Mobile-based agricultural extension services (MAES) have emerged as vital tools in disseminating farming knowledge, particularly in remote areas, offering real-time advice on crop management and weather forecasts. However, barriers such as digital literacy, language diversity, and scepticism towards technology adoption persist. This study examines farmers' adoption of MAES, using survey data collected from 230 farmers in Karnataka, southern India. By developing a hybrid Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), the study integrates socio-economic factors influencing MAES adoption, including constructs such as personal innovativeness, technology familiarity, and economic motivation to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the behavioral drivers of technology uptake. Findings highlight that, in low-experience environments where traditional livelihoods intersect with rapidly developing scientific and technical infrastructure, farmers' adoption of MAES is influenced more by interest, familiarity and perceived economic benefits than by perceived ease of use or usefulness alone. This suggests that social networks, cultural perceptions of technology, and rural economic structures play a significant role in shaping adoption patterns. The study underscores MAES potential to improve agricultural productivity and rural livelihood in South India, emphasising the need for specific policy interventions that address socio-economic disparities and enhance digital literacy while fostering collaborative efforts between policymakers, agricultural experts, and technology providers. • A hybrid TAM to better understand MAES adoption among farmers was developed. • Personal innovativeness, technology familiarity and economic motivation were tested. • Familiarity, interest, and perceived economic benefits are adoption predictors. • Targeted interventions are needed to enhance MAES uptake among smallholder farmers. • IT adoption depends on economic constraints and social influence.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cerjak et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: