Willingness to pay for smartphone apps facilitating sustainable crop protection
- 372 Downloads
By providing additional information and simulating results, decision support tools are one of the methods to enhance a farmer’s decision-making process in order to achieve more sustainable practices. With the latest developments in smartphone technology, new possibilities to integrate decision support tools into the daily work process have been emerging and smartphone apps related to crop protection have been developed. However, little is known about the utilization of smartphones by farmers in general, and specifically with regard to crop protection. In order to gather first insights into the factors that could affect the decision of farmers to integrate smartphones and crop protection-related apps in particular, into their work process, we conducted an online survey with 174 technologically experienced German farmers in 2017. We gained insights about the current use of smartphones from the surveyed German farmers, explored which topics farmers perceive as useful in the form of an app for crop protection, and which factors influence the willingness to pay for these apps. Our results show that 93% of the respondents use smartphones for agricultural purposes. Weather forecasts, tools to identify pests, diseases and weeds, as well as related forecasts are perceived as useful by the majority of respondents. Eighty-two percent of the respondents are generally willing to pay for crop protection apps. Using a probit model, we found that the farmer’s age, farm size, knowledge about specific crop protection apps, potential for cost reduction, and potential to reduce negative environmental effects have an influence on the general willingness to pay. Overall, this is the first study to explore factors influencing the willingness to pay for crop protection apps and assess which types of apps are perceived as useful by technologically experienced German farmers.
KeywordsSmartphone Crop protection apps Willingness to pay Perceived usefulness Probit model German farmers
The authors would like to thank two anonymous referees and the editors for helpful comments and suggestions.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- CEJA (2017) European Young Farmers survey - Building a sustainable sector. http://www.ceja.eu/young-farmers-eu-help-us-sustain-europes-agriculture/
- DBV (2016) (German Farmers Federation) Situationsbericht 2016/17–03 Agrarstruktur. Berlin. http://media.repro-mayr.de/51/664451.pdf
- EU (2009) Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for Community action to achieve sustainable use of pesticides. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32009L0128&from=EN
- EU SCAR (2012) Agricultural knowledge and innovation systems in transition – a reflection paper. Brussels. https://doi.org/10.2777/34991
- European Commission (2013) Structure and dynamics of EU farms: changes, trends and policy relevance. EU Agricultural Economic Briefs No 9. https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/rural-area-economics/briefs/pdf/09_en.pdf
- Eurostat (2016) Agriculture, forestry and fishery statistics – 2016 edition. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/en/web/products-statistical-books/-/KS-FK-16-001
- Greene WH (2007) Econometric analysis, 6th edn. Pearson Education, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
- Hoffmann C, Grethler D, Doluschitz R (2013) Mobile business: good preconditions on farms. Landtechnik 68(1):18–21Google Scholar
- Janssen SJC, Porter CH, Moore AD, Athanasiadis IN, Foster I, Jones JW, Antle JM (2017) Towards a new generation of agricultural system data, models and knowledge products: information and communication technology. Agric Syst 155:200–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.09.017 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Shtienberg D (2013) Will decision-support systems be widely used for the management of plant diseases? Annu Rev Phytopathol 51:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-phyto-082712-102244 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Spaulding AD, Tudor KW, Mahatanankoon P (2015) The effects of outcome expectations on individual’s anxiety and continued usage of mobile devices: a post-adoption study. Int Food Agribus Manag Rev 18(4):173–188Google Scholar
- Xin J, Zazueta FS, Vergott P III, Mao X, Kooram N, Yang Y (2015) Delivering knowledge and solutions at your fingertips: strategy for mobile app development in agriculture. Agric Eng Int CIGR J Spec Issue 2015:317–325Google Scholar