IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/agfoec/v11y2023i1d10.1186_s40100-023-00247-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Better richer than environmentally friendly? Describing preferences toward and factors affecting precision agriculture adoption in Italy

Author

Listed:
  • Stefania Troiano

    (University of Udine)

  • Matteo Carzedda

    (University of Trieste)

  • Francesco Marangon

    (University of Udine)

Abstract

Precision agriculture is expected to support and strengthen the sustainability of food production. In spite of the demonstrated benefits of the application of Information Technology to improve agricultural practices, such as yield increase and input reduction, in Italy its adoption still lags behind. In order to understand limits of and perspectives on the adoption of such technologies, we conducted an explorative study. A survey with a choice experiment was carried out in Italy among 471 farmers and people interested in agricultural machinery and technologies. The results highlight how specific factors, such as excessive costs and lack of incentive policies, may limit the spread of precision agriculture. Conversely, the provision of adequate technical support would likely favor its adoption. Furthermore, latent class modeling was used to identify three segments of potential buyers: sustainability seekers; precision agriculture best features supporters; low emissions fans. Potential policy and market implications of this explorative study are discussed in the conclusion.

Suggested Citation

  • Stefania Troiano & Matteo Carzedda & Francesco Marangon, 2023. "Better richer than environmentally friendly? Describing preferences toward and factors affecting precision agriculture adoption in Italy," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 11(1), pages 1-15, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:agfoec:v:11:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1186_s40100-023-00247-w
    DOI: 10.1186/s40100-023-00247-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1186/s40100-023-00247-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1186/s40100-023-00247-w?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Schimmelpfennig, David, 2018. "Crop Production Costs, Profits, And Ecosystem Stewardship With Precision Agriculture," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(1), pages 81-103, February.
    2. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
    3. Daniele Pacifico, 2012. "Fitting nonparametric mixed logit models via expectation-maximization algorithm," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 12(2), pages 284-298, June.
    4. Schimmelpfennig, David, 2016. "Farm Profits and Adoption of Precision Agriculture," Economic Research Report 249773, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    5. Marco Medici & S?ren Marcus Pedersen & Giacomo Carli & Maria Rita Tagliaventi, 2019. "Environmental Benefits of Precision Agriculture Adoption," Economia agro-alimentare, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 21(3), pages 637-656.
    6. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
    7. Thompson, Nathanael M. & Bir, Courtney & Widmar, David A. & Mintert, James R., 2019. "Farmer Perceptions Of Precision Agriculture Technology Benefits," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(1), pages 142-163, February.
    8. Carrer, Marcelo José & Filho, Hildo Meirelles de Souza & Vinholis, Marcela de Mello Brandão & Mozambani, Carlos Ivan, 2022. "Precision agriculture adoption and technical efficiency: An analysis of sugarcane farms in Brazil," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    9. Javier Jorge-Vázquez & Mª Peana Chivite-Cebolla & Francisco Salinas-Ramos, 2021. "The Digitalization of the European Agri-Food Cooperative Sector. Determining Factors to Embrace Information and Communication Technologies," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-16, June.
    10. Joana Colussi & Eric L. Morgan & Gary D. Schnitkey & Antônio D. Padula, 2022. "How Communication Affects the Adoption of Digital Technologies in Soybean Production: A Survey in Brazil," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-24, April.
    11. Louviere, Jordan J., 1991. "Experimental choice analysis: Introduction and overview," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 291-297, December.
    12. Fausti, Scott & Erickson, Bruce & Clay, Sharon & Schumacher, Leon & Clay, David & Skouby, Danielle, 2018. "Educator Survey: Do Institutions Provide the Precision Agriculture Education Needed by Agribusiness?," Journal of Agribusiness, Agricultural Economics Association of Georgia, vol. 36(1).
    13. Chin-Ling Lee & Robert Strong & Kim E. Dooley, 2021. "Analyzing Precision Agriculture Adoption across the Globe: A Systematic Review of Scholarship from 1999–2020," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-15, September.
    14. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene, 2005. "Destination Choice Models for Rock Climbing in the Northeastern Alps: A Latent-Class Approach Based on Intensity of Preferences," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(3).
    15. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
    16. J Blasch & B van der Kroon & P van Beukering & R Munster & S Fabiani & P Nino & S Vanino, 2022. "Farmer preferences for adopting precision farming technologies: a case study from Italy," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(1), pages 33-81.
    17. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    18. Athanasios Balafoutis & Bert Beck & Spyros Fountas & Jurgen Vangeyte & Tamme Van der Wal & Iria Soto & Manuel Gómez-Barbero & Andrew Barnes & Vera Eory, 2017. "Precision Agriculture Technologies Positively Contributing to GHG Emissions Mitigation, Farm Productivity and Economics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-28, July.
    19. Eric Ruto & Guy Garrod, 2009. "Investigating farmers' preferences for the design of agri-environment schemes: a choice experiment approach," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(5), pages 631-647.
    20. Giua, Carlo & Materia, Valentina Cristiana & Camanzi, Luca, 2022. "Smart farming technologies adoption: Which factors play a role in the digital transition?," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Beata Michaliszyn-Gabryś & Joachim Bronder & Janusz Krupanek, 2024. "Social Life Cycle Assessment of Laser Weed Control System: A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-28, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zandersen, Marianne & Jørgensen, Sisse Liv & Nainggolan, Doan & Gyldenkærne, Steen & Winding, Anne & Greve, Mogens Humlekrog & Termansen, Mette, 2016. "Potential and economic efficiency of using reduced tillage to mitigate climate effects in Danish agriculture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 14-22.
    2. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    3. Iván Pérez-Rubio & Daniel Flores & Christian Vargas & Francisco Jiménez & Iker Etxano, 2021. "To What Extent Are Cattle Ranching Landholders Willing to Restore Ecosystem Services? Constructing a Micro-Scale PES Scheme in Southern Costa Rica," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-24, July.
    4. David Boto-García & Petr Mariel & José Baños Pino & Antonio Alvarez, 2022. "Tourists’ willingness to pay for holiday trip characteristics: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Tourism Economics, , vol. 28(2), pages 349-370, March.
    5. Garrod, Guy & Ruto, Eric & Willis, Ken & Powe, Neil, 2012. "Heterogeneity of preferences for the benefits of Environmental Stewardship: A latent-class approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 104-111.
    6. Justin Visagie & Dorrit Posel, 2013. "A reconsideration of what and who is middle class in South Africa," Development Southern Africa, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(2), pages 149-167, June.
    7. Japelj, Anže & Mavsar, Robert & Hodges, Donald & Kovač, Marko & Juvančič, Luka, 2016. "Latent preferences of residents regarding an urban forest recreation setting in Ljubljana, Slovenia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 71-79.
    8. Gelo, Dambala & Koch, Steven F., 2012. "Does one size fit all? Heterogeneity in the valuation of community forestry programs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 85-94.
    9. Dhakal, Bhubaneswor & Yao, Richard T. & Turner, James A. & Barnard, Tim, 2012. "Recreational users' willingness to pay and preferences for changes in planted forest features," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 34-44.
    10. Kanchanaroek, Yingluck & Aslam, Uzma, 2017. "Assessing Farmers’ Preferences To Participate In Agri-environment Policies In Thailand," 2017 International Congress, August 28-September 1, 2017, Parma, Italy 260888, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Chiadmi, Ines & Traoré, Sidnoma Abdoul Aziz & Salles, Jean-Michel, 2020. "Asian tiger mosquito far from home: Assessing the impact of invasive mosquitoes on the French Mediterranean littoral," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    12. Hassan, Suziana & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2019. "Urban-rural divides in preferences for wetland conservation in Malaysia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 226-237.
    13. Román, Concepción & Arencibia, Ana Isabel & Feo-Valero, María, 2017. "A latent class model with attribute cut-offs to analyze modal choice for freight transport," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 212-227.
    14. Stine Broch & Suzanne Vedel, 2012. "Using Choice Experiments to Investigate the Policy Relevance of Heterogeneity in Farmer Agri-Environmental Contract Preferences," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 561-581, April.
    15. J Blasch & B van der Kroon & P van Beukering & R Munster & S Fabiani & P Nino & S Vanino, 2022. "Farmer preferences for adopting precision farming technologies: a case study from Italy," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(1), pages 33-81.
    16. Mara Thiene & Riccardo Scarpa & Jordan Louviere, 2015. "Addressing Preference Heterogeneity, Multiple Scales and Attribute Attendance with a Correlated Finite Mixing Model of Tap Water Choice," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 62(3), pages 637-656, November.
    17. Kristīne Pakalniete & Heini Ahtiainen & Juris Aigars & Ingrīda Andersone & Aurelija Armoškaite & Henning Sten Hansen & Solvita Strāķe, 2021. "Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Service Benefits and Welfare Impacts of Offshore Marine Protected Areas: A Study from the Baltic Sea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-30, September.
    18. Margherita Masi & Marcello Rosa & Yari Vecchio & Luca Bartoli & Felice Adinolfi, 2022. "The long way to innovation adoption: insights from precision agriculture," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 10(1), pages 1-17, December.
    19. Qinxin Guo & Junyi Shen, 2020. "Valuing Rural Residents' Attitude Regarding agri-environmental Policy in China: A Best-worst Scaling Analysis," Discussion Paper Series DP2020-01, Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration, Kobe University.
    20. Eric Ruto & Guy Garrod & Riccardo Scarpa, 2008. "Valuing animal genetic resources: a choice modeling application to indigenous cattle in Kenya," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 38(1), pages 89-98, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:agfoec:v:11:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1186_s40100-023-00247-w. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.