IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/zbw/espost/266249.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can digital farming technologies enhance the willingness to buy products from current farming systems?

Author

Listed:
  • Wilmes, Rolf
  • Waldhof, Gabi
  • Breunig, Peter

Abstract

While current global agriculture allows for efficient food production, it brings environmental disadvantages, which resulted in a lack of public acceptance. Digital technologies (e.g., technologies that enable precision agriculture) have been suggested as a potential solution to reconcile environmental sustainability and yield increases. By embedding digital technologies into holistic farming system visualized through mission statements, this study tests the effect of different intensities of digitization, as well as environmental arguments on the willingness to buy food produced by farms in Germany. We use a 4 x 4 repeated measure experimental design surveying a representative sample of 2,020 German citizens recruited online. Our research framework captures the farming system (comparing low intensity of digitalization for a small or organic farm and low, medium, and high intensity of digitalization for large or conventional farms) and environmental arguments (comparing no arguments, and altruistic, egoistic, and biospheric arguments). The results show a negative effect of digital technologies on willingness to buy. However, this relationship turns positive when introducing environmental arguments. Furthermore, there is a moderation effect for respondents’ attitudes towards technologies that varies depending on whether altruistic, egoistic, or biospheric concerns were stated. The results indicate that digital technologies can increase willingness to buy products from both large and conventional farms, but not to the level of small farms and organic farms.

Suggested Citation

  • Wilmes, Rolf & Waldhof, Gabi & Breunig, Peter, 2022. "Can digital farming technologies enhance the willingness to buy products from current farming systems?," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 17(11), pages 1-20.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:espost:266249
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277731
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/266249/1/Wilmes_2022_digital_farming_technologies.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0277731?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. Kristin Jürkenbeck & Andreas Heumann & Achim Spiller, 2019. "Sustainability Matters: Consumer Acceptance of Different Vertical Farming Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-21, July.
    2. Palm, A., 2020. "Early adopters and their motives: Differences between earlier and later adopters of residential solar photovoltaics," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    3. Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller & Hans Kastenholz & Silvia Frey & Arnim Wiek, 2007. "Laypeople's and Experts' Perception of Nanotechnology Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 59-69, February.
    4. Michael Siegrist & Joseph Árvai, 2020. "Risk Perception: Reflections on 40 Years of Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2191-2206, November.
    5. Gea Hoogendoorn & Bernadette Sütterlin & Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Tampering with Nature: A Systematic Review," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(1), pages 141-156, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Sharon M. Friedman & Brenda P. Egolf, 2011. "A Longitudinal Study of Newspaper and Wire Service Coverage of Nanotechnology Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(11), pages 1701-1717, November.
    2. Bertrand, Jérémie & Burietz, Aurore, 2023. "(Loan) price and (loan officer) prejudice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 210(C), pages 26-42.
    3. Joanna Sokolowska & Patrycja Sleboda, 2015. "The Inverse Relation Between Risks and Benefits: The Role of Affect and Expertise," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1252-1267, July.
    4. Chuhan Chen & Syarmila Hany Haron, 2023. "The Influence of Multistakeholder Value Cognition and Risk Attitudes on Sustainable Interior Landscape Design Decisions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-22, February.
    5. Lemay, Amélie C. & Wagner, Sigurd & Rand, Barry P., 2023. "Current status and future potential of rooftop solar adoption in the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    6. Jiyoun Kim & Sara K. Yeo & Dominique Brossard & Dietram A. Scheufele & Michael A. Xenos, 2014. "Disentangling the Influence of Value Predispositions and Risk/Benefit Perceptions on Support for Nanotechnology Among the American Public," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(5), pages 965-980, May.
    7. Pardo-Guerra, Juan Pablo, 2011. "Mapping emergence across the Atlantic: Some (tentative) lessons on nanotechnology in Latin America," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 94-108.
    8. Chunci Chen & Guizhen He & Mingzhao Yu, 2023. "Sustainable Watershed Protection from the Public Perspective, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, April.
    9. Yiming Shao & Zhugen Wang & Zhiwei Zhou & Haojing Chen & Yuanlong Cui & Zhenghuan Zhou, 2022. "Determinants Affecting Public Intention to Use Micro-Vertical Farming: A Survey Investigation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-26, July.
    10. Joseph Conti & Terre Satterfield & Barbara Herr Harthorn, 2011. "Vulnerability and Social Justice as Factors in Emergent U.S. Nanotechnology Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(11), pages 1734-1748, November.
    11. Alrawad, Mahmaod & Lutfi, Abdalwali & Alyatama, Sundus & Al Khattab, Adel & Alsoboa, Sliman S. & Almaiah, Mohammed Amin & Ramadan, Mujtaba Hashim & Arafa, Hussin Mostafa & Ahmed, Nazar Ali & Alsyouf, , 2023. "Assessing customers perception of online shopping risks: A structural equation modeling–based multigroup analysis," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    12. Peng Liu & Run Yang & Zhigang Xu, 2019. "How Safe Is Safe Enough for Self‐Driving Vehicles?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 315-325, February.
    13. Garrett M. Broad & Wythe Marschall & Maya Ezzeddine, 2022. "Perceptions of high-tech controlled environment agriculture among local food consumers: using interviews to explore sense-making and connections to good food," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(1), pages 417-433, March.
    14. Jouttijärvi, Sami & Lobaccaro, Gabriele & Kamppinen, Aleksi & Miettunen, Kati, 2022. "Benefits of bifacial solar cells combined with low voltage power grids at high latitudes," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    15. Hemeng Zhou & Kathrin Specht & Caitlin K. Kirby, 2022. "Consumers’ and Stakeholders’ Acceptance of Indoor Agritecture in Shanghai (China)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-28, February.
    16. Michael Siegrist & Philipp Hübner & Christina Hartmann, 2018. "Risk Prioritization in the Food Domain Using Deliberative and Survey Methods: Differences between Experts and Laypeople," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(3), pages 504-524, March.
    17. Seoyong Kim & Sunhee Kim, 2015. "The role of value in the social acceptance of science-technology," International Review of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(3), pages 305-322, July.
    18. Xiangcheng Meng & Alan H. S. Chan, 2022. "Improving the Safety Performance of Construction Workers through Individual Perception and Organizational Collectivity: A Contrastive Research between Mainland China and Hong Kong," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-15, November.
    19. Marini, Michele & Caro, Dario & Thomsen, Marianne, 2023. "Investigating local policy instruments for different types of urban agriculture in four European cities: A case study analysis on the use and effectiveness of the applied policy instruments," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    20. Moon-Hyun Kim & Tae-Hyoung Tommy Gim, 2021. "Spatial Characteristics of the Diffusion of Residential Solar Photovoltaics in Urban Areas: A Case of Seoul, South Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-16, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:zbw:espost:266249. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zbwkide.html .

    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.