Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Analysis of Factors Affecting Farmers’ Intention to Use Autonomous Ground Vehicles

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
15th International Congress on Agricultural Mechanization and Energy in Agriculture (ANKAgEng 2023)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering ((LNCE,volume 458))

  • 58 Accesses

Abstract

In recent years, new autonomous ground vehicles (AGV) have been developed for the agricultural context to assist farmers and automate agricultural processes. Although there has been a high advancement in the development of AGV, this technology is not yet widely used on farms. Several factors may affect farmers’ willingness to adopt an autonomous ground vehicle. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the factors that influence farmers’ intentions to use AGV in agricultural activities. Based on previous studies that examine technology acceptance in the agricultural context, a model was developed. Based on Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) an extended version of the TAM was used including the Attitude of Confidence, Personal Innovativeness, Job Relevance, and Perceived Net Benefit. Sixty-eight farmers form various countries, mainly from Lebanon and Italy, completed a questionnaire to assess their intention to use AGV. Survey’s answers were analyzed using partial least square structural equation modeling. The results of the measurement model indicated that all variables were valid except for the attitude of confidence. The structural analysis showed that personal innovativeness had a positive effect on perceived ease of use, while job relevance and perceived ease of use had a positive effect on perceived usefulness, which positively influenced attitude toward using AGV and perceived net benefit. It was also found that attitude and perceived net benefit had a positive effect on the farmers’ intention to use AGV for field activities. Finally, the model outcomes underlined that neither farm size nor farmers’ education level had any influence on their intention to use AGV in agriculture.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 259.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Cheng D, Yao Y, Liu R, Li X, Guan B, Yu F (2023) Precision agriculture management based on a surrogate model assisted multiobjective algorithmic framework. Sci Rep 13(1):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-27990-w

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Qamar T, Bawany NZ (2023) Agri-PAD a scalable framework for smart agriculture. Indonesian J Electr Eng Comput Sci 29(3):1597–1605. https://doi.org/10.11591/IJEECS.V29.I3.PP1597-1605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kau AS, Gramlich R, Sewilam H (2023) Modelling land suitability to evaluate the potential for irrigated agriculture in the Nile region in Sudan. Sustain Water Resour Manag 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/S40899-022-00773-3

  4. Bazzi H et al (2022) Detecting irrigation events over semi-arid and temperate climatic areas using sentinel-1 data: case of several summer crops. Agronomy, 12(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/AGRONOMY12112725

  5. Bozal-Leorri A, Corrochano-Monsalve M, Arregui LM, Aparicio-Tejo PM, González-Murua C (2023) Evaluation of a crop rotation with biological inhibition potential to avoid N2O emissions in comparison with synthetic nitrification inhibition. J Environ Sci (China) 127:222–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JES.2022.04.035

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Kiani M et al (2022) Recycling eutrophic lake sediments into grass production: a four-year field experiment on agronomical and environmental implications. SSRN Electron J. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4238459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gebbers R, Adamchuk VI (2010) Precision agriculture and food security. Science 327(5967):828–831. https://doi.org/10.1126/SCIENCE.1183899

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. ISPA, International Society of Precision Agriculture, https://www.ispag.org/about/definition. Accessed 26 Sept 2023

  9. Raptis EK et al (2023) End-to-end precision agriculture UAV-based functionalities tailored to field characteristics. J Intell Robot Syst 107(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/S10846-022-01761-7

  10. Fotio Tiotsop L, Servetti A, Masala E (2020) An integer linear programming model for efficient scheduling of UGV tasks in precision agriculture under human supervision. Comput Oper Res 114:104826. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COR.2019.104826

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Karthik M, Singh N, Sinha E, Anand B, SGowreesh SS (2018) Design and development of unmanned chemical spraying rover for agriculture application | request PDF. Int J Eng Adv Technol 8(2):18–21

    Google Scholar 

  12. Rakshitha N, Rekha HS, Sandhya S, Sandhya V, Sowndeswari S (2017) Pepper cutting UGV and disease detection using image processing. In: 2017 2nd IEEE international conference on recent trends in electronics, information & communication technology (RTEICT), 2018-January, pp 950–952. https://doi.org/10.1109/RTEICT.2017.8256738

  13. Broderick JA, Tilbury DM, Atkins EM (2014) Optimal coverage trajectories for a UGV with tradeoffs for energy and time. Auton Robot 36(3):257–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10514-013-9348-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Quaglia G, Visconte C, Scimmi LS, Melchiorre M, Cavallone P, Pastorelli S (2019) Design of the positioning mechanism of an unmanned ground vehicle for precision agriculture. Mech Mach Sci 73:3531–3540. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20131-9_348/COVER

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Botta A, Cavallone P (2021) Robotics applied to precision agriculture: the sustainable Agri.q rover case study. Mech Mach Sci 108:41–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87383-7_5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Roure F et al (2018) GRAPE: ground robot for vineyard monitoring and protection. Adv Intell Syst Comput 693:249–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70833-1_21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Usher C, Daley W, Webster B, Ritz C (2015) A study on quantitative metrics for evaluating animal behavior in confined environments. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Annual International Meeting, vol 6, no 1. https://doi.org/10.13031/AIM.20152190148

  18. Srinivas A, Sangeetha J (2021) Smart irrigation and precision farming of paddy field using unmanned ground vehicle and internet of things system. Int J Adv Comput Sci Appl 12(12):407–414. https://doi.org/10.14569/IJACSA.2021.0121254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Caffaro F, Cremasco MM, Roccato M, Cavallo E (2020) Drivers of farmers’ intention to adopt technological innovations in Italy: the role of information sources, perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of use. J Rural Stud 76:264–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Rezaei-Moghaddam K, Salehi S (2010) Agricultural specialists’ intention toward precision agriculture technologies: integrating innovation characteristics to technology acceptance model. Afr J Agric Res 5(11):1191–1199

    Google Scholar 

  21. Adrian AM, Norwood SH, Mask PL (2005) Producers’ perceptions and attitudes toward precision agriculture technologies. Comput Electron Agric 48(3):256–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2005.04.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Rübcke von Veltheim F, Theuvsen L, Heise H (2021) German farmers’ intention to use autonomous field robots: a PLS-analysis. In: Precision agriculture, pp 1–28

    Google Scholar 

  23. Marangunić N, Granić A (2015) Technology acceptance model: a literature review from 1986 to 2013. Univ Access Inf Soc 14(1):81–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10209-014-0348-1/TABLES/3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q: Manag Inf Syst 13(3):319–339. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Michels M, von Hobe CF, Weller von Ahlefeld PJ, Musshoff O (2021) The adoption of drones in German agriculture: a structural equation model. Precision Agric 22(6):1728–1748. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11119-021-09809-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Zhu L, Xiong H, Ning Y, Lv M (2023) Addressing individual perception: extending the technology acceptance model to the interim payment method in construction projects. Sustainability (Switzerland) 15(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097120

  27. Venkatesh V, Davis FD (2000) A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag Sci 46(2):186–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Daberkow SG, McBride WD (2003) Farm and operator characteristics affecting the awareness and adoption of precision agriculture technologies in the US. Precision Agric 4(2):163–177. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024557205871

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Caffaro F, Cavallo E (2019) The effects of individual variables, farming system characteristics and perceived barriers on actual use of smart farming technologies: evidence from the piedmont region, Northwestern Italy. Agriculture 9(5):111. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture9050111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Mohr S, Kühl R (2021) Acceptance of artificial intelligence in German agriculture: an application of the technology acceptance model and the theory of planned behavior. Precision Agric 22(6):1816–1844. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11119-021-09814-X/TABLES/13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Bagozzi RP, Yi Y (1988) On the evaluation of structural equation models. J Acad Market Sci 16(1):74–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH (1994) Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  33. Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 18:39–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Rezaei R, Safa L, Ganjkhanloo MM (2020) Understanding farmers’ ecological conservation behavior regarding the use of integrated pest management - an application of the technology acceptance model. Glob Ecol Conserv 22:e00941. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GECCO.2020.E00941

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Sharifzadeh MS, Damalas CA, Abdollahzadeh G, Ahmadi-Gorgi H (2017) Predicting adoption of biological control among Iranian rice farmers: an application of the extended technology acceptance model (TAM2). Crop Prot 96:88–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CROPRO.2017.01.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD (2003) User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q: Manag Inf Syst 27(3):425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Brar PS, Shah B, Singh J, Ali F, Kwak D (2022) Using modified technology acceptance model to evaluate the adoption of a proposed IoT-based indoor disaster management software tool by rescue workers. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) 22(5). https://doi.org/10.3390/S22051866

  38. Cheung R, Vogel D (2013) Predicting user acceptance of collaborative technologies: an extension of the technology acceptance model for e-learning. Comput Educ 63:160–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Fathema N, Shannon D, Ross M (2015) Expanding the technology acceptance model (TAM) to examine faculty use of learning management systems (LMSs) in higher education institutions. J Online Learn Teach 11:210–232

    Google Scholar 

  40. Hussein Z (2017) Leading to intention: the role of attitude in relation to technology acceptance model in e-learning. Procedia Comput Sci 105:159–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Khong H, Celik I, Le TTT, Lai VTT, Nguyen A, Bui H (2023) Examining teachers’ behavioural intention for online teaching after COVID-19 pandemic: a large-scale survey. Educ Inf Technol 28(5):5999–6026

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the Italian Ministry of University and Research (MIUR), PRIN 2017 project “New technical and operative solutions for the use of drones in Agriculture 4.0” (Prot. 2017S559BB).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Sassari, Viale Italia 39A, 07100, Sassari, Italy

    Johnny Waked, Gabriele Sara, Giuseppe Todde, Daniele Pinna & Maria Caria

  2. Environmental and Natural Resources Department, Lebanese University, Dekwaneh, Lebanon

    Georges Hassoun

Authors
  1. Johnny Waked
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gabriele Sara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Giuseppe Todde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Daniele Pinna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Georges Hassoun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Maria Caria
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gabriele Sara .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. National Research Council of Italy, Torino, Italy

    Eugenio Cavallo

  2. Department of Electronic Engineering, Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María, Valparaíso, Chile

    Fernando Auat Cheein

  3. Dipartimento TESAF (University of Padova, TESAF Department), Università di Padova, Legnaro, Italy

    Francesco Marinello

  4. Department of Agricultural Machinery and Technologies Engineering, Ankara University, Altındağ/Ankara, Türkiye

    Kamil Saçılık

  5. Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD, USA

    Kasiviswanathan Muthukumarappan

  6. Institute of Environment and Sustainable Development, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India

    Purushothaman C. Abhilash

Ethics declarations

The Authors declare no competing interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Waked, J., Sara, G., Todde, G., Pinna, D., Hassoun, G., Caria, M. (2024). Analysis of Factors Affecting Farmers’ Intention to Use Autonomous Ground Vehicles. In: Cavallo, E., Auat Cheein, F., Marinello, F., Saçılık, K., Muthukumarappan, K., Abhilash, P.C. (eds) 15th International Congress on Agricultural Mechanization and Energy in Agriculture. ANKAgEng 2023. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, vol 458. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51579-8_37

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51579-8_37

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-51578-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-51579-8

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation