Vol. 17(1), pp.

19-29, January, 2021

DOI: 10.5897/AJAR2020.14909
Article Number: 7CAAE6765726
ISSN: 1991-637X
Copyright ©2021 African Journal of Agricultural
Author(s) retain the copyright of this article
http://www.academicjournals.org/AJAR Research

`
Full Length Research Paper

Factors affecting the adoption of mobile applications by

farmers: An empirical investigation
Victor Okoroji, Nic J Lees* and Xiaomeng Lucock
1
Depart Department of Agribusiness and Markets, Faculty of Agribusiness and Commerce, Lincoln University, P.O Box
85084, Lincoln 7647, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Received 15 April, 2020; Accepted 11 November, 2020

In developing countries such as Nigeria, agriculture is the main source of livelihood with over 70% of the
population engaged in farming. They are mostly smallholders and subsistence farmers with minimal use
of technology and low productivity. The use of mobile applications in agriculture can potentially help
smallholders access agricultural information and financial services, improve access to markets and
enhance visibility for supply chain efficiency. Unfortunately, due to a lack of uptake of these applications
many farmers have not realized the benefits of this technology. This study seeks to explore and examine
the factors that affect the uptake of this technology. A conceptual model which builds on the extended
Technology Adoption Model (TAM2) was empirically estimated using Structural Equation Modelling
(SEM) to examine the factors that influence the adoption of mobile applications. Primary data were
collected from a sample of 261 farmers. Data were analyzed using SEM with the help of IBM SPSS and
IBM AMOS software. The structural model showed that seven of the hypothesized relationships in the
research model were supported. Social influence (SI), Perceived usefulness (PU), Information/awareness
(IA) and Intention to use (ITU) affected the Actual Use (AU) of mobile applications positively, while
Perceived risk (PR) and Perceived cost had a negative impact on their adoption. This study contributes
to the literature on farmers’ technology adoption. It provides evidence that the extended TAM is a
suitable model to explain the factors that influence mobile application adoption behavior.

Key words: Mobile applications, smartphone, Information Communication Technologies (ICT) adoption,
structural equation modelling, extended technology adoption model.

INTRODUCTION

In developing countries such as Nigeria, over 70% of the produce over 80% of all agricultural output in Nigeria. This
population engages in agriculture and they are made up level of production is insufficient to feed the growing
of smallholders who cultivate or own farmland less than population of Nigeria, leading to over-dependence on
five hectares (Ofana et al., 2016). These smallholders imported food (Nwajiuba, 2012). Nigeria has a population
are often subsistence farmers with out-dated technology of 196 million with an annual growth rate of 2.63%
and low productivity (Baumüller, 2015). Despite this they World Population Review, 2018), which intensifies the

*Corresponding author. E-mail: nic.lees@lincoln.ac.nz

Author(s) agree that this article remain permanently open access under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License 4.0 International License
20 Afr. J. Agric. Res.

need to increase food productivity. with a web version already in existence and running. So
The main challenges faced by these smallholders are far, there has been very limited study on mobile
access to agricultural information on the use of modern application usage by farmers. Most studies focus on
technology and practices, access to market, access to mobile phone usage (Asa and Uwem, 2017; Jaji et al.,
financial services and poor extension service delivery 2017) and not mobile applications usage. These studies
(Baumüller, 2012; IFPRI, 2009; Nwajiuba, 2012). do not differentiate between using a mobile phone and
International Food Research Institute IFPRI (2009) the use of mobile phone applications. Lim et al. (2014)
revealed that these challenges were more pronounced reported that most mobile applications fail because it is
because these smallholders could not afford the cost of difficult to understand the needs of users of these apps.
using modern technologies and farm practices. However, This study aims to bridge this gap by analyzing the factors
studies have proven that the use of mobile application that affect the usage of agricultural mobile applications.
in agriculture can help smallholders get access to The specific objective of the study is to determine the
agricultural information, access financial services, factors that influence the adoption of mobile applications.
improve access to markets and enhance visibility for The study results helped developers and other
supply chain efficiency (Aker and Mbiti, 2010; stakeholders to understand the challenges faced by
Baumüller, 2015; Qiang et al., 2012; Vodafone Group farmers and the necessary improvements that will
and Accenture, 2011). enhance the use of mobile applications by farmers.
Mobile applications (mobile apps) are software
programmes designed to run on a mobile device such as
smartphones and tablets (Costopoulou et al., 2016). They Technology adoption model
are mostly built to provide users with similar services to
those accessible on desktop and laptop computers The Technology Adoption Model (TAM) is a theoretical
(PCs). The use of mobile phone applications has model that attempts to explain the adoption of various
helped developing countries like India, Kenya, Uganda, Information Communication Technologies (ICT). Before
South Africa and Tanzania improve their agricultural the introduction of TAM, some theories attempted to
productivity (Qiang et al., 2012). Baumüller (2015) explain user adoption of technology. Theory of Reasoned
asserted that the use of mobile applications for agriculture Action (TRA) which was developed by Fishbein and
has the potential to effectively reach and assist rural Ajzen (1975) was the first that attempted to describe user
smallholders. Among the uses served by the various adoption of technology. TRA explains user behavior
agricultural apps, valuable information was rated the from a social psychology point of view. By 1991, Ajzen
most important, because of the high level of information developed the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) as an
asymmetry affecting the rural markets in developing extension of TRA to address the limitations of TRA. Ajzen
countries (Aker, 2010; Qiang et al., 2012; World Bank, (1991) proposes perceived behavioral control in addition
2017). Qiang et al. (2012), in their study, found that to TRA’s attitude and social pressure as a factor that
the use of mobile applications helps smallholders influences intentions and actual behavior. TPB tries to
increase income, with lower transaction and distribution address situations in which individuals have no control
costs on output sales and input supplies. Studies have over. TAM, which was introduced by Davis (1986), was
shown Kenyan farmers increased their farm productivity the first to successfully analyze and interpret the adoption
and income by using mobile apps like Virtual City of various Information Communication Technologies
AgriManager, M-Pesa, KACE (Kenyan Agricultural (ICT) in different work environments (Kripanont, 2007;
Commodity Exchange), DrumNet and Kilimo Salama Tarhini, 2013). Perceived Usefulness (PU) and Perceived
(Baumüller, 2013; Kirui et al., 2013). Esoko mobile app Ease of Use (PEOU) were the two main factors used in
and Cocoa Link reduced the asymmetric information TAM to explain the acceptance or rejection of information
faced by Ghanaian farmers (Aker et al., 2016). Modisar technology by a person.
mobile app improved livestock production in Botswana The original TAM model was extended in an effort to
(Chukwunonso a n d Tukur, 2012). M-Kilimo helped apply TAM beyond the workplace environment and into
Tanzanian farmers receive extension services and market other diverse environments such as entertainment e.g.
information that ultimately increased their productivity and mobile games (Chen et al., 2017), consumer services
income (Temu et al., 2016). such as mobile commerce (Wu and Wang, 2005) and
mobile internet (Kim et al., 2007). The first major
extension was carried out by Venkatesh and Davis (2000)
Research problem who tested four different systems in four organizations.
They referred to the extended TAM model as TAM2. The
In Nigeria, the number of mobile apps that could major difference between TAM and TAM2 is the inclusion
potentially aid agricultural productivity is increasing. of social influence processes and cognitive instrumental
Some applications are still at their development stage processes which they found to significantly affect user
 Okoroji et al. 21

Information awareness

Figure 1. Research model: Adapted from the Extended TAM Model.

Source: Venkatesh and Davis (2000).

acceptance. poor farmers.

According to Venkatesh (2000), the application of TAM The extended TAM has been adopted for this study
outside workplace environments has always because of its ability to successfully explain and predict
encountered problems because the main TAM constructs the adoption of information technologies. It also provides
do not adequately demonstrate how well a technology the flexibility to adapt to different organizational settings.
meets the needs of the work environment and its tasks. Hence, rather than sticking to the original TAM or TAM2
Similarly, Bagozzi (2007) contended that TAM overlooks constructs, this study will modify TAM by adding
important aspects of technology adoption such as groups’ additional constructs that best describe farmers and their
social and cultural aspects. In support of the first major farming activities and environment. Although TAM has
extension of TAM made by Venkatesh and Davis (2000), been modified to suit the study setting, the modification is
many researchers have emphasized the need to add based on the original extended TAM and utilizes the
more variables to TAM for the purpose of establishing three factors identified by Baumüller (2012).
a stronger model (Legris et al., 2003; Wu and Wang, Four main original extended TAM constructs were
2005). As a result of this argument, many studies have retained in the study proposed model (Perceived
come up with various extended versions of TAM to suit Usefulness, Intention to Use, Actual Usage and Social
the nature of the technology being studied (Chen et al., Influence), while three additional constructs were added
2017; Hakkak et al., 2013; Park and Kim, 2014; to modify the original extended TAM to suit the study
Venkatesh and Davis, 2000; Wentzel et al., 2013). setting. The three added constructs were Perceived
These studies build upon the original TAM and TAM2 Risk, Perceived Cost and Information Awareness. These
and modify it by adding or removing constructs to better constructs were carefully selected from reviewed
explain the adoption of a technology in a given setting literature on mobile applications and farmer technology
(Figure 1). adoption studies.

Model development Perceived Usefulness (PU)

The workplace environment in an agricultural setting is PU is one of the two main TAM constructs introduced by
quite different from the organizational setting in which Davis (1989) to determine a user’s acceptance or
TAM and its extended version were first applied by rejection of information technology. Davis (p.26) defined it
Davis (1989) and Venkatesh and Davis (2000). In as “the degree to which an individual believes that using
particular, smallholder farmers’ decision making is a particular system would enhance his or her job
affected by their socioeconomic characteristics, their performance.” In the context of farmers’ acceptance of
biophysical environment and the nature of their farming mobile applications, PU is defined as the relative
operations. The importance of these three factors was advantage a farmer expects to gain from using a mobile
identified by Baumüller (2012) in his study on the app. Apart from Davis (1989) and Venkatesh and Davis
facilitation of agricultural technology adoption among (2000), many other studies on ICT use have proved that
22 Afr. J. Agric. Res.

PU has a significant positive impact on a user’s found PR to negatively influence users’ behavioral
behavioral intention to use ICT or a system (Kesharwani intention to use such services. The present study takes
and Singh, 2012; Park and Kim, 2014; Wentzel et al., into consideration all mobile applications that could be
2013). used by farmers, including mobile banking apps, hence
Intention to Use (ITU) is one of the constructs in the inclusion of PR in the study model. This variable is
Venkatesh’s extended TAM which was originally also important because subsistence farmers rely on
introduced by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) in their their farming output to provide a significant proportion
Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA). Prior to the of their food supply. Therefore, the implications of
extension of TAM, Davis (1989) theorized in the original negative outcomes from technology adoption can
TAM that ITU is a major determining factor in whether or potentially impact their food security.
not a potential user will adopt a particular technology. The Perceived Cost (PC) is another important addition to
theory also has it that a person’s behavioral intention to the study to extend TAM. Some mobile applications
use behavioral ITU a given technology is influenced by come with a monetary price which must be paid by a
two beliefs: PU and Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU). In user before downloading the app from an app store.
the study context, a farmer’s behavioral ITU mobile Adoption is affected when there is a price attached to the
apps would be a major determinant of whether he mobile application. Wu and Wang (2005) maintained that
eventually uses them. the cost-benefit pattern is important to both PU and PEOU
Social Influence (SI) is a widely recognized factor that in TAM. When there is an excessive cost involved in
influences a person’s technology acceptance behavior. It using an application, such as subscription fees or high
was a factor used in Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) Theory internet charges, the adoption rate of such an app is
of Reasoned Action to explain subjective norms. usually low (Qiang et al., 2012). According to Brown et
Fishbein and Ajzen (p.302) defined SI as a “person’s al. (2013), most smallholders are price sensitive, as a
perception that most people who are important to him result, any little change in service fee can drastically
think he should or should not perform the behavior in affect the adoption rate. Studies have found PC to
question.” In Venkatesh and Davis (2000) extended negatively influence ITU and AU of internet applications
TAM, SI was used as a key determinant of TAM’s PU (Kim et al., 2007; Wu and Wang, 2005).
and ITU constructs. Unlike Fishbein and Ajzen, Venkatesh Information Awareness (IA) is a very important construct
and Davis used Subjective Norm as one of the factors in included in the study’s extended TAM. A few researchers
explaining the SI process. Subsequent studies on have included this construct in their technology adoption
technology adoption (Al-Gahtani, 2016; Hakkak et al., studies (Al-Somali et al., 2009; Hakkak et al., 2013) on
2013; Taylor and Todd, 1995) have used Subjective online banking adoption, Chan et al. (2011) on the
Norm and SI interchangeably to explain the impact of adoption of e-government technology and Costopoulou
other people’s views and opinions on the adoption of et al. (2016) on the use of mobile application by
information technology. Kesharwani and Singh (2012) farmers. They all found IA to have a significant impact on
argued that interchanging Social Influence and Subjective a person’s attitude towards the use of these
Norm has led to mixed results and the effect on technologies. IA is regarded as the prerequisite for the
technology adoption has been inconsistent. In most adoption of any technology and in the study context, a
farming communities and especially in developing farmer has to be aware of the existence of an application
countries, extensive social interactions exist between before he can decide to use it. Such information could
farmers and it would be necessary to see the impact on be from fellow farmers, media outlets or extension
their PU of mobile applications and their ITU mobile agents. Farmers also seek information regarding the
apps. According to Hakkak et al. (2013), such an impact suitability of an app and the potential risks associated
could be favorable or unfavorable. with the use of such an app (Baumüller, 2012).
Perceived Risk (PR) is one of the external variables According to Aker (2011), asymmetric and costly
included in the study’s extended TAM. It has been in information is a major issue in the adoption of new
use as early as the 1960s to explain consumers’ attitudes technology. Costopoulou et al. (2016) found that 95% of
towards decision making (Bauer and Cox, 1967). They Greek farmers did not use mobile agricultural apps
defined PR with regard to the insecurity and unfavorable because they were not aware of their availability.
outcomes associated with consumers’ expectations.
Internet applications are associated with diverse kinds of
risk and as a result, consumers are careful when Research hypotheses
adopting such technology. PR has been mostly used in
internet and mobile banking transaction adoption study (i) PU has a direct positive impact on a farmer’s intention
because of the security concerns associated with such to use mobile applications.
transactions (Al-Jabri and Sohail, 2012; Kesharwani and (ii) ITU has a significant positive effect on the Actual
Singh, 2012; Wentzel et al., 2013). Most of these studies Usage (AU) of mobile apps.
 Okoroji et al. 23

Table 1. Respondents from three agricultural zones in Abia.

Agri-Zones No of respondents Percentage

Umuahia 90 37
Aba 85 34
Ohafia 70 29
Total 245 100
Average 82
Source: Author’s work.

(iii) SI has a significant positive impact on the PU of technique was used to sample farmers based on their attendance
mobile applications. at extension meetings. The same standard questions were
administered to all the farmers. The sampled farmers in the study
(iv) PR has a significant and negative impact on the PU area included livestock farmers, food crop farmers, poultry farmers
of mobile applications. and fish farmers. A total of 261 farmers were interviewed in the
(v) PC has a significant and negative impact on the PU three agricultural zones in Abia State using a structured
of mobile applications. questionnaire, out of which 245 were valid and useful. Sixteen
(vi) IA has a significant positive impact on the ITU of were rejected because they had incomplete answers. A
mobile applications. combination of online surveys and paper questionnaires were
used. The online survey was designed using Qualtrics and
(vii) IA has a significant positive impact on the AU of administered using an Android device with the guidance of the
mobile apps. researcher and a research assistant.

METHODOLOGY Data analysis

The study proposes a conceptual model for the adoption of three Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) was used to analyze the
types of mobile applications which are productivity mobile apps, causal relationships among the constructs in the proposed model
information/news mobile apps and social media mobile apps. This (Extended Technology Acceptance Model (TAM2)). A two-step
model builds on the extended Technology Adoption Model (TAM2) procedure to SEM was used. The first process was to conduct
developed by Venkatesh and Davis (2000) which has a high Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor
explanatory power (R2) that enables the strength of the Analysis (CFA), which helped to develop the measurement model.
relationship between the dependent and independent variables to The second process was to analyze the causal relationships
be successfully measured (Eisenhauer, 2009). The adopted model among the constructs in the proposed model using SEM.
(TAM2) has the ability to successfully explain and predict the The EFA analysis was carried out using IBM® SPSS® software.
adoption of information technologies and also allows the inclusion Principal Component Analysis (PCA) extraction method was used
of external variables which studies (Fathema, 2013; Tarhini et al., with an Oblique rotation method. To ensure that the extracted factors
2013) have shown to have a significant impact on technology were appropriate and reliable, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO)
adoption. The study proposes PU and ITU as the mediating measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett's test of sphericity
variables which explain the relationship between the independent were added in the factor analysis (Field, 2005). The KMO
and dependent variables. measure of sampling adequacy gave a result of 0.914 with
To answer the research questions and achieve the objectives of Bartlett’s test of sphericity highly significant at p ˂ 0.01. This indicates
this study, primary data were used. A structured questionnaire was that factor analysis is appropriate (Field, 2005). In factor extraction,
used to obtain data from farmers in the study area (Abia State). SPSS identified 31 linear components within the data set. Seven of
Data obtained covered farmers’ demographics, attitude and these components had eigenvalues greater than one, which
behaviors (Dillman et al., 2016). The study survey instrument explained the relatively large amount of variance (Hair et al., 2010;
comprised two parts: the first part captures demographic Kaiser, 1974). The total variance explained for the seven factors
characteristics of the farmers while the second part captures stood at 77.2%, which was above the 60% threshold considered as
the measured variables on seven constructs which are satisfactory by Hair et al. (2010) (Tables 2 and 3). The 31
presumed to have significant effects on the adoption of mobile measurement items extracted from EFA were allowed to load only
applications by farmers. The measurement variables on the on their specific factors thereby generating a CFA model. The
seven constructs were adopted from previous studies on the model presented the covariance between the latent factors. This
adoption of mobile applications (Malik et al., 2017; Lin, 2011; enabled the testing of goodness-of-fit of the factors in the
Sharma and Mishra, 2014; Al-Jabri and Sohail, 2012) and modified measurement model. It also facilitated the calculation of convergent
to suit this study (Figure 1). validity, discriminant validity and composite reliability score.

Data collection Structural equation modelling (SEM)

A cluster sampling technique was used in this study. Farmers in The correlational relationships found in the CFA model were
the study area were separated into three agricultural zones replaced with a structural model using the seven factors extracted
(clusters) (Table 1). Within each cluster, convenience sampling during EFA. The structural model helped to simultaneously examine
24 Afr. J. Agric. Res.

Table 2. Principal component analysis.

Pattern matrix
Variables Component
Actual Perceived Intention Information Perceived Social Perceived
Variables
Usage Usefulness To use Awareness Risk Influence Cost
Actual Usage_2 0.95
Actual Usage_4 0.94
Actual Usage_1 0.91
Actual Usage_3 0.91
Actual Usage_5 0.9
Actual Usage_6 0.89
Actual Usage_7 0.88
Perceived Usefulness_1 0.97
Perceived Usefulness _2 0.95
Perceived Usefulness _3 0.77
Perceived Usefulness _5 0.75
Perceived Usefulness _4 0.74
Perceived Usefulness _6 0.72
Intension to use_3 0.96
Intention to use _2 0.85
Intention to use _1 0.61
Intention to use _5 0.6
Intention to use _4 0.54
Information awareness_2 0.93
Information awareness _4 0.9
Information awareness _3 0.88
Information awareness _1 0.67
Perceived Risk_4 0.86
Perceived Risk_2 0.84
Perceived Risk_3 0.84
Social Inluence_2 0.82
Social Influence_3 0.8
Social Influence_1 0.66
Perceived Cost_1 0.84
Perceived Cost_4 0.8
Perceived Cost_2 0.7
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization Rotation converged in 7 iterations.

Table 3. Total variance explained.

Factor Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

number Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 12.25 39.51 39.51
2 3.16 10.18 49.69
3 3.11 10.02 59.71
4 1.94 6.26 65.97
5 1.27 4.09 70.06
6 1.21 3.89 73.95
7 1.02 3.28 77.23
Extraction Method: principal component analysis
 Okoroji et al. 25

Table 4. Model fit criteria for the structural model.

Measure Measurement Model Threshold

Chi-square/df (cmin/df) 1.82 ˂ 3 good
CFI 0.99 ˃ 0.95 great; ˃ 0.9 traditional
GFI 0.98 ˃ 0.90 good fit
AGFI 0.94 > 0.80 good
RMSEA 0.058 ˂ 0.05 good; 0.05 – 0.10 moderate
PLCLOSE 0.34 ˃0.05 good

Table 5. The estimation for regression weights of the hypothesized model regression weights: (Group number 1 – Default model).

Standardized
Estimate S.E. C.R. P
coefficients
Perceived Usefulness <--- Social Influence 1.284 0.1 12.816 *** 0.803
Perceived Usefulness <--- Perceived Risk -0.175 0.071 -2.46 0.014 -0.137
Perceived Usefulness <--- Perceived Cost -0.394 0.09 -4.392 *** -0.304
Intention to Use <--- Information Awareness 0.053 0.029 1.813 0.07 0.069
Intention to Use <--- Perceived Usefulness 0.767 0.035 22.182 *** 0.847
Actual Usage <--- Information Awareness 0.796 0.117 6.781 *** 0.41
Actual Usage <--- Intention to Use 0.861 0.154 5.611 *** 0.34
Significance levels: p<0.01***

the direct and indirect relationships between the constructs in the ability in explaining the factors that influence the
proposed model. It also helped to test the study hypotheses as well adoption of mobile applications by farmers. Based on
as test the model fit in comparison to the hypothesized structural
model.
previous studies on technology adoption (Kim et al.,
To successfully assess model fit, Hair et al. (2010) suggest using 2007; Malik et al., 2017; Wu and Wang, 2005), this study
an acceptable goodness-of-fit index. The model for this study affirms the suitability of extended TAM in comprehending
was made up of a 245 sample size with seven latent factors and explaining the mobile applications adoption
and 31 measurement items (variables). Based on the listed model behaviors of farmers. The results showed that the
characteristics, Hair et al. (2010: 672) maintained that 2 should exogenous variable Social Influence (SI) had a
give a significant p-value, CFI should be above 0.92, SRMR should
be less than 0.90 (with CFI above 0.92) and RMSEA value should
significant positive impact on the Perceived Usefulness
be less than 0.08 (with CFI above 0.92). Based on Hair et al. (2010), (PU) of mobile apps. This result is in line with Hakkak et
the result of the SEM model fit, as shown in Table 4, gave a good al. (2013), Kesharwani and Singh (2012) and Lee et al.
model fit. The model fit was within the threshold values (2012). In contrast, some studies found that SI did not
recommended by Schermelleh-Engel et al. (2003) and Hair et al. have a significant effect on the Perceived Usefulness of
(2010). some ICT (Arenas et al., 2015; Venkatesh et al., 2003).
The SEM results from the estimation for regression weights of
the hypothesized Model in Table 5 showed a significant
These researchers argued that SI is only crucial in a
relationship between the dependent and the independent compulsory situation and especially in the early stages of
variables in the research model. The seven proposed hypotheses experience when the opinions of the potential user are
in the structural model were supported (Table 6). relatively unreliable. The importance of SI on PU in the
The structural model exhibited a strong explanatory power, smallholder context may be due to the close social
which showed the extent to which the model explains variance in connections between these farmers. As a result they
the data set (Figure 2). The exogenous variables SI, PR and PC
accounted for 43% (R2 = 0.43) of the variance of Perceived judge the usefulness of mobile applications from other
Usefulness (PU) of mobile applications. PU and IA explained 79% farmers in their network who are using the technology.
(R2 = 0.79) of the variance of Intention to Use, while ITU and IA They are more likely to be influenced by respected
explained 46% (R2 = 0.46) of the variance of farmers’ Actual Usage farmers who have adopted the technology and judge
(AU) of mobile applications (Figure 2). the usefulness by seeing the benefits they derive from the
technology.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Perceived Risk (PR) had a significant negative effect on
farmers’ Perceived Usefulness (PU). This result is
The proposed extended TAM showed a high predictive consistent with Kesharwani and Singh (2012) and Wu
26 Afr. J. Agric. Res.

Table 6. Hypotheses result testing.

Hypotheses Path Support Regression weight

H1: SI has a significant and positive impact on the
Perceived Usefulness of mobile applications SI → PU Yes 0.80***
H2: PR has a significant and negative impact on
the Perceived Usefulness of mobile applications. PR → PU Yes -0.14**
H3: PC has a significant and negative impact on
the Perceived Usefulness of mobile applications. PC → PU Yes -0.30***
H4: IA has a significant and positive impact on
farmers’ Intention to Use mobile applications IA → ITU Yes 0.07*
H5: IA has a significant and positive impact on the
Actual Usage of mobile apps IA → AU Yes 0.41***
H6: PU has a significant and positive impact on a
farmers’ Intention to Use mobile applications. PU → ITU Yes 0.85***
H7: ITU has a significant and positive effect on Actual
Usage of mobile apps ITU → AU Yes 0.34***
Significance levels: p˂0.01 ***, p˂0.05 **, p˂0.1*.

and Wang (2005), who found PR to have a negative Usage (AU) of mobile apps. This result is in line with
impact on Perceived Usefulness of internet banking Aker (2011), Klotz et al. (1995) and Hakkak et al. (2013).
applications. This study showed that smallholders who According to Aker (2011: 6), “information asymmetries are
had high levels of Perceived Risk (PR) consequently often an important constraint to technology adoption in
viewed mobile apps not to be useful and therefore had a developing countries.” This study found that most farmers
negative Intention to Use (ITU) mobile apps. This was were disadvantaged on the benefits of mobile
because farmers who thought mobile apps were risky to applications because they had no prior knowledge of
use would consider them not to be useful, and therefore the uses of some of the available agricultural mobile
would have a negative intention towards the usage of applications. The strongest direct effect was from
mobile apps. Information Awareness (IA) and Actual Usage (AU). This
Perceived Cost (PC) also had a significant negative strong direct effect implies that most smallholders
impact on the Perceived Usefulness (PU) of mobile enjoying the benefits of mobile application were well
applications. Similar studies on ICT adoption found PC to informed about the usefulness of these mobile
negatively affect Intention to Use (ITU) (Kim et al., 2007; applications. Lack of information awareness affects
Vassalos and Lim, 2016; Wu and Wang, 2005). intention to use and actual usage negatively. This signifies
According to Kim et al. the inclusion of cost prevents that information on the use of technology is necessary to
new customers from trying services they are not sure enable the smallholder farmers to actually adopt the
about. Cost is likely to be a large barrier to smallholders technology into their farming practices. Without this
adopting new technology due to their low incomes. The knowledge they may intend to use the technology but
impact of Social Influence (SI), Perceived Risk (PR) and lack the understanding necessary to implement it.
Perceived Cost (PC) on the Perceived Usefulness (PU) Perceived Usefulness (PU) had a significant positive
provide considerable insight into the factors impacting impact on farmers’ Intention to Use (ITU) mobile
Perceived Usefulness (PU) of agricultural mobile phone applications. This variable acts as a mediating variable
apps. These three exogenous variables explain 43% of between SI, PC, PR and ITU. This implies that the effect
the variation in Perceived Usefulness (PU). Firstly, this of these variable affect the Intention to Use through the
shows the influence that respected farming leaders effect of Perceived Usefulness. This result is in
adopting this technology can have on how other accordance with previous studies e.g. (Hakkak et al.,
farmers perceive its usefulness. Secondly, both 2013; Kesharwani and Singh, 2012; Wu and Wang,
Perceived Cost (PC) and Perceived Risk (PR) can be 2005) which all found PU to have a significant positive
significant barriers to smallholders’ adoption. impact on ITU of ICT. The highly significant level of this
Information awareness (IA) was the last exogenous result suggests that smallholders were more motivated
variable that had a significant direct positive impact on to use mobile apps because of their potential usefulness.
farmers’ Intention to Use (ITU) mobile apps and the Actual The motivation to use comes from the positive impact of
 Okoroji et al. 27

Figure 2. Empirical results of the structural model for factors affecting the adoption of mobile applications.

Social Influence (SI) on smallholder farmers, who have variables. The results are in line with previous studies,
been influenced directly or indirectly that mobile and show that SI, PR, PC, IA, PU and ITU are all
applications are useful for their farming business. As a crucially significant variables in deciding the factors that
result, their Intention to Use (ITU) increases and this affect the adoption of mobile applications by farmers in
eventually leads to actual adoption of mobile applications. Abia State. However, internet connective which seems to
The last hypothesized relationship in the proposed have a significant influence on the adoption of ICT in
model between farmers’ Intention to Use (ITU) and actual developing countries did not stand out as a significant
usage (AU) of mobile apps showed that ITU had a directly factor from the study’s exploratory factor analysis.
significant positive effect on Actual Usage of mobile Instead the influence of internet connectivity was
applications. This result is consistent with Abdekhoda et overlapped in perceived cost as farmers reported that they
al. (2016), Arenas et al. (2015), Wu and Wang (2005) paid a high cost for data subscription. This potentially
and Venkatesh et al. (2003), who all found a significant had a negative influence on farmers’ intention to use
positive effect between behavioral intention to use and the actual adoption of mobile applications. The
and the actual usage/adoption of information study demonstrates that extended TAM is a suitable
communication technologies. The results indicate that if model to explain the factors that influence mobile apps
smallholders have strong intention to use mobile adoption for agricultural purposes. The study showed the
applications in their farming activities, then they are most level of importance of information awareness as a
likely to use them. predictor of behavioral intention and actual usage in the
context of mobile apps adoption. Most empirical studies
on technology adoption using TAM have ignored this
Conclusion important variable, especially in an agricultural setting.
The result of this study confirmed that information
This research examined the factors that affect the awareness is a key factor in the adoption of agricultural
uptake of mobile apps technology by farmers in Nigeria mobile applications. This study, therefore, lays a good
using SEM. SEM helped to analyze and present the theoretical foundation for other research using extended
causal relationships among the constructs in the TAM (TAM2) to examine the impact of IA on the
proposed research model. An extended TAM framework adoption of the ICT being studied. It also demonstrated
was estimated to identify the factors that affected the the empirical applicability of extended TAM (TAM2) in
adoption of mobile apps. The study, in general, studying technology acceptance in a developing country
explained the fundamental relationships between the context such as Nigeria. The study helped to bridge the
proposed external variables and the original TAM information gap between agricultural app developers and
28 Afr. J. Agric. Res.

farmers by revealing the factors that affected the adoption Baumüller H (2012). Facilitating agricultural technology adoption
amongthe poor: The role of service delivery through mobile phones.
and continuing use of mobile apps.
ZEF Working Paper Series 93.
Baumüller H (2013). Enhancing smallholder market participation
through mobile phone-enabled services: The case of M-Farm in
RECOMMENDATIONS Kenya. GI-Jahrestagung 220:1730-1738.
Baumüller H (2015). Agricultural Innovation and Service Delivery
through Mobile Phones: Analyses in Kenya. (PhD), Universitäts-und
(i) More effort should be put into educating farmers on the Landesbibliothek Bonn.
usefulness of mobile apps. Brown JK, Zelenska TV, Mobarak MA (2013). Barriers to adoption of
(ii) App developers should put more effort in putting products and technologies that aid risk management in developing
countries: World Development Report. Retrieved from
quality and useful content in the applications they
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/16365
develop for farmers. Chan F, Thong JY, Venkatesh V, Brown S, Hu P, Tam KY (2011).
(iii) App developers and other stakeholders such as Modeling citizen satisfaction with mandatory adoption of an e-
financial institutions, government agencies and extension government technology. Journal of the Association for Information
Systems 11(10):519-549.
officers need to action to increase trust amongst the
Chen H, Rong W, Ma X, Qu Y, Xiong Z (2017). An extended technology
farmers. acceptance model for mobile social gaming service popularity
(iv) Cost of internet subscriptions can be reduced or analysis. Mobile Information Systems 2017(3):1-12.
subsidized for farmers. This would encourage them to Chukwunonso F, Tukur A (2012). Problems and prospects of adopting
ict in agriculture: some comments. African Journal of Agricultural
develop a positive intention towards the use of mobile
Research and Development 5(3):39-47.
apps. Costopoulou C, Ntaliani M, Karetsos S (2016). Studying mobile apps for
agriculture. IOSR Journal of Mobile Computing and Application
3(6):44-99.
Davis FD (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and
CONFLICT OF INTERESTS user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly pp. 319-
340.
The authors have not declared any conflict of interests. Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM (2016). Internet, Phone, Mail and
Mixed-Mnmode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. Reis 154:161-
176.
Eisenhauer JG (2009). Explanatory power and statistical significance.
REFERENCES Teaching Statistics 31(2):42-46.
Fathema N (2013). Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) of an extended
Abdekhoda M, Dehnad A., Mirsaeed SJG, Gavgani VZ (2016). Factors Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to report web technology
influencing the adoption of E-learning in Tabriz University of Medical adoption behavior in higher education institutions. (Doctor of
Sciences. Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran 30:457. Philosophy), Auburn University.
Ajzen I (1991). The theory of planned behavior. rganizational Behavior Field DA (2005). C8057 (Research Methods II): Factor Analysis on
and Human Decision Processes 50(2):179-211. SPSS Factor Analysis Using SPSS, pp. 6-7.
Aker J (2010). Information from Markets Near and Far: Mobile Phones https://www.academia.edu/28256741/C8057_Research_Methods_II_
and Agricultural Markets in Niger. American Economic Journal: Factor_Analysis_on_SPSS_Factor_Analysis_Using_SPSS
Applied Economics 2(3):46-59. Fishbein M, Ajzen I (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An
Aker J (2011). Dial “A” for agriculture: a review of information and introduction to theory and research: Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
communication technologies for agricultural extension in developing Hair J, Black W, Babin B, Anderson R (2010). Multivariate data
countries. Agricultural Economics 42(6):631-647. analysis, a global perspective. New Jersey; London: Pearson
Aker J, Ghosh I, Burrell J (2016). The promise (and pitfalls) of ICT for Education 7th ed, P. 816. https://www.worldcat.org/title/multivariate-
agriculture initiatives. Agricultural Economics 47(S1):35-48. data-analysis-a-global-perspective/oclc/317669474
Aker J, Mbiti I (2010). Mobile Phones and Economic Development in Hakkak M, Vahdati H, Biranvand V (2013). An extended technology
Africa. Journal of Economic Perspectives 24(3):207-232. acceptance model for detecting influencing factors: An empirical
Al-Gahtani SS (2016). Empirical investigation of e-learning acceptance investigation. Management Science Letters 3(11):2795-2804.
and assimilation: A structural equation model. Applied Computing IFPRI (2009). Constraints to Increasing Agricultural Productivity in
and Informatics 12(1):27-50. Nigeria: A Review. Retrieved from
Al-Jabri I, Sohail MS (2012). Mobile banking adoption: Application of https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/239a/33160c7fbbb73f53fdca39018a
diffusion of innovation theory. Journal of Electronic Commerce 4bddfaf4bf.pdf.
Research 13(4):379-391. Jaji MFO, Abanigbe SA, Abass BO (2017). Mobile phone as an
Al-Somali SA, Gholami R, Clegg B (2009). An investigation into the extension tool among female agricultural practitionersin Lagos State
acceptance of online banking in Saudi Arabia. Technovation Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Extension 21(3):66-79.
29(2):130-141. Kaiser HF (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika
Arenas GJ, Peral PB, Ramón JM (2015). Elderly and internet banking: 39(1):31-36.
An application of UTAUT2. Journal of Internet Banking and Kesharwani A, Singh BS (2012). The impact of trust and perceived risk
Commerce 20(1):1-23. on internet banking adoption in India: An extension of technology
Asa UA, Uwem CA (2017). Utilization of Mobile Phones for Agricultural acceptance model. International Journal of Bank Marketing
Purposes by Farmers in Itu Area, Nigeria. European Scientific 30(4):303-322.
Journal 13:9. doi: 10.19044/esj.2017.v13n19p395 Kim HW, Chan HC, Gupta S (2007). Value-based adoption of mobile
Bagozzi RP(2007). The legacy of the technology acceptance model and internet: an empirical investigation. Decision Support Systems
a proposal for a paradigm shift. Journal of the Association for 43(1):111-126.
Information Systems 8(4):3. Kirui OK, Okello JJ, Nyikal R A, Njiraini GW (2013). Impact of mobile
Bauer RA, Cox DF (1967). Risk taking and information handling in phone-based money transfer services in agriculture: evidence from
consumer behavior. Boston: Harvard University pp. 469-486. Kenya. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture 52(2):141-162.
 Okoroji et al. 29

Klotz C, Saha A, Butler L (1995). The role of information in technology Taylor S, Todd P (1995). Assessing IT usage: The role of prior
adoption: The case of rbST in the California dairy industry. Review of experience. MIS quarterly pp. 561-570.
Agricultural Economics pp. 287-298. Temu AE, Henjewele M, Swaim G (2016). Agricultural sector
Kripanont N (2007). Examining a technology acceptance model of transformation for food security, jobs creation and poverty reduction.
internet usage by academics within Thai business schools. PhD https://www.tanzaniainvest.com/agriculture/tanzania-second-annual-
Thesis, Victoria University. http://vuir.vu.edu.au/1512/ agricultural-policy-conference-aapc-starts-on-25-february-2016
Lee HS, Kim TG, Choi JY (2012). A study on the factors affecting smart Vassalos M, Lim KH (2016). Farmers’ willingness to pay for various
phone application acceptance. Paper presented at the 3rd features of electronic food marketing platforms. International Food
International Conference on e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and Agribusiness Management Review 19(1030-2016-83119):131-
and e-Learning, Singapore. 149.
Legris P, Ingham J, Collerette P (2003). Why do people use information Venkatesh V (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating
technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology
Information and Management 40(3):191-204. acceptance model. Information Systems Research 11(4):342-365.
Lim SL, Bentley P, Kanakam N, Ishikawa F, Honiden S (2014). Venkatesh V, Davis FD (2000). A theoretical extension of the
Investigating Country Differences in Mobile App User Behavior and technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies.
Challenges for Software Engineering P 41. Management Science 46(2):186-204.
Lin HF (2011). An empirical investigation of mobile banking adoption: Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD (2003). User acceptance
The effect of innovation attributes and knowledge-based trust. of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly pp.
International Journal of Information Management 31(3):252-260. 425-478.
Malik A, Suresh S, Sharma S (2017). Factors influencing consumers’ Vodafone Group and Accenture (2011). Mobile Communications to
attitude towards adoption and continuous use of mobile applications: Transform Smallholding Farmers' Livelihoods in Emerging Markets.
a conceptual model. Procedia Computer Science 122:106-113. Retrieved from
Nwajiuba C (2012). Nigeria’s agriculture and food security challenges. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20111010005505/en/Vod
https://ng.boell.org/sites/default/files/uploads/2013/10/agriculture_- afone-and-Accenture-Research-Indicates-Potential-138-Billion-
_green_deal_nigeria_study.pdf Addition-to-Developing-World-Farmers%E2%80%99-Incomes-by-
Ofana G, Efefiom EC, Omini EE (2016). Constraints To Agricultural 2020
Development In Nigeria. International Journal of Development and Wentzel JP, Diatha KS, Yadavalli VSS (2013). An application of the
Economic Sustainability 4(2):19-33. extended Technology Acceptance Model in understanding
Park E, Kim KJ (2014). An integrated adoption model of mobile cloud technology-enabled financial service adoption in South Africa.
services: exploration of key determinants and extension of Development Southern Africa 30(4-5):659-673.
technology acceptance model. Telematics and Informatics 31(3):376- World Bank (2017). ICT in agriculture: connecting smallholders to
385. knowledge, networks, and institutions (English). Washington, D.C.:
Qiang CZ, Kuek CS, Dymond A, Esselaar S (2012). Mobile applications World Bank Group.
for agriculture and rural development. Retrieved from http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/522141499680975973/IC
https://www.kiva.org/cms/2012_mobile_applications_for_agriculture_ T-in-agriculture- connecting-smallholders-to-knowledge-networks-
and_rural_development.pdf and-institutions
Schermelleh-Engel K, Moosbrugger H,Müller H (2003). Evaluating the World Population Review (2018). Nigeria Population 2018. Retrieved
fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive from http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/nigeria-population/
goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Wu JH, Wang SC (2005). What drives mobile commerce?: An empirical
8(2):23-74. evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model. Information
Sharma R, Mishra R (2014). A review of evolution of theories and and management 42(5):719-729.
models of technology adoption. Indore Management Journal 6(2):17-
29.
Tarhini A (2013). The Effects of Individual-Level Culture and
Demographic Characteristics on e- Learning Acceptance in Lebanon
and England: A Structural Equation Modelling Approach. Thesis for:
Phd in Information Systems. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1358.1847
Tarhini A, Hone K, Liu X (2013). Factors affecting students’ acceptance
of e-learning environments in developing countries: A structural
equation modeling approach. International Journal of Information and
Education Technology 3(1):54-59.