Environment and Social Psychology

Understanding agricultural grower’s information seeking: An analysis of Internet sources

Mehak Kapoor

School of Management Studies, Punjabi University

Harpreet Singh

School of Management Studies, Punjabi University

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54517/esp.v9i1.1836

Keywords: information sources, the channel of information, internet use, technology adoption, information search behavior

---

Abstract

Information is indispensable for the sustainability and growth of every type of business. Farmers are also among those who cannot survive without the proper acquisition and application of Information. However, very few studies have considered the farmer’s need for and the seeking of information which is why to fill this gap, the study looked into the information sources used by farm growers to get the required information, the influence of land size on the utilization of information sources, and how different characteristics related to sources and individuals influence attitude toward the usage of internet sources and provided a model that takes into consideration crucial factors and their influence on attitude toward searching for information from Internet sources. Data were acquired from 400 farmers using a multistage stratified disproportionate sampling procedure and a standardized questionnaire. For evaluating the given data, various analysis techniques were utilized such as Descriptive statistics, Correlation analysis, One-way ANOVA, Factor analysis, and Multiple regression Analysis. The data were evaluated by using SPSS version 25. Farmers, according to the findings, mostly rely on other farmers and input dealers, and mass media sources of information like radio, television, magazines, and newspapers, to acquire information associated with agricultural activities. They commonly utilize mobile social media apps when surfing the internet. Furthermore, the findings discovered that there is a significant difference in the usage of various sources of information, including television, radio, newspapers/magazines, other farmers, input dealers, Krishi Vigyan Kendras, Krishi melas, the state department of agriculture, state agriculture universities, and the Internet on mobile phones-social media applications, depending on the farmers’ farm size. The findings also revealed that the factors that were significantly positively associated with farmers’ attitudes about internet use were, perceived usefulness, ease of use, information quality, facilitating conditions, and social influence. The technology Acceptance Model was used as the foundation for the research framework. By examining past research, the study has discovered additional factors that may influence technology adoption in addition to the two main components of the Technology Acceptance Model, namely perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. The proposed model may assist information providers in their attempts to lessen and overcome barriers to farmers’ usage of technology. When building effective extension and dissemination programs, the preferred information-gathering modalities of a certain group of farmers should be considered. Intervention techniques must take into account the wide range of information that needs to be seen in farming communities. As a result, information providers must provide context-specific information through the sources that farmers prefer, while also considering the factors that influence their adoption and overcoming those barriers that prohibit farmers from using such sources. The study categorized farmers into four categories based on land size, which would assist information providers in acquiring a thorough grasp of each category of farmer and in developing separate and unique strategies for each type of farmer.

---

Author Biography

Mehak Kapoor, School of Management Studies, Punjabi University

school of management studies,research scholar

---

References

[1]. Aquino AP, Brown EO, Aranas MBD, et al. Innovative institutional arrangements to revitalize rural communities: The case of abaCa supply chains in rural Philippines. Extension Bulletin-Food & Fertilizer Technology Center 2012; (659): 1–12.

[2]. Chapagain T, Raizada MN. Agronomic challenges and opportunities for smallholder terrace agriculture in developing countries. Frontiers in Plant Science 2017; 8: 331. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2017.00331

[3]. Misaki E, Apiola M, Gaiani S, Tedre M. Challenges facing sub‐Saharan small‐scale farmers in accessing farming information through mobile phones: A systematic literature review. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries 2018; 84(4): e12034. doi: 10.1002/isd2.12034

[4]. Bachhav NB. Information needs of the rural farmers: A study from Maharashtra, India: A survey. Library Philosophy and Practice 2012; 866: 1–12.

[5]. Fan S, Rue C. The role of smallholder farms in a changing world. In: y Paloma SG, Riesgo L, Louhichi K (editors). The Role of Smallholder Farms in Food and Nutrition Security. Springer; 2020. pp. 13–28.

[6]. Verdier-chouchane A, Karagueuzian C. Moving towards a green productive agriculture in Africa: The role of ICTs. Africa Economic Brief 2016; 7(7): 1–12.

[7]. Khan Tithi T, Chakraborty TR, Akter P, et al. Context, design, and conveyance of information: ICT-enabled agricultural information services for rural women in Bangladesh. AI & Society 2020; 36(1): 277–287. doi: 10.1007/s00146-020-01016-9

[8]. Hoang HG. Determinants of the adoption of mobile phones for fruit marketing by Vietnamese farmers. World Development Perspectives 2020; 17: 100178. doi: 10.1016/j.wdp.2020.100178

[9]. Krikelas J. Information-seeking behavior: Patterns and concepts. Drexel Library Quarterly 1983; 19(2): 5–20.

[10]. Ellis D. A behavioral approach to information retrieval system design. Journal of Documentation 1989; 45(3): 171–212. doi: 10.1108/eb026843

[11]. Kuhlthau CC. Inside the search process: Information seeking from the user’s perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1991; 42(5): 361–371. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199106)42:5<361:AID-ASI6>3.0.CO;2-%23

[12]. Järvelin K. On information, information technology and the development of society: An information science perspective. In: Information Technology and Information Use: Towards a Unified View of Information and Information Technology. 1986; pp. 35–55.

[13]. Foster A. A nonlinear model of information‐seeking behavior. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2003; 55(3): 228–237. doi: 10.1002/asi.10359

[14]. McBride WD, Daberkow SG. Information and the adoption of precision farming technologies. Journal of Agribusiness 2003; 21(1): 21–38.

[15]. Kountios G, Ragkos A, Bournaris T, et al. educational needs and perceptions of the sustainability of precision agriculture: Survey evidence from Greece. Precision Agriculture 2017; 19(3): 537–554. doi: 10.1007/s11119-017-9537-2

[16]. Caffaro F, Roccato M, Micheletti Cremasco M, Cavallo E. An ergonomic approach to sustainable development: The role of information environment and social‐psychological variables in the adoption of agri‐environmental innovations. Sustainable Development 2019; 27(6): 1049–1062. doi: 10.1002/sd.1956

[17]. Leeuwis C, Aarts N. Rethinking communication in innovation processes: creating space for change in complex systems. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 2011; 17(1): 21–36. doi: 10.1080/1389224x.2011.536344

[18]. Unay Gailhard İ, Bavorová M, Pirscher F. Adoption of agri-environmental measures by organic farmers: The role of interpersonal communication. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 2014; 21(2): 127–148. doi: 10.1080/1389224x.2014.913985

[19]. Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 1989; 13(3): 319. doi: 10.2307/249008

[20]. Luarn P, Lin HH. Toward an understanding of the behavioral intention to use mobile banking. Computers in Human Behavior 2005; 21(6): 873–891. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2004.03.003

[21]. Kabbiri R, Dora M, Kumar V, et al. Mobile phone adoption in agri-food sector: Are farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa connected? Technological Forecasting and Social Change 2018; 131: 253–261. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.12.010

[22]. Rezaei R, Safa L, Ganjkhanloo MM. Understanding farmers’ ecological conservation behavior regarding the use of integrated pest management application of the technology acceptance model. Global Ecology and Conservation 2020; 22: e00941. doi: 10.1016/j.gecco. 2020.e00941

[23]. Malhotra Y, Galletta DF. Extending the technology acceptance model to account for social influence: Theoretical bases and empirical validation. In: Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. 1999. HICSS-32. Abstracts and CD-ROM of Full Papers; 5–8 January 1999; Maui, HI, USA.

[24]. Wang YS, Wang YM, Lin HH, Tang TI. Determinants of user acceptance of Internet banking: An empirical study. International Journal of Service Industry Management 2003; 14(5): 501–519. doi: 10.1108/09564230310500192

[25]. Park E, del Pobil AP. Technology acceptance model for the use of tablet PCs. Wireless Personal Communications 2013; 73(4): 1561–1572. doi: 10.1007/s11277-013-1266-x

[26]. Rind MM, Hyder M, Saand AS, et al. Impact Investigation of perceived cost and perceived risk in mobile commerce: an analytical study of Pakistan. International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security 2017; 17(11): 124–130.

[27]. Doanh NK, Do Dinh L, Quynh NN. Tea farmers’ intention to participate in livestream sales in Vietnam: The combination of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and barrier factors. Journal of Rural Studies 2022; 94: 408–417. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2022.05.023

[28]. Giua C, Materia VC, Camanzi L. Smart farming technologies adoption: Which factors play a role in the digital transition? Technology in Society 2022; 68: 101869. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101869

[29]. Diaz AC, Sasaki N, Tsusaka TW, Szabo S. Factors affecting farmers’ willingness to adopt a mobile app in the marketing of bamboo products. Resources, Conservation & Recycling Advances 2021; 11: 200056. doi: 10.1016/j.rcradv.2021.200056

[30]. Okoroji V, Lees NJ, Lucock X. Factors affecting the adoption of mobile applications by farmers: An empirical investigation. African Journal of Agricultural Research 2021; 17(1): 19–29. doi: 10.5897/AJAR2020.14909

[31]. Caffaro F, Cremasco MM, Roccato M, Cavallo E. Drivers of farmers’ intention to adopt technological innovations in Italy: The role of information sources, perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of use. Journal of Rural Studies 2020; 76: 264–271. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.04.028

[32]. Michels M, Fecke W, Feil JH, et al. Smartphone adoption and use in agriculture: Empirical evidence from Germany. Precision Agriculture 2020; 21(2): 403–425. doi: 10.1007/s11119-019-09675-5

[33]. Narine LK, Harder A, Roberts TG. Farmers’ intention to use text messaging for extension services in Trinidad. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 2019; 25(4): 293–306. doi: 10.1080/1389224x.2019.1629970

[34]. Ćirić M, Carić M, Kuzman B, Zekavica A. Farmer innovativeness and its impact on internet and social media adoption. Ekonomika poljoprivrede 2018; 65(1): 243–256. doi: 10.5937/ekopolj1801243c

[35]. Ibrahim AM, Hassan MS, Gusau AL. Factors influencing acceptance and use of ICT innovations by agribusinesses. Journal of Global Information Management 2018; 26(4): 113–134. doi: 10.4018/jgim.2018100107

[36]. Abebe A, Mammo Cherinet Y. Factors affecting the use of information and communication technologies for cereal marketing in Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural & Food Information 2018; 20(1): 59–70. doi: 10.1080/10496505.2018.1438290

[37]. Yaseen M, Ahmad MM, Soni P. Farm households’ simultaneous use of sources to access information on cotton crop production. Journal of Agricultural and Food Information 2018; 19(2): 149–161. doi: 10.1080/10496505.2017.1325743

[38]. Kante M, Oboko R, Chepken C. Influence of perception and quality of ICT‐based agricultural input information on use of ICTs by farmers in developing countries: Case of Sikasso in Mali. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries 2017; 83(1): 1–21. doi: 10.1002/j.1681-4835. 2017.tb00617.x

[39]. Jenkins A, Velandia M, Lambert DM, et al. Factors influencing the selection of precision farming information sources by cotton producers. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 2011; 40(2): 307–320. doi: 10.1017/s106828050000808x

[40]. Islam Sm, Grönlund Å. Challenges facing sub‐Saharan small‐scale adoption of mobile phones among the farmers in Bangladesh: Theories and practices. International Journal on Advances in ICT for Emerging Regions 2011; 4(1): 4–14. doi: 10.4038/icter. v4i1.4670

[41]. Saadi H, Mahdei KN, Movahedi R. Surveying on wheat farmers’ access and confidence to Information and Communication Channels (ICCs) about controlling Eurygaster integriceps in Hamedan Province-Iran. American Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science 2008; 3(2): 497–501. doi: 10.3844/ajabssp.2008.497.501

[42]. Das B. Diffusion of old information and communication technologies in disseminating agricultural knowledge: An analysis of farmers’ income. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation, and Development 2013; 5(3): 250–262. doi: 10.1080/20421338.2013.817044

[43]. Ali J. Factors affecting the adoption of information and communication technologies (ICTs) for farming decisions. Journal of Agricultural & Food Information 2012; 13(1): 78–96. doi: 10.1080/10496505.2012.636980

[44]. Bozz I, Akbayy C, Bas S, Budak DB. Adoption of innovations and best management practices among dairy farmers in the Eastern Mediterranean region of Turkey. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances 2011; 10(2): 251–261. doi: 10.3923/javaa.2011.251.261

[45]. Mwangi M, Kariuki S. Factors determining adoption of new agricultural technology by smallholder farmers in developing countries. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development 2015; 6(5): 208–216.

[46]. Mdoda L, Mdiya L. Factors affecting the using information and communication technologies (ICTs) by livestock farmers in the Eastern Cape province. Cogent Social Sciences 2022; 8(1): 2026017. doi: 10.1080/23311886.2022.2026017

[47]. Mwombe SOL, Mugivane FI, Adolwa IS, Nderitu JH. Evaluation of information and communication technology utilization by smallholder banana farmers in Gatanga District, Kenya. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 2014; 20(2): 247–261. doi: 10.1080/1389224x.2013.788454

[48]. Velandia MM, Lambert DM, Jenkins A, et al. Factors influencing the selection of information sources by cotton producers considering the adoption of precision agriculture technologies. (No. 319-2016-9706).

[49]. Strebel J, Erdem T, Swait J. Consumer search in high technology markets: Exploring the use of traditional information channels. Journal of Consumer Psychology 2004; 14(1–2): 96–104. doi: 10.1207/s15327663jcp1401&2_11

[50]. Verhoef PC, Neslin SA, Vroomen B. Multichannel customer management: Understanding the research-shopper phenomenon. International Journal of Research in Marketing 2007; 24(2): 129–148. doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2006.11.002

[51]. Wang YM, Lin HH, Tai WC, Fan YL. Understanding multi-channel research shoppers: An analysis of internet and physical channels. Information Systems and e-Business Management 2016; 14(2): 389–413. doi: 10.1007/s10257-015-0288-1

[52]. Goldsmith RE, Hofacker CF. Measuring consumer innovativeness. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 1991; 19(3): 209–221. doi: 10.1007/bf02726497

[53]. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 2003; 27(3): 425–478. doi: 10.2307/30036540

[54]. Jepsen AL. Factors affecting consumer use of the Internet for information search. Journal of Interactive Marketing 2007; 21(3): 21–34. doi: 10.1002/dir.20083

[55]. To PL, Liao C, Lin TH. Shopping motivations on internet: A study based on utilitarian and hedonic value. Technovation 2007; 27(12): 774–787. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2007.01.001

[56]. Nelson RR, Todd PA, Wixom BH. Antecedents of information and system quality: An empirical examination within the context of data warehousing. Journal of Management Information Systems 2005; 21(4): 199–235. doi: 10.1080/07421222.2005.11045823

[57]. Baker J, Parasuraman A, Grewal D, Voss GB. The influence of multiple store environment cues on perceived merchandise value and patronage intentions. Journal of Marketing 2002; 66(2): 120–141. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.66.2.120.18470

[58]. Kang YS, Herr PM, Page CM. Time and distance: Asymmetries in consumer trip knowledge and judgments. Journal of Consumer Research 2003; 30(3): 420–429. doi: 10.1086/378618

[59]. Ratchford BT, Lee MS, Talukdar D. The impact of the internet on information search for automobiles. Journal of Marketing Research 2003; 40(2): 193–209. doi: 10.1509/jmkr.40.2.193.19221

[60]. Jeyaraj A, Rottman JW, Lacity MC. A review of the predictors, linkages, and biases in IT innovation adoption research. Journal of Information Technology 2006; 21(1): 1–23. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000056

[61]. Kim HW, Chan HC, Gupta S. Value-based adoption of mobile internet: An empirical investigation. Decision Support Systems 2007; 43(1): 111–126. doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2005.05.009

[62]. Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley; 1975.

[63]. Beatty SE, Homer P, Kahle LR. The involvement—commitment model: Theory and implications. Journal of Business Research 1988; 16(2): 149–167. doi: 10.1016/0148-2963(88)90039-2

[64]. Schiffman LG, Kanuk LL. Customer Behavior. Prestice Hall; 2004.

[65]. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, et al. Multivariate Data Analysis.

[66]. Adesina AA, Baidu-Forson J. Farmers’ perceptions and adoption of new agricultural technology: evidence from analysis in Burkina Faso and Guinea, West Africa. Agricultural Economics 1995; 13(1): 1-9.

[67]. Durgun D, Günden C, Ünal V. Information source preferences of small-scale fishers in the Aegean Sea coast of Turkey. Acta Ichthyologica et Piscatoria 2021; 51(1): 47–52. doi: 10.3897/aiep.51.63396

[68]. Msoffe GE, Ngulube P. Information needs of poultry farmers in selected rural areas of Tanzania. Information Development 2016; 32(4): 1085–1096. doi: 10.1177/0266666915587749

[69]. Ndimbwa T, Mwantimwa K, Ndumbaro F. Channels used to deliver agricultural information and knowledge to smallholder farmers. IFLA Journal 2020; 47(2): 153–167. doi: 10.1177/0340035220951828

[70]. Rimi TA, Akpoko JG, Abdullahi KA. Sources of agricultural information used by cowpea farmers in Rimi Local Government Area of Katsina State. Journal of Agricultural and Crop Research 2015; 3(2): 21–26.

[71]. Ostertagová E, Ostertag O, Kováč J. Methodology and application of the Kruskal-Wallis test. Applied Mechanics and Materials 2014; 611: 115–120. doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.611.115

[72]. George D. SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Study Guide and Reference, 17.0 update, 10/e. Pearson Education India; 2011.

[73]. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate Data Analysis. 2010.

[74]. Singh KN. Developing small and marginal farmers. Need for a new outlook, Paper presented in National Seminar on New Agricultural Technology and Extension Strategy for Small and Marginal Farmers. Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana; 1976.

[75]. Adhiguru P, Birthal PS, Kumar BG. Strengthening pluralistic agricultural information delivery systems in India. Agricultural Economics Research Review 2009; 22(1): 71–79.

[76]. Babu SC, Glendenning CJ, Asenso-Okyere K, Govindarajan SK. Farmers’ information needs and search behaviors: Case study in Tamil Nadu, India. International Food Policy Research Institute; 2012.

[77]. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill; 1978.

[78]. Garver MS, Mentzer JT. Logistics research methods: Employing structural equation modeling to test for construct validity. Journal of Business Logistics 1999; 20(1): 33–57.

[79]. Field A. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. Sage Publications; 2013.

[80]. Wong CC, Hiew PL. Factors influencing the adoption of mobile entertainment: Empirical evidence from a Malaysian survey. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Mobile Business (ICMB’05); 11–13 July 2005; Sydney, NSW, Australia. pp. 682–685.

[81]. Pouratashi M, Rezvanfar A. Analysis of factors influencing application of ICT by agricultural graduate students. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2010; 61(1): 81–87. doi: 10.1002/asi.21230

[82]. Farahat T. Applying the technology acceptance model to online learning in the Egyptian universities. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 2012; 64: 95–104. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.012

[83]. Salimi M, Pourdarbani R, Nouri BA. Factors affecting the adoption of agricultural automation using Davis’s acceptance model (case study: Ardabil). Acta Technologica Agriculturae 2020; 23(1): 30–39. doi: 10.2478/ata-2020-0006

[84]. Nyagango AI, Sife AS, Kazungu I. Use of mobile phone technologies for accessing agricultural marketing information by grape smallholder farmers: A technological acceptance model (TAM) perspective. Technological Sustainability 2023; 2(3): 320–336. doi: 10.1108/TECHS-01-2023-0002

[85]. Thomas T, Singh L, Gaffar K. The utility of the UTAUT model in explaining mobile learning adoption in higher education in Guyana. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology 2013; 9(3): 71–85.

[86]. Lai IKW, Lai DC. User acceptance of mobile commerce: An empirical study in Macau. International Journal of Systems Science 2014; 45(6): 1321–1331. doi: 10.1080/00207721.2012.761471

[87]. Tenzin S, Dorji R. Factors affecting Bhutanese teachers’ attitude towards acceptance of technology in teaching. Journal of Bhutan Studies 2017; 35: 82–95.

[88]. Morosan C, DeFranco A. It’s about time: Revisiting UTAUT2 to examine consumers’ intentions to use NFC mobile payments in hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management 2016; 53: 17–29. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.11.003

[89]. Verkijika SF. Factors influencing the adoption of mobile commerce applications in Cameroon. Telematics and Informatics 2018; 35(6): 1665–1674. doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2018.04.012

[90]. Verma P, Sinha N. Role of attitude as mediator of the perceived ease of use and behavioural intention relationship. International Journal of Management Concepts and Philosophy 2017; 10(3): 227–245. doi: 10.1504/ijmcp.2017.085831

[91]. Oh JC, Yoon SJ. Predicting the use of online information services based on a modified UTAUT model. Behaviour & Information Technology 2014; 33(7): 716–729. doi: 10.1080/0144929x.2013.872187

[92]. Sa’ari JR, Jabar J, Tahir MNH, Mahpoth MH. Farmer’s acceptance of sustainable farming technology. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences 2017; 4(12): 220–225. doi: 10.21833/ijaas.2017.012.038

[93]. Raman K, Othman N, Affandi HM, Rawi IIM. Factors affecting teacher’s attitude towards designing virtual learning environment. Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal 2020; 5(SI3): 173–179. doi: 10.21834/ebpj.v5isi3.2560

[94]. Akinwale YO, Kyari AK. Factors influencing attitudes and intention to adopt financial technology services among the end-users in Lagos State, Nigeria. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development 2022; 14(1): 272–279. doi: 10.1080/20421338.2020.1835177

[95]. Park CH, Kim YG. Identifying key factors affecting consumer purchase behavior in an online shopping context. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 2003; 31(1): 16–29. doi: 10.1108/09590550310457818

[96]. Gupta A, Su BC, Walter Z. Risk profile and consumer shopping behavior in electronic and traditional channels. Decision Support Systems 2004; 38(3): 347–367. doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2003.08.002

[97]. Lee HH, Kim J. The effects of shopping orientations on consumers’ satisfaction with product search and purchases in a multi‐channel environment. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal 2008; 12(2): 193–216. doi: 10.1108/13612020810874881

[98]. Sen R, King RC, Shaw MJ. Buyers’ choice of online search strategy and its managerial implications. Journal of Management Information Systems 2006; 23(1): 211–238. doi: 10.2753/mis0742-1222230107