Pirscher, F., 2015. Adoption of agri-environmental
measures by organic farmers: the role of interpersonal communication. J. Agric.
Educ. Ext. 21 (2), 127–148.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D., 2003. User acceptance of informa-
tion technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 27 (3), 425–478.
Walton, J.C., Lambert, D.M., Roberts, R.K., Larson, J.A., English, B., Larkin, S.L., et al.,
2008. Adoption and abandonment of precision soil sampling in cotton production. J.
Agric. Resour. Econ. 428–448.
Wheeler, S.A., 2008. What influences agricultural professionals' views towards organic
agriculture? Ecol. Econ. 65 (1), 145–154.
White House, The, 2014. Big Data: Seizing Opportunities, Preserving Values. The
Executive Office of the President, Washington DC. https://obamawhitehouse.
archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/20150204_Big_Data_Seizing_Opportunities_
Preserving_Values_Memo.pdf last, Accessed date: 24 October 2018.
Wolfert, S., Ge, L., Verdouwa, C., Bogaardt, M., 2017. Big data in smart farming – a
review. Agric. Syst. 153, 69–80.