农业平台探索:互补性与情境常态化是否能改善农民信任?

IF 2.4 Q2 AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies Pub Date : 2023-03-21 DOI:10.1108/jadee-08-2022-0178
Neeraj Singh, Sanjeev Kapoor
{"title":"农业平台探索:互补性与情境常态化是否能改善农民信任?","authors":"Neeraj Singh, Sanjeev Kapoor","doi":"10.1108/jadee-08-2022-0178","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeAlthough Agtech firms have promoted digital platforms for retailing farm supplies (RFS), farmers are sceptical while purchasing them online. As a result, they struggle to generate a sustained demand. Among other approaches, these platforms onboard complementors to become full-stack farming solution providers. Whether platform complementarity can induce farmers' trust remains ambiguous. Literature on network externality theory highlights that complementarity positively affects the perceived value for buyers. The sociotechnical systems literature indicates that perceived value is an antecedent of user trust. In this vein, the authors ask: Does perceived complementarity affect farmers' trust in the RFS platform? Alternatively, the Agtech firms augment the platform's look and feel to make the digital retail setting appear “normal” to farmers. The extant research on the social cognitive theory indicates that a retail setting conforming with the generalised expectancy of buyers harbours their trust. Against this backdrop, the authors ask whether situational normality affects farmers' trust in the RFS platform.Design/methodology/approachThe study is based on a questionnaire survey of 212 Indian farmers using RFS platforms. The data were analysed using structural equation modelling (SEM) analysis.FindingsThis study establishes that platforms' complementarity and situational normality ameliorate farmer trust. The authors also identify the socioeconomic factors shaping the farmers' trust in platforms.Research limitations/implicationsThe present study has taken all RFS together as a single umbrella category, which can be considered a limitation. Also, the study is based on the cross-sectional survey of RFS platform users; the farmers' attitudes are dynamic in nature and evolve over time; however, the temporal factors shaping the farmer attitudes have not been considered in this study.Originality/valueThe study establishes the epistemological relationship between complementarity, situational normality and farmers' trust in agricultural platforms.","PeriodicalId":45976,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring the agricultural platforms: do complementarity and situational normality ameliorate farmers' trust?\",\"authors\":\"Neeraj Singh, Sanjeev Kapoor\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/jadee-08-2022-0178\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PurposeAlthough Agtech firms have promoted digital platforms for retailing farm supplies (RFS), farmers are sceptical while purchasing them online. As a result, they struggle to generate a sustained demand. Among other approaches, these platforms onboard complementors to become full-stack farming solution providers. Whether platform complementarity can induce farmers' trust remains ambiguous. Literature on network externality theory highlights that complementarity positively affects the perceived value for buyers. The sociotechnical systems literature indicates that perceived value is an antecedent of user trust. In this vein, the authors ask: Does perceived complementarity affect farmers' trust in the RFS platform? Alternatively, the Agtech firms augment the platform's look and feel to make the digital retail setting appear “normal” to farmers. The extant research on the social cognitive theory indicates that a retail setting conforming with the generalised expectancy of buyers harbours their trust. Against this backdrop, the authors ask whether situational normality affects farmers' trust in the RFS platform.Design/methodology/approachThe study is based on a questionnaire survey of 212 Indian farmers using RFS platforms. The data were analysed using structural equation modelling (SEM) analysis.FindingsThis study establishes that platforms' complementarity and situational normality ameliorate farmer trust. The authors also identify the socioeconomic factors shaping the farmers' trust in platforms.Research limitations/implicationsThe present study has taken all RFS together as a single umbrella category, which can be considered a limitation. Also, the study is based on the cross-sectional survey of RFS platform users; the farmers' attitudes are dynamic in nature and evolve over time; however, the temporal factors shaping the farmer attitudes have not been considered in this study.Originality/valueThe study establishes the epistemological relationship between complementarity, situational normality and farmers' trust in agricultural platforms.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45976,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/jadee-08-2022-0178\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jadee-08-2022-0178","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

目的尽管农业科技公司推广了农产品零售的数字平台,但农民在网上购买时持怀疑态度。因此,他们很难产生持续的需求。在其他方法中,这些平台将成为全栈农业解决方案提供商。平台互补性是否能吸引农民的信任仍然模糊不清。关于网络外部性理论的文献强调,互补性对购买者的感知价值有积极影响。社会技术系统文献表明,感知价值是用户信任的前提。在这种情况下,作者问道:感知到的互补性是否会影响农民对RFS平台的信任?或者,农业科技公司增强了平台的外观和感觉,使数字零售环境对农民来说显得“正常”。现存的社会认知理论研究表明,符合购买者普遍预期的零售环境蕴含着他们的信任。在这种背景下,作者询问情境常态是否会影响农民对RFS平台的信任。设计/方法/方法该研究基于使用RFS平台对212名印度农民进行的问卷调查。使用结构方程建模(SEM)分析对数据进行了分析。研究发现,平台的互补性和情境常态性改善了农民的信任。作者还确定了影响农民对平台信任的社会经济因素。研究局限性/含义本研究将所有RFS作为一个单一的总括类别,这可以被视为一种局限性。此外,该研究基于对RFS平台用户的横断面调查;农民的态度在本质上是动态的,并随着时间的推移而演变;然而,本研究并未考虑影响农民态度的时间因素。原创性/价值本研究建立了互补性、情境常态性和农民对农业平台信任之间的认识论关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Exploring the agricultural platforms: do complementarity and situational normality ameliorate farmers' trust?
PurposeAlthough Agtech firms have promoted digital platforms for retailing farm supplies (RFS), farmers are sceptical while purchasing them online. As a result, they struggle to generate a sustained demand. Among other approaches, these platforms onboard complementors to become full-stack farming solution providers. Whether platform complementarity can induce farmers' trust remains ambiguous. Literature on network externality theory highlights that complementarity positively affects the perceived value for buyers. The sociotechnical systems literature indicates that perceived value is an antecedent of user trust. In this vein, the authors ask: Does perceived complementarity affect farmers' trust in the RFS platform? Alternatively, the Agtech firms augment the platform's look and feel to make the digital retail setting appear “normal” to farmers. The extant research on the social cognitive theory indicates that a retail setting conforming with the generalised expectancy of buyers harbours their trust. Against this backdrop, the authors ask whether situational normality affects farmers' trust in the RFS platform.Design/methodology/approachThe study is based on a questionnaire survey of 212 Indian farmers using RFS platforms. The data were analysed using structural equation modelling (SEM) analysis.FindingsThis study establishes that platforms' complementarity and situational normality ameliorate farmer trust. The authors also identify the socioeconomic factors shaping the farmers' trust in platforms.Research limitations/implicationsThe present study has taken all RFS together as a single umbrella category, which can be considered a limitation. Also, the study is based on the cross-sectional survey of RFS platform users; the farmers' attitudes are dynamic in nature and evolve over time; however, the temporal factors shaping the farmer attitudes have not been considered in this study.Originality/valueThe study establishes the epistemological relationship between complementarity, situational normality and farmers' trust in agricultural platforms.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
37.50%
发文量
58
期刊介绍: The Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies publishes double-blind peer-reviewed research on issues relevant to agriculture and food value chain in emerging economies in Asia, Africa, Latin America and Eastern Europe. The journal welcomes original research, particularly empirical/applied, quantitative and qualitative work on topics pertaining to policies, processes, and practices in the agribusiness arena in emerging economies to inform researchers, practitioners and policy makers
期刊最新文献
Impact of agricultural credit sources heterogeneity on rice production efficiency in Côte d'Ivoire Triple Helix approach to innovation in Rwanda's agriculture resulted in a partnership between educational institutions and a private firm producing clean seed potatoes Affordability and sustainability in the human right to water Regional heterogeneity in undernourishment: the case of Nepal The effect of COVID-19 containment measures on fresh food market vendors in Uganda
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1