IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/gewi21/317061.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Empirische Analyse der Einflussfaktoren auf die Digitalisierung der Milchviehhaltung

Author

Listed:
  • Grothkopf, Carina
  • Schulze, Holger

Abstract

Digitalen Technologien bieten für milchviehhaltende Betriebe eine Vielzahl von betrieblichen und tierwohlbezogenen Vorteilen. Trotz des Megatrends „Digitalisierung“ ist die Ausstattung mit digitalen Technologien in den Milchviehbetrieben jedoch sehr unterschiedlich ausgeprägt. Die Intention der Landwirte*innen diese Technologien zu nutzen wird von vielen verschiede-nen Faktoren beeinflusst. Dabei spielen u.a. Faktoren, wie der erwartete Aufwand, die erwarteten Leistungen, das Kosten-Nutzen-Verhältnis, erleichternde Rahmenbedingungen, der soziale Einfluss und Gewohnheiten eine Rolle. Doch welche Einflussfaktoren sind am relevan-testen, um die unterschiedliche Ausprägung der Digitalisierung in milchviehhaltenden Betrie-ben zu erklären? Um diese Forschungsfrage zu beantworten, wurden im Oktober und November 2020 156 Landwirte*innen in Norddeutschland zur Nutzung von digitalen Technologien befragt. Bei der Stichprobe handelt es sich um größere (Ø 267 Milchkühe) und zukunftsorientiertere Milchviehbetriebe (nur 9,6% der befragten Betriebe laufen aus oder haben sich noch nicht mit der Hofnachfolge auseinandergesetzt). Im vorliegenden Beitrag werden die Faktoren, die die Intention der Landwirte*innen zur Nutzung von Technologien für die Milchviehhaltung be-einflussen, mittels einer Faktoren- und einer linearen multiplen Regressionsanalyse ermittelt. Die „Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology” von VENKATESH et al. (2012) wur-de dabei als Grundlage für das verwendete Forschungsmodell genutzt. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass das oberste Ziel der Hersteller sein sollte, leicht bedienbare Technologien mit einem guten Kosten-Nutzen-Verhältnis anzubieten. Darüber hinaus haben, im Gegensatz zu den bisherigen Studien, die Faktoren „Habit“ und „Mastery-approach goals“ einen signifikanten Einfluss auf die Intention der Landwirte. Das Konstrukt „Habit“, also die früheren Erfahrungen und Gewohnheiten in Verbindung mit Technologien für die Milchviehhaltung, hat den größten Einfluss auf die Intention der Landwirte. D.h. Landwirte*innen, für die die Nutzung selbstverständlich geworden ist und ein Betrieb ohne den Einsatz von Technologien unvorstellbar ist, haben eine höhere Intention, die Technologien zu nutzen. Dies verdeutlicht, dass Hersteller Technologien anbieten sollten, die einen praxisorientierten Umgang und gute Erfahrungen mit der Technologie sicherstellen. Zudem hat das angepasste Forschungsmodell einen sehr guten Erklärungsgehalt und kommt dem Wert aus der Originalquelle von VENKATESH et al. (2012) sehr nahe. Des Weiteren wird deutlich, dass sich die Investitionsabsichten der Betriebe in spezifische Milchviehtechnologien stark unterscheiden. So wird unter anderem ein differenzierter Marktausblick für die Praxis ermöglicht.

Suggested Citation

  • Grothkopf, Carina & Schulze, Holger, 2021. "Empirische Analyse der Einflussfaktoren auf die Digitalisierung der Milchviehhaltung," 61st Annual Conference, Berlin, Germany, September 22-24, 2021 317061, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:gewi21:317061
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.317061
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/317061/files/144-Grothkopf_b.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.317061?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. Eliana Lima & Thomas Hopkins & Emma Gurney & Orla Shortall & Fiona Lovatt & Peers Davies & George Williamson & Jasmeet Kaler, 2018. "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, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-17, January.
    2. Rose, David C. & Sutherland, William J. & Parker, Caroline & Lobley, Matt & Winter, Michael & Morris, Carol & Twining, Susan & Ffoulkes, Charles & Amano, Tatsuya & Dicks, Lynn V., 2016. "Decision support tools for agriculture: Towards effective design and delivery," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 165-174.
    3. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    4. Michels, Marius & von Hobe, Cord-Friedrich & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2020. "Understanding the Adoption of Drones in German Agriculture," 60th Annual Conference, Halle/ Saale, Germany, September 23-25, 2020 305579, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    5. Rübcke von Veltheim, Friedrich & Claussen, Frans & Heise, Heinke, 2020. "Autonomous Field Robots in Agriculture: A Qualitative Analysis of User Acceptance According to Different Agricultural Machinery Companies," 60th Annual Conference, Halle/ Saale, Germany, September 23-25, 2020 305587, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    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. Langer, Greta & Schukat, Sirkka, 2022. "Die Einstellung deutscher Milchviehhalter gegenüber dem Internet der Dinge," 62nd Annual Conference, Stuttgart, Germany, September 7-9, 2022 329592, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).

    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. Shang, Linmei & Heckelei, Thomas & Gerullis, Maria K. & Börner, Jan & Rasch, Sebastian, 2021. "Adoption and diffusion of digital farming technologies - integrating farm-level evidence and system interaction," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    2. Grotsch, Henrike & Schulze, Holger & Sonntag, Winnie & Thiele, Holger, 2022. "Adoption von Aktivitätsmessungssystemen in der Milchviehhaltung: Identifikation von Einflussfaktoren mittels Customer Journey Analyse," 62nd Annual Conference, Stuttgart, Germany, September 7-9, 2022 329604, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    3. Maria Andersson & Ola Eriksson & Chris Von Borgstede, 2012. "The Effects of Environmental Management Systems on Source Separation in the Work and Home Settings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(6), pages 1-17, June.
    4. Tran Huy Phuong & Thanh Trung Hieu, 2015. "Predictors of Entrepreneurial Intentions of Undergraduate Students in Vietnam: An Empirical Study," International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, Human Resource Management Academic Research Society, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, vol. 5(8), pages 46-55, August.
    5. Jeroen Ooge & Katrien Verbert, 2022. "Visually Explaining Uncertain Price Predictions in Agrifood: A User-Centred Case-Study," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-25, July.
    6. Clara Cardone-Riportella & María José Casasola-Martinez & Isabel Feito-Ruiz, 2014. "Do Entrepreneurs Come From Venus Or Mars? Impact Of Postgraduate Studies: Gender And Family Business Background," Working Papers 14.04, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Financial Economics and Accounting (former Department of Business Administration), revised Sep 2014.
    7. Peng Cheng & Zhe Ouyang & Yang Liu, 0. "The effect of information overload on the intention of consumers to adopt electric vehicles," Transportation, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-20.
    8. Ruijie Zhu & Guojing Zhao & Zehai Long & Yangjie Huang & Zhaoxin Huang, 2022. "Entrepreneurship or Employment? A Survey of College Students’ Sustainable Entrepreneurial Intentions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-15, May.
    9. Alsalem, Amani & Fry, Marie-Louise & Thaichon, Park, 2020. "To donate or to waste it: Understanding posthumous organ donation attitude," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 87-97.
    10. Pan, Jing Yu & Liu, Dahai, 2022. "Mask-wearing intentions on airplanes during COVID-19 – Application of theory of planned behavior model," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 32-44.
    11. Benoît Lécureux & Adrien Bonnet & Ouassim Manout & Jaâfar Berrada & Louafi Bouzouina, 2022. "Acceptance of Shared Autonomous Vehicles: A Literature Review of stated choice experiments," Working Papers hal-03814947, HAL.
    12. Jacqueline Ruth & Steffen Willwacher & Oliver Korn, 2022. "Acceptance of Digital Sports: A Study Showing the Rising Acceptance of Digital Health Activities Due to the SARS-CoV-19 Pandemic," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-16, January.
    13. Jariyasunant, Jerald & Carrel, Andre & Ekambaram, Venkatesan & Gaker, David & Sengupta, Raja & Walker, Joan L., 2012. "The Quantified Traveler: Changing transport behavior with personalized travel data feedback," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt3047k0dw, University of California Transportation Center.
    14. Brown, Philip & Roper, Simon, 2017. "Innovation and networks in New Zealand farming," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 61(3), July.
    15. Teodora Roman, 2009. "Study regarding entrepreneurial intentions among students," THE YEARBOOK OF THE "GH. ZANE" INSTITUTE OF ECONOMIC RESEARCHES, Gheorghe Zane Institute for Economic and Social Research ( from THE ROMANIAN ACADEMY, JASSY BRANCH), vol. 18, pages 87-94.
    16. Messele Kumilachew Aga, 2023. "The mediating role of perceived behavioral control in the relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions of university students in Ethiopia," Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 1-18, December.
    17. Kristin Thomas & Evalill Nilsson & Karin Festin & Pontus Henriksson & Mats Lowén & Marie Löf & Margareta Kristenson, 2020. "Associations of Psychosocial Factors with Multiple Health Behaviors: A Population-Based Study of Middle-Aged Men and Women," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-17, February.
    18. Andreas Falke & Nadine Schröder & Claudia Hofmann, 2022. "The influence of values in sustainable consumption among millennials," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 92(6), pages 899-928, August.
    19. Kamruzzaman, Md. & Baker, Douglas & Washington, Simon & Turrell, Gavin, 2013. "Residential dissonance and mode choice," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 12-28.
    20. Ficko, Andrej & Boncina, Andrej, 2013. "Probabilistic typology of management decision making in private forest properties," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 34-43.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Marketing; Research and Development / Technical Change / Emerging Technologies; Research Methods / Statistical Methods;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:gewi21:317061. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gewisea.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.