A Study on Factors Influencing Farmers’ Adoption of E-Commerce for Agricultural Products: A Case Study of Wuchang City
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Concept Definition and Theoretical Analysis
- 1.
- The behavior of farmers adopting agricultural products e-commerce
- 2.
- Personal Characteristics
- Gender: The gender of a farmer may influence their cognition of the market, risk preferences, and attitude toward emerging industries [50]. Gender differences can influence individual acceptance and willingness to adopt digital technologies in agriculture [51]. Societal role expectations for males and females also influence their behavior in agricultural digital technology adoption. Men tend to communicate with the goal of constructing and maintaining social status or based on a personal internal drive, whereas, in contrast, women are more likely to communicate with the main goal of building harmonious relationships and following social norms and inclusiveness [52]. Therefore, it is hypothesized that gender has an impact on the adoption of e-commerce for agricultural products.
- Age: It is necessary to conduct research on different age groups. Elmira and Xin found that different age groups were influenced to different degrees when studying individual behavior [53,54]. Gao et al. found that younger farmers were more familiar with the Internet and e-commerce compared to older farmers [55], so it was hypothesized that the younger the age, the easier it is to adopt e-commerce for agricultural products.
- Educational level: The educational level reflects a farmer’s knowledge reserve and learning ability. Gao et al. considered that education has a positive impact on farmers’ willingness to adopt live-streaming e-commerce [55]. Farmers with higher educational levels may find it easier to understand and utilize e-commerce platforms [56,57]. Hence, it is hypothesized that the higher the educational level, the more likely a farmer is to adopt agricultural products through e-commerce.
- 3.
- Household characteristics
- Number of household members involved in agricultural labor: The labor force is one of the key determinants of adoption strategies. The labor force is a critical factor in agricultural production, particularly regarding family labor and household members [58]. This factor may affect how time and resources are allocated within the household [59]. It is postulated that the number of household members involved in agricultural labor exerts an influence on the adoption of e-commerce for agricultural products.
- Per capita annual household income: Per capita annual income is the economic situation of the household. Households with higher per capita annual incomes may be more inclined to invest resources in the expansion of sales channels [50]. Gao et al. indicate that financial status has a significant positive impact on the intensity of adopting agricultural digital technologies [60]. It is therefore hypothesized that a higher per capita annual income will result in a greater likelihood of a household adopting e-commerce for agricultural products.
- Household agricultural land area: The area of cultivated land affects agricultural output [61]. A larger farm size generally correlates with increased production. Consequently, management becomes more complex, potentially necessitating greater resource investment in digital technologies and effective sales and market expansion strategies [17,57]. Thus, it is hypothesized that the larger the agricultural land area, the more likely a household is to adopt e-commerce for agricultural products.
- 4.
- Subjective Willingness
- 5.
- Risk Perception
- 6.
- Infrastructure
- 7.
- Industrial foundation
- 8.
- Policy perception
3. Research Design
3.1. Research Area and Data Sources
3.1.1. Research Area
3.1.2. Data Sources
3.2. Variable Definition
3.3. Regression Model
4. Result Analysis Discussion
4.1. Reliability and Validity Testing
4.2. Collinearity Test
4.3. Descriptive Statistical Analysis
4.4. Analysis of the Influence of Farmers’ Characteristics on E-Commerce Participation Behavior
4.5. Analysis of Regression Model Estimation Results
5. Discussion of Results
6. Limitations
- Research sample limitations: This study focuses primarily on farmers in the rice-growing areas of Wuchang City. Although this choice highlights regional characteristics and represents the local agricultural context, it limits the generalizability of the study’s conclusions. As Wuchang is a well-known rice-growing area, farmers here may have unique agricultural practices, technology adoption levels, and market environments. Therefore, the results of this study may not be directly applicable to other crop-growing areas or regions with different economic environments. Future research should consider expanding the sample to include farmers from different crop types to improve the general applicability of the conclusions;
- Insufficient classification of adoption level: The present study categorizes the extent of adoption of e-commerce for agriculture into two levels: low adoption and high adoption. While this classification is useful for analysis, it may fail to account for the nuanced differences and stages of farmers’ e-commerce usage. Future research should develop more sophisticated measurement standards that integrate both qualitative and quantitative methods to more accurately capture the complexities of farmers’ e-commerce adoption behavior across multiple dimensions.
7. Conclusions and Policy Recommendations
- The findings reveal that the factors affecting adoption decisions and the extent of adoption differ. The progression from making an adoption decision to a low adoption level and then high adoption level is a dynamic process in which the significance and importance of different factors change over time;
- Gender, age, number of household members involved in agricultural labor, subjective willingness, infrastructure, industrial foundation, and policy perception show varying impacts on adoption decisions. Meanwhile, gender, educational level, number of household members involved in agricultural labor, risk perception, and infrastructure display differences in their influence on adoption levels.
- Due to their unique economic, political, and social backgrounds, farmers in Wuchang City exhibit differences in their performance on different influencing factors compared to farmers in other regions.
- The local governments should develop policies that are specifically tailored to the unique circumstances of farmers in their respective areas. It is essential that these policies explicitly prioritize the advancement of agricultural e-commerce. Tailored policy formulation will help better meet the needs of farmers in different regions.
- Strengthen e-commerce promotion to ensure that farmers can understand agricultural product e-commerce from different channels of information acquisition so that the experience and advantages of agricultural product e-commerce can be widely and effectively disseminated and shared, thereby increasing farmers’ trust in e-commerce.
- The government should differentiate between different backgrounds and cover different levels of farmers, carry out differentiated training, ensure that farmers receive targeted assistance during the training process, and provide opportunities for farmers from different levels and regions to learn and share with each other, promoting their deep participation in agricultural product e-commerce.
- The government can improve the support policies for agricultural product e-commerce, promote favorable policies, enhance farmers’ confidence in agricultural product e-commerce, and reduce farmers’ risk expectations.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Zhai, Z.; Martínez, J.F.; Beltran, V.; Martínez, N.L. Decision support systems for agriculture 4.0: Survey and challenges. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2020, 170, 105256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Su, L.; Peng, Y. Assessment and Driving Factors of Farmers’ Practical Participation under the Perspective of Digital Rural Construction. J. Huazhong Agric. Univ. (Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2021, 168–179, 199–200. [Google Scholar]
- Lu, S.; Zhuang, J.; Sun, Z.; Huang, M. How can rural digitalization improve agricultural green total factor productivity: Empirical evidence from counties in China. Heliyon 2024, 10, e35296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, X.; Cui, B. Analysis of Farmers’ Cooperatives’ E-commerce Adoption Behavior: Based on an Integrated Technology Adoption Model. Res. Agric. Mod. 2023, 44, 316–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, Y.; Cai, F.; Zhang, C. Study on Farmers’ Satisfaction with Participation in Agricultural E-commerce under the Background of Rural Revitalization Strategy: Based on the Dual Perspective of Purpose and Process. Chongqing Soc. Sci. 2021, 104–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, J.; Qing, P.; Cai, W.; Huang, F. How Do Digital Skills Affect Farmers’ E-commerce Participation? An Analysis Based on the Mediating Effect of Information Acquisition. J. China Agric. Univ. 2024, 29, 81–93. [Google Scholar]
- Lü, D.; Wang, Y. Promoting the Deep Development of Agricultural E-commerce: Policy Reflections Based on the Current Situation in Hubei Province. Commer. Econ. Res. 2018, 10, 125–128. [Google Scholar]
- Ndege, N.; Marshall, F.; Byrne, R. Exploring inclusive innovation: A case study in operationalizing inclusivity in digital agricultural innovations in Kenya. Agric. Syst. 2024, 219, 104033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Drewry, J.L.; Shutske, J.M.; Trechter, D.; Luck, B.D.; Pitman, L. Assessment of digital technology adoption and access barriers among crop, dairy and livestock producers in Wisconsin. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2019, 165, 104960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, A.; Yang, Z. The Behavioral Logic of Small Farmers from the Perspective of Cognitive Rationality. J. South China Agric. Univ. (Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2021, 20, 54–65. [Google Scholar]
- Da Silveira, F.; Lermen, F.H.; Amaral, F.G. An overview of agriculture 4.0 development: Systematic review of descriptions, technologies, barriers, advantages, and disadvantages. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2021, 189, 106405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bolfe, É.L.; Jorge, L.A.d.C.; Sanches, I.D.A.; Luchiari Júnior, A.; da Costa, C.C.; Victoria, D.d.C.; Inamasu, R.Y.; Grego, C.R.; Ferreira, V.R.; Ramirez, A.R. Precision and digital agriculture: Adoption of technologies and perception of Brazilian farmers. Agriculture 2020, 10, 653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peng, J.; Zhao, Z.; Liu, D. Impact of agricultural mechanization on agricultural production, income, and mechanism: Evidence from Hubei province, China. Front. Environ. Sci. 2022, 10, 838686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shang, L.; Heckelei, T.; Gerullis, M.K.; Börner, J.; Rasch, S. Adoption and diffusion of digital farming technologies-integrating farm-level evidence and system interaction. Agric. Syst. 2021, 190, 103074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geng, W.; Liu, L.; Zhao, J.; Kang, X.; Wang, W. Digital Technologies Adoption and Economic Benefits in Agriculture: A Mixed-Methods Approach. Sustainability 2024, 16, 4431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gabriel, A.; Gandorfer, M. Adoption of digital technologies in agriculture—An inventory in a european small-scale farming region. Precis. Agric. 2023, 24, 68–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giua, C.; Materia, V.C.; Camanzi, L. Smart farming technologies adoption: Which factors play a role in the digital transition? Technol. Soc. 2022, 68, 101869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deichmann, U.; Goyal, A.; Mishra, D. Will digital technologies transform agriculture in developing countries? Agric. Econ. 2016, 47, 21–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cloete, E.; Doens, M. B2B e-marketplace adoption in South African agriculture. Inf. Technol. Dev. 2008, 14, 184–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, Y.; Xie, H.; Wang, Y. Does Agricultural E-commerce Help Increase the Income of Farmers in Poor Areas?—Also on the Impact of Heterogeneity in Farmers’ Participation Models. Agric. Technol. Econ. 2022, 65–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, C.; Chen, T.; Liu, Z. Research on Farmers’ Participation in Social E-commerce and Its Impact from the Perspective of Virtual Embedding: A Case Study of Shaanxi Facility-grown Winter Jujube. Res. Agric. Mod. 2022, 43, 431–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiang, L.; Hu, L. The Impact of Perceived Livelihood Risk on Farmers’ Willingness to Participate in E-commerce Poverty Alleviation and the Intergenerational Differences. Agric. Technol. Econ. 2019, 85–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, N.; Ray, R.L.; Kassem, H.S.; Zhang, S. Mobile internet technology adoption for sustainable agriculture: Evidence from wheat farmers. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tian, X.; Yan, X. Research on the Influencing Factors of E-commerce Adoption Willingness of New Agricultural Business Entities. Commer. Econ. Res. 2020, 133–137. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, C.; Ji, X.; Cheng, C.; Liao, S.; Obuobi, B.; Zhang, Y. Digital economy empowers sustainable agriculture: Implications for farmers’ adoption of ecological agricultural technologies. Ecol. Indic. 2024, 159, 111723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miine, L.K.; Akorsu, A.D.; Boampong, O.; Bukari, S. Drivers and intensity of adoption of digital agricultural services by smallholder farmers in Ghana. Heliyon 2023, 9, e23023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smidt, H.J.; Jokonya, O. Factors affecting digital technology adoption by small-scale farmers in agriculture value chains (AVCs) in South Africa. Inf. Technol. Dev. 2022, 28, 558–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barnes, A.P.; Soto, I.; Eory, V.; Beck, B.; Balafoutis, A.; Sánchez, B.; Vangeyte, J.; Fountas, S.; van der Wal, T.; Gómez-Barbero, M. Exploring the adoption of precision agricultural technologies: A cross regional study of EU farmers. Land Use Policy 2019, 80, 163–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khanna, M. Digital transformation of the agricultural sector: Pathways, drivers and policy implications. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 2021, 43, 1221–1242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rotz, S.; Duncan, E.; Small, M.; Botschner, J.; Dara, R.; Mosby, I.; Reed, M.; Fraser, E.D. The politics of digital agricultural technologies: A preliminary review. Sociol. Rural. 2019, 59, 203–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, D.R. Agricultural sustainability and technology adoption: Issues and policies for developing countries. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2005, 87, 1325–1334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bellon-Maurel, V.; Piot-Lepetit, I.; Lachia, N.; Tisseyre, B. Digital agriculture in Europe and in France: Which organisations can boost adoption levels? Crop Pasture Sci. 2023, 74, 573–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stratu-Strelet, D.; Gil-Gómez, H.; Oltra-Badenes, R.; Guerola-Navarro, V.J.T.F.; Change, S. Exploring the links between democracy and digital transformation in developing Latin America countries: Building a democracy consolidation theory. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2023, 195, 122742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, Q. Embedded Interventions: Government Actions in Agricultural Modernization Development—Based on the Experience of Apple Industry Development in Cheng County, Gansu. J. Nanjing Agric. Univ. (Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2021, 21, 64–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, A. Unique Path of Modernization for Agriculture and Rural Farmers in the Chinese Context. Gansu Soc. Sci. 2024, 178–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, F.; Zang, D.; Chandio, A.A.; Yang, D.; Jiang, Y. Farmers’ adoption of digital technology and agricultural entrepreneurial willingness: Evidence from China. Technol. Soc. 2023, 73, 102253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, M.; Wang, J.; Zhao, P.; Chen, K.; Wu, L. Factors affecting the willingness of agricultural green production from the perspective of farmers’ perceptions. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 738, 140289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Groher, T.; Heitkämper, K.; Umstätter, C. Digital technology adoption in livestock production with a special focus on ruminant farming. Animal 2020, 14, 2404–2413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, S.; Yu, L.; Fu, H. Has rural e-commerce increased potato farmers’ income? Evidence from the potato home of China. Potato Res. 2024, 67, 15–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, X.; Ruan, J. Influences of government policies and farmers’ cognition on farmers’ participation willingness and behaviors in E-commerce interest linkage mechanisms during farmer–enterprise games. Agriculture 2022, 12, 1625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lima, E.; Hopkins, T.; Gurney, E.; Shortall, O.; Lovatt, F.; Davies, P.; Williamson, G.; Kaler, J. Drivers for precision livestock technology adoption: A study of factors associated with adoption of electronic identification technology by commercial sheep farmers in England and Wales. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0190489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Konrad, M.T.; Nielsen, H.Ø.; Pedersen, A.B.; Elofsson, K. Drivers of farmers’ investments in nutrient abatement technologies in five Baltic Sea countries. Ecol. Econ. 2019, 159, 91–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.; Yu, P.; Liao, Q. E-commerce Technology Adoption and Investment Decisions of Rural Professional Households: An Empirical Study Based on the Heckman Model. J. Xi’an Univ. Financ. Econ. 2021, 34, 69–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Rijnsoever, F.J.; Donders, A.R.T. The effect of innovativeness on different levels of technology adoption. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2009, 60, 984–996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rehman, A.U.; Bashir, S.; Mahmood, A.; Karim, H.; Nawaz, Z. Does e-shopping service quality enhance customers’e-shopping adoption? An extended perspective of unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0263652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hooks, D.; Davis, Z.; Agrawal, V.; Li, Z. Exploring factors influencing technology adoption rate at the macro level: A predictive model. Technol. Soc. 2022, 68, 101826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berkowsky, R.W.; Sharit, J.; Czaja, S.J. Factors predicting decisions about technology adoption among older adults. Innov. Aging 2017, 1, igy002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robert, M.; Thomas, A.; Bergez, J.-E. Processes of adaptation in farm decision-making models. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2016, 36, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, B.; Liu, T.; Sun, X. The Impact of Social Learning on Farmers’ Adoption of Agricultural E-commerce: Mediating Role of E-commerce Cognition and Moderating Role of Government Support. J. Northwest AF Univ. (Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2022, 22, 97–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeng, Y.; Chen, Y.; Guo, H. Prior Experience, Social Capital, and Farmers’ E-commerce Adoption Behavior. Agric. Technol. Econ. 2019, 38–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khoza, S.; de Beer, L.T.; van Niekerk, D.; Nemakonde, L. A gender-differentiated analysis of climate-smart agriculture adoption by smallholder farmers: Application of the extended technology acceptance model. Gend. Technol. Dev. 2021, 25, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hwang, Y. The moderating effects of gender on e-commerce systems adoption factors: An empirical investigation. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2010, 26, 1753–1760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Janavi, E.; Soleimani, M.; Gholampour, A.; Friedrichsen, M.; Ebrahimi, P. Effect of social media adoption and media needs on online purchase behavior: The moderator roles of media type, gender, age. J. Inf. Technol. Manag. 2021, 13, 1–24. [Google Scholar]
- Qiu, X.; Jin, J.; He, R.; Mao, J. The deviation between the willingness and behavior of farmers to adopt electricity-saving tricycles and its influencing factors in Dazu District of China. Energy Policy 2022, 167, 113069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, K.; Sheng, Y. Influencing Factors and Mechanism of Adoption of Live E-commerce Models by New Agricultural Business Entities. China Circ. Econ. 2021, 35, 65–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Tian, Y.; Nasrullah, M.; Zhang, R. Does social capital influence farmers’e-commerce entrepreneurship? China’s regional evidence. Electron. Commer. Res. 2024, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, B.; Ding, J.; Wang, J.; Zhang, B.; Zhang, L. Key factors affecting the adoption willingness, behavior, and willingness-behavior consistency of farmers regarding photovoltaic agriculture in China. Energy Policy 2021, 149, 112101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Widarma, G.; Setiawina, N.D. Factors of influencing household production and welfare of corn farmers. Int. Res. J. Manag. IT Soc. Sci. 2019, 6, 103–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X.; Li, T.; Lu, S. The Impact of E-commerce Participation and Technology Cognition on Farmers’ Adoption of Green Production Technology. J. Northwest AF Univ. (Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2022, 22, 100–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, Y.; Zhang, X.; Lu, J.; Wu, L.; Yin, S. Adoption behavior of green control techniques by family farms in China: Evidence from 676 family farms in Huang-huai-hai Plain. Crop Prot. 2017, 99, 76–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, X.; Yang, J.; Liao, K. Integration of Traditional Small Farmers into the Large Market: Income Effects of E-commerce Adoption—Based on Micro-Empirical Data from Citrus Growers in Sichuan Province. Rural Econ. 2021, 110–118. [Google Scholar]
- Xin, Y.; Li, J.; Cheng, C. Measurement Analysis of Farmers’ Motivation in Grain Production. Agric. Econ. Manag. 2020, 30–41. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Y.; Zhang, Z. A Study on the Willingness and Factors Influencing the Digital Upgrade of Rural E-Commerce. Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhang, B.; Yang, S.; Bi, J. Enterprises’ willingness to adopt/develop cleaner production technologies: An empirical study in Changshu, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 40, 62–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhong, Z.; Shi, Z.; Cao, S. Research on the Differences between Subjective Willingness and Objective Degree of Agricultural Production Process Outsourcing among Small Farmers. J. Huazhong Agric. Univ. (Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2021, 177, 81–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, J.; Xiao, J.; Wang, X. Subjective Norms, Network Externalities, and Farmers’ Intentions to Adopt E-commerce for Agricultural Products. J. Agric. For. Econ. Manag. 2019, 18, 453–461. [Google Scholar]
- Wei, M.-F.; Luh, Y.-H.; Huang, Y.-H.; Chang, Y.-C. Young generation’s mobile payment adoption behavior: Analysis based on an extended UTAUT model. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2021, 16, 618–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siegrist, M.; Árvai, J. Risk perception: Reflections on 40 years of research. Risk Anal. 2020, 40, 2191–2206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tanveer, A.; Zeng, S.; Irfan, M.; Peng, R. Do perceived risk, perception of self-efficacy, and openness to technology matter for solar PV adoption? An application of the extended theory of planned behavior. Energies 2021, 14, 5008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, Y.; Li, L.; Sindakis, S.; Aggarwal, S.; Chen, C.; Showkat, S. Examining e-commerce adoption in farmer entrepreneurship and the role of social networks: Data from China. J. Knowl. Econ. 2024, 15, 8290–8326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, R.R.; Chakraborty, A.; Mandal, P. Promoting electric vehicle adoption: Who should invest in charging infrastructure? Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2021, 149, 102295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaiswal, D.; Kaushal, V.; Kant, R.; Singh, P.K. Consumer adoption intention for electric vehicles: Insights and evidence from Indian sustainable transportation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021, 173, 121089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ayim, C.; Kassahun, A.; Addison, C.; Tekinerdogan, B. Adoption of ICT innovations in the agriculture sector in Africa: A review of the literature. Agric. Food Secur. 2022, 11, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeng, Y.; Guo, H.; Yao, Y.; Huang, L. The formation of agricultural e-commerce clusters: A case from China. Growth Chang. 2019, 50, 1356–1374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiong, X.; Nie, F.; Zhu, H. How Small Farmers in Poverty Alleviation Areas of the West Effectively Connect with Agricultural E-commerce Markets: A Case Study of Xiushan County, Chongqing from the Perspective of Limited Capability. China Rural Econ. 2023, 68–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Purcărea, T.; Ioan-Franc, V.; Ionescu, Ş.-A.; Purcărea, I.M. The Profound Nature of the Connection between the Impact of Using Artificial Intelligence in Retail on Buying and the Consumers’ Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence on the Path to the Next Normal. Amfiteatru Econ. 2021, 23, 9–32. [Google Scholar]
- Jiang, J.; Sarina, S.; Song, L. Research on the Impact of Insurance Poverty Alleviation Policy Perception on Farmers’ Entrepreneurial Intentions under the Background of Rural Revitalization. Fujian Forum (Humanit. Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2018, 19–27. [Google Scholar]
- Zhou, R.; Ji, M.; Zhao, S. Does E-Commerce Participation among Farming Households Affect Farmland Abandonment? Evidence from a Large-Scale Survey in China. Land 2024, 13, 376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jebb, A.T.; Ng, V.; Tay, L. A review of key Likert scale development advances: 1995–2019. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 637547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qi, J.; Yuan, X.; Jin, J.; Xu, J.; Shi, D. Can the Adoption of Green Ecological Technology Improve Farmers’ Welfare Levels? Based on a Survey of 654 Banana Growers. Ecol. Econ. 2024, 40, 110–117. [Google Scholar]
- Li, S.; You, Y.; Zhao, D. Research on the Relationship between Digital Technology Adoption, Social Network Expansion, and Farmers’ Income Growth. Price Theory Pract. 2023, 212, 195–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, G.; Huang, Z.; Guo, W. The Impact of Digital Technology Adoption on Farmers’ Participation in Habitat Improvement in Karst Regions: Based on Empirical Data from 5,704 Households in 8 Provinces. Arid Zone Resour. Environ. 2023, 37, 24–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barham, B.L.; Chavas, J.P.; Fitz, D.; Ríos-Salas, V.; Schechter, L. Risk, learning, and technology adoption. Agric. Econ. 2015, 46, 11–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Savari, M.; Gharechaee, H. Application of the extended theory of planned behavior to predict Iranian farmers’ intention for safe use of chemical fertilizers. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 263, 121512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, N.; Ray, R.L.; Kassem, H.S.; Ihtisham, M.; Abdullah; Asongu, S.A.; Ansah, S.; Zhang, S. Toward cleaner production: Can mobile phone technology help reduce inorganic fertilizer application? Evidence using a national level dataset. Land 2021, 10, 1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Su, W.; Han, X.; Yu, H.; Wu, Y.; Potenza, M. Do men become addicted to internet gaming and women to social media? A meta-analysis examining gender-related differences in specific internet addiction. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2020, 113, 106480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Literature | Research Object | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[9] | Wisconsin farm | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||
[12] | Brazilian farmer | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |||
[15] | Farmer in Shandong and Liaoning | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||||
[16] | Farmers in small-scale area | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |||
[17] | Italian farmer | Y | Y | Y | Y | |||||
[23] | Pakistani farmer | Y | Y | Y | Y | |||||
[25] | Chinese farmer | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||||
[26] | Ghana’s small-scale farmer | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||||
[28] | EU farmer | Y | Y | Y | Y | |||||
[29] | Cross-regional farmer in European | Y | Y | Y | Y | |||||
[36] | Chinese farmer | Y | Y | Y | Y | |||||
[37] | Small-scale farmer | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |||
[38] | Swiss farmer | Y | Y | Y | Y | |||||
[39] | Sichuan small-scale farmer | Y | Y | Y | Y | |||||
[40] | Shaanxi farmer | Y | Y | Y | Y | |||||
[41] | British farmer | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||||
[42] | Farmers from five countries | Y | Y | Y | Y |
Dimensions | Measurement Indicators |
---|---|
Adoption behavior | Adoption decision |
Extent of adoption | |
Subjective willingness | I am willing to learn skills related to agricultural products e-commerce. |
I am willing to participate in training related to agricultural products e-commerce. | |
Risk perception | I think there is a high risk of default for agricultural products e-commerce orders. |
I think after-sales and reputation issues have a significant impact on the operation of agricultural product e-commerce. | |
Infrastructure | The road construction in my area is well-developed. |
The broadband network infrastructure in my area is well-developed. | |
Industrial foundation | The current scale of agricultural production can support the demand for e-commerce of agricultural products. |
The quality of agricultural products can meet the demand for agricultural products e-commerce. | |
Policy perception | I think government policies are effective. |
I think the policy support is strong. |
Variable | Adoption Decision | Extent of Adoption | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Tolerance | VIF | Tolerance | VIF | |
Gender | 0.976 | 1.025 | 0.947 | 1.056 |
Age | 0.595 | 1.68 | 0.496 | 2.014 |
Educational level | 0.597 | 1.676 | 0.519 | 1.927 |
Number of household members involved in agricultural labor | 0.929 | 1.077 | 0.911 | 1.098 |
Per capita annual household income | 0.931 | 1.074 | 0.908 | 1.101 |
Household agricultural land area | 0.949 | 1.054 | 0.918 | 1.089 |
Subjective willingness | 0.766 | 1.306 | 0.847 | 1.18 |
Risk perception | 0.776 | 1.289 | 0.788 | 1.269 |
Infrastructure | 0.731 | 1.368 | 0.724 | 1.38 |
Industrial foundation | 0.754 | 1.326 | 0.834 | 1.199 |
Policy perception | 0.759 | 1.318 | 0.793 | 1.261 |
Variable | Project and Value Assignment | People | Proportion% | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Adoption behavior | Adoption decision | No adoption = 0 | 102 | 33.9 |
Adoption = 1 | 199 | 66.1 | ||
Extent of adoption | Low adoption level = 0 | 102 | 51.3 | |
High adoption level = 1 | 97 | 48.7 | ||
Personal characteristics | Gender | Male = 0 | 168 | 55.8 |
Female = 1 | 133 | 44.2 | ||
Age | ≤30 = 1 | 33 | 11 | |
31–45 = 2 | 56 | 18.6 | ||
45–60 = 3 | 157 | 52.2 | ||
≥60 = 4 | 55 | 18.3 | ||
Educational level | No educational background = 1 | 51 | 16.9 | |
Primary or junior high school education = 2 | 130 | 43.2 | ||
Senior school or technical secondary school education = 3 | 81 | 23.6 | ||
College degree or above = 4 | 49 | 16.3 | ||
Household characteristics | Number of household members involved in agricultural labor | 1 = 1 | 64 | 21.3 |
2 = 2 | 98 | 32.6 | ||
3 = 3 | 78 | 25.9 | ||
≥4 = 4 | 61 | 20.3 | ||
Per capita annual household income | ≤10,000 RMB = 1 | 68 | 22.6 | |
10,000–20,000 RMB = 2 | 70 | 23.3 | ||
20,000–30,000 RMB = 3 | 69 | 22.9 | ||
≥30,000 RMB = 4 | 94 | 31.2 | ||
Household agricultural land area | ≤20 acres = 1 | 91 | 30.2 | |
20–40 acres = 2 | 87 | 28.9 | ||
40–60 acres = 3 | 71 | 23.6 | ||
≥60 acres = 4 | 52 | 17.3 |
Variable | Assignment | Mean | Standard Deviation | t | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Adoption decision | 0 | 0.589 | 0.493 | −3.039 | 0.003 ** |
1 | 0.752 | 0.434 | |||
Extent of adoption | 0 | 0.374 | 0.486 | −3.261 | 0.001 *** |
1 | 0.600 | 0.492 |
Variable | Assignment | Mean | Standard Deviation | F | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Adoption decision | 1 | 0.697 | 0.467 | 3.045 | 0.029 ** |
2 | 0.732 | 0.447 | |||
3 | 0.586 | 0.494 | |||
4 | 0.782 | 0.417 | |||
Extent of adoption | 1 | 0.522 | 0.511 | 1.086 | 0.356 |
2 | 0.585 | 0.499 | |||
3 | 0.424 | 0.497 | |||
4 | 0.512 | 0.506 |
Variable | Assignment | Mean | Standard Deviation | F | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Adoption decision | 1 | 0.726 | 0.451 | 1.065 | 0.364 |
2 | 0.631 | 0.484 | |||
3 | 0.620 | 0.489 | |||
4 | 0.735 | 0.446 | |||
Extent of adoption | 1 | 0.568 | 0.502 | 2.501 | 0.061 * |
2 | 0.500 | 0.503 | |||
3 | 0.318 | 0.471 | |||
4 | 0.583 | 0.500 |
Variable | Assignment | Mean | Standard Deviation | F | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Adoption decision | 1 | 0.813 | 0.393 | 2.816 | 0.039 ** |
2 | 0.622 | 0.487 | |||
3 | 0.615 | 0.490 | |||
4 | 0.623 | 0.489 | |||
Extent of adoption | 1 | 0.327 | 0.474 | 2.774 | 0.043 ** |
2 | 0.508 | 0.504 | |||
3 | 0.542 | 0.504 | |||
4 | 0.605 | 0.495 |
Variable | Assignment | Mean | Standard Deviation | F | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Adoption decision | 1 | 0.618 | 0.49 | 1.199 | 0.31 |
2 | 0.743 | 0.44 | |||
3 | 0.681 | 0.469 | |||
4 | 0.617 | 0.489 | |||
Extent of adoption | 1 | 0.476 | 0.505 | 0.02 | 0.996 |
2 | 0.500 | 0.505 | |||
3 | 0.489 | 0.505 | |||
4 | 0.483 | 0.504 |
Variable | Assignment | Mean | Standard Deviation | F | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Adoption decision | 1 | 0.593 | 0.494 | 1.227 | 0.300 |
2 | 0.701 | 0.460 | |||
3 | 0.718 | 0.453 | |||
4 | 0.635 | 0.486 | |||
Extent of adoption | 1 | 0.5 | 0.505 | 2.135 | 0.097 |
2 | 0.459 | 0.502 | |||
3 | 0.608 | 0.493 | |||
4 | 0.333 | 0.479 |
Variable | Model 1 (Adoption Decision) | Model 2 (Extent of Adoption) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Coefficient | Standard Deviation | p | Coefficient | Standard Deviation | p | |
Gender | 0.881 | 0.271 | 0.001 *** | 0.222 | 0.068 | 0.001 *** |
Age | 0.025 | 0.192 | 0.897 | −0.054 | 0.052 | 0.291 |
Educational level | −0.124 | 0.172 | 0.473 | −0.027 | 0.047 | 0.562 |
Number of household members involved in agricultural labor | −0.351 | 0.130 | 0.007 ** | 0.081 | 0.033 | 0.013 ** |
Per capita annual household income | −0.002 | 0.115 | 0.989 | −0.018 | 0.031 | 0.554 |
Household agricultural land area | 0.196 | 0.123 | 0.110 | −0.027 | 0.033 | 0.408 |
Subjective willingness | 0.433 | 0.213 | 0.042 ** | 0.029 | 0.053 | 0.586 |
Risk perception | 0.026 | 0.197 | 0.894 | −0.105 | 0.053 | 0.048 ** |
Infrastructure | −0.470 | 0.219 | 0.032 ** | 0.112 | 0.056 | 0.044 ** |
Industrial foundation | −0.145 | 0.222 | 0.513 | −0.003 | 0.057 | 0.958 |
Policy perception | 0.482 | 0.203 | 0.018 *** | −0.003 | 0.052 | 0.952 |
Constant | −0.305 | 1.324 | 0.818 | 0.180 | 0.395 | 0.649 |
Log likelihood | −177.854 | −131.344 | ||||
Chi-square test | 29.74 *** | 27.83 *** | ||||
Pseudo R2 | 0.077 | 0.090 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
He, C.; Hao, H.; Su, Y.; Yang, J. A Study on Factors Influencing Farmers’ Adoption of E-Commerce for Agricultural Products: A Case Study of Wuchang City. Sustainability 2024, 16, 9496. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16219496
He C, Hao H, Su Y, Yang J. A Study on Factors Influencing Farmers’ Adoption of E-Commerce for Agricultural Products: A Case Study of Wuchang City. Sustainability. 2024; 16(21):9496. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16219496
Chicago/Turabian StyleHe, Cuiping, Huicheng Hao, Yanhui Su, and Jiaxuan Yang. 2024. "A Study on Factors Influencing Farmers’ Adoption of E-Commerce for Agricultural Products: A Case Study of Wuchang City" Sustainability 16, no. 21: 9496. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16219496
APA StyleHe, C., Hao, H., Su, Y., & Yang, J. (2024). A Study on Factors Influencing Farmers’ Adoption of E-Commerce for Agricultural Products: A Case Study of Wuchang City. Sustainability, 16(21), 9496. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16219496