Computers in Human Behavior 108 (2020) 106309

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Factors affecting adoption of smart farms: The case of Korea

Cheolho Yoon a, *, Dongsup Lim b, Changhee Park c
a
Dept. of Business Administration, Mokpo National University, South Korea
b
LINCþ Project Team, Mokpo National University, South Korea
c
Nongmin News Corp, South Korea

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The smart farm, a future-oriented farm operation that integrates information and communications technologies,
Smart farm is an emerging trend in agriculture. This study investigates the factors affecting the adoption of the smart farm in
Technology adoption Korea and analyzes them empirically. The research model is based on Rogers’ innovation diffusion theory and
TOE framework
existing models of adoption of information technology in organizations. The model proposes that adoption of
Innovation diffusion theory
Korean agriculture
innovative technology is influenced by relative advantages, complexity, and compatibility of the technology, the
innovativeness and IT knowledge characteristics of the CEOs, financial costs, human resource vulnerability and
lack of skills, competitive pressure, government support and the change to the digital environment. These factors
were categorized according to TOE framework, investigated, and empirically tested using survey data to
determine their influence on the adoption of smart farms. The results showed that the compatibility of tech­
nology, financial costs for the organization, and the digital environment change influence the adoption of smart
farms. This study suggests practical implications for the adoption of smart farm technology based on the results.

1. Introduction environment of crops and livestock by remotely and automatically

The current state of agriculture in Korea is suffering from a decline in
the rural population and its aging population, the drop in the self-
sufficiency rate of grain, and the liberalization of agricultural trade
due to the conclusion of a free trade agreement (FTA). According to a
recent agriculture, forestry and fishery survey (Statistics Korea, 2017),
the rate of aging in the rural population has led to a fairly high pro­
portion of elderly people aged 65 or over, accounting for more than 42%
of the total population. Imported agricultural products are increasing
every year, while the proportion of agriculture in the total industry is
continuously decreasing. In particular, Korea’s agriculture industry is in
a situation of the full-scale opening of imports, as it has been pushed
forward with simultaneous FTAs with giant economies, such as the EU,
the U.S. and China, since the conclusion of the Korea-Chile FTA in 2004.
Thus, recently there has been growing interest and investment in smart
farms based on information technologies as part of the efforts to resolve
these problems: the aging of farmers, reduction of agricultural popula­
tion and farmland, weakening the competitiveness of domestic agri­
culture, and unusual weather phenomena.
Smart farming is the concept of a farm integrated with information
and communications technologies (ICT) that can control the growth
linking information technologies to greenhouses, orchards, and live­
stock barns. It includes measuring and analyzing the temperature, hu­
midity, and the amount of sunshine of crop facilities, using technologies
such as the Internet of Things (IoT) and remote control of the facilities
through mobile devices. Since ICT can be applied not only to agricultural
production but also to various other areas, such as distribution and
consumption of agricultural products, and to create new added value,
the broad concept of the smart farm has recently emerged. The broad
concept encompasses various fields related to agriculture, ranging from
production to distribution, consumption and rural life. It means bringing
about agricultural innovations, such as precision of production, intelli­
gent distribution, and advanced management (Samjong KPMG Eco­
nomic Research Institute, 2016).
Thus, in recent years, the Korean government has promoted the
smart farm to combine ICT technology with agriculture for greater
competitiveness of domestic agriculture. However, not only the utili­
zation rate of smart farms in Korea but also awareness of the utilization
of ICT technology by farmers remains extremely low (Korea Rural
Economic Institute, 2016). The purpose of this study is to provide stra­
tegic guidelines for promoting the adoption of smart farming by iden­
tifying the issues that agricultural farmers face in introducing the smart

* Corresponding author. Dept. of Business Administration, Mokpo National University, 61 Dorim-ri, Chungkye-myun, Muan-gun, Chonnam, 534-729, South Korea.
E-mail address: carlyoon@empal.com (C. Yoon).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106309
Received 14 May 2019; Received in revised form 14 February 2020; Accepted 17 February 2020
Available online 21 February 2020
0747-5632/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C. Yoon et al. Computers in Human Behavior 108 (2020) 106309

farm. For this study, we identify the factors affecting the adoption of Table 2
smart farms by investigating the factors influencing the adoption of in­ Broad concept of smart farm.
formation technologies in general in the existing literature, analyze the Types Applications and Technologies
characteristics of Korean farming organizations, and empirically test
Production Environment Control of Facility control and growing
those factors. The results of this study are expected to be useful as a basic Horticultural Farms environment management based on
theory to develop the research models in subsequent studies that will sensors
analyze the new innovative technologies related to smart farms in � Environmental control sensors:
agriculture. In addition, it is expected to contribute to the activation of temperature, humidity, CO2, pH,
O2
smart farms in rural areas in Korea. � Facility control sensors: power
The reason why this study targeted smart farms in Korea is mean­ failure sensors, control of
ingful in two ways: First, Korea is a leading country in the ITU’s ICT windows, sunshades, ventilators,
Development Index. Thus, Korea is an appropriate country to conduct etc.
Intelligent Barn Barn environmental control and
the research for smart farm based on advanced ICT technologies. Sec­
Management disease management based on
ond, the Korean government selected smart farming as one of its key sensors
initiatives for innovation growth in November 2017, actively promotes � Environmental and facility
the spread of smart farms by targeting the supply of 7000 ha of smart control sensors: temperature,
farms and 5750 farming households and by establishing four “Smart humidity, ammonia, CCTV, etc.
� Web-based cloud service
Farm Innovation Valley” by 2022. Therefore, there is an advantageous Distribution Enterprise Resource Distribution center management
aspect of collecting data related to the smart farm. Planning (ERP) Systems of and production, processing and
the Production Center distribution management
2. Theoretical background � Agricultural products. e-
commerce
� ERP systems (receipt - selection -
2.1. Smart farm processing - packaging - storage -
shipment)
Smart farm can be defined by a narrow concept or a broad concept. � Point-of-sale, NFC etc.
The narrow definition of a smart farm refers to a farm where ICT tech­ Consumption Safe Distribution of Food Monitoring food safety and safety
Products information
nologies are applied in greenhouses, orchards, and livestock barns to
� Provides history and certification
maintain and to manage remotely and automatically the proper living of production, processing and
environment for crops and livestock (Korea Rural Economic Institute, distribution
2016). Agriculture using smart farms is an innovative approach that can � Traceability management system
based on RFID
enhance the productivity and quality of farm products even while using
Tourism Rural Tourism Rural tourism (experience
less labor, energy, and fertilizer than before, by checking the living information, weekend farm,
environment of crops and livestock on a timely basis, at anytime and culture, festivals, etc.)
from anywhere, based on accurate data on crop growth and environ­ � Information location service
ment information. Table 1 shows typical smart farm application models based on GIS/GPS
� Fire sensor service in cultural
of the narrow concept.
property and sightseeing spots
The broad concept of a smart farm is a convergence of agriculture
and ICT in various manners to achieve innovation in the whole industry Source: Korea Rural Economic Institute (2016)
related to agriculture, ranging from agricultural production to distri­
bution, consumption, tourism and rural life. Specifically, it means the numbers of the three industries (1 � 2 � 3 ¼ 6). The 6th industry is
convergence of ICT in the value chain of agricultural products, creating attracting much attention because the related domestic market can grow
products, services and process innovations, and new values, such as rapidly due to the increasing rural population and increased government
precision agriculture, intelligent distribution, and advanced manage­ and private investment, and because it is not affected in the global
ment (Samjong KPMG Economic Research Institute, 2016). Table 2 market by various weather events such as drought, flood, and typhoons,
shows examples of smart farms under the broad concept (see Tabl 3). unlike traditional agriculture (Kim, 2016). In addition, smart farming is
Smart farming is recently leading the 6th industrialization of agri­ expected to play a role in increasing the value of rural land by dissem­
culture, a new trend in agriculture. The 6th industry in agriculture inating information on the production, distribution, and consumption of
means an industry that generates high value-added by merging the agricultural and livestock products, and on tourism.
primary industry (agriculture, forestry and fisheries), the secondary
industry (manufacturing and processing) and the tertiary industry 2.2. Characteristics of farming organizations in Korea
(service) (Nakano, 2014). The number six comes from multiplying the
Based on previous literature and available data, the characteristics of
Korean farming organizations are as follows: First, in terms of internal
Table 1 organization, farming organizations in Korea are characterized by their
Typical smart farm application models. organizational structures being simple; important decisions are made by
Types Description only a few individuals. In Korea, most farming organizations do not have
Smart Monitors the temperature, humidity, CO2, etc. of the
the same departmentalized and hierarchical organizational structure as
Greenhouse greenhouse from a PC or mobile device, and automatically typical corporate organizations, but generally have a loose, simple
controls opening and closing of windows and nutrient supply to structure linking family members and co-workers. Important decisions
maintain an optimal growth environment for crops are highly dependent on the individuals who own the farm, and, in the
Smart Orchard Monitors temperature, humidity, and weather conditions from
case of agricultural companies, they tend to depend on the company’s
a PC or mobile device, remotely managing the automatic
watering, pest control, etc. representatives. In addition, Korea’s farming organizations are not sys­
Smart Livestock Monitors temperature, humidity, and equilibrium of tematic; their members lack professional training or management
Barn environment from a PC or mobile device, remotely and experience, meaning that the management ability of farming organiza­
automatically controls the timing and amount of feed and water tions in Korea is lower than that of typical corporate organizations.
supply
Korean farming organizations generally have limited or no

2
C. Yoon et al.
understanding and utilization of information technology, lacking
expertise in its use in human resources as well as management (Yoon &
Park, 2018).
From an external environmental perspective, Korea’s farming orga­
nizations are highly dependent on government policies and support.
According to an analysis of the results of a survey of agricultural cor­
porations (Sustainable Agriculture Research Institute, 2015), a number
of agricultural management corporations are estimated to be less than
10 years old, and many of them were established to benefit from gov­
ernment policy. The Korean government provides farming organizations
with various benefits, such as support for equipment and fertilizer
purchases, duty-free oil, management support, and information tech­
nology education through the registration system for agricultural man­
agement. Korean farming organizations, as small businesses, face
increasing environmental uncertainty due to their lack of control over
the external organizational environment (Gable & Stewart, 1999).
In conclusion, factors such as the lack of preparedness in human
resources, finance and information technologies, and external circum­
stances, such as government support, in addition to the characteristics of
the managers—the farmers themselves or representatives of farming
cooperatives or companies—are deemed to have a significant impact on
Korean farming organizations in making decisions on such matters as
the adoption of smart farm technology.
2.3. Research on information technology adoption
Little is known about the research involved in the adoption of smart
farms in agricultural organizations. Therefore, the literature review for
this study is conducted on previous studies related to the adoption of
information technologies in organizations in terms of that smart farms
are based on information technologies.
According to Oliveira and Martins (2011), numerous theories have
been studied in previous research on the adoption of information tech­
nology, including the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis,
1989), Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991), Unified Theory
of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) (Venkatesh, Morris,
Davis, & Davis, 2003), Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) (Rogers, 2003),
and the Technology, Organization, and Environment (TOE) framework
(Tornatzky & Fleischer, 1990), but only the DOI and the TOE framework
have been used in research related to information technology adoption
in organizations.
1) Diffusion of Innovations Theory
The Diffusion of Innovations (DOI) theory developed by Rogers
(2003) explains the process of adopting innovation. Innovation refers to
“an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or
other unit of adoption” (Rogers, 2003, p. 12). Rogers (2003) stated that
an important obstacle to the adoption of innovations is uncertainty, and
proposed five characteristics of innovations that help reduce uncer­
tainty: (1) relative advantage, (2) compatibility, (3) complexity, (4)
trialability, and (5) observability. Rogers argued that “individuals’
perceptions of these characteristics predict the rate of adoption of in­
novations” (2003, p. 219). Various studies based on the innovation
characteristics of DOI theory have verified empirically that diffusion is
faster when innovations are perceived as having the aforementioned
characteristics and low complexity (Rogers, 2003). In information sys­
tems research, the innovation characteristics have also been extensively
used in studies relating to information technology adoption in organi­
zations (Oliveira & Martins, 2011), as well as its acceptance by in­
dividuals (Venkatesh et al., 2003). In such studies, innovation
characteristics have been frequently applied in combination, that is, the
TOE framework and DOI theory (e.g., Oliveira, Thomas, & Espadanal,
2014; Zhu, Kraemer, & Xu, 2003), or variables of the technological
context of the TOE framework (e.g., Alshamaila, Papagiannidis, & Li,
2013; Ramdani, Kawalek, & Lorenzo, 2009; Thong, 1999; Wang, Wang,
3
Computers in Human Behavior 108 (2020) 106309
& Yang, 2010).
2) Research on IT Adoption Based on the TOE framework
Most studies on information technology adoption in organizations
are based on the TOE framework presented by Tornatzky and Fleischer
(1990, as cited in Oliveira & Martins, 2011). The TOE framework pre­
sents three areas that affect the process of adopting and implementing
innovation in an organization: technological context, organizational
context, and environmental context. The technological context is all
internal and external technologies related to the organization, including
not only current practices and equipment within the firm, but also
available technologies outside the firm. The organizational context re­
fers to the organizational characteristics, such as business scope, the
firm’s size, and the human resources and management structure. The
environmental context is the field of environmental characteristics in
which an organization conducts its business through transactions with
industry, competitors and governments.
Chau and Tam (1997) presented perceived technology benefits,
perceived organizational factors, and perceived environmental factors
for technology adoption for open systems in organizations based on the
TOE framework. Thong (1999) proposed an integrated model of infor­
mation systems adoption in small businesses, that combines the CEO’s
characteristics, IS characteristics, organizational characteristics, and
environmental characteristics. Kuan & Chau (2001) presented the
perceived technological, organizational and external environmental
factors for the adoption of electronic data exchange (EDI) and empiri­
cally analyzed those factors. Others who presented the factors affecting
adoption based on the TOE framework in specific areas include Lin and
Lin (2008) for e-business, Oliveira and Martins (2009) for websites, Pan
and Jang (2008) for enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems, Wang
et al. (2010) for radio frequency identification (RFID) and Alshamaila
et al. (2013) for cloud computing. Table 3 shows the main studies on
information technology adoption in organizations based on the TOE
framework.
3. Research model and hypotheses
3.1. Research model
The research model based on Rogers’ innovation diffusion theory
and existing models of information technology adoption in organiza­
tions, and reflecting on the characteristics of farming organizations in
Korea, suggest that the principal factors to be considered in promoting
the adoption of smart farming are: relative advantage, complexity, and
compatibility in the technological aspects; the CEO’s innovativeness and
IT knowledge in the area of CEO characteristics; the financial cost, the
lack of skills and human resource vulnerability, in the organizational
aspects, and competitive pressure, government support and digital
environment change in the environmental area. Fig. 1 illustrates the
research model.
3.2. Hypotheses
Although Rogers proposed five characteristics of innova­
tions—relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and
observability—as factors influencing individual acceptance of innova­
tion, most studies (e.g., Oliveira et al., 2014; Thong, 1999; Wang et al.,
2010) on IT adoption in an organization used three—relative advantage,
complexity, and compatibility—as the determining factors in accep­
tance of information technology, based on the study by Tornatzky and
Klein (1982). Thus, the technological dimension of this research model
includes those three characteristics—relative advantage, complexity,
and compatibility. Relative advantage is the degree to which a new
technology is perceived as providing greater benefit for firms. Many
studies found this variable to be positively related to the adoption of new
C. Yoon et al.
Table 3
Research on adoption of information technology in organizations.
Researcher Factors
Chau and Tam Technology: perceived benefits, perceived
(1997) barriersa, perceived importance of
compliance with standards,
interoperability, and interconnectivitya
Organization: complexity of IT
infrastructure, satisfaction with existing
systemsa, formalization of system
development and management
Environment: market uncertainty
Thong (1999) CEO’s characteristics: innovativeness, IS
knowledge
Technology: relative advantage,
compatibility, complexity
Organization: business sizea, employees’ IS
knowledgea, information intensitya
Environment: competition
Kuan and Chau Technology: perceived direct benefitsa,
(2001) perceived indirect benefits
Organization: perceived financial costa,
perceived technical competencea
Environment: perceived industry pressurea,
perceived government pressurea
Zhu et al. (2003) Technology: technology competencea
Organization: firm scopea, firm sizea
Environment: consumer readinessa,
competitive pressurea, lack of trading
partner readiness( )a
Oliveira and Technology: technology readinessa,
Martins (2009) technology integration, security
applicationsa
Organization: firm sizea, perceived benefits
of electronic correspondencea, IT training
programsa, access to the firm’s IT systema,
internet and email normsa, main perceived
obstacles
Environment: web site competitive
pressurea, e-commerce competitive
pressure
Lin and Lin Technology: IS infrastructurea, IS
(2008) expertisea
Organization: organizational
compatibility, expected benefits of e-
businessa
Environment: competitive pressurea,
trading partner readinessa
Pan and Jang Technology: IT infrastructure, technology
(2008) readinessa
Organization: sizea, perceived barriersa
Environment: production and operations
improvementa, enhancement of products
and services, competitive pressure,
regulatory policy
Ramdani et al. Technology: relative advantagea,
(2009) compatibility, complexity, trialabilitya,
observability
Organization: top management supporta,
organizational readinessa, IS experience,
size
Environment: industry, market scope,
competitive pressure, external IS support
Wang et al. Technology: relative advantage,
(2010) complexity ( )a, compatibilitya
Organization: top management support,
firm sizea, technology competence
Environment: competitive pressurea,
trading partner pressurea information
intensity( )a
Alshamaila et al. Technology: relative advantagea,
(2013) uncertaintya, compatibilitya, complexitya,
trialabilitya, geo-restrictiona
Organization: sizea, top management
supporta, innovativenessa, prior IT
experiencea
Computers in Human Behavior 108 (2020) 106309
Table 3 (continued )
Researcher Factors Information
Information technology
technology
Environment: competitive pressure,
Open systems industrya, market scopea, supplier effortsa
Oliveira et al. Technology: technology readinessa Cloud
(2014) Organization: top management supporta, computing
firm sizea
Environment: competitive pressure,
regulatory support
a
Significant, ( ) negative influence.
Information IT. When new IT is perceived as offering a relative advantage over the
Systems firm’s current practice, it is more likely to be adopted (Ramdani et al.,
2009). Smart farms enhance the productivity and quality of farm
products and require less labor, energy and fertilizer than before.
Therefore, the smart farm is expected to give organizations a greater
competitive advantage. Complexity is the extent to which new tech­
EDI
nology is perceived as relatively difficult to understand and use. Since
complexity of an innovation can function as an inhibitor for successful
implementation, it is usually negatively associated with adoption. It has
also been found to be an important determinant in adoption of IS in­
novations in the context of small businesses (e.g., Thong, 1999).
E-business
Compatibility is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as
consistent with current needs and existing practices. In cases of high
compatibility, adoption of an innovation has been found to be highly
likely (Wang et al., 2010). If smart farming technologies are compatible
Web site
with a farm’s current work, the farming organization will be more likely
to adopt it. Therefore, we propose:
H1. Relative advantage is positively related to the adoption of smart
farm.
H2. Complexity is negatively related to the adoption of smart farm.
H3. Compatibility is positively related to the adoption of smart farm.
Most farming organizations in Korea are small-scale operations. In
E-business
previous studies on Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs), CEOs have
been seen to play a key role in making major decisions (Thong, 1999). In
particular, since CEOs directly determine the overall issues of the busi­
ness, the characteristics of CEOs are presented as important factors in
determining innovative changes in SMEs. CEO’s innovativeness is the
ERP
extent to which a CEO is willing to actively adopt new management
techniques and technologies to improve the organization. It has been
shown to influence organizational change, such as the adoption of in­
formation systems (Thong, 1999). CEO’s IT knowledge refers to the
CEO’s grasp and utilization of information technologies and his or her
understanding of the benefits, and to the level of IT skills. Choi and Im
Enterprise (2009) argued that in adopting new technologies, a lack of required
System skills or knowledge reduces or delays the use of the technology. Thong
(1999) stated that if a CEO is trained on the advantages of a particular
information technology, the technology is highly acceptable. Therefore,
considering the characteristics of Korean agricultural organizations, the
characteristics of CEOs of farming organizations are expected to influ­
ence their organizations to accommodate changes, such as introducing
RFID
smart farming. Thus, we propose:
H4. CEO’s innovativeness is positively related to the adoption of smart
farms.
H5. CEO’s IT knowledge is positively related to the adoption of smart
farms.
Cloud
computing In previous studies on information technology adoption in organi­
zations, financial cost and technical competence are presented as among
the most important factors influencing the adoption of information
systems in small organizations (Iacovou et al., 1995; Kuan & Chau,
2001, Ramdani et al., 2009). Financial cost determines whether an
4
C. Yoon et al.
Fig. 1. Research model.
organization can afford to invest in introducing and operating new
technologies or procedures. It is recognized as an important factor in the
case of large-scale investments, such as the introduction of information
systems. In particular, financial cost can be an important decision factor
for small businesses like farming organizations, where the introduction
of smart farms will be a relatively high-cost investment. According to a
study by Yoon and Park (2018), most farm organizations in Korea are
very financially poor. Lack of skills refers to the extent to which an or­
ganization lacks personnel with the relevant skills or preparation to use
new technology. It has been pointed to as a major obstacle to the
introduction of information systems in small companies (Cragg & King,
1993). Since farming organizations in Korea have limited expertise in
information technologies, lack of skills is expected to have a negative
impact on the adoption of smart farms. Human resource vulnerability
refers to the degree to which organizations lack adequate staff to
implement innovation processes or new technologies. Although in pre­
vious studies human resource vulnerability has not been directly sug­
gested as a factor influencing the adoption of information technologies
in organizations, the firm’s size has been seen to influence technology
adoption in many studies (Pan & Jang, 2008; Thong, 1999; Zhu et al.,
2003). Organizational human resources correspond to the firm’s size.
Most farm organizations in Korea are very small in size and consist of
very poor human resources. Therefore, human resource vulnerability is
also expected to have a negative impact on the adoption of smart farms.
Thus, we propose:
H6. Financial cost is negatively related to the adoption of smart farms.
H7. Lack of skills is negatively related to the adoption of smart farms.
H8. Human resources vulnerability is negatively related to the adop­
tion of smart farms.
Competitive pressure refers to the degree of pressure a company feels
from its competitors within the industry (Low, Chen, & Wu, 2011). In
many organizations’ IT adoption studies, competitive pressure has been
suggested as a major factor in environmental and external pressure
5
Computers in Human Behavior 108 (2020) 106309
levels (Thong, 1999, Kuan & Chau, 2001; Wang et al., 2010; Low et al.,
2011). Thong (1999) argued that competitive pressures lead to envi­
ronmental uncertainty and increase the rate of innovation adoption.
Korea’s agriculture industry is under growing competitive pressure both
at home and abroad. Farming organizations are introducing new man­
agement techniques and new technologies to meet the demands of the
competitive pressure, and smart farms have recently been presented as
tools to streamline their operations and improve productivity. In
conclusion, competitive pressure may be a key factor in adopting smart
farms.
Government support refers to administrative and financial support in
the process of companies introducing and utilizing new information
technology. Previous studies suggest that governments have a major
impact on the adoption of specific information technologies in small and
medium-sized enterprises (Kuan & Chau, 2001). As described in the
introduction, the Korean government has provided training and insti­
tutional and financial support for smart farms aiming to bolster the
competitiveness of domestic agriculture. Such government support is
expected to influence the adoption of smart farms in farming organi­
zations. The digital environment change is defined as the degree of need
for the use of the Internet and advanced information technologies in
agriculture. Although changes in the industry’s technology environ­
ment, such as the Internet economy, have not been suggested as a major
factor in previous organizational IT adoption studies, today the digital
economy based on information technologies is the mainstream of all
commerce and an inevitable reality even in agriculture. Therefore, we
propose:
H9. Competitive pressure is positively related to the adoption of smart
farms.
H10. Government support is positively related to the adoption of smart
farms.
H11. Digital environment change is positively related to the adoption
of smart farms.
C. Yoon et al. Computers in Human Behavior 108 (2020) 106309

4. Research methodology Xue, 2007) and more appropriate in performing exploratory-level

studies (Chin, 1998). Thus, we used PLS in order to accommodate the
4.1. Data collection presence of a large number of variables and an exploratory-level study.
For the PLS technique, we used the plspm-package of open-source
The data collection of this study was conducted through online and software R (Sanchez, Trinchera, & Russolillo, 2013).
offline surveys, using the web and mobile linked QR codes provided by
the cloud-based social-science research automation site (ssra.or.kr), 5.1. Reliability and validity of measurement items
with the farmers at Korea Venture Agricultural University and members
of online communities related to exchanges of farming information. A The reliability assessment of the measurement items in this study was
total of 232 useable questionnaires were collected and used in the evaluated based on the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and the composite
analysis. Respondents comprised 162 males and 70 females. About 64% reliability value for the constructs. As shown in Table 5, Cronbach’s
of these respondents were over 50 years of age, and 72% of them were alpha coefficients of all constructs exceeded the level of 0.70. Composite
on private farms. Detailed descriptive statistics of these respondents are reliability also shows values well above the recommended level of 0.70
shown in Table 4. (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). The results, therefore, demonstrate a reasonable
reliability level for the measurement items.
4.2. Measurement development To assess the validity of the constructs of the research model,
convergent and discriminant validity tests were conducted based on a
In order to measure the constructs in the research model, we Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) using PLS. In a CFA by PLS,
developed measurements based on the items used in previous studies, convergent validity is assured when each of the measurement items
which established reliability and validity. The measurements for the loads significantly, with the p-value of its t-value well within the 0.05
relative advantage, the complexity and the compatibility constructs of level, on its assigned construct (Gefen & Straub, 2005) and Average
the technological dimension were adapted from the study conducted by Variance Extracted (AVE) of the constructs is higher than 0.50 (Fornell
Oliveira et al. (2014). The measurements for the CEO’s innovativeness & Larcker, 1981). As shown in Table 6, all the t-values of the mea­
and IT knowledge constructs of the CEO characteristics dimension were surements are above 1.96, and the AVE values of all constructs in Table 5
adapted from the study conducted by Jeon, Han, and Lee (2006). The are over 0.5. This shows convergent validity of all the measurement
measurements for financial cost, lack of skills and lack of human items for the constructs.
resource constructs of the organizational dimension, and competitive Discriminant validity is assured when measurement items load more
pressure, government support and digital environment change con­ strongly on their assigned construct than on the other constructs in a
structs of the environmental dimension were adapted from several CFA, and when the square root of the AVE of each construct is larger
studies, including Iacovou, Benbasat, and Dexter (1995), Kuan & Chau, than its correlations with the other constructs (Gefen & Straub, 2005).
2001, Oliveira et al. (2014), and Yoon and Park (2018). All items were As shown in Table 6, all the measurement items loaded considerably
measured using a seven-point Likert scale, with responses ranging from stronger on their respective factor than on the other constructs. Table 7
“strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” The measurements used in this shows that all correlations between two constructs are less than the
study are shown in the Appendix. square root of AVE of both constructs. The results, therefore, demon­
strate discriminant validity of all constructs.
5. Results
5.2. Hypothesis testing
The SEM (structural equation modeling) approach of PLS (partial
least squares) was used to validate the research model. PLS is a Hypothesis testing was conducted through an evaluation of the
component-based approach for estimation and places minimal re­ structural model. Fig. 2 illustrates the paths among the constructs, and
strictions on sample size and residual distributions. It is also best suited their coefficients, on the structural model. The coefficients, their t-value
for analyzing complex models with latent variables (Pavlou, Liang, & on the structural model, and the coefficients of determination (R2) for
the dependent construct are shown in Table 7.
Table 4 As indicated in Table 8, the results show that compatibility of tech­
Descriptive statistics of respondents’ characteristics. nological dimension and digital environment change of the environ­
Measure Value Frequency Percentage mental dimension significantly affects the adoption of smart farm, with
α ¼ 0.01, and financial cost negatively affects the adoption of smart
Gender Male 162 69.8
Female 70 30.2 farm, with α ¼ 0.05. H3, H6, H11 were therefore supported. The rest of
– 232 100.0 the hypotheses were all rejected.
Age 20–29 1 0.4
30–39 24 10.4
40–49 58 35.0
Table 5
Older than 50 149 64.2 Reliability.
– 232 100.0 Construct Item no. C. Alpha* CR** AVE***
Farming Private farm 168 72.4
Organization Farming association 24 10.3 Relative Advantage 5 0.903 0.928 0.720
Type Agricultural corporation 40 17.2 Complexity 2 0.803 0.910 0.835
– 232 100.0 Compatibility 4 0.892 0.925 0.754
Number of Employees 1–3 188 81.0 CEO’s Innovativeness 2 0.794 0.907 0.829
4–6 26 11.2 CEO’s IT Knowledge 3 0.827 0.898 0.745
7–10 10 4.3 Financial Cost 2 0.811 0.914 0.809
10–15 2 0.9 Lack of Skills 2 0.852 0.931 0.860
15–20 1 0.4 Human Resources Vulnerability 2 0.762 0.894 0.783
Over 20 5 2.2 Competitive Pressure 3 0.783 0.874 0.692
– 232 100.0 Government Support 3 0.834 0.901 0.748
Job Senior manager 114 49.1 Digital Environment Change 3 0.770 0.867 0.682
Manager 32 13.8 Adoption 2 0.928 0.965 0.933
Producer 86 37.1
*Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, **Composite Reliability, **AVE: Average Vari­
– 232 100.0
ance Extracted.

6
C. Yoon et al. Computers in Human Behavior 108 (2020) 106309

Table 6
Results of confirmatory factor analysis.
Items RA CMP CPT CIN CIT FIC LOS HRV CP GS DEC APT t-value

a1 0.85 0.24 0.42 0.33 0.31 0.12 0.12 0.06 0.32 0.27 0.40 0.30 23.83
a2 0.88 0.15 0.50 0.35 0.23 0.06 0.14 0.12 0.31 0.18 0.45 0.39 48.16
a3 0.82 0.13 0.44 0.34 0.29 0.21 0.10 0.10 0.38 0.19 0.38 0.28 19.04
a4 0.83 0.17 0.41 0.34 0.28 0.11 0.13 0.17 0.34 0.12 0.33 0.32 26.18
a5 0.86 0.14 0.47 0.37 0.30 0.14 0.09 0.07 0.41 0.20 0.43 0.32 32.16
a8 0.24 0.90 0.17 0.15 0.05 0.20 0.21 0.27 0.05 0.11 0.15 0.13 13.3
a9 0.13 0.93 0.20 0.11 0.09 0.32 0.28 0.34 0.01 0.10 0.11 0.15 16.41
a10 0.45 0.17 0.82 0.46 0.36 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.18 0.11 0.31 0.38 20.76
a11 0.45 0.24 0.90 0.49 0.39 0.09 0.02 0.04 0.19 0.18 0.23 0.49 51.6
a12 0.40 0.10 0.87 0.45 0.32 0.03 0.05 0.01 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.47 28.93
a13 0.53 0.19 0.88 0.57 0.39 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.27 0.16 0.34 0.58 56.06
a14 0.40 0.14 0.55 0.92 0.61 0.03 0.08 0.04 0.22 0.20 0.24 0.36 49.63
a15 0.35 0.11 0.49 0.90 0.67 0.05 0.00 0.06 0.19 0.21 0.25 0.33 43.6
a16 0.33 0.09 0.41 0.66 0.91 0.01 0.04 0.11 0.07 0.28 0.18 0.28 32.94
a17 0.20 0.02 0.31 0.56 0.88 0.05 0.00 0.11 0.08 0.25 0.18 0.21 17.9
a18 0.29 0.09 0.37 0.59 0.80 0.07 0.01 0.06 0.19 0.20 0.29 0.23 12.7
a20 0.14 0.25 0.01 0.10 0.04 0.81 0.41 0.30 0.36 0.02 0.19 0.07 3.63
a21 0.13 0.28 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.98 0.45 0.38 0.33 0.02 0.06 0.22 3.4
a22 0.12 0.25 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.45 0.97 0.64 0.23 0.06 0.10 0.13 3.05
a23 0.15 0.26 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.43 0.88 0.72 0.25 0.01 0.10 0.07 4.36
a24 0.10 0.33 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.40 0.69 0.97 0.25 0.03 0.12 0.12 3.08
a25 0.14 0.26 0.04 0.02 0.14 0.25 0.56 0.79 0.25 0.05 0.04 0.05 2.51
a26 0.40 0.03 0.18 0.14 0.09 0.34 0.20 0.25 0.75 0.05 0.36 0.06 3.15
a27 0.34 0.01 0.23 0.16 0.04 0.36 0.27 0.29 0.82 0.05 0.23 0.08 3.8
a28 0.33 0.03 0.20 0.24 0.17 0.25 0.18 0.18 0.92 0.11 0.42 0.11 4.63
a29 0.12 0.17 0.14 0.16 0.24 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.81 0.16 0.18 17.08
a30 0.17 0.11 0.11 0.20 0.29 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.08 0.88 0.29 0.24 26.09
a31 0.25 0.04 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.03 0.05 0.01 0.14 0.90 0.38 0.30 45.19
a32 0.43 0.13 0.26 0.19 0.20 0.09 0.07 0.09 0.35 0.25 0.86 0.38 26.29
a33 0.36 0.10 0.28 0.28 0.26 0.02 0.07 0.07 0.34 0.38 0.77 0.27 17.38
a34 0.36 0.12 0.23 0.21 0.17 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.32 0.22 0.85 0.31 23.25
a35 0.33 0.15 0.54 0.37 0.30 0.19 0.11 0.12 0.07 0.26 0.37 0.97 134.26
a36 0.41 0.15 0.54 0.37 0.25 0.19 0.11 0.09 0.12 0.29 0.39 0.97 137.92

RA: Relative Advantage, CMP: Complexity, CPT: Compatibility, CIN: CEO’s Innovativeness, CIT: CEO’s IT Knowledge, FIC: Financial Cost, LOS: Lack of Skills, HRV:
Human Resources Vulnerability, CP: Competitive Pressure, GS: Government Support, DEC: Digital Environment Change, APT: Adoption.

Table 7
Average variance extracted and correlation matrix.
Construct RA CMP CPT CIN CIT FIC LOS HRV CP GS DEC APT

RA (0.85)
CMP 0.2 (0.91)
CPT 0.53 0.21 (0.87)
CIN 0.41 0.14 0.57 (0.91)
CIT 0.33 0.08 0.42 0.7 (0.86)
FIC 0.14 0.29 0.04 0.04 0.04 (0.9)
LOS 0.14 0.27 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.47 (0.93)
HRV 0.12 0.34 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.38 0.71 (0.89)
CP 0.41 0.02 0.24 0.22 0.13 0.36 0.25 0.27 (0.83)
GS 0.22 0.11 0.18 0.23 0.28 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.09 (0.87)
DEC 0.47 0.15 0.31 0.27 0.25 0.09 0.1 0.1 0.41 0.34 (0.83)
APT 0.38 0.15 0.56 0.38 0.29 0.19 0.11 0.11 0.1 0.28 0.39 (0.97)
Mean 5.82 4.00 4.62 4.72 4.63 5.41 4.84 4.92 5.80 4.20 5.71 4.89
SD 1.28 1.67 1.48 1.50 1.43 1.50 1.72 1.52 1.21 1.39 1.12 1.67

(): Square root of AVE.

In addition, 43.7% of the variance in the adoption of smart farm (R2
¼ 0.437) is explained by the independent variables Table 8.
6. Discussion and contributions
As a result of the hypotheses of this study, it was analyzed that
compatibility of the technological dimension, the financial cost of the
organizational dimension, and the digital environment change in the
environmental dimension influenced the adoption of smart farms.
However, relative advantage, complexity, CEO’s innovativeness, CEO’s
IT knowledge, lack of skills, human resources vulnerability, competitive
pressure, and government support did not appear to influence the
adoption of smart farms.
The discussion points on the results of this study are as follows. First,
the compatibility of the technological dimension was observed to be the
most important factor among those proposed. In many previous studies
(Alshamaila et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2010), compatibility has been
analyzed as a significant factor in the adoption of new technologies in
the organization. Especially since there are various types of farms and
smart farm technologies supporting them, they may differ in the extent
to which they are compatible; the suitability of application technologies
to farms appears to have been very important in the adoption of smart
farms. However, unexpectedly, the relative advantage, which has been
analyzed as a key factor in previous information technology adoption
studies in organizations (Alshamaila et al., 2013), did not appear to
influence the adoption of smart farms. This result is inferred from the

7
C. Yoon et al. Computers in Human Behavior 108 (2020) 106309

Fig. 2. Path diagram for the research model.

on the adoption of smart farms. In a previous study (Thong, 1999), the

Table 8
CEO’s innovativeness in the introduction of information systems in
Hypothesis testing results.
small organizations was presented as a major factor, along with the
Hypothesis Sign Path t-value p- CEO’s IT knowledge. However, this study found that the CEO’s inno­
coefficient value
vativeness and IT knowledge have no direct impact on adoption of smart
H1. Relative Advantage –> (þ) 0.079 1.039 0.150 farms. These results may be attributed to the view that the introduction
Adoption of smart farms is not a new management technique that requires inno­
H2. Complexity –> Adoption ( ) 0.055 0.914 0.181
H3. Compatibility –> Adoption (þ) 0.423 5.626 0.000
vative changes in the organization or information technology to auto­
H4. CEO’s Innovativeness –> (þ) 0.090 0.933 0.176 mate tasks, but rather a machine that increases productivity, similar to
Adoption factory automation.
H5. CEO’s IT Knowledge –> (þ) 0.056 0.563 0.287 Third, the results of the analysis in the organizational dimension
Adoption
showed that financial cost negatively affects adoption of smart farms in
H6. Financial Cost –> Adoption ( ) 0.164 2.219 0.014
H7. Lack of Skills –> Adoption ( ) 0.055 0.734 0.232 farming organizations. However, it was analyzed that the lack of skills
H8. Human Resources ( ) 0.036 0.416 0.339 and human resource vulnerability have no effect on the adoption of
Vulnerability –> Adoption smart farms. These results imply that the farming organization, which is
H9. Competitive Pressure –> (þ) 0.069 1.016 0.155 a small scale, has trouble coping with it since the introduction of smart
Adoption
H10. Government Support –> (þ) 0.098 1.486 0.069
farms is relatively expensive. It is assumed that the technical infra­
Adoption structure of the organization or the abundance of human resource
H11. Digital Environment Change (þ) 0.243 3.638 0.000 availability for the smart farm did not disturb the adoption of smart
–> Adoption farms because it is usually carried out by specialized IT companies.
Adoption of Smart Farm R2: 0.437 Finally, the perception of digital environment change at the envi­
ronmental and external pressure levels has been shown to be a very
fact that smart farms are not considered to be very cost-effective. The powerful factor for farming organizations to accommodate the smart
evaluation of this low effectiveness seems to be the root cause of a low farm. This result shows that due to the advent of the fourth industrial
understanding of smart farm technology. In a study by Wang et al. revolution and the emergence of smart farms based on information
(2010) that analyzed the impact on manufacturers of the introduction of technologies, the perception in the past that agriculture is a somewhat
the latest RFID technology, relative advantage was found to have no lower level of industry has changed and that using high-tech information
effect on RFID adoption. In other words, a low level of understanding of technologies is inevitable in agriculture. The government’s support,
the technology seems to underestimate the effectiveness of the tech­ however, showed no impact on farming organizations’ adoption of
nology and, in turn, is not likely to affect the acceptance of the smart farms. The results are attributed to the failure of farmers to realize
technology. such support, although the government is providing various forms of
Second, the results for the CEO characteristics dimension showed support to farmers to promote smart farms. According to the descriptive
that the CEO’s innovativeness and IT knowledge have no direct impact statistics, competitive pressure is higher on average. However, the

8
C. Yoon et al.
hypothesis testing has shown that adoption of smart farms has no effect.
This result means that the introduction of smart farms is not an alter­
native for farm organizations to address uncontrollable competitive
pressures, such as the trade liberalization of recent years. In other words,
it is assumed that smart farm is a tool that enhances productivity, but it
cannot be a more fundamental solution to overcome competitive
pressures.
6.1. Contributions and implications
This study makes the following theoretical contribution. Previous
studies regarding the adoption of information technologies, information
systems, and other innovative techniques have been conducted in
traditional manufacturing organizations, but few studies on the adop­
tion of information technology such as smart farms have been known in
agricultural industries. This study’s theoretical contribution is in terms
of the exhaustive literature review of previous studies on information
technology adoption models and the analysis of characteristics of the
farming organization to present factors affecting the adoption of smart
farms and to empirically verifying them. Therefore, the results of this
study are expected to be used as a basis for developing research models
in follow-up studies that analyze adoption of new information technol­
ogies in agricultural areas.
Based on the results of this study, practical implications for
enhancing the adoption of smart farms in farming organizations are as
follows. First, the most important factor influencing the adoption of the
smart farm in a farming organization is compatibility. This suggests that
smart farms are not technically mature enough to be applied to all farms.
The government and related agencies need to differentiate smart farm
technologies more specifically for the different types of farms. Second, a
digital environment change has emerged as a major factor affecting
smart farm adoption. This suggests that for agriculture, smart farms
based on advanced information technologies are seen as both a threat
and an opportunity. The government and related agencies need to pro­
vide training for smart farm technologies as well as education that
highlights the benefits of smart farming. Finally, financial costs were
also shown to be a major factor affecting smart farm adoption. The
government needs to expand financial support for farming organizations
to promote the spread of smart farms.
6.2. Limitations and recommendations for future research
Although the results of this study suggest meaningful implications
for researchers and practitioners, the study has the following limitations:
First, the sample size for the empirical analysis of this study is rather
small. Future studies will need to provide more credible empirical re­
sults by collecting more data. Second, in this study, SEM was carried out
for analysis of the research model. Although SEM is a statistical tech­
nique commonly used in information systems research, it does not
analyze independent variables hierarchically. Future studies need to
consider analytical techniques such as Hierarchical Linear Modeling
(HLM) that can separate variables from individual and organizational
levels. Third, this study used a survey method for empirical analysis. In
the future, if in-depth interview techniques for farming organizations
are conducted in parallel, it will be possible to obtain more realistic and
useful results as well as theoretical contributions. Finally, the study was
conducted on farming organizations in only one country, Korea. In order
to verify and generalize the results of this study, it is recommended that
studies on farming organizations in various countries be carried out in
the future.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Cheolho Yoon: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision,
Writing - original draft. Dongsup Lim: Data curation, Writing - review &
editing. Changhee Park: Data curation, Writing - review & editing.
9
Computers in Human Behavior 108 (2020) 106309
Acknowledgements
This Research was supported by Research Funds of Mokpo National
University in 2018.
Appendix
Relative Advantage: Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly
agree
a1. Smart farm allows you to manage business operations in an
efficient way.
a2. The use of smart farm services improves the quality of operations.
a3. Using smart farm allows you to perform specific tasks more
quickly.
a4. The use of smart farm offers new opportunities.
a5. Using smart farm allows you to increase business productivity.
Complexity: Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree
a6. The use of smart farm requires a lot of mental effort.
a7. The use of smart farm is frustrating.
a8. The use of smart farm is too complex for business operations.
a9. The skills needed to adopt smart farm are too complex for em­
ployees of the firm.
Compatibility: Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree
a10. The use of smart farm fits the work style of the company
(dropped).
a11. The use of smart farm is fully compatible with current business
operations (dropped).
a12. Using smart farm is compatible with your company’s corporate
culture and value system.
a13. The use of smart farm will be compatible with existing hardware
and software in the company.
CEO’s Innovativeness: Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to
strongly agree
a14. The CEO of our farming organization has an innovative
tendency.
a15. The CEO of our farming organization tends to actively accept
new management techniques.
CEO’s IT Knowledge: Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to
strongly agree
a16. The CEO of our farming organization seems to have a relatively
good understanding of computer technologies.
a17. The CEO of our farming organization knows computer and
internet well.
a18. The CEOs of our organization are willing to take information
technologies training when opportunities are available.
Financial Cost: Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree
a19. The cost of investing in smart farms is a big burden for our
farming organization (dropped).
a20. Our farming organization will have financial difficulty if smart
farm is introduced.
a21. Smart farm operating costs will be a burden for our farming
organization.
C. Yoon et al.
Lack of Skills: Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree
a22. Our farming organization does not have the technical capabil­
ities for smart farm.
a23. Our farming organization has very little information technology
infrastructure for smart farm adoption.
Human Resources Vulnerability: Likert scale ranging from strongly
disagree to strongly agree
a24. Our farming organization lacks the human resources to perform
new farm operations such as smart farms.
a25. Our farming organization has few people who can use the
internet and computers for smart farm.
Competitive Pressure: Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to
strongly agree
a26. Competition for agricultural and livestock products due to free
trade agreements is intensifying.
a27. Competition for low-priced sales of agricultural and livestock
products is fierce.
a28. Competition is also intensifying in the enrichment industry.
Government Support: Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to
strongly agree
a29. The government provides various forms of support for farm
organizations to introduce smart farms.
a30. The government encourages smart farm through promoting
successful case studies and technical training.
a31. The government supports various agricultural informatization
projects for farm organizations.
Digital Environment Change: Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to
strongly agree
a32. Smart farms based on information technologies are a trend of
the times.
a33. The use of the Internet and cutting-edge information technol­
ogies is actively discussed in agriculture.
a34. In today’s agricultural sector, the use of information technolo­
gies is an essential survival technique.
Adoption: Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree
a35. Our farming organization will introduce smart farm.
a36. Our farming organization will run a smart farm in the near
future.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106309.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
Alshamaila, Y., Papagiannidis, S., & Li, F. (2013). Cloud computing adoption by SMEs in
the north east of england: A multi-perspective framework. Journal of Enterprise
Information Management, 26(3), 250–275.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.
10
Computers in Human Behavior 108 (2020) 106309
Chau, P. Y., & Tam, K. Y. (1997). Factors affecting the adoption of open systems: An
exploratory study. MIS Quarterly, 1–24.
Chin, W. W. (1998). Commentary: Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling.
MIS Quarterly, 22(1), vii–xvi.
Choi, Y. E., & Im, I. (2009). Study on the factors affecting the intention of small
agricultural distribution firms to adopt ERP systems. Korean Business Review, 31(2),
219–236.
Cragg, P. B., & King, M. (1993). Small-firm computing: Motivators and inhibitors. MIS
Quarterly, 47–60.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology. MIS Quarterly, 319–340.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,
39–50.
Gable, G., & Stewart, G. (1999). SAP R/3 implementation issues for small to medium
enterprises. AMCIS 1999 Proceedings, 269.
Gefen, D., & Straub, D. (2005). A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-Graph:
Tutorial and annotated example. Communications of the Association for Information
Systems, 16(1), 5.
Iacovou, C. L., Benbasat, I., & Dexter, A. S. (1995). Electronic data interchange and small
organizations: Adoption and impact of technology. MIS Quarterly, 465–485.
Jeon, B. N., Han, K. S., & Lee, M. J. (2006). Determining factors for the adoption of e-
business: The case of SMEs in Korea. Applied Economics, 38(16), 1905–1916.
Kim, C. (2016). Smart Farm Industry - need to cultivate high added-value industry
through convergence of agriculture and ICT. Market Issue/Tuesday, August, 30, 2016.
Korea Rural Economic Institute. (2016). An analysis of the current status and success factors
of smart farms. http://library.krei.re.kr/pyxis-api/1/digital-files/605ba74
5-b51f-2a94-e054-b09928988b3c.
Kuan, K. K., & Chau, P. Y. (2001). A perception-based model for EDI adoption in small
businesses using a technology-organization-environment framework. Information and
Management, 38(8), 507–521.
Lin, H. F., & Lin, S. M. (2008). Determinants of e-business diffusion: A test of the
technology diffusion perspective. Technovation, 28(3), 135–145.
Low, C., Chen, Y., & Wu, M. (2011). Understanding the determinants of cloud computing
adoption. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 111(7), 1006–1023.
Nakano, K. (2014). The sixth industrialization for Japanese agricultural development.
Ritsumeikan Econmic, 63, 314–326.
Oliveira, T., & Martins, M. F. (2009). Determinants of information technology adoption
in Portugal. In ICE-B (pp. 264–270).
Oliveira, T., & Martins, M. F. (2011). Literature review of information technology
adoption models at firm level. Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation, 14
(1), 110.
Oliveira, T., Thomas, M., & Espadanal, M. (2014). Assessing the determinants of cloud
computing adoption: An analysis of the manufacturing and services sectors. Information.
Pan, M. J., & Jang, W. Y. (2008). Determinants of the adoption of enterprise resource
planning within the technology-organization-environment framework: Taiwan’s
communications industry. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 48(3), 94–102.
Pavlou, P. A., Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2007). Understanding and mitigating uncertainty in
online exchange relationships: A principal-agent perspective. MIS Quarterly,
105–136.
Ramdani, B., Kawalek, P., & Lorenzo, O. (2009). Predicting SMEs’ adoption of enterprise
systems. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 22(1/2), 10–24.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York NY: Free Press.
Samjong KPMG Economic Research Institute. (2016). Future agriculture to lead by smart
farm (Vol. 62). ISSUE MONITOR No.
Sanchez, G., Trinchera, L., & Russolillo, G. (2013). plspm: Tools for partial least squares
path modeling (PLS-PM). R package version 0.4.
Statistics Korea. (2017). 2017 agriculture, forestry & fishery census report. http://www.ko
rea.kr/common/download.do?fileId¼186011059&tblKey¼GMN.
Sustainable Agriculture Research Institute. (2015). Analysis of survey results of agricultural
corporations. http://www.prism.go.kr/homepage/researchCommon/downloadRes
earchAttachFile.do;jsessionid¼954B926A24106892E1A930DF97518A24.node02?
work_key¼001&file_type¼CPR&seq_no¼001&pdf_conv_yn¼Y&research_id¼154
3000-201500031.
Thong, J. Y. (1999). An integrated model of information systems adoption in small
businesses. Journal of Management Information Systems, 15(4), 187–214.
Tornatzky, L., & Fleischer, M. (1990). The process of technology innovation. Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.
Tornatzky, L. G., & Klein, K. J. (1982). Innovation characteristics and innovation
adoption-implementation: A meta-analysis of findings. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, (1), 28–45.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of
information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 425–478.
Wang, Y. M., Wang, Y. S., & Yang, Y. F. (2010). Understanding the determinants of RFID
adoption in the manufacturing industry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
77(5), 803–815.
Yoon, C., & Park, C. (2018). An empirical study on the adoption of online direct
marketing in agricultural firms. Information Systems Review, 20(1), 41–59.
Zhu, K., Kraemer, K., & Xu, S. (2003). Electronic business adoption by European firms: A
cross-country assessment of the facilitators and inhibitors. European Journal of
Information Systems, 12(4), 251–268.