IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i24p16745-d1002868.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact of Mobile Internet Application on Farmers’ Adoption and Development of Green Technology

Author

Listed:
  • Zhenzhen Huang

    (School of Computer Sciences and Technology, China University of Mining & Technology, Xuzhou 221116, China)

  • Jiayu Zhuang

    (Agricultural Information Institute, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100081, China)

  • Shuo Xiao

    (School of Computer Sciences and Technology, China University of Mining & Technology, Xuzhou 221116, China)

Abstract

Mobile Internet refers to a new mode of information interaction through mobile terminals and the use of wireless communication to access information services. The mobile Internet has provided a new model for the traditional information circulation mode, rural economic structure, and social transformation. With an association between the mobile Internet and farmers’ adoption behavior of new green technology, this paper investigated the impact of mobile Internet application on farmers’ adoption of green technology through a mediating effect model. From the perspective of new agricultural technology diffusion and based on the perspective of factor substitution, we decompose the mechanism that mobile Internet applications affect the adoption of new wheat varieties. Along the path of information transmission, evaluation, and adoption of new wheat varieties, we deeply explored the impact of the mobile Internet on the adoption of new wheat varieties by different types of wheat growers. The results show that there is a significant mediating effect of information acquisition ability, risk attitude, and expected return on the influence of the mobile Internet on green technology adoption. For the adoption mechanism of new green varieties, there was a distinct difference among various farmers.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhenzhen Huang & Jiayu Zhuang & Shuo Xiao, 2022. "Impact of Mobile Internet Application on Farmers’ Adoption and Development of Green Technology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-13, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:24:p:16745-:d:1002868
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/24/16745/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/24/16745/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Maredia, Mywish K. & Shankar, Bhavani & Kelley, Timothy G. & Stevenson, James R., 2014. "Impact assessment of agricultural research, institutional innovation, and technology adoption: Introduction to the special section," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 214-217.
    2. Elaine M. Liu, 2008. "Time to Change What to Sow: Risk Preferences and Technology Adoption Decisions of Cotton Farmers in China," Working Papers 1064, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
    3. Mao, Weining & Koo, Won W., 1996. "Productivity Growth, Technology Progress, And Efficiency Change In Chinese Agricultural Production From 1984 To 1993," Agricultural Economics Reports 23442, North Dakota State University, Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics.
    4. Tesfamicheal Wossen & Thomas Berger & Salvatore Di Falco, 2015. "Social capital, risk preference and adoption of improved farm land management practices in Ethiopia," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 46(1), pages 81-97, January.
    5. Elaine M. Liu, 2013. "Time to Change What to Sow: Risk Preferences and Technology Adoption Decisions of Cotton Farmers in China," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(4), pages 1386-1403, October.
    6. Tomomi Tanaka & Colin F. Camerer, 2016. "Trait perceptions influence economic out-group bias: lab and field evidence from Vietnam," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(3), pages 513-534, September.
    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. Jinhua Xie & Gangqiao Yang & Ge Wang & Shuoyan He, 2024. "How does social capital affect farmers’ environment-friendly technology adoption behavior? A case study in Hubei Province, China," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(7), pages 18361-18384, July.
    2. Amanuel Hadera & Tewodros Tadesse, 2023. "Risk and ambiguity aversion: Incentives or disincentives for adoption of improved agricultural land management practices?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 54(6), pages 867-883, November.
    3. Doan Nainggolan & Faizal Rahmanto Moeis & Mette Termansen, 2023. "Does risk preference influence farm level adaptation strategies? – Survey evidence from Denmark," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 28(7), pages 1-23, October.
    4. Cárcamo, Jorge & von Cramon-Taubadel, Stephan, 2016. "Assessing small-scale raspberry producers’ risk and ambiguity preferences: evidence from field- experiment data in rural Chile," Department of Agricultural and Rural Development (DARE) Discussion Papers 260774, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    5. Cárcamo, Jorge & Cramon-Taubadel, Stephan von, 2016. "Assessing small-scale raspberry producers' risk and ambiguity preferences: Evidence from field-experiment data in rural Chile," DARE Discussion Papers 1610, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    6. Mao, Hui & Quan, Yurong & Fu, Yong & Chen, Shaojian, 2022. "Risk preferences, productive investment and straw return technology adoption by farmers in China," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322087, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Zengwei Xu & Jing Li & Jiliang Ma, 2022. "Impacts of Extension Contact on the Adoption of Formulated Fertilizers and Farm Performance among Large-Scale Farms in Rural China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-19, November.
    8. Jianhua Wang & Chenchen Yang & Wanglin Ma & Jianjun Tang, 2020. "Risk preference, trust, and willingness-to-accept subsidies for pro-environmental production: an investigation of hog farmers in China," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 22(3), pages 405-431, July.
    9. Freudenreich, Hanna & Musshoff, Oliver, 2022. "Experience of losses and aversion to uncertainty - experimental evidence from farmers in Mexico," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    10. Goytom Abraha Kahsay & Daniel Osberghaus, 2018. "Storm Damage and Risk Preferences: Panel Evidence from Germany," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 301-318, September.
    11. B Kelsey Jack, "undated". "Market Inefficiencies and the Adoption of Agricultural Technologies in Developing Countries," CID Working Papers 50, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
    12. Magnan, Nicholas & Spielman, David J. & Lybbert, Travis J. & Gulati, Kajal, 2015. "Leveling with friends: Social networks and Indian farmers' demand for a technology with heterogeneous benefits," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 223-251.
    13. Li Zhao & Shumin Liu & Haiying Gu & David Ahlstrom, 2023. "Risk Amplification, Risk Preference and Acceptance of Transgenic Technology," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-22, September.
    14. Freudenreich, Hanna & Musshoff, Oliver & Wiercinski, Ben, 2017. "The Relationship between Farmers' Shock Experiences and their Uncertainty Preferences - Experimental Evidence from Mexico," GlobalFood Discussion Papers 256212, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
    15. Hira Channa & Jacob Ricker‐Gilbert & Hugo De Groote & Jonathan Bauchet, 2021. "Willingness to pay for a new farm technology given risk preferences: Evidence from an experimental auction in Kenya," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(5), pages 733-748, September.
    16. Woldegebrial Zeweld & Guido Van Huylenbroeck & Girmay Tesfay & Hossein Azadi & Stijn Speelman, 2018. "Impacts of Socio-Psychological Factors on Actual Adoption of Sustainable Land Management Practices in Dryland and Water Stressed Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-23, August.
    17. Christine L. Crago & Rong Rong, 2025. "Behavioral preferences and contract choice in the residential solar PV market," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 107(1), pages 27-53, January.
    18. Li, Yuanzhe & Xi, Tianyang & Zhou, Li-An, 2024. "Drinking water facilities and inclusive development: Evidence from Rural China," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    19. Lechthaler, Filippo & Vinogradova, Alexandra, 2017. "The climate challenge for agriculture and the value of climate services: Application to coffee-farming in Peru," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 5-30.
    20. Patrick S. Ward & Valerien O. Pede, 2015. "Capturing social network effects in technology adoption: the spatial diffusion of hybrid rice in Bangladesh," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 59(2), pages 225-241, April.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:24:p:16745-:d:1002868. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.