2023
DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102202
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Adoption of computer-based technology (CBT) in agriculture in Kentucky, USA: Opportunities and barriers

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 45 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Moreover, the findings documented in the existing literature (Ammann et al, 2022;Gyawali et al, 2023;Martínez-Domínguez and Mora-Rivera, 2020;Tamirat et al, 2018) are not agreement across the research. For example, Tamirat et al (2018) investigated factors shaping the farmers' use of digital agricultural technologies in Denmark and Germany, using a binary logit model, and found that the young farmers tended to adopt digital tools in agriculture production more than older farmers.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 62%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Moreover, the findings documented in the existing literature (Ammann et al, 2022;Gyawali et al, 2023;Martínez-Domínguez and Mora-Rivera, 2020;Tamirat et al, 2018) are not agreement across the research. For example, Tamirat et al (2018) investigated factors shaping the farmers' use of digital agricultural technologies in Denmark and Germany, using a binary logit model, and found that the young farmers tended to adopt digital tools in agriculture production more than older farmers.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 62%
“…A number of research into farmers’ adoption of digital technologies in agriculture has been carried out in other countries (Abdulai et al, 2023; Ammann et al, 2022; Giua et al, 2022; Larson et al, 2008; Michels et al, 2019; Pfeiffer et al, 2021; Pivoto et al, 2019; Silva et al, 2011; Tamirat et al, 2018). The mainstream literature shows that the farmer's use of digital technologies is likely to be influenced by the following factors: (A) demographic characteristics of farmers such as age, gender and education levels (Ammann et al, 2022; Gyawali et al, 2023; Pfeiffer et al, 2021), (B) characteristics of farms and households such as farming experience, farm size and income (Barnes et al, 2019; Marescotti et al, 2021), (C) situational factors such as distance from nearest markets (Abebe and Mammo Cherinet, 2019) and (D) institutional characteristics such as farmers’ participation in workshops and cooperatives (Pivoto et al, 2019; Tamirat et al, 2018). However, a few studies have examined farmers’ adoption of digital agricultural technologies in developing countries.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Mohammed et al (2023), Monteiro Moretti et al (2023 and Vecchio et al (2022) broaden the scope with a European lens, offering insights on farmers' perspectives, shared understanding and the vital role of economic considerations in PF. Michels and Musshoff (2022) work peels back layers on the timing of smartphone adoption among German farmers, while Li et al (2020), Barnes et al (2019) and Gyawali et al (2023) underscore the importance of facilitating conditions, economic barriers and the interplay of education and age, respectively, in technology adoption in their regions of study. As the narrative shifts towards robotic integration in agriculture, Gil et al (2023) emphasise design nuances, business models and ecological ramifications in the adoption of commercial agricultural robots.…”
Section: Empirical Insights: Unravelling the Dynamics Of Agricultural...mentioning
confidence: 99%