4.7 Article

Main Motivational Factors of Farmers Adopting Precision Farming in Hungary

期刊

AGRONOMY-BASEL
卷 10, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/agronomy10040610

关键词

precision farming; factor analysis; arable farming; farmers' motivation; social factors

资金

  1. Higher Education Institutional Excellence Programme of the Ministry of Innovation and Technology in Hungary [NKFIH-1150-6/2019]
  2. project (Research of complex rural economic and sustainable development, elaboration of its service networks in the Carpathian basin) [EFOP-3.6.2-16-2017-00001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The basic question of our research is what crop-producing farmers know about PF (precision farming), and how economic value and social factors motivate the acceptance and implementation of PF. We conducted a cross-sectional survey, using standardized questionnaires, in 2018, that was nationally representative of Hungarian crop producers. Besides this, we conducted 30 semi-structured interviews about the meaning of PF, with the farmers who use PF in practice. They defined it as a tool of strategic planning, to serve input savings, using state-of-the-art technologies. Based on the questionnaire, we found that the farmers currently applying PF do not seem to have such a significant impact on the agricultural society that would make others want to move to precision technology, following their example. As a result of the factor analysis, we could differentiate direct and indirect factors. Potential human resources are undereducated, their willingness to improve their knowledge is low, and the level of cooperation ability is low, making it excessively difficult, or even impossible, to acquire the equipment necessary for a technology switch and to purchase the necessary services. It can be concluded that age, production, and technical usefulness carries greater weight over things like monetary factors, productivity of cultivated land, knowledge capital, and willingness of Hungarian farmers to cooperate.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据