IoT adoption in agriculture: the role of trust, perceived value and risk

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to study the antecedents of Internet of Things (IoT) adoption among farmers and determine how trust in the technology influences its adoption when mediated by perceived value and risk. Through the conceptualization of trust and perceived risk, the authors factor in farmers’ perceptions of agricultural technology providers and discuss different forms of perceived value, spanning economic, green and epistemic value. Design/methodology/approach This paper develops a distinctive research design, drawing on elements of the value-based adoption and technology acceptance models. By linking different elements of perceived value with IoT technology, the authors also apply the service-dominant logic to this study. They study how trust affects perceived value and risk and then determine how perceived value and risk, in turn, affect IoT adoption. The authors test the hypotheses by developing a structural equation model to analyze the results of a survey, wherein 492 farmers from Iowa, the USA, participated. Findings The results show a positive relationship between trust and perceived value and a negative relationship between trust and perceived risk. Perceived value had a positive impact on IoT adoption, whereas perceived risk had a negative impact on IoT adoption. Practical implications The research findings on trust and perceived value and risk are timely and relevant for business-to-business (B2B) marketing practitioners and agricultural stakeholders, especially in an era where farmers are expressing growing concerns about data handling risk posed by IoT technology adoption. Originality/value The research findings signal a transition in focus from the goods-dominant logic to the service-dominant logic in agriculture, whereby farmers are drawn to IoT technology because of perceived economic, green and epistemic value and as a result, can differentiate themselves on how well they deploy operant resources. This paper not only provides a unique conceptualization of perceived value but also pave the way for a richer conceptualization of IoT core functions that enable farmers to fulfill green and epistemic goals. This is the first B2B marketing paper discussing the antecedents of IoT adoption in agriculture, such as farmers’ perceptions of both monetary and non-monetary forms of value and perceived data handling risk.

Smart Sustainable Agriculture (SSA) Solution Underpinned by Internet of Things (IoT) and Artificial Intelligence (AI)

“…Smart Agricultural is a global initiative to preserve resources and maintain sustainable agriculture [7]. Recently, researchers have adopted the Internet of Things (IoT) [8,9], with a number of studies emphasizing the adoption and implementation of IoT in agriculture, farming, and irrigation [10]. Around the globe, many private companies and organizations are now focusing on investigating new technologies to create a smarter agriculture environment.…”

IT governance enablers in relation to IoT implementation: a systematic literature review

“…The relationship between perceived risk, technology adoption, purchasing decisions and behaviors should be verified (Jayashankar et al, 2018). It is recommended by (Weber, 2013) to create principles and operational procedures in IoT.…”

“…Deursen & Mossberger, 2018)(Weber, 2009)(Weber, 2013) (Wen et al, 2017) (Wirtz, Weyerer and Schichtel, 2018)(Wortmann & Flüchter, 2015) QC 3(Abobakr & A. Azer, 2017)(Almeida, Doneda and Moreira Da Costa, 2018)(Almeida, Doneda, & Monteiro, 2015)(Almeida, Goh, & Doneda, 2017)(Baldini et al, 2015)(Bowen et al, 2017)(Bowen, Cheung and Rohde, 2007)(Cervantes-Solis & Baber, 2017)(Chatfield & Reddick, 2018)(Dautov et al, 2018)(De Cremer, Nguyen, & Simkin, 2017)(Derhamy et al, 2015)(Keoh, Kumar, & Tschofenig, 2014)(Jayashankar et al, 2018)(Lainhart, Oliver, & Andrews, 2012)(Neisse et al, 2015)(Pereira, Benessia, & Curvelo, 2013) (Piccialli & Chianese, 2017)(Shen et al, 2018)(Shin, 2014)(Shin and Jin Park, 2017)(Soro et al, 2017)(Van Deursen & Mossberger, 2018)(Vlahogianni et al, 2016)(Yao, Sheng, & Dustdar, 2015) (Weber, 2009)(Weber, 2013)(Wen et al, 2017)(Wirtz, Weyerer, & Schichtel, 2018)(Wortmann & Flüchter, 2015) QC 4 (Abobakr & A. Azer, 2017)(Almeida, Doneda, & Monteiro, 2015)(Almeida, Doneda, & Moreira Da Costa, 2018)(Almeida, Goh, & Doneda, 2017)(Baldini et al, 2015)(Bowen et al, 2017)(Buyya & Vahid Dastjerdi, 2016)(Cao et al, 2016)(Carretero & García, 2014)(Cervantes-Solis & Baber, 2017)(Chatfield & Reddick, 2018)(Dautov et al, 2018)(Derhamy et al, 2015)(De Cremer, Nguyen, & Simkin, 2017)(Ding, Chen, & Yang, 2013)(Gubbi et al, 2013)(Jayashankar et al, 2018)(Keoh, Kumar, & Tschofenig, 2014)(Neisse et al, 2015)(Piccialli & Chianese, 2017)(Roman, Zhou, & Lopez, 2013)(Shen et al, 2018)(Shin, 2014)(Shin and Jin Park, 2017)(Soro et al, 2017)(Suo et al, 2012)(Truong et al, 2015)(Van Deursen & Mossberger, 2018)(Vlahogianni et al, 2016)(Yao, Sheng, & Dustdar, 2015)(Weber, 2009)(Weber, 2013)(Wen et al, 2017)(Wirtz, Weyerer, & Schichtel, 2018)(Wortmann & Flüchter, 2015) …”

“…(Derhamy et al, 2015) Implementation of transparency. (Derhamy et al, 2015) (Jayashankar et al, 2018) Implementation of data privacy and data protection. (Derhamy et al, 2015) Implementation of accountability.…”

Adoption Barriers of IoT in Large Scale Pilots

“…While each of these verticals has its specific adoption barriers, most barriers in the literature are cross cutting the whole industry. Jayashankar et al [60] suggest that trusting the technology provider is also the main influencing factor on adoption, mediated by the perceived value of the IoT solution and perceived risk associated with it. They further define the perceived value into economic, environmental and epistemic value.…”