Ranking the Effective Factors in the Technology Acceptance Model for the Actual Use of Agricultural Automation (Case study: Ardebil)

ماشین های کشاورزی

Article 29, Volume 11, Issue 2 - Serial Number 22, 2021, Pages 525-534   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jam.v11i2.81398

Authors

M. Salimi¹; R. Pourdarbani^{* 1}; B. Asgarnezhad Nouri²

¹Department of Biosystem Engineering, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran

²Department of Business Management, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran

Abstract

Introduction
In Iran, due to population growth and rising costs in the coming years and supply of food needs, there should be solutions for more production, with less waste, so the presence of robots can be justified for more production, reducing waste and reducing current costs. The present study investigates the factors affecting the adoption of automation in agriculture in Ardabil within the framework of the constructive factors of "Technology Acceptance Model" and examining the applicability of this model in the research community.
Materials and Methods
In the present study, the conceptual model factors include perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, attitude toward use, and the intention to use, that affect the dependent variable of automation. Six of the first hypotheses of this study are based on the study of the significant relationships between each pair of variables in the framework of the "Technology Acceptance Model", and the applicability of the "Technology Acceptance Model" in the research community is defined in the seventh hypothesis. The method of this research is surveyed and data collection tool is a questionnaire designed based on technology acceptance model (TAM). In this research, the population of 27670 people were investigated that include university staffs-farmers and managers of ministry of agriculture in Ardabil. Using Cochran formula, 380 of them were selected in the form of stratified random sampling as sample size. Validity was confirmed by experts in agricultural management and mechanization, using Cronbach's alpha (0.958). Also, descriptive and inferential statistics were used and data analysis was performed using SPSS20 software.
Results and Discussion
The findings of this study showed that the technology acceptance model with a final determination coefficient of 635.0 was used in the studied population, which means that the applicability of the model (TAM) was very suitable for agricultural study in Ardabil. The priorities for the effects of the variables of the technology acceptance model for the actual use of automation were perceived ease of use (1.284), perceived usefulness (1.280), intention to use (0.954) and attitude (0.478) respectively.
Using the results of modeling, it was also found that the correlation coefficient between individual factors and the perceived usefulness of the application of automation has a strong relationship. The correlation coefficient between the two variables is negative and indicates that with increasing individual factors, the level of perceived usefulness of the use of automation also decreases, and vice versa. However, experience, self-confidence and financial situations, level of education, land area, number of family workforce, have not greatly increased productivity and reduced production costs and helped agricultural activities (understanding the usefulness of technology).The relationship can be considered as the most important factor in holding weak and undesirable classes in creating knowledge, experience and poor self-confidence of the respondents towards accurate agricultural technology. In these classes, the content should be presented in a more specialized and practical way to make them understand the usefulness of precision agricultural technology.
According to the results of this study, the organization of workshops and periodic training courses, as well as the introduction of this technology in journals and publications and social media is recommended.
Conclusion
Considering the confirmation of the hypotheses of this research and the priorities obtained for the effects of the structures of the technology acceptance model, it can be concluded that as it is known, the two main constituents of this model, perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness have had a significant impact on the amount of technology used, or, in other words, technology acceptance. The perceived usefulness is the most effective factor in the actual use of automation. In following, perceived ease of use, intention to use, and the attitude was ranked respectively.

Keywords

Agriculture; Ardabil; Automation; Davis’s model

References

1. Aboelmaged, M., and T. R. Gebba. 2013. Mobile banking adoption: an examination of technology acceptance model and theory of planned behavior. International Journal of Business Research and Development 2: 120-132.

2. Ansariardali, A. 2010. Analyses of promoter and preventive factors on establishment and development of cold-water fish farming tanks in Chaharmahal & Bakhtiyari Province. University of Tehran, Iran.

3. Davis, F. D. 1986. A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems. Cambridge University, England.

4. Davis, F. D., R. P. Bagozzi, and P. R. Warshaw. 1989. User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Journal of Management Science 35: 982-1003.

5. Dillon, A., and M. G. Morris. 1996. User acceptance of information technology: theories and models. In M. E. Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology.

6. Granic, A., and N. Marangunic. 2014. Technology acceptance model: A literature review from 1986 to 2013. Universal Access in the Information Society 14: 1-15.

7. Gundal, S. S. K., M. Kanawade, and A. Mazhar. 2015. Automation in agriculture. International Journal of Recent Scientific Research 6: 4453-4456.

8. Jalali, Z., H. Ashrafi, M. Soleimani, and M. Afshar. 2017. Factors Affecting Information Technology Acceptance by Isfahan University Librarians Based on Model (TAM). Payavard Salamat 11: 400-410.

9. Khorasani, A. J., and H. Zahedi. 2011. Factors Affecting Adoption of E-Learning in Tehran University of Medical Sciences Students Based on Technology Acceptance Model. Iranian Journal of Medical Education 11: 664-673.

10. Klopping, I. M., and E. Mckinney. 2004. Extending the technology acceptance model and the task- technology fit model to consumer e-commerce. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal 22: 35-48.

11. Kyung, H. Y., M. L. Sang, and L. Sang-Gun. 2007. Adoption of information and communication technology impact of technology types, organization resources and management style. Industrial Management and Data Systems 107: 57-75.

12. Lee, Y., K. Kozar, and K. Larsen. 2003. The technology acceptance model: Past, present, and future. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 12: 75-80.

13. Legris, P., J. Ingham, and P. Collerette. 2003. Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information and Management 40: 191-204.

14. Mehrjerdi, Y. Z. 2011. Rfid and its benefits: A multiple case analysis. Assembly Automation 31: 51-62.

15. Monfared, N. 2015. The Adoption of Variable-Rate Application of Fertilizers Technologies: The Case of Iran. International Journal of Agricultural Technology 11: 609-620.

16. Movahedi, R., N. Izadi, and R. Vahdatadab. 2017. Investigating Effective Factors on Acceptance of Pressure Irrigation Technology Among Farmers in Asadabad. Journal of Water Research in Agriculture 31: 150-162.

17. Naderi, E., and M. S. Naraghi. 2018. Research methods and how to evaluate it in humanities (with emphasis on education). Arasbaran. Iran.

18. piralidehi, F. G., A. Alibeigi, and S. Mohmmadi. 2013. Examining the IPM Technology Acceptance Model among Dalahu Gardens. Journal of Agricultural Extension and Education Research 4: 102-110.

19. Sabzi, S., Y. Abbaspour, and H. Javadikia. 2018. Detection of Two Types of Weed through Machine Vision System: Improving Site-Specific Spraying. Journal of Agricultural Machinery 8 (1): 15-29 (In Farsi).

20. Schueller, J. K. 2006. Applied machine vision of plants: a review with implications for field deployment in automated farming operations. Intelligent Service Robotics 3: 209-217.

21. Sheikhshoaei, F. 2007. Applying the technology acceptance model to Iranian engineering faculty libraries. Tehran University.

22. Soleimani, A., and K. Zarafshani. 2010. Investigating the Factors Affecting Information Technology Acceptance by Students in Agricultural Courses in Kermanshah Province Using Technology Acceptance Model. Journal of Information Technology Research Institute of Iran 26: 885-902 (In Farsi).

23. Sreekantha, D. K. 2016. Automation in Agriculture. International Journal of Engineering Science Invention Research & Development 2: 458-472.

24. Thong, J. Y. L., W. Hong, and K. Tam. 2002. Understanding user acceptance of digital libraries: What are the roles of interface characteristics, organizational context, and individual differences? International Journal Human -Computer Studies 57: 21-42.

25. Torabi, A., A. Eshagbeigi, and M. Danesh. 2014. The importance and position of the robot in modern agriculture. in 2nd Conference on Agricultural Management, Environment and Sustainable Natural Resources. Tehran, Iran.

26. Verma, P., and N. Sinha. 2018. Integrating perceived economic wellbeing to technology acceptance model: The case of mobile based agricultural extension service. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 126: 207-216.

27. Yazdi, M. F., R. Baradar, and A. Ghaebi. 2013. The applicability of the technology acceptance model on the acceptance of rfid in the university libraries. Academic Librarianship and Information Research 47: 171-189.