An Integrative Model for the Adoption of Digital Innovations to Support Agricultural Efficiency and Productivity

Dimas Lestari; Mira Putri; Teguh Hidayat

Authors

Dimas Lestari Universitas Brawijaya Author
Mira Putri Universitas Brawijaya Author
Teguh Hidayat Universitas Diponegoro Author

Keywords:

Agricultural efficiency, Digital agriculture, Digital innovation adoption, Smallholder farmers, Technology acceptance

Abstract

This study aims to develop an integrative model for the adoption of digital innovations to support agricultural efficiency and productivity. The study addresses the uneven adoption of digital agricultural technologies among smallholder farmers, particularly in relation to perceived benefits, digital capability, social trust, infrastructure readiness, and institutional support. A qualitative case study approach was used to explore farmers’ experiences in adopting digital innovations within their real farming context. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews, field observation, and documentation involving 15 to 25 participants, including farmers, agricultural extension officers, farmer group leaders, local agribusiness actors, and institutional stakeholders. The data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. The findings reveal five main themes: digital innovation as a practical farming tool, perceived benefits for production decisions, barriers related to access and capability, the role of social trust and extension support, and partial adoption as a transitional pattern. The study shows that farmers adopt digital innovations when they provide clear practical value, are easy to use, and are supported by trusted social and institutional actors. However, adoption remains selective because farmers combine digital information with local knowledge, peer discussion, and field experience. This study contributes to digital agriculture literature by proposing an integrative understanding of adoption that combines technological, behavioral, social, economic, and institutional dimensions. The findings imply that digital agriculture policies should focus on inclusive infrastructure, continuous mentoring, farmer-centered application design, and stronger integration between digital platforms and extension services.

References

Adeoye-Olatunde, O. A., & Olenik, N. L. (2021). Research and scholarly methods: Semi-structured interviews. JACCP: Journal of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy, 4(10), 1358-1367. https://doi.org/10.1002/jac5.1441

Ahmed, S. K. (2024). The pillars of trustworthiness in qualitative research. Journal of Medicine, Surgery, and Public Health, 2, 100051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.glmedi.2024.100051

Balafoutis, A. T., van Evert, F. K., & Fountas, S. (2020). Smart farming technology trends: Economic and environmental effects, labor impact, and adoption readiness. Agronomy, 10(5), 743. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10050743

Bolfe, É. L., Jorge, L. A. C., Sanches, I. D., Luchiari Júnior, A., Costa, C. C., Victoria, D. C., Inamasu, R. Y., Grego, C. R., Ferreira, V. R., & Ramirez, A. R. (2020). Precision and digital agriculture: Adoption of technologies and perception of Brazilian farmers. Agriculture, 10(12), 653. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture10120653

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in reflexive thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328-352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238

Busetto, L., Wick, W., & Gumbinger, C. (2020). How to use and assess qualitative research methods. Neurological Research and Practice, 2, 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42466-020-00059-z

Byrne, D. (2022). A worked example of Braun and Clarke’s approach to reflexive thematic analysis. Quality & Quantity, 56(3), 1391-1412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01182-y

Campbell, S., Greenwood, M., Prior, S., Shearer, T., Walkem, K., Young, S., Bywaters, D., & Walker, K. (2020). Purposive sampling: Complex or simple? Research case examples. Journal of Research in Nursing, 25(8), 652-661. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987120927206

Cozzi, E., Menozzi, D., Maesano, G., Canavari, M., & Mora, C. (2025). Digital technology adoption among Italian farmers: An extended technology acceptance model approach in the horticultural sector. Bio-Based and Applied Economics, 14(4), 29-43. https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-17364

Cui, L., & Wang, W. (2023). Factors affecting the adoption of digital technology by farmers in China: A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 15(20), 14824. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152014824

Dhanaraju, M., Chenniappan, P., Ramalingam, K., Pazhanivelan, S., & Kaliaperumal, R. (2022). Smart farming: Internet of Things (IoT)-based sustainable agriculture. Agriculture, 12(10), 1745. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12101745

Dibbern, T., Romani, L. A. S., & Massruhá, S. M. F. S. (2024). Main drivers and barriers to the adoption of digital agriculture technologies. Smart Agricultural Technology, 8, 100459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atech.2024.100459

Fadeyi, O. A., Ariyawardana, A., & Aziz, A. A. (2022). Factors influencing technology adoption among smallholder farmers: A systematic review in Africa. Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development in the Tropics and Subtropics, 123(1), 13-30. https://doi.org/10.17170/kobra-202201195569

Giua, C., Materia, V. C., & Camanzi, L. (2022). Smart farming technologies adoption: Which factors play a role in the digital transition? Technology in Society, 68, 101869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101869

Guest, G., Namey, E., & Chen, M. (2020). A simple method to assess and report thematic saturation in qualitative research. PLOS ONE, 15(5), e0232076. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232076

Hennink, M., & Kaiser, B. N. (2022). Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: A systematic review of empirical tests. Social Science & Medicine, 292, 114523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114523

Jakku, E., Fleming, A., Espig, M., Fielke, S. C., Finlay-Smits, S., & Turner, J. A. (2023). Disruption disrupted? Reflecting on the relationship between responsible innovation and digital agriculture research and development at multiple levels in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand. Agricultural Systems, 204, 103555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2022.103555

Kiger, M. E., & Varpio, L. (2020). Thematic analysis of qualitative data: AMEE Guide No. 131. Medical Teacher, 42(8), 846-854. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2020.1755030

Lemon, L. L., & Hayes, J. (2020). Enhancing trustworthiness of qualitative findings: Using Leximancer for qualitative data analysis triangulation. The Qualitative Report, 25(3), 604-614. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2020.4222

Lim, W. M. (2025). What is qualitative research? An overview and guidelines. Australasian Marketing Journal, 33(2), 199-229. https://doi.org/10.1177/14413582241264619

Lobe, B., Morgan, D., & Hoffman, K. A. (2020). Qualitative data collection in an era of social distancing. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1609406920937875. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920937875

Manzoor, F., Wei, L., Siraj, M., Lu, X., & Guo, Q. (2025). Digital agriculture technology adoption in low- and middle-income countries: A review of contemporary literature. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 9, 1621851. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2025.1621851

Motulsky, S. L. (2021). Is member checking the gold standard of quality in qualitative research? Qualitative Psychology, 8(3), 389-406. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000215

Opola, F. O., Langan, S., Arulingam, I., Schumann, C., Singaraju, N., Joshi, D., & Ghosh, S. (2025). A multi-dimensional framework for responsible and socially inclusive digital innovation in food, water, and land systems. Agriculture and Human Values, 42, 1829-1846. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-025-10731-2

Priya, A. (2021). Case study methodology of qualitative research: Key attributes and navigating the conundrums in its application. Sociological Bulletin, 70(1), 94-110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038022920970318

Romera, A. J., Sharifi, M., & Charters, S. (2024). Digitalization in agriculture: Towards an integrative approach. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 219, 108817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2024.108817

Sen, L. T. H., Chou, P., Dacuyan, F. B., Nyberg, Y., & Wetterlind, J. (2024). Barriers and enablers of digital extension services’ adoption among smallholder farmers: The case of Cambodia, the Philippines and Vietnam. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 22(1), 2368351. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2024.2368351

Sun, S., Wen, X., Jie, S., Gao, Q., Zhu, Y., & Wen, S. (2022). Drivers of farmers’ intention to use the digital agricultural management system: Integrating theory of planned behavior and behavioral economics. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 901169. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.901169

Yang, C., Ji, X., Cheng, C., Liao, S., Obuobi, B., & Zhang, Y. (2024). Digital economy empowers sustainable agriculture: Implications for farmers’ adoption of ecological agricultural technologies. Ecological Indicators, 159, 111723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2024.111723

Yeo, M. L., & Keske, C. M. (2024). From profitability to trust: Factors shaping digital agriculture adoption. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 8, 1456991. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2024.1456991