Farmers’ Acceptance of a Micro-irrigation System:  
A Focus Group Study  

 
 

Maria Sabbagh (*) and Luciano Gutierrez (**)  

(*) Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Sassari, Viale Italia 39/A, Sassari, Italy, 
msabbagh@uniss.it.  

(**) Department of Agricultural Sciences and Desertification Research Centre, University of Sassari, Viale 
Italia 39/A, Sassari, Italy, lgutierr@uniss.it.  

 
 

This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been 
through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to 
differences between this version and the Version of Record.  
 
Please cite this article as:  
 
Sabbagh M. and Gutierrez L. (2023). Farmers’ Acceptance of a Micro-irrigation System: A 
Focus Group Study. Bio-based and Applied Economics, Just Accepted.  
 
DOI: 10.36253/bae-13464 

 
Abstract 

Despite water scarcity and lots of benefits, implementation of micro-irrigation systems on potato 

crops in the Bekaa Valley of Lebanon is notably low. This could be related to farmers’ acceptance to 

use this technique. The objective of this study is to investigate the factors that can affect or not the 

adoption and the investment in a new micro-irrigation system. For this aim, the unified theory of 

acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) served as the conceptual framework. A qualitative 

approach using focus group discussion was applied. A total of 34 farmers in six focus groups were 

conducted in the three main districts of the Bekaa Valley.  From the analysis, performance 

expectancy, effort expectancy and facilitating conditions emerged as the three most prominent 

factors to understand farmers’ acceptance and adoption of micro-irrigation systems. The focus 



 

group findings indicated that potato farmers are willing to adopt a new micro-irrigation system if 

they ensure its provision in gains, its reduction of time and effort correlated with the farming 

activities. Barriers included lack of knowledge about the system, financial capabilities and extension 

services. Generally speaking, participants were enthusiastic about the idea to adopt a micro-

irrigation system, but they are hindered by the unstable socio-economic conditions in Lebanon and 

the financial abilities. It was concluded that age, experience and voluntariness of use exert an effect 

on the related major determinants. This study will provide recommendations that can be considered 

while drafting agricultural policies. 

Keywords: UTAUT model, Focus group, climate change, Micro-irrigation, Technology acceptance   



 

1. Introduction  

      Climate change is having a huge detrimental impact on freshwater availability on a worldwide 

scale, affecting water resources quantitively and qualitatively (Field & Barros, 2014). Water scarcity 

is one of the most dangerous threats which has already resulted in catastrophic losses, notably in 

the arid regions. High temperatures, increased evaporation and fluctuations in precipitation are 

altering water availability and reducing crop yields (Arbuckle et al., 2013; Niles & Mueller, 2016). 

These factors affect the management of farms, especially in arid and semi-arid regions (Scoville-

Simonds et al., 2020). Moreover, climate change is endangering the agricultural sector presenting 

risks for developed and developing countries (Field & Barros, 2014; Niles & Mueller, 2016).  

       Lebanon is a small mountainous country on the Mediterranean Sea’s eastern coast, covering a 

total area of 10,452 Km². From a climatic point, Lebanon is dominated by a Mediterranean climate 

with a cold rainy winter and a semi-hot dry summer. Lebanon experiences water shortages during 

the dry season which reaches out from July through October, with about 60 percent of the country’s 

territory undermined by desertification (MoA, 2003). This situation is relied upon to turn out to 

become more severe in the future due to the impact of climate change (Bank, 2014). As LARI (2019) 

stated, water scarcity rather than land resources is actually the constraining factor in the country’s 

expansion of agricultural production. In Lebanon, groundwater sources are increasingly stressed by 

climate change as well by the increased demand from agriculture, the inadequate utilization of 

underground water, the population growth and the industrial development (UNDP & UNHCR, 2021). 

Further, recent results (Halwani & Halwani, 2022) showed that from 1930 to 2019, the average 

temperature in Lebanon has increased between 1 to 3 ºC and a recent report from USAID (USAID, 

2018) expected a 4–11% decrease in precipitation by 2100. Thus, various conditions threatening 

water balance make adaptation to climate change more difficult in Lebanon. In this situation, the 



 

enhancement of irrigation water usage efficiency and the conservation of water resources are 

turning into strategic priority.       

               The Bekaa valley of Lebanon, which represents 42% of Lebanon’s area, is a very fertile valley 

in which 60% of Lebanon’s agricultural production is concentrated including cereals, potatoes, 

vegetables and grapevine (MoE & UNDP, 2011; MoE et al., 2015). The production of potatoes 

typically ranks first among the top 10 commodities produced in Lebanon each year, with a total 

production of 390,000 tonnes in 2017 (FAOSTAT, 2017). Two-thirds of Lebanon’s potato production 

comes from the Bekaa Plain, which is entirely irrigated (MoA & LARI, 2008). The Bekaa valley is 

divided into three main zones: North Bekaa, Central Bekaa and West Bekaa.  The valley is 

confronting the consequences of drought and reduced water availability that menace the yield and 

quality of irrigated crops (Karam & Karaa, 2000; MoE et al., 2015; Jaafar et al., 2016) . This is the 

case of potato crops which is one of the most sensitive crops to soil moisture stress and requires a 

systematic irrigation schedule (Ayas, 2013).  

  

       Since potato crops are sensitive to water stress , water use efficiency such as water-saving 

technologies are becoming of high importance. Until now, in the Bekaa region, the high majority 

of potato farmers are still using the ordinary sprinkler irrigation (MoA & LARI, 2008). Micro-

irrigation, particularly mini-sprinklers, could be a solution to the above-mentioned climate-

change related problems (Houston et al., 2018). Mini-sprinklers are small sized static sprinklers 

with a flow varying between 150 and 300 L per hour and a pressure of 1.5 bars inducing a water 

cooling canopy (Deligios et al., 2019). Micro-irrigation can induce an even application of water 

resulting in an improved crop quality and yields, in water savings leading as well to energy and 

fertilizer savings compared with other irrigation methods (Varma & Namara, 2006; Shah, 2011). 

Further, micro-irrigation systems allow for a high level of control of chemical applications and 

weed and disease reduction due to limited wetted area.  Previous researches executed in the 



 

Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, in Lebanon and beyond indicated that the use of 

micro-irrigation in potato cultivation could have promoting results in terms of water savings of 

up to 40% (Darwish et al., 2003; Darwish et al., 2006), and allowing for energy savings associated 

with higher crop quality and yields (Karam & Karaa, 2000; Varma & Namara, 2006; Shah, 

2011(Rouzaneh et al., 2021).  

         Given the lack of information available on the performances of innovative technologies, 

farmers may evaluate these new systems through their experience and knowledge. This study 

aimed to analyze the indirect non observed factors such as farmers’ motivations, attitudes and 

socioeconomic factors which may influence theirs’ perceptions and behaviours in affecting their 

investment in and adoption of a new micro-irrigation system. By disentangling these factors, 

effective strategies, and support systems for promoting the use of micro-irrigation systems in 

the area could be designed. To this end, the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 

(UTAUT) model (Venkatesh et al., 2003) was adopted. The UTAUT model (Venkatesh et al., 2003) 

is a tool that is used to analyse the individual acceptance and the use of new technology by 

evaluating the influencing factors. Previous studies utilized the UTAUT model to investigate 

factors affecting the adoption of pressurized irrigation technology among olive farmer 

(Nejadrezaei et al., 2018), the acceptance of e-agriculture (Eweoya et al., 2021), farmers’ use of 

communication technologies (Mahamood et al., 2016) as well the acceptance of water saving 

technologies (Sabbagh & Gutierrez, 2022).  

         A qualitative study that utilized focus group discussion (FGD) approach was employed. In this 

study, FGD could be an appropriate tool because it can allow for drawing upon the respondent’s 

knowledge, views, and experiences about the specific topic of introducing micro-irrigation systems. 

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to use the UTAUT model combined with a Focus 

Group Discussion approach to shed light on the impact and importance of behavioural factors in 



 

influencing the adoption and use of a micro-irrigation system. Hence, the research question is: 

“what behavioural factors could affect the intention to adopt and invest in a micro-irrigation system 

by the potato farmers in the Bekaa Valley of Lebanon? 

 

        The remainder of this paper is organised as follows. Section two briefly analyses the UTAUT 

model. Section three explains the methodological approach employed in this study to explore 

the acceptance of a new micro-irrigation system. Section four presents the results of focus 

groups conducted with potato farmers in three main districts of the Bekaa valley. Section five 

discusses the main findings providing insights about policies that government could implement 

to encourage potato farmers in adopting a micro-irrigation system. In section 6, the main 

conclusions are presented, and section 7 is related to the study’s limitations. 

 

 

2. Research behavioural model and Research’s questions 

          A number of theories have been put forward to explain the individual behavioural 

intention to    introduce a new technology. The current study employed as technology adoption 

model, the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) (Venkatesh et al., 

2003) which integrated previous technology acceptance models. Thus, UTAUT is basically a 

synthesis through unifying at least eight existing technology acceptance and use models and 

specifically i) the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975); ii) the Theory of 

Planned Behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen, 1985); iii) the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Venkatesh 

& Davis, 2000); iv) the Combined TAM and TPB (C-TAM-TPB) (S. Taylor & P. A. Todd, 1995); v) 

the Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT) (Moore & Benbasat, 1991); vi) the Motivation Model (MM) 

(Davis et al., 1992); vii) the Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) (Bandura, 1994; Compeau et al., 1999; 



 

Compeau & Higgins, 1995) and finally viii) the Model of PC Utilization (MPCU) (Thompson et al., 

1991). According to UTAUT, an individual’s perspectives about the technology impact his or her 

behavioural intent to use and actual use of the technology. Based on the integration of the eight 

models, UTAUT suggested four major determinants that have an effect on a person’s “use 

behaviour” to adopt a technology: performance expectancy (PE), effort expectancy (EE), social 

influence (SI), and facilitating conditions (FC). The first three constructs influence use behaviour 

through a behavioural intention variable, while the fourth construct directly impacts the use 

behaviour. These constructs can be affected by four moderators a) age, b) gender, c) experience 

with similar technology, and d) voluntariness of use. Fig.1 presents the model.  

 

Figure 1. Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology model (UTAUT) (Venkatesh et al., 2003); 
Adapted with permission from Viswanath Venkatesh, MIS Quarterly, 2003.1  

 

 

 

 

 
1 Note: The diagram applies nomenclature, using ovals to identify latent variables and rectangles for 
moderator variables.  
 



 

        The Performance Expectancy (PE) represents the user’s level of belief in how much 

advantageous a system usage will be and how it will help out to attain benefits (Venkatesh et al., 

2003). PE aggregated all job performance related aspects, like usefulness (adapted from TAM/TAM2 

and C-TAM-TBP) (S. Taylor & P. Todd, 1995; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000), job fit (from MPCU) 

(Thompson et al., 1991), relative advantage (from IDT) (Moore & Benbasat, 1991), extrinsic 

motivation (from MM) (Davis et al., 1992)  and outcome expectations which are related to the 

consequences of the behaviour (from SCT) (Bandura, 1994; Compeau et al., 1999; Compeau & 

Higgins, 1995). Based on the findings of the old models, PE will significantly and positively influence 

behavioural intention and technology acceptance (AbuShanab & Pearson, 2007; Venkatesh et al., 

2003). Persons with high PE had high intentions to use a new technology (AbuShanab & Pearson, 

2007). Additionally, the influence of performance expectancy on behavioural intention is suggested 

to be impacted by the moderating effects of gender and age (Venkatesh et al., 2003).   

            The Effort Expectancy (EE) construct suggests that the level of ease of use affiliated with the 

user’s adoption of a system is an important component in the adoption of a new technology 

(Venkatesh et al., 2003).  In this case, it is composed by three constructs that are: perceived ease of 

use (TAM/TAM2) (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000), complexity (MPCU) (Thompson et al., 1991) and ease 

of use (IDT) (Moore & Benbasat, 1991). Previous research concluded that EE is a positive predictor 

of behavioural intention so that the higher the perceived ease of use of a new technology, the higher 

the intention to adopt it (Bandyopadhyay & Fraccastoro, 2007; Kallaya et al., 2009; Nassuora, 2012; 

Venkatesh et al., 2003). According to (Venkatesh et al., 2003), the influence of effort expectancy on 

behavioural intentions is moderated by gender, age, and experience. 

        The social influence determinant (SI) refers to the magnitude to which individuals perceive they 

should adopt a technology based on inputs from persons who carry significant positions in their life 

(Venkatesh et al., 2003). It also consists of “the degree to which peers influence use of the system” 



 

(Slade et al., 2015; Šumak & Šorgo, 2016; Venkatesh et al., 2003). Social influence (SI) consists of 

three variables: a) subjective norms which relate to the person’s perception that people who are 

important to her or him think that they should or should not execute the particular behaviour (Ajzen, 

1991; Davis, 1989; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; S. Taylor & P. Todd, 1995), b) social factors which 

connects to the interpersonal arrangements that the individual has made with others as with co-

workers (Thompson et al., 1991) and c) image which is the extent to which the use of a new 

technology is seen to enhance one’s image or status in one’s social system (Moore & Benbasat, 

1991). Based on the review of the literature, it is expected that social influence positively influences 

the behavioural intention to use a new technology  (Bandyopadhyay & Fraccastoro, 2007; Im et al., 

2011; Kallaya et al., 2009; Slade et al., 2015; Šumak & Šorgo, 2016; Venkatesh et al., 2003). As well, 

(Venkatesh et al., 2003) hypothesized that the influence of social influences on behavioural 

intentions is moderated by gender, age, voluntariness and experience. 

        At the end, facilitating conditions (FC) represent the organizational and technical conditions or 

infrastructure that the individual believes would encourage the use of the system and make it 

simpler for him to use it (Venkatesh et al., 2003). The facilitating conditions determinant consists of 

three distinct constructs: a) perceived behavioural control (Ajzen, 1991; S. Taylor & P. Todd, 1995) 

which are the possible internal and external limitations on behaviour related to resources, b) 

facilitating conditions  adapted from (Thompson et al., 1991) which relate to objective factors that 

persons agree make an act easy to realize, and c) compatibility from (Moore & Benbasat, 1991) 

which indicates the extent to which a new technology is perceived as being consistent with the 

current needs and capabilities of potential adopters. Each one of these constructs is operationalized 

to incorporate technological and/or organizational aspects that are intended to eliminate obstacles 

to use. Facilitating conditions are found to positively influence use behaviour (de Veer et al., 



 

2011)[19]. According to [19], the influence of facilitating conditions on usage is hypothesized to be 

moderated by age and experience.  

            As mentioned above, UTAUT hypothesized that gender, age, voluntariness and experience 

would moderate the relationships depicted in the model. These variables have been shown to 

moderate the intention to adopt new technologies in several studies (Al-Gahtani, 2004; Pearson et 

al., 2002; Venkatesh et al., 2003).  

           Overall, the present study proposed several research questions to discover how the adoption 

of a new micro-irrigation system on potatoes in the Bekaa Valley could be accepted and introduced. 

Specifically, the research questions are the following: What are the reasons behind using the use of 

current sprinkler irrigation on potato fields? How do potato farmers perceive a micro-irrigation 

system and its implementation on their field? How do they observe the opinion of persons holding 

important positions in their lives and other farmers’ successes? What are the difficulties and barriers 

that they face that prohibit them from adopting a micro-irrigation system? What strategies or 

policies could be used to encourage potato farmers towards using micro-irrigation? 

3. Materials and Methods 

          The objective of this study was to explore via focus group discussion how socioeconomic and 

psychological factors influence the adoption of a micro-irrigation system as a mean to save water 

and avert the water scarcity crises among potato farmers in the Bekaa Valley of Lebanon. The focus 

groups discussed the behavioural aspects related to the possible shifting from the current irrigation 

technique (ordinary sprinkler) to micro-irrigation (drip or mini-sprinkler) that saves more water, 

induces higher production and better quality in the cultivation of potato crops. 

 

3.1.     The focus group protocol  



 

         The focus group research protocol was divided into three sections. The first section had the 

scope of warming up the discussion introducing the research theme and to collect information 

about gender, age, education, type of land management, farm size and the annual irrigation water 

used.  Participants also received explanations of the role undertaken by the facilitator and that audio 

recordings would have only been used for the purpose of this study reasserting the significance of 

privacy of all participants. It was explained that all participants were free to reveal their opinions 

related to the discussion and that all answers were to be accepted.  

         Section two aimed at providing information regarding the potato cultivation, the status of 

underground water in the Bekaa region as well as the differences between the sprinkler irrigation 

system and the micro- irrigation system delivering by that the advantages that could be obtained 

implementing a micro-irrigation system.  

        Section three contained open ended questions related to the UTAUT model that the moderator 

asked to participants of the three main districts of the Bekaa Valley. To trigger the discussion around 

the behavioural elements of the UTAUT model, section three was opened asking participants about 

their knowledge of the micro-irrigation system and the reasons behind using the ordinary sprinklers. 

This allowed the moderator to explore the degree to which each farmer believes that using the 

micro-irrigation system will help him or her to attain gains exposing by that the performance 

expectancy determinant. The moderator then asked about their perceptions of easiness of tasks 

related to the implementation and operation of the micro irrigation system and how do they 

perceive the related technical operations. This permitted the moderator to explore their effort 

expectancy towards micro-irrigation systems. Further, participants were asked to list people whose 

judgment is important to them that they would approve or disapprove their adoption of a micro-

irrigation system and the effect of personal moral obligation norms to adopt a micro-irrigation 

system for the sake of protecting the environment by preserving water resources. This revealed the 



 

social influence construct. To measure the facilitating conditions, the moderator explored their 

opinion of being able or not to access required resources, as well as to obtain trainings and the 

necessary support needed to use micro-irrigation systems. Following the UTAUT model variables, 

questions related to the moderating variables were raised in the focus groups.  The moderator asked 

participants if they believed that the age of the farmers affect their incentive to adopt new irrigation 

practices. Experience was tested by the familiarity of the farmers of the functioning of the micro-

irrigation system either by their own trial on their crops or by observing others using it on potatoes 

or on other crops. For the voluntariness of use, farmers were asked about their tendency to adopt 

a micro-irrigation system in the case of the presence of external obligations as well as in the case of 

subsidies offered by the government.  

 

      3.2.    Sampling and data analysis 

          Fig. 2 shows the geographical area in which focus groups were carried out in the months of 

March and April 2020, among the potato farmers using the ordinary sprinkler irrigation system, in 

the three main districts of the Bekaa Valley (North, Central, and West Bekaa). The total number of 

potato growers in the area is approximately 500 (identified while interviewing the president of the 

syndicate of potato growers in the Bekaa Valley), of which 35, 20 and 45% are located in North 

Bekaa, Central Bekaa and West Bekaa, respectively.   Random sample selection is 

particularly appropriate when inferences are made to a large population because 

of the assumption that opinions, attitudes or whatever is being studied will be 

normally distributed within that population. And since the goal is to select a sample that will yield 

rich data to understand the phenomenon studied (Hennink et al., 2019), data were randomly 

collected from a total of 34 farmers in six focus groups consisting of five or six farmers each. Two 

focus groups in each of the three main districts of the Bekaa valley were made to help ensure a 



 

variety of points of views amongst participants and to test their likeliness or unlikeliness to adopt a 

micro-irrigation system in their farms. 

Figure 2 Lebanon’s map showing the Bekaa Valley focus group discussions’ districts 

 

 

              Due to the COVID-19 restrictions and safety limitations, three focus group meetings were 

conducted via a virtual meeting “Zoom” platform among farmers having the IT resources. The three 

remaining focus groups took place, after the restrictions were minimized, in conference rooms 

where all the required safety measures were taken.  

            The farmers, with whom the focus groups were made, were the ones involved in the decisions 

regarding the agricultural practices, type of crops, and irrigation strategies to be implemented in 

their farms.; interviewees were chosen from different ranges of age, different educational levels, 

having different types of land management, and different farm sizes. The proportion of males 

among the participants was 100% since there were no women running a farm in the area since 

potato cultivation fields are largely male owned while female participation is more significant across 

industries in the region (Konishi, 2017) 



 

4.             All focus groups were audio-recorded and then manually transcribed and analysed 

qualitatively using NVivo12 software. 

5.  Results 

5.1.  Participants characteristics 

             In Table 1 the demographic characteristics are presented. The focus groups were held among 

a total of 34 farmers from which 11 participants from the West Bekaa, 11 others from the North of 

the Bekaa and 12 farmers from the Central Bekaa. Unfortunately, all participants were males due to 

the fact that there is no women running a farm in the area. In the West Bekaa, the average age was 

55 years ranging from 45 to 60 years old for most of the N farmers (N=11). In the North and Central 

Bekaa most of them were aged having a mean age of 46 (N=11)  and 52 (N=12) years, respectively. 

In the cited 3 regions, the percentage of farmers who were older than 60 years was somehow equal 

(36% for both West and North Bekaa while 33% in the Central Bekaa). In regard to the educational 

level, the minority had a primary level (28%) in the West Bekaa, while the majority had a university 

diploma (64%) in the North Bekaa. However, in the region of Central Bekaa most of participants had 

a secondary educational level (42%).  

           As shown also in the Table 1, in each focus group, there was a diversity in the farms’ size in 

order to gather the maximum possible point of views.  In the West Bekaa the average farm was 146 

hectares (SD=208), whereas in the North Bekaa, the mean farm size was 590 hectares (SD=1,55). In 

the region of Central Bekaa was 663 hectares (SD=1,55).  

          Unfortunately, almost all of the participants were not aware of the quantity of water used in 

the irrigation of their potato crops which is an alarming problem. 

Table 1 Sample mean and standard deviation demographic data 

Characteristics West Bekaa 
(N=11) 

North Bekaa 
(N=11) 

Central Bekaa 
(N=12) 



 

 Mean (SD) 

Age (years) 55 (11) 46 (13) 52 (16) 

Farm Size (hectares) 146 (208) 590 (1,555) 663 (1,556) 

                                                Age Ranges 
                                          N (%) 

<= 45 2 (18%) 6 (55%) 6 (50%) 

>45 and <60 5 (45%) 1 (9%) 2 (17%) 

>= 60 4 (36%) 4 (36%) 4 (33%) 

                                             Educational Level 
                                            N (%) 

Primary 3 (28%) 1 (9%) 3 (25%) 

Secondary 4 (36%) 3 (27%) 5 (42%) 

University 4 (36%) 7 (64%) 4 (33%) 

 

 

4.2. Results of the focus groups 

4.2.1.              This section has as aim to present the findings from the six conducted focus 

groups. After being transcribed from Arabic language to English, text files were imported 

into Nvivo12 to first begin with the codings and finding core themes that reflect what 

participants were discussing indicating the frequency of each core theme (Allsop et al., 

2022). The results are categorized into the investigated determinants affecting the 

acceptance of the micro-irrigation system in potato farming and three key moderators. 

To further emphasize and distinguish statements analysis from quotes, all direct quotes 

given by the participants, within the following findings part, will be highlighted in italics. 

Major Determinants 

4.2.1.1. Performance Expectancy 

             Performance expectancy was measured by the perceptions of using a micro-irrigation system 

in terms of providing benefits. At first, participants were asked about their knowledge of the micro-



 

irrigation system and the reasons behind using the ordinary sprinklers. All the participants showed 

a basic technological knowledge of the micro-irrigation system stating that it incorporates drip 

irrigation and mini-sprinklers irrigation. Concerning the reasons of the adoption of the current 

irrigation system, which is the ordinary sprinklers, the top answer was that sprinklers are less 

expensive (53%), and changing the ordinary sprinkler network that they have from many years will 

cost them a fortune. One of the respondents said:  

I have been using sprinklers for a very long time, and changing it and buying a micro irrigation 

network will be very expensive, especially for covering large areas. 

Also in the same context a second participant argued  

I still use sprinklers because I have had my equipment for a long time and in order to change 

them I will spend a lot of money because micro irrigation is a big investment, so I prefer to stay 

on sprinklers. 

           Furthermore, when participants were asked about their opinion about the following 

statement “adopting micro irrigation can be useful in your farm in terms of increasing potato yield, 

saving energy, labor, and pesticides quantities and increasing your benefits”, 56% of the 

respondents totally agreed. Some participants reported: 

Yes, I totally agree with this sentence in the sense of that micro irrigation controls water, 

consumes less fuel, and there is more control of fertilizers use. When the quantity of the crop 

increases, revenues and profits will surely increase.  

The more we irrigate the plant with a small amount only as much as it needs and at regular 

times, the more abundant the production and the better the quality and therefore we use less 

labor and pesticides. So I agree to this sentence. 



 

Whereas 26% partially agreed about this statement arguing for example that 

Micro irrigation definitely saves energy by saving water and because the water pressure is 

slight through it. It certainly increases the yield and increases the profits, but I do not think it 

saves pesticides, as this amount remains the same as the sprinklers.  

However, one of the respondents asserted: 

 Since micro-irrigation uses less pressure, this saves energy. Also, when using this irrigation 

technique we don’t need a large amount of pesticides, but the yield won’t increase, it remains 

the same as in the case of sprinklers.  

Otherwise, 18% of the participants fully disagreed about the statement, as other reported 

In practice, micro irrigation cannot be used on potatoes and cannot be adopted. It does not 

increase yields, nor save energy, nor reduce the amount of pesticides and it could not increase 

profits 

or 

Micro irrigation does not increase the yield and does not save energy, nor does it reduce the 

amount of pesticides and fertilizers. Micro irrigation does not add anything to sprinkler 

irrigation”. 

The most relevant statements that underpin this construct are the ones that relate to the general 

benefits associated with micro-irrigation use. Therefore, participants were asked about their 

perceptions about the possible advantages deriving from the adoption of micro irrigation systems. 

Based on the content analysis, the most important benefit mentioned by the respondents was water 

saving. This pattern is evident from the word cloud in Fig. 3 which depicts the most frequently 

occurring words emerging from focus group discussions.  



 

       In Fig. 3, central words with larger font are the most frequent, while distant words with smaller 

fonts are the less frequent. Thus, the most recurrent words (water, distribution, saving, control, 

etc.) are important advantages in the opinion of the farmers. Participants highlighted that micro-

irrigation is a water saving technique since it supplies water directly to the soil surface close to the 

plant roots, rather than the land around. As well, they believe that micro-irrigation ensures uniform 

distribution of water by delivering water only wherever necessary and evenly over the whole land 

despite the presence of wind. Moreover, farmers consider that micro-irrigation enhances the 

financial benefits by increasing yield, productivity, and therefore, farm profits. They suppose, as 

well, that the micro-irrigation is a way to reduce operational costs in terms of reducing energy (less 

energy for water supply/ low pumping needs) and saving pesticides and fertilizers.  

Figure 3 Word cloud of the perceived advantages of micro-irrigation 

 

                                    

            Overall, it was shown that farmers perceived the micro-irrigation as a system having many 

key advantages in potato farming from saving water, labor, and pesticides to increasing profits. 

Therefore, we expect that ‘‘performance expectancy’’ will be positively associated with the 

intention of using micro-irrigation technology.  



 

4.2.1.2. Effort Expectancy 

            Regarding participants perception of the easiness of use of a micro-irrigation system, and if 

they will be skillful in using it, 62% of them considered micro-irrigation easy to be extended over the 

field. Half of the 62% said that it saves labor amount and effort because it is installed once at the 

beginning of the season and no need to worry about moving it. Moreover, the other half believed 

that micro-irrigation helps saving time. Hence, the farmer can gain more time to take care of other 

profitable agricultural operations. Accordingly, many participants claimed that  

Micro irrigation is easier than sprinkler irrigation, and it is installed only once per season; 

therefore, the farmer will not worry about moving the network from one place to another 

such as the case of the sprinklers. Thus, micro irrigation saves labor. 

 

Micro irrigation does not require significant time and effort to extend and remove the 

network. It is easier than sprinklers, because the network is extended once at the beginning 

of the season and does not need to be moved from one part to another part of the land as in 

the case of sprinklers. 

           On the other hand, 38% of the participants perceived a high difficulty in extending the 

network of the micro-irrigation system on large fields and especially in the case of potato farming. 

They believed that, once extended, it decreases the efficacy of some agricultural operations.  

To highlight this problem some respondents commented  

The micro irrigation is very difficult to install and needs a lot of time since the technical process 

to extend the network takes about a week and more. There is a difficulty in the tasks related 

to micro irrigation because we can't apply pesticides and do all the mechanical agricultural 

practices when it is installed. 



 

             Other than that, they also argued that the installation of the micro-irrigation system needs 

a lot of attention and a specialized work force which induces a huge effort due to the complexity of 

the network equipment that should be implemented precisely. Additionally, third of the 

respondents, who perceived a difficulty in the use of micro-irrigation, claimed that micro-irrigation 

is time consuming. Furthermore, another third of them considered micro-irrigation as labor 

consuming because the system needs constant attention in order to prevent damage of the hoses. 

Some participants said 

Micro irrigation requires a lot of effort for initially extending the network. Likewise, if the hoses 

become clogged and we want to replace them then there is great effort and difficulty during 

the season.  

When installing the micro irrigation system, it will no longer be possible to operate properly on 

the field as the presence of the hoses restrains us.  The sprinklers are much easier than micro 

irrigation, so that, just a day, we can install, remove, and transfer 100 sprays. Sprinklers require 

less labor because only one worker can do this, contrary to the micro irrigation that needs a 

lot of labor. 

Furthermore, the effort expectancy construct is relevant to the question asking participants 

whether they think they will become skillful in using micro-irrigation on potato crops.  

On one hand, 88% claimed that they will be skillful in using micro-irrigation. Approximately one third 

of respondents believed they will do their best to develop their knowledge in order to improve the 

yield, and possibly to increase their profits; they will get used on any new agricultural practices that 

give positive results. One-fifth of the 88% participants described the micro-irrigation as an easy 

technique and it is not difficult to be implemented on potatoes. These responses can be summarized 

with the following comment  



 

Of course, it can be used in a successful way on potato and personally I will use it in a great 

way since it's not difficult to manage. 

Moreover, another fifth thought they will surely become skillful in micro-irrigation after getting 

appropriate training and guidance. Further, approximately one fifth of the 88% of the participants 

assumed that they would improve their skills in every new technique and incite themselves to adopt 

it properly because it may improve their personal skills, thus their productivity. A respondent said: 

As farmers, we are most interested in developing our agricultural practices and noticing their 

positive results, and we therefore do our utmost to strengthen our skills in any new agricultural 

technology we adopt.  

 

On the other hand, 12% of the participants thought they will not become skillful in using micro-

irrigation technology on potatoes. Half of those participants were not convinced in the technology 

and believed it has no benefits on potato cultivation at all.  

No, since I see that it has no benefit in growing potatoes, obviously I don't improve my skills in 

using it. 

The other half considered micro-irrigation difficult and exhausting to be implemented in potato 

cultivation.  

In sum, we find that ‘‘effort expectancy” plays a positive role in user’s intention to use micro-

irrigation technology.  

4.2.1.3.  Social Influence  

      In the context of this construct, participants were asked to list people whose judgment is 

important to them that they would approve and disapprove their adoption of a micro-irrigation 



 

system. 47% of participants stated that they don’t care to others’ opinions, because each one of 

them prefer to take his own decision concerning his work, and they know better what the soil 

requirements on their lands are; not every technique can be applied on all types of soil. For example, 

they said:  

I don’t care about someone else’s opinion. When I make my decision, I am convinced and sure 

that I will take advantage of it. 

Since I believe that each one has a different point of view, I have my own. 

Moreover, 21% of the respondents considered the opinion of “other farmers” or “nearby farmers” 

important. They expressed their trust in each other’s objective opinions about potato cultivation 

needs (irrigation,etc.) based on the soil type and the climate of the region.  

I only care about the opinion of the farmers, friends and relatives because I trust them and 

know they won’t suggest anything but useful things to help me in agricultural issues  

I am very interested in the opinion of my neighboring farmers in the area, because they express 

their opinion relatively to our area; as each region is different from the other concerning the 

soil, water availability, air velocity, etc. 

The opinion of other farmers is very important to me because we are in the same sector and 

we face the same risks and problems. 

In addition, 20% of farmers highlighted the importance of their family members’ opinion such as 

fathers, sons and/or cousins. Two participants expressed this sentiment as 

My father’s opinion is very important to me, because everything I had learned is from him as 

he has large experience in agriculture as in general and especially in potato agriculture.  



 

Furthermore, 12% of the farmers were interested in NGO’s judgment and advices, as well as 

agricultural association, organizations and engineers. According to those farmers, those 

organizations realize the significance of new agricultural practices and support the farmer adopting 

it to develop his farm.  They commented:  

I am also interested in the opinion of an agricultural organization, because whenever it 

becomes clear that the farmer improves and adopts new technologies in his land, this agency 

supports and helps him by exporting cultivated yields. 

In a second step, participants responded to the question asking about the importance of collecting 

information from other farmers and observing what they think about their possible successes before 

adopting a new irrigation system. Nearly all participants, 94%, were very interested to have access 

to the experiences and suggestions of other farmers. Inside this group, 50% of them voted for the 

collective benefit, and 44% were interested in continuous development and knowledge of existing 

and new agricultural practices. Two sentences can represent the general feeling 

Collecting information from other farmers is important in order to share experience and 

increase the development. It helps us in discovering all new agricultural techniques, to test it 

and find out if it is useful in the region or not; this is a common interest.  

For this reason, I created the syndicate of potato farmers to exchange our knowledge and 

experiences to share with each other every new agricultural practice, as well as our successes 

and failures so that we can learn more. 

On the other hand, 6% of the participants weren’t interested in the experience exchange, because 

they believed that each farmer has his own individual specific agricultural practices and 

requirements. As per example,  



 

Each farmer has his own technologies and the specification of his land which differ from the 

other. 

Some farmers may give agricultural information that can't be adopted in the same way in my 

farm.  

Further, getting a better sense of farmers’ views on climate change (CC) and water scarcity was also 

related to this construct. Participants were asked to define what do these two terms mean for them. 

Firstly, half of the farmers believed that CC and water scarcity lead to loss in yield, thus in profits. 

According to them, the scarcity of water resulting from climate change is compelling so that 

cultivated areas are minimized, resulting in huge losses. They also stated that climate change and 

water scarcity have negative consequences on agriculture in terms of the quality of yields. 

Moreover, 16% argued that CC and water scarcity affect potato farming in particular because potato 

crops are very sensitive to high temperatures and to low precipitations. This group of farmers 

confirmed that CC directly and negatively affects the cultivation, especially potato crops, because it 

makes it vulnerable to climatic fluctuations. That may force them on some point to move from 

growing potatoes to rain-fed agriculture. Further, 16% of the participants claimed that CC and water 

scarcity put agriculture continuity at risk, because they lead to disasters that negatively affect 

agriculture. Furthermore, 9% defined CC as a fluctuation of precipitation and temperature during 

seasons. According to them, CC lead to changing temperatures during seasons, therefore to low 

precipitation rates, and consequently water scarcity. They also believed that CC induced the 

reduction of groundwater. Finally, 3% of the participants argued that CC and/or water scarcity do 

not exist because they still find water in abundance. 



 

In the same context of social influence, 91% of the respondents affirmed that a farmer should have 

moral norms and personal obligation of preserving water for the environment, the future 

generations and for continuing appropriate agricultural practices.  

They stated that  

It is compulsory to have ethical and personal values to be forced to save water in order to 

preserve nature, water wealth and to keep the water resource to our children as well as to 

ensure the natural and continuous development of agriculture. 

Personally, as I’m worried about climate change, if the government or a non-profit 

organization will support us, I will adopt a micro-irrigation technique to conserve water for the 

ecosystem’s well-being and to maintain a normal life-sustaining atmosphere. 

Overall, it seemed that social influence may not influence on the farmers’ intention to use a micro-

irrigation system.  

4.2.1.4.  Facilitating Conditions 

This construct is relevant to the question about the guidance role of the agricultural/irrigation 

extension services in the area. 79% claimed that there was no presence, neither of agricultural 

guidance and extension nor of training courses. They assured that the agricultural sector is 

marginalized and neglected; therefore, the farmers had to rely on their personal experiences or the 

experiences of other farmers in the surrounding. They added that the non-presence of extension 

services made them unaware of the existence of new agricultural practices. They stated that  

The agricultural sector is marginalized, there are no agricultural policies, not even agricultural 

extension, and we have become used to relying on ourselves, our individual information, and 

the information we take from each other.  



 

In Lebanon, we do not have agricultural policies, and farmers are not supervised by the 

Ministry of Agriculture which does not provide any guidance. Every farmer in this area depends 

on himself and on his personal experience.  

The other 21% of the participants stated that there was limited agricultural extension from some 

companies and institutions for the purpose of marketing. That is why they do not trust that type of 

companies and they rely on their personal experience.  This common feeling can be summarized 

from the word of participants: 

There is no appropriate agricultural extension role, there are some agricultural companies that 

deal with pesticides, they do some extension courses related only to the subject of insects so 

as to sell and market their products not more. So I only rely on my personal information and 

experiences. 

We have some agricultural guidance from some agricultural associations and institutions; they 

are doing all they can for agricultural extension. I take into account the information they 

provide, because agricultural guidance is necessary and sometimes it is a memory refresh for 

things I know, but I do not remember. 

In the same context of facilitating conditions, participants were asked about the barriers they 

thought might prevent them from implementing a micro-irrigation system. Participants had the 

possibility of multiple choices. Several barriers were mentioned by each participant and results are 

illustrated in Fig.4. All participants  considered the most important barrier as the high initial 

expenses for installing the system: 53% stated they have a lack of capital in order to cover the whole 

area; 53% believed they need trainings to raise awareness about the benefits of the system; 44%  

consider the system needs attention and time for minor repairs; 38% emphasized that micro-

irrigation is effort consuming; 38% thought that they need credit facilities as farmers; 35% assured 



 

that subsidies are necessary so they can implement this new technique of high cost; 26% they don’t 

have the technical knowledge; 21% perceived that micro-irrigation is not feasible on large fields; 

18% find it technologically complicated; 12% stated that they want  the spirit among farmers 

because if they cooperate they can support each other’s. However, only 3% need motivation from 

the family and friends in order to implement micro-irrigation, and another 3% believed that their 

land is very scattered which impedes the system installation. 

 Overall, facilitating conditions could improve a farmer’s use behaviour of a micro-irrigation system. 

 

                                                Figure 41 Barriers of implementation of a micro-irrigation system 

                                                   

 

 

 

4.2.2. Key Moderators 

In addition to the previously mentioned four main determinants, the UTAUT model included four 

main ‘‘moderating’’ factors: gender, age, experience, and voluntariness of use. Participants in this 

53%
53%

44%
38%
38%

35%
26%

21%
18%

12%
3%
3%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

I have a lack of capital for covering the entire area
I need more trainings and awareness about the benefits of the system

I admit that the system requires time to time attention for minor repairs
I need credit facilities as a farmer

I perceive the system as an effort consuming
I need subsidies

I don’t have the technical know-how
I think it is not feasible in a large field

I find it technologically complicated
I want the spirit among farmers

I need motivation and family/friends/farmers support
My land is very scattered

Barriers of  Implementation



 

study were all males because there were no women running a farm in the area. Given that in this 

research all farmers were of the same gender, the paper only included exploration of the possible 

effects of the age, experience and voluntariness of use as moderating factors on the four main 

constructs. 

4.2.2.1.   Age 

The question that was relevant to this factor was whether the participants believed that the age of 

the farmers affect their incentive to adopt new irrigation practices and in what way. 

It was indicated that 62% of the participants considered that age had no influence on the intention 

of use of a new agricultural technology. They stated that farmers adopted a new technology once 

convinced of the advantages of that technology. They asserted that, no matter his age, a farmer 

remains enthusiastic and encouraged to adopt new technologies, thus developing himself and his 

land. According to them, if a farmer is convinced of the benefits of a modern technology, he will 

adopt anything that is beneficial for his land. Some respondents commented that  

If it becomes clear to the farmer that the modern irrigation system will give him high profits, 

he will adopt him no matter what his age is. 

No, age does not decrease the incentive of adopting new agricultural technologies. A farmer 

who is convinced of the benefits of adopting new irrigation practices or other agricultural 

practices can only be hindered by financial capacity. 

No, there are young farmers who can’t be convinced of changing and developing, whereas 

older farmers (70 years and beyond) who always are willing to catch up with development. 

However, 38% of the participants believed that age decreases farmer’s incentive to adopt new 

agricultural practices because the age lessens farmers’ enthusiasm. Age was an important 



 

moderator in the context of adopting a micro-irrigation system among potato farmers. The younger 

group affirmed that it would be more difficult to persuade the older generation who doesn’t have 

initiative to try new technologies, contrary to what the elderly said. Moreover, in their opinion, elder 

farmers consider they have the full knowledge and that satisfies them. Thus, it would be very 

difficult for them to be convinced of adopting new practices. Those participants also added that, the 

older the farmer the more he rejects new technologies because he has no trust in them. In this case 

the usual comment was 

Yes, when a farmer gets older, adopting a new irrigation system on his land becomes a 

secondary matter for him. He no longer has a rush to learn agricultural practices. 

4.2.2.2. Experience 

Experience was tested by the familiarity of the farmers in micro-irrigation system either by their 

own trial on their crops or by observing others using it on potatoes or on other crops. Based on the 

analysis of the focus group discussion, some participants assumed that adopting micro-irrigation is 

not difficult for them as they witnessed its usage by other farmers on potato cultivation or on other 

crops. Therefore, they have the know-how which increases their incentive to implement it on potato 

cultivation if they have the capital for the investment. In the same context, a participant stated  

As a member of my family who uses micro irrigation on watermelon, I have professional and 

technical knowledge on this subject, and therefore I will not find great difficulty in using it on 

potatoes 

Another added  

I am adopting micro-irrigation on a small part of my land in vegetables cultivation, so I have 

the experience on how to install it in efficient way. 



 

4.2.2.3. Voluntariness of use 

Moreover, “voluntariness of use” was measured by the tendency to adopt a micro-irrigation system 

in a situation where there is no external obligation to adopt the technology. External obligations can 

be defined for example as limited quantity of water usage imposed by the responsible authorities 

in the region. Almost half of the participants (53%) stated that they can adopt micro-irrigation 

without external obligations, in order to induce good results and to ensure the continuity of their 

land cultivation: 

Yes, I will move to a micro irrigation system in order to improve the quality of potatoes and 

produce more quantities, and the most important thing is to reduce water waste. 

However, it is worth mentioning that only one participant asserted that he will gradually adopt 

micro-irrigation regardless its high initial cost, because he believed that it greatly will improve the 

quality and quantity of potato yield:  

Yes, I move to the micro irrigation system, but in stages, due to the high cost. 

On the other hand, the other half of the participants (47%) have no tendency to adopt micro-

irrigation spontaneously without external obligations: half of them consider it an expensive 

technology and they do not have the financial resources. The other approximate half does not 

perceive any benefit from adopting it on potatoes, and only very few have abundance of water so 

they don’t need a saving-water irrigation technology. Some comments were  

No, because I am convinced that the sprinklers are better than the micro irrigation on potato 

crops, and I don't have the financial resources to try and attempt the micro irrigation even on 

a small part of my land. 



 

No, because I have enough water and I pay careful attention to the amount of water that the 

plant needs (manual soil testing) so that I don’t waste water and therefore micro irrigation 

won’t help me.  

No, I am not convinced that micro irrigation would be better than sprinklers on my land, so I 

won’t implement it. 

Furthermore, participants were asked about the possibility of them adopting micro-irrigation 

if the government decides to subsidize the use of water-saving irrigation systems.  It was 

stated from 85% of the participants that they tend to adopt micro-irrigation system if there 

were subsidies from the government. According to them, subsidies reduce the financial 

burden on them at the beginning of the investment, and encourage them to take the first step 

toward the total adoption of the micro-irrigation system: 

Yes, if the government provides subsidies, conducts training courses and supports us to export 

our production, of course I will adopt it. 

Yes, I agree, because the state and the government have an obligation to take care of the 

farmer, who is the core of the Lebanese economy. Hence, micro irrigation is essential and 

necessary in improving the quality of potatoes to become competing with potatoes from other 

countries.  

Nonetheless, 15% of the participants insisted on not moving to micro-irrigation system even if there 

is support, because they do not perceive any benefit from it: 

No, I don't agree… At the end, the productivity will be identical to that of the sprinklers. 



 

No, although this technique provides large quantities of crop production, however, it does not 

match with the large areas I cultivate, and thus the moth will surely appear resulting in high 

losses. 

In this section, it is important to mention that those who first had tendency to adopt micro-irrigation 

without external obligations tend as well to adopt it if subsidies are introduced because it lessens 

the financial burden. Further, participants who said they would not use micro-irrigation because of 

its expensive cost changed their mind when the interviewer mentioned the subsidies. The most 

notable change in intentions was that of the participants who had no tendency to adopt the system 

claiming that it has no benefits. However, 50% of them changed their answers when the question 

of subsidies was raised. They stated in this section that they will move to micro-irrigation gradually 

by applying it at first on a small part of the land to test its advantages. For example: 

Yes, it will be possible for me to start adopting it on only one hectare. If my results are positive 

and there are no diseases, then I will gradually adopt it year after year until I have thoroughly 

checked its benefits. 

4.2.3. The Direct Determinant: The Behavioural Intention  

The measurement of behavioural intention in this study included the intention and predicted use of 

micro-irrigation system. The behavioural intention was measured by addressing questions whether 

the participants have a possible plan for the adoption of a micro-irrigation system in the following 

12 to 24 months as well as the major concerns related to this system. 

59% of the participants said that they do not have any plan for the adoption of micro-irrigation in 

the next 12-24 months. This group of participants was divided into 3 groups according to the reason 

behind not having a plan for adoption: a) the unstable economic conditions in Lebanon that does 

not encourage farmers to invest high capitals (the majority); b) the lack of micro-irrigation 



 

usefulness in terms of profits and feasibility (the quarter of them); c) lack of financial means (only 

10%). The following quotes revealed the participants answers:  

No, because the sprinklers irrigation is more comfortable for the farmer and does not require 

much effort, and I am satisfied from the quality and productivity that I get. 

No, if the government does not support me, I will not adopt the micro-irrigation system. 

 On the other hand, 41% of the participants stated that a plan to adopt the micro-irrigation system 

is possible in the near future. This group also was divided into several groups in terms of 

implementation conditions: a) presence of subsidies by the government (approximately the half); 

b) better economic situation in the country (one quarter of them); c) in case of water shortage (6%); 

d) no conditions at all (14%). The following quotes revealed the participants answers:  

In light of the current conditions in the country, I can adopt it in this period if there is protection 

for our products and if the state provides support. 

Yes, if the country's situation stabilizes, I have an intention to adopt a micro-irrigation system 

soon;  

Yes when necessary, and that means if the water runs out on my land, I will adopt a micro 

irrigation system.” 

Fig.5 below shows the different answers obtained when investigating the concerns of the 

participants over the micro-irrigation systems. Each participant had the possibility to mention 

multiple concerns. As clear, the top concern was the high cost of initial equipment and the possibility 

of financial losses (47%). In addition, 15% confirmed that micro-irrigation is labor intensive 

technique that requires a lot of effort, time and attention. Further, 29% have no concerns at all. The 



 

remaining concerns differ in little percentages from the frequent maintenance to the emergence of 

diseases (fungal and moth), short lifespan, feasibility on large areas, no wind resistance.  

 

Figure 5 The concerns related to the micro-irrigation system 

 

Further, when asked about their willingness to adopt a new micro-irrigation system, 82% of the 

participants said yes and 18% said that they are not willing to. 

At the end, in order to recapitulate the main results of each construct, the following table summarize 

the findings:  

Table 2. Main findings emerged from the focus group discussions 
Construct or 
Moderator 

Questions Findings 

 
 
 
Performance 
Expectancy 

A. Knowledge of the micro-irrigation 
system. 

Basic technological knowledge of the 
micro-irrigation system stating that it 
incorporates drip irrigation and mini-
sprinklers irrigation. 

B. The reasons behind using the 
ordinary sprinklers. 

Sprinklers are less expensive. 

C. Possible advantages deriving from 
the adoption of micro irrigation 
systems. 

Water saving, uniform distribution, 
yield increase, farm profits, energy cost 
reduction, pesticides and fertilizers 
reduction. 

47%

29%

15%

12%

12%

9%

6%

3 %

3%

3%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Expensive technology

No concerns

Labor intensive

Frequent maintenance

Disease emergence

Short lifespan

Not suitable for large areas/ for potatoes

Equal results as sprinklers

Lack of knowledge

Non resistance for the air factor



 

 
Effort Expectancy 

A. Perception of the easiness of use of a 
micro-irrigation system. 

Easy extension over the field, labor and 
effort saving, time saving. 

B. Skillfulness in using micro-irrigation. 88% of farmers claimed that they will be 
skillful in using micro-irrigation. 

Social Influence A. List people whose judgment is 
important to farmers and that they 
would approve and disapprove their 
adoption of a micro-irrigation 
system. 

47% stated that they don’t care to others’ 
opinions. 
21% considered the opinion of “other 
farmers” or “nearby farmers” important. 
20% highlighted the importance of their 
family members’ opinion such as fathers, 
sons and/or cousins. 
12% of the farmers were interested in 
NGO’s judgment and advice, as well as 
agricultural association, organizations and 
engineers. 

 B. The importance of collecting 
information from other farmers and 
observing their possible successes 
before adopting a new irrigation 
system. 

94% of farmers were very interested to 
have access to the experiences and 
suggestions of other farmers. 

 
 
 
 
Facilitating Conditions 

A. The guidance role of the 
agricultural/irrigation extension 
services in the area. 

79% claimed that there was no presence, 
neither of agricultural guidance and 
extension nor of training courses. They 
assured that the agricultural sector is 
marginalized and neglected; therefore, 
the farmers had to rely on their personal 
experiences or the experiences of other 
farmers in the surrounding. 

B. Barriers that farmers thought might 
prevent them from implementing a 
micro-irrigation system. 

The most important barrier was the high 
initial expenses for installing the system. 

Age A. The age of the farmers affects their 
incentive to adopt new irrigation 
practices. 

62% of the participants considered that 
age had no influence on the intention of 
use of a new agricultural technology 
because no matter his age, a farmer 
remains enthusiastic and encouraged to 
adopt new technologies, thus developing 
himself and his land.  
 

Experience A. The familiarity of the farmers in 
micro-irrigation system either by 
their own trial on their crops or by 
observing others using it on potatoes 
or on other crops 

Participants assumed that adopting micro-
irrigation is not difficult for them as they 
witnessed its usage by other farmers on 
potato cultivation or on other crops. 
Therefore, they have the know-how which 
increases their incentive to implement it 
on potato cultivation if they have the 
capital for the investment. 

 
 
 
 
 

B. The tendency to adopt a micro-
irrigation system in a situation where 
there is no external obligation to 
adopt the technology. 

Half of the participants (53%) stated that 
they can adopt micro-irrigation without 
external obligations, in order to induce 
good results and to ensure the continuity 
of their land cultivation. 



 

 
Voluntariness of use 

 
A. The possibility of adopting micro-

irrigation if the government decides 
to subsidize the use of water-saving 
irrigation systems.  

85% of the participants stated that they 
tend to adopt micro-irrigation system if 
there were subsidies from the 
government. According to them, subsidies 
reduce the financial burden on them at 
the beginning of the investment and 
encourage them to take the first step 
toward the total adoption of the micro-
irrigation system. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Behavioural Intention 

A. A plan for the adoption of a micro-
irrigation system in the following 12 
to 24 months as well as the major 
concerns related to this system. 

 

59% of the participants said that they do 
not have any plan for the adoption of 
micro-irrigation in the next 12-24 months 
due to the unstable economic conditions 
in Lebanon that does not encourage 
farmers to invest high capitals; the lack of 
micro-irrigation usefulness in terms of 
profits and feasibility and the lack of 
financial means. 
41% of the participants stated that a plan 
to adopt the micro-irrigation system is 
possible in the near future if there is the 
presence of subsidies by the government. 

B. Concerns regarding the micro-
irrigation system. 

the top concern was the high cost of initial 
equipment and the possibility of financial 
losses (47%). 
15% confirmed that micro-irrigation is 
labor intensive technique that requires a 
lot of effort, time and attention.  
29% have no concerns at all.  
The remaining concerns differ in little 
percentages from the frequent 
maintenance to the emergence of 
diseases (fungal and moth), short lifespan, 
feasibility on large areas, no wind 
resistance.  
 

 

 

6. Discussion 

         As initially mentioned, the purpose of this study was to get a deeper understanding of the 

influential determinants for potato farmers’ adoption of micro-irrigation technology on their lands 



 

in the Bekaa region in Lebanon. This research further examined which factors seem to influence the 

farmers and their willingness to use a micro-irrigation system.  

        Based on the focus group analyses performed, performance expectancy, effort expectancy and 

facilitating conditions could play a significant effect on the acceptance of micro-irrigation 

technology while the social influence could not. 

         The effect of performance expectancy on behavioural intention was found to be relevant for 

many participants, which reflects the perceived benefits obtained using micro-irrigation system. The 

benefits were identified as saving water, reducing labor effort and time, saving energy, increasing 

yield, improving crop quality and improving the agricultural operations. The farmers’ performance 

expectancy might increase by focusing on the usefulness of micro-irrigation systems. That means if 

the advantages of micro-irrigation systems were presented in meetings made by specialists, this 

probably would increase the acceptance and adoption for people who were against this method, 

and who preferred the ordinary sprinklers. Almost all participants declared that generation of good 

results and water saving were the top advantages of micro-irrigation system. However, they were 

very anxious about losing the financial investments in case they would not be able to apply this 

method without professional guidance. This asserts the idea of the essentiality to establish an 

agricultural guidance, in order to promote the advantages of micro-irrigation system and its usage. 

This result was found to be consistent with previous research findings (Bahramzadeh & Shokati 

Mogharab, 2010; Im et al., 2011; Louho et al., 2006; Nejadrezaei et al., 2015; Sa'ari et al., 2017; Yu, 

2012(Ronaghi & Forouharfar, 2020) that have found a positive relationship between performance 

expectancy and behavioural intention to use technology. 

       The effort expectancy was measured by the perception of ease of learning and using the system, 

as well as how much effort should be spent to use the micro-irrigation system on potatoes. From 

the focus group analysis, it seemed that farmers preferred to adopt an easy way to use system which 



 

required less effort and time than ordinary sprinklers on potato crops. Furthermore, almost all 

participants, including a part of those who showed a high effort and attention concerns in extending 

the micro-irrigation system on their potato lands, demonstrated their willingness to learn about the 

micro-irrigation functions. By that, organizing trainings and pilot studies could be a way for farmers 

to decrease their level of doubt. During on-field trainings, farmers discover how micro-irrigation 

functions, and the adequate way of its installation over the potato fields. Similar with other research 

(Birch & Irvine, 2009; Im et al., 2011; Louho et al., 2006; Venkatesh et al., 2003(Nkandu & Phiri, 

2022)), effort expectancy could have an effect on behavioural intention.  

          The third determinant, the social influence, seemed to have an insignificant impact on 

behavioural intention to use micro-irrigation. This result was consistent with (Venkatesh et al., 2003) 

and (Rosen, 2005(Yang et al., 2020)). In his research, (Venkatesh et al., 2003) had found that the 

adoption of a new system depends on the user’s beliefs and not others’ opinion. Social influence 

was found not affecting potato farmers to adopt a micro-irrigation system since the vast majority 

does not care about the opinion of nearby farmers, family members, NGOs, engineers, agricultural 

associations and organizations. This is why promoting the importance of agricultural associations 

and farmers’ gatherings, will revitalize the spirit among farmers and the cooperation between them.  

         Lastly, the facilitating conditions determinant was measured by evaluating the available 

resources and support to use micro-irrigation systems. The study results clearly depicted the direct 

effect of facilitating conditions on use behaviour of using micro-irrigation systems consistently with 

(Hung et al., 2006; Im et al., 2011; Venkatesh et al., 2003; Wang & Shih, 2009).  Guidance 

departments at the Ministry of Agriculture, NGOs working in agricultural extensions especially on 

the climate change subject, advertising on social media raising awareness on new ways of saving 

water, in addition to any other available services to assist individuals to adopt and use micro-

irrigation systems could be an essential way to enhance the adoption of a micro-irrigation system. 



 

Nevertheless, all farmers confirmed that these conditions are unavailable in Lebanon, and there is 

no guidance on agricultural features in whole country, which means that they cannot know about 

the benefits of micro-irrigation, or its right usage.  

         With respect to the moderating effect of age, it emerged that it was an important moderator 

in the context of adopting a micro-irrigation system among potato farmers. The younger group 

affirmed that it would be more difficult to persuade the older generation who doesn’t have initiative 

to try new technologies, contrary to what the elderly said. In fact, the moderation by the age impact 

was reported in several studies (Morris et al., 2005; Venkatesh & Morris, 2000; Venkatesh et al., 

2003). 

        Secondly, experience, was considered by (Venkatesh et al., 2003) as one of the important 

factors that affect behaviour intention. In this study, it was shown that the effect of effort 

expectancy on behaviour intention was in fact moderated by experience. The findings of this study 

revealed that, in terms of micro-irrigation usage, experienced farmers were more likely to accept 

and use micro-irrigation than inexperienced farmers.  

      However, it appeared that experience was not a moderator of the effect of the facilitating 

conditions construct on use behaviour because farmers of different levels of experience have almost 

the same perceptions towards the resources supporting the use of micro-irrigation. This result is 

not consistent with the study of (Alshehri et al., 2013) who claimed that experience moderates the 

effect of facilitating conditions on use behaviour. 

      At the last, voluntariness of use had moderated the effect of social influence on behaviour 

intention. It was measured on the basis of not using external obligations or incentives in order to 

implement the new irrigation system. The results confirmed that in the case of subsidies, the level 

of adoption will increase and farmers will definitively implement the system. That is, if the micro-



 

irrigation system was financially subsidized, almost all farmers in Lebanon will adopt it. 

Furthermore, the study findings showed that almost half of the participants had not the tendency 

to adopt a micro-irrigation if there is no external obligation which is consistent with what (Venkatesh 

et al., 2003) had reported. In this case, if the government grants subsidies to support the 

implementation of a micro-irrigation system, the vast majority will adopt it gradually or 

immediately.  

7. Conclusions 

The aim of this study was to investigate the potato farmers’ behaviour in adopting a micro-irrigation 

system. To achieve this objective, we adapted the unified theory of acceptance and use of 

technology (UTAUT) model. 

The outcomes offer visions for the policymakers to encourage potato farmers’ in adopting a new 

micro-irrigation system. Firstly, farmers are willing to accept micro-irrigation technology when they 

can make gain and reduce task uncertainty on their farming activities. Secondly, they are keen to 

adopt a micro-irrigation system if they find that it reduces effort and time of their farming activities. 

Finally, it is relevant to encourage farmers to adopt it through financial aids or subsidies which 

provide opportunities for farmers to decrease the financial burdens on them. As well agricultural 

extensions, field trainings, pilot area studies are also important in increasing the farmers’ intention 

to adopt a micro-irrigation system. 

7. Limitations  

Legal restrictions and safety measures linked to the COVID19 pandemic were a reason of the limited 

sample size. Also, the sample used lacked gender differentiation since no females operated farms 

in the study area. Thus, it would be useful to repeat the analysis with a larger sample for focus group 

discussions incorporating female participation and extending the study to other countries. 

 



 

References 

AbuShanab, E., & Pearson, J. M. (2007). Internet banking in Jordan: The unified theory of acceptance and use 
of technology (UTAUT) perspective. Journal of Systems and information Technology.  

 
 
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 

50(2), 179-211. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T 
 
Al-Gahtani, S. S. (2004). Computer technology acceptance success factors in Saudi Arabia: an exploratory 

study. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 7(1), 5-29.  
 
Allsop, D. B., Chelladurai, J. M., Kimball, E. R., Marks, L. D., & Hendricks, J. J. (2022). Qualitative methods with 

Nvivo software: A practical guide for analyzing qualitative data. Psych, 4(2), 142-159.  
 
 
Alshehri, M., Drew, S., & AlGhamdi, R. (2013). Analysis of citizens acceptance for e-government services: 

applying the UTAUT model. arXiv preprint arXiv:1304.3157.  
 
Arbuckle, J. G., Prokopy, L. S., Haigh, T., Hobbs, J., Knoot, T., Knutson, C., Loy, A., Mase, A. S., McGuire, J., & 

Morton, L. W. (2013). Climate change beliefs, concerns, and attitudes toward adaptation and 
mitigation among farmers in the Midwestern United States. Climatic change, 117(4), 943-950.  

 
 
Ayas, S. (2013). The effects of different regimes on potato (Solanum tuberosum L. Hermes) yield and quality 

characteristics under unheated greenhouse conditions. Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science, 
19(1), 87-95.  

 
Bahramzadeh, M., & Shokati Mogharab, S. (2010). Cultural approach to IT: compliance evaluation based on 

UTAUT. 8th international conference on management. http://www. civil ica. com/Pape r-IRIMC 
 
  
Bandura, A. (1994). Social cognitive theory and exercise of control over HIV infection. In (pp. 25-59). Springer.  
 
Bandyopadhyay, K., & Fraccastoro, K. A. (2007). The effect of culture on user acceptance of information 

technology. Communications of the association for information systems, 19(1), 23.  
 
Bank. (2014). Turn down the heat: confronting the new climate normal. World Bank Publications.  
 
 
Birch, A., & Irvine, V. (2009). Preservice teachers’ acceptance of ICT integration in the classroom: applying 

the UTAUT model. Educational media international, 46(4), 295-315.  
 
Compeau, D., Higgins, C. A., & Huff, S. (1999). Social cognitive theory and individual reactions to computing 

technology: A longitudinal study. MIS quarterly, 145-158. https://doi.org/10.2307/249749  
 
Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Application of social cognitive theory to training for computer skills. 

Information systems research, 6(2), 118-143. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.6.2.118  
 
Darwish, T., Atallah, T., Hajhasan, S., & Chranek, A. (2003). Management of nitrogen by fertigation of potato 

in Lebanon. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 67(1), 1-11.  
 

https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
https://doi.org/10.2307/249749
https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.6.2.118


 

Darwish, T., Atallah, T., Hajhasan, S., & Haidar, A. (2006). Nitrogen and water use efficiency of fertigated 
processing potato. Agricultural water management, 85(1-2), 95-104.  

 
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information 

technology. MIS quarterly, 319-340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008  
 
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the 

workplace 1. Journal of applied social psychology, 22(14), 1111-1132.  
 
 
de Veer, A. J. E., Fleuren, M. A. H., Bekkema, N., & Francke, A. L. (2011). Successful implementation of new 

technologies in nursing care: a questionnaire survey of nurse-users. BMC Medical Informatics and 
Decision Making, 11(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-11-67  

 
Deligios, P. A., Chergia, A. P., Sanna, G., Solinas, S., Todde, G., Narvarte, L., & Ledda, L. (2019). Climate change 

adaptation and water saving by innovative irrigation management applied on open field globe 
artichoke. Science of the Total Environment, 649, 461-472.  

 
 
Eweoya, I., Okuboyejo, S. R., Odetunmibi, O. A., & Odusote, B. O. (2021). An empirical investigation of 

acceptance, adoption and the use of E-agriculture in Nigeria. Heliyon, 7(7), e07588.  
 
FAOSTAT. (2017). FAOSTAT statistical database.  
 
 
Field, C. B. and V. R. Barros (2014). Climate change – Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: Regional aspects. 

Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2014; ISBN 1107058163.  
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-

Wesley.  
 
Halwani, J., & Halwani, B. (2022). Climate Change in Lebanon and the Impact to Water Resources. In Climate 

Change in the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern Region (pp. 395-412). Springer.  
 
Hennink, M. M., Kaiser, B. N., & Weber, M. B. (2019). What influences saturation? Estimating sample sizes in 

focus group research. Qualitative health research, 29(10), 1483-1496.  
 
Houston, L., Capalbo, S., Seavert, C., Dalton, M., Bryla, D., & Sagili, R. (2018). Specialty fruit production in the 

Pacific Northwest: adaptation strategies for a changing climate. Climatic change, 146, 159-171.  
 
 
Hung, S.-Y., Chang, C.-M., & Yu, T.-J. (2006). Determinants of user acceptance of the e-Government services: 

The case of online tax filing and payment system. Government information quarterly, 23(1), 97-122.  
 
Im, I., Hong, S., & Kang, M. S. (2011). An international comparison of technology adoption: Testing the UTAUT 

model. Information & management, 48(1), 1-8.  
 
Jaafar, H.; King-Okumu, C.; Haj-Hassan, M.; Abdallah, C.; El-Korek, N.; Ahmad, F (2016). Water Resources 

within the Upper Orontes and Litani Basins—A Balance, Demand and Supply Analysis amid the Syrian 
Refugees Crisis; IIED Working Paper; International Institute for Environment and Development: 
Beirut, Lebanon. 

 
Kallaya, J., Prasong, P., & Kittima, M. (2009). An acceptance of mobile learning for higher education students 

in Thailand.  

https://doi.org/10.2307/249008


 

 
Karam, F., & Karaa, K. (2000). Recent trends towards developing a sustainable irrigated agriculture in the 

Bekaa Valley of Lebanon. Option Méditerranéennes B series, 31, 65-86.  
 
Konishi, T. F. Y. (2017). JOBS IN NORTH LEBANON: ASSESSMENT OF THE POTATO VALUE CHAIN . Jobs Working 

Paper, Issue 9. 
 
LARI. (2019). Temperature and Precipitation data in the Bekaa in the last 10 years, The World Bank Group: 

Beirut, Lebanon.  
 
Louho, R., Kallioja, M., & Oittinen, P. (2006). Factors affecting the use of hybrid media applications. Graphic 

arts in Finland, 35(3), 11-21.  
 
Mahamood, A. F., Mohammed, R., Ahmad, M. K., Ridzuan, A. H., Hamzah, M. R., Abdullah, S., & Shaffril, H. A. 

(2016). Applying diffusion of innovation theory and unified theory of acceptance and use of 
technology (UTAUT) on farmers’ use of communication technology. Journal of Human Development 
and Communication (JoHDEC), 5, 27-40.  

 
MoA. (2003). National Action Plan to Combat Desertification: The World Bank Group: Beirut, Lebanon .   
 
 
MoA, & LARI. (2008). A technical package of booklets for the following selected crops: apple, cherry, 

grapevine, tomato, potato, EU Agriculture Development Project MED/2003/5715/ADP; The World 
Bank Group: Beirut, Lebanon .  

 
MoE, & UNDP. (2011). Lebanon’s Second National Communication to the United Nations Framework 

Convention on Climate Change. In Climate Change Vulnerability and Adaptation: Human Settlements 
and Infrastructure; The Ministry of Environment—United Nations Development Programme: Beirut, 
Lebanon. 

 
MoE, UNDP, & GEF. (2015). Economic costs to Lebanon from climate change: A first look. Ministry of 

Environment—United Nations Development Programme: Beirut, Lebanon. 
 
Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting 

an information technology innovation. Information systems research, 2(3), 192-222. 
https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2.3.192  

 
Morris, M. G., Venkatesh, V., & Ackerman, P. L. (2005). Gender and age differences in employee decisions 

about new technology: An extension to the theory of planned behavior. IEEE Transactions on 
engineering management, 52(1), 69-84.  

 
Nassuora, A. B. (2012). Students acceptance of mobile learning for higher education in Saudi Arabia. 

American Academic & Scholarly Research Journal, 4(2), 24-30.  
 
Nejadrezaei, N., Allahyari, M. S., Sadeghzadeh, M., Michailidis, A., & El Bilali, H. (2018). Factors affecting 

adoption of pressurized irrigation technology among olive farmers in Northern Iran. Applied Water 
Science, 8(6), 1-9.  

 
Nejadrezaei, N., Khara, H., Allahyari, M. S., Sadeghzadeh, M., & Gharra, K. (2015). Effective factors on 

adoption technology among trout fish farms in Guilan Province.  
 

https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2.3.192


 

Nkandu, P., & Phiri, J. (2022). Assessing the Effect of ICTs on Agriculture Productivity Based on the UTAUT 
Model in Developing Countries. Case Study of Southern Province in Zambia. Open Journal of Business 
and Management, 10(6), 3436-3454.  

 
Niles, M. T., & Mueller, N. D. (2016). Farmer perceptions of climate change: Associations with observed 

temperature and precipitation trends, irrigation, and climate beliefs. Global Environmental Change, 
39, 133-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.002 

 
 
Pearson, F. S., Lipton, D. S., Cleland, C. M., & Yee, D. S. (2002). The effects of behavioral/cognitive-behavioral 

programs on recidivism. Crime & Delinquency, 48(3), 476-496.  
 
 
Ronaghi, M. H., & Forouharfar, A. (2020). A contextualized study of the usage of the Internet of things (IoTs) 

in smart farming in a typical Middle Eastern country within the context of Unified Theory of 
Acceptance and Use of Technology model (UTAUT). Technology in Society, 63, 101415.  

 
 
Rosen, P. A. (2005). The effect of personal innovativeness on technology acceptance and use. Oklahoma State 

University.  
 
Rouzaneh, D., Yazdanpanah, M., & Jahromi, A. B. (2021). Evaluating micro-irrigation system performance 

through assessment of farmers' satisfaction: implications for adoption, longevity, and water use 
efficiency. Agricultural water management, 246, 106655.  

 
 
Sa'ari, J. R., Jabar, J., Tahir, M. N. H., & Mahpoth, M. H. (2017). Farmer's acceptance towards sustainable 

farming technology. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 4(12), 220-225.  
 
Sabbagh, M., & Gutierrez, L. (2022). Micro-Irrigation Technology Adoption in the Bekaa Valley of Lebanon: A 

Behavioural Model. Sustainability, 14(13), 7685. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/13/7685  
 
Scoville-Simonds, M., Jamali, H., & Hufty, M. (2020). The hazards of mainstreaming: Climate change 

adaptation politics in three dimensions. World Development, 125, 104683.  
 
 
Shah, S. (2011). Towards Adopting Nanotechnology in Irrigation: Micro Irrigation Systems. India Water Portal: 

Karnataka, India.  
Slade, E. L., Dwivedi, Y. K., Piercy, N. C., & Williams, M. D. (2015). Modeling consumers’ adoption intentions 

of remote mobile payments in the United Kingdom: extending UTAUT with innovativeness, risk, and 
trust. Psychology & Marketing, 32(8), 860-873.  

 
Šumak, B., & Šorgo, A. (2016). The acceptance and use of interactive whiteboards among teachers: 

Differences in UTAUT determinants between pre-and post-adopters. Computers in Human Behavior, 
64, 602-620. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.037  

 
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995). Assessing IT usage: The role of prior experience. MIS quarterly, 561-570. 

https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.6.2.144  
 
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. 

Information systems research, 6(2), 144-176.  
 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.002
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/13/7685
https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.037
https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.6.2.144


 

Thompson, R. L., Higgins, C. A., & Howell, J. M. (1991). Personal computing: Toward a conceptual model of 
utilization. MIS quarterly, 125-143. https://doi.org/10.2307/249443  

 
UNDP; UNHCR. (2021). Lebanon Crisis Response Plan 2017–2021; The UN Refugee Agency: Beirut, Lebanon. 
 
USAID. (2018). Climate Risk Profile - Lebanon. Adaptation Thought Leadership and Assessments (ATLAS), 

USAID Agency: Beirut, Lebanon.  
 
Varma, S., & Namara, R. (2006). Promoting micro irrigation technologies that reduce poverty. Water Policy 

Briefing, 23.  
 
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four 

longitudinal field studies. Management science, 46(2), 186-204. 
https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926  

 
Venkatesh, V., & Morris, M. G. (2000). Why don't men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social 

influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS quarterly, 115-139. 
 
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: 

Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly, 425-478.  
 
Wang, Y.-S., & Shih, Y.-W. (2009). Why do people use information kiosks? A validation of the Unified Theory 

of Acceptance and Use of Technology. Government information quarterly, 26(1), 158-165. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2008.07.001  

 
Yang, X., Chen, L., Wei, L., & Su, Q. (2020). Personal and media factors related to citizens’ pro-environmental 

behavioral intention against haze in China: A moderating analysis of TPB. International Journal of 
Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(7), 2314.  

 
Yu, C.-S. (2012). Factors affecting individuals to adopt mobile banking: Empirical evidence from the UTAUT 

model. Journal of electronic commerce research, 13(2), 104.  

https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2008.07.001