不确定性条件下农户采纳农业无人机服务的选择偏好——基于中国湖北的选择实验研究

doi:10.1016/j.jia.2025.12.066

Journal of Integrative Agriculture ›› 2026, Vol. 25 ›› Issue (6): 2188-2200.DOI: 10.1016/j.jia.2025.12.066

不确定性条件下农户采纳农业无人机服务的选择偏好——基于中国湖北的选择实验研究

收稿日期:2024-12-19 修回日期:2025-12-31 接受日期:2025-10-02 出版日期:2026-06-20 发布日期:2026-05-06

Farmers’ preferences for agricultural drone services under uncertainty: A choice experiment in Hubei, China

Hua Zhang¹, Lena Kuhn¹^#, Hang Xiong^2,³, Zhanli Sun¹^#

¹Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO), Halle (Saale) 06120, Germany
²College of Economics and Management, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, China
³ Digital Agriculture Research Institute, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, China

Received:2024-12-19 Revised:2025-12-31 Accepted:2025-10-02 Online:2026-06-20 Published:2026-05-06
About author:Hua Zhang, E-mail: zhang@iamo.de; #Correspondence Lena Kuhn, E-mail: kuhn@iamo.de; Zhanli Sun, E-mail: sun@iamo.de
Supported by:
This study is funded by the German Ministry of Education and Research (01DO21009), the Major Program of National Social Science Foundation of China (23&ZD116) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (72173050).

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 无人机在数字农业生产中具有多方面优势，如提高生产效率、节省劳动力并降低环境负担等。然而，小农户对农业无人机的采纳仍相对滞后。现有文献多将其归因于资金约束、土地碎片化或数字素养不足，较少从不确定性视角探讨具体采纳模式的作用机制。本文聚焦农业无人机服务的集体雇佣模式，重点分析服务提供者不确定性对农户采纳决策的影响。基于湖北省338户农户的离散选择实验数据，本文运用混合Logit模型分析农户对农业无人机服务及其属性的偏好。研究发现：第一，绝大多数受访农户愿意采纳农业无人机服务；就具体服务属性而言，农户偏好本地化、有合同保障且价格较低的服务。第二，研究中的高意愿采纳者通常具有以下特征：年轻、受教育程度较高、经营地形条件较差的农地、通过口碑渠道了解无人机以及具有无人机采纳经验。第三，农户愿意支付平均每亩25元的农业无人机服务费，且愿意为本地服务提供者支付比合同保障更高的溢价。上述发现表明，通过服务集体雇佣模式推广农业无人机能够有效提升农户的采纳意愿，为此有必要从供给侧提供激励措施，并通过降低不确定性的推广策略，促进小农户获取和采纳农业无人机服务。

Abstract:

Agricultural drones can improve productivity, save labor, and reduce environmental impacts by offering digital multifunctionality in agricultural production. Yet, the lagging adoption among smallholders is still prevalent. Existing literature commonly explains it by the lack of capital, land fragmentation, and digital illiteracy, with little delving into specific adoption modes under uncertainty. In this study, we demonstrate the potential of hiring agricultural drone services and investigate the role of supplier uncertainty in the adoption decision. We conduct a discrete choice experiment among 338 farmers in Hubei Province, China. Mixed logit models are used to analyze farmers’ preferences for the agricultural drone service (ADS) and its attributes. The results show that the large majority of sampled farmers are willing to adopt ADS. Besides low prices, farmers prefer services with local suppliers and contracts. Potential adopters in this choice experiment are characterized by youth, higher education, owning poor-topography farms, drone learning via word-of-mouth, and adoption experience. The willingness to pay analysis indicates that farmers would like to spend 25 CNY per mu (53 USD per ha) on average for ADS. Notably, farmers value the localness of suppliers more than the form of agreements when choosing a particular drone service. These findings suggest that the mode of hiring ADS can effectively motivate farmers’ adoption intention, thereby requiring supply-side incentives and uncertainty-reducing promotion strategies to enhance smallholders’ access to and adoption of agricultural drones.

Key words: UAV , digital agriculture , technology adoption , mixed logit model

Hua Zhang, Lena Kuhn, Hang Xiong, Zhanli Sun. 不确定性条件下农户采纳农业无人机服务的选择偏好——基于中国湖北的选择实验研究[J]. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2026, 25(6): 2188-2200.

Hua Zhang, Lena Kuhn, Hang Xiong, Zhanli Sun. Farmers’ preferences for agricultural drone services under uncertainty: A choice experiment in Hubei, China[J]. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2026, 25(6): 2188-2200.

参考文献

Abebe G K, Bijman J, Kemp R, Omta O, Tsegaye A. 2013. Contract farming configuration: Smallholders’ preferences for contract design attributes. Food Policy, 40, 14–24.

Blasch J, van der Kroon B, van Beukering P, Munster R, Fabiani S, Nino P, Vanino S. 2022. Farmer preferences for adopting precision farming technologies: A case study from Italy. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 49, 33–81.

Burgess L, Street D. 2005. Optimal designs for choice experiments with asymmetric attributes. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 134, 288–301.

CAMIA (China Agricultural Machinery Industry Association). 2023. China Agricultural Machinery Industry Yearbook. China Machine Press, Beijing. (in Chinese)

Caputo V, Van Loo E J, Scarpa R, Nayga Jr R M, Verbeke W. 2018. Comparing serial, and choice task stated and inferred attribute non-attendance methods in food choice experiments. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 69, 35–57.

Champ P A, Boyle K, Brown T C. eds. 2017. A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation. Springer, Netherlands.

Chavas J P, Nauges C. 2020. Uncertainty, learning, and technology adoption in agriculture. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 42, 42–53.

Chen Q, Wachenheim C, Zheng S. 2020. Land scale, cooperative membership and benefits information: Unmanned aerial vehicle adoption in China. Sustainable Futures, 2, 100025.

Cochran R L, English B C, Goodman W R, Larkin S L, Larson J A, Marra M C, Martin S W, Reeves J M, Roberts R K, Shurley W D. 2004. Adoption of site-specific information and variable-rate technologies in cotton precision farming. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 36, 143–158.

Dessart F J, Barreiro-Hurlé J, van Bavel R. 2019. Behavioural factors affecting the adoption of sustainable farming practices: A policy-oriented review. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 46, 417–471.

Ding J P, Li J H, Liu J H, Zhang W F, Jia X P. 2022. ICT-based agricultural advisory services and nitrogen management practices: A case study of wheat production in China. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 21, 1799–1811.

Fang T, Zhou Y, Wang L, Shi D, Duan X. 2024. The impact of multiplex relationships on households’ informal farmland transfer in rural China: A network perspective. Journal of Rural Studies, 112, 103419.

Finger R, Wüpper D, McCallum C. 2023. The (in)stability of farmer risk preferences. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 74, 155–167.

Gabriel A, Gandorfer M. 2023. Adoption of digital technologies in agriculture - An inventory in a european small-scale farming region. Precision Agriculture, 24, 68–91.

Glover D, Sumberg J, Ton G, Andersson J, Badstue L. 2019. Rethinking technological change in smallholder agriculture. Outlook on Agriculture, 48, 169–180.

Hadera A, Tadesse T. 2023. Risk and ambiguity aversion: Incentives or disincentives for adoption of improved agricultural land management practices? Agricultural Economics, 54, 867–883.

Hensher D A, Rose J M, Greene W H. 2015. Applied Choice Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

HPSB (Hubei Provincial Statistics Bureau). 2023. Hubei Statistical Yearbook. China Statistics Press, Beijing. (in Chinese)

Igata M, Hendriksen A, Heijman W. 2008. Agricultural outsourcing: A comparison between the Netherlands and Japan. Applied Studies in Agribusiness and Commerce, 2, 29–33.

Jaeck M, Lifran R. 2014. Farmers’ preferences for production practices: A choice experiment study in the Rhone River Delta. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 65, 112–130.

Kabirigi M, Abbasiharofteh M, Sun Z, Hermans F. 2022. The importance of proximity dimensions in agricultural knowledge and innovation systems: The case of banana disease management in Rwanda. Agricultural Systems, 202, 103465.

Khanna M, Atallah S S, Kar S, Sharma B, Wu L, Yu C, Chowdhary G, Soman C, Guan K. 2022. Digital transformation for a sustainable agriculture in the United States: Opportunities and challenges. Agricultural Economics, 53, 924–937.

Kliem L, Sagebiel J. 2023. Consumers’ preferences for commons-based and open-source produce: A discrete choice experiment with directional information manipulations. Food Policy, 119, 102501.

Lancaster K J. 1966. A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy, 74, 132–157.

Li K, Jin Y, Zhou J H. 2023. Are vulnerable farmers more easily influenced? Heterogeneous effects of Internet use on the adoption of integrated pest management. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 22, 3220–3233.

Liu M, Min S, Ma W, Liu T. 2021. The adoption and impact of E-commerce in rural China: Application of an endogenous switching regression model. Journal of Rural Studies, 83, 106–116.

Loureiro M L, Umberger W J. 2007. A choice experiment model for beef: What US consumer responses tell us about relative preferences for food safety, country-of-origin labeling and traceability. Food Policy, 32, 496–514.

Lundhede T H, Olsen S B, Jacobsen J B, Thorsen B J. 2009. Handling respondent uncertainty in Choice Experiments: Evaluating recoding approaches against explicit modelling of uncertainty. Journal of Choice Modelling, 2, 118–147.

Maertens A. 2017. Who cares what others think (or do)? Social learning and social pressures in cotton farming in India. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 99, 988–1007.

MARA (Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs of China). 2021. Compilation of the Second Batch of “Full-Process Mechanization+Integrated Farming Services” Model Cases in China. Department of Agricultural Mechanization Management, China. [2020-12-31]. https://njhs.moa.gov.cn/tzggjzcjd/202101/t20210108_6359645.htm (in Chinese)

Marra M, Pannell D J, Abadi Ghadim A. 2003. The economics of risk, uncertainty and learning in the adoption of new agricultural technologies: Where are we on the learning curve? Agricultural Systems, 75, 215–234.

McFadden D. 1972. Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior. Daniel MeFadden University of California, Berkeley.

Meijer I S M, Hekkert M P, Koppenjan J F M. 2007. The influence of perceived uncertainty on entrepreneurial action in emerging renewable energy technology; biomass gasification projects in the Netherlands. Energy Policy, 35, 5836–5854.

Meyerhoff J, Liebe U. 2009. Status quo effect in choice experiments: empirical evidence on attitudes and choice task complexity. Land Economics, 85, 515.

Michels M, von Hobe C F, von Ahlefeld P J W, Musshoff O. 2021. The adoption of drones in German agriculture: A structural equation model. Precision Agriculture, 22, 1728–1748.

Michels M, von Hobe C F, Musshoff O. 2020. A trans-theoretical model for the adoption of drones by large-scale German farmers. Journal of Rural Studies, 75, 80–88.

MOA (Chinese Ministry of Agriculture). 2015. Action to achieve zero growth of chemical fertilizer use & pesticide use by 2020. [2015-2-17]. http://www.zzys.moa.gov.cn/gzdt/201503/t20150318_6309945.htm (in Chinese)

Mohammed S, Abdulai A. 2022. Do ICT based extension services improve technology adoption and welfare? Empirical evidence from Ghana. Applied Economics, 54, 2707–2726.

Moritz L, Kuhn L, Bobojonov I. 2023. The role of peer imitation in agricultural index insurance adoption: Findings from lab-in-the-field experiments in Kyrgyzstan. Review of Development Economics, 27, 1649–1672.

NBSC (National Bureau of Statistics of China). 2018. China’s Third National Agricultural Census. China Statistics Press, Beijing. (in Chinese)

Oyinbo O, Chamberlin J, Maertens M. 2020. Design of digital agricultural extension tools: Perspectives from extension agents in Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 71, 798–815.

Parmaksiz O, Cinar G. 2023. Technology acceptance among farmers: Examples of agricultural unmanned aerial vehicles. Agronomy, 13, 2077.

Pedroni A, Frey R, Bruhin A, Dutilh G, Hertwig R, Rieskamp J. 2017. The risk elicitation puzzle. Nature Human Behaviour, 1, 803–809.

Penn J M, Hu W. 2018. Understanding hypothetical bias: An Enhanced meta-analysis. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 100, 1186–1206.

Qian C, Antonides G, Zhu X, Heerink N, Lades L K. 2024. Do economic preferences and personality traits influence fertilizer use? Evidence from rice farmers in eastern China. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 96, 102328.

Quan X, Guo Q, Ma J, Doluschitz R. 2023. The economic effects of unmanned aerial vehicles in pesticide application: Evidence from Chinese grain farmers. Precision Agriculture, 24, 1965–1981.

Rommel K, Sagebiel J. 2017. Preferences for micro-cogeneration in Germany: Policy implications for grid expansion from a discrete choice experiment. Applied Energy, 206, 612–622.

SCC (The State Council of the People’s Republic of China). 2014. Opinions on guiding the orderly transfer of rural land management rights and the development of appropriately scaled agricultural operations. [2014-11-20]. http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2014–11/20/content_2781544.htm

SCC (The State Council of the People’s Republic of China). 2016. China’s no.1 central document. [2016-1-27]. https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2016–01/27/content_5036698.htm

Scherer M, Chung J, Lo J. 2017. Commercial Drone Adoption in Agribusiness. Ipsos Business Consulting. [2017-9-4]. https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/publication/documents/2017-09/Commercial-Drone-Adoption-in-Asia-Pacific-Agribusiness.pdf

Schulz N, Breustedt G, Latacz-Lohmann U. 2014. Assessing farmers’ willingness to accept “greening”: insights from a discrete choice experiment in Germany. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 65, 26–48.

Schwirplies C, Dütschke E, Schleich J, Ziegler A. 2019. The willingness to offset CO2 emissions from traveling: Findings from discrete choice experiments with different framings. Ecological Economics, 165, 106384.

Skevas T, Kalaitzandonakes N. 2020. Farmer awareness, perceptions and adoption of unmanned aerial vehicles: Evidence from Missouri. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 23, 469–486.

Street D, Burgess L, Wiley J. 2007. The Construction of Optimal Stated Choice Experiments. Wiley, United States.

Sylvester G. 2018. E-agriculture in action: Drones for agriculture. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Thailand.

Tao H, Xiong H, You L, Li F. 2024. Farmers’ willingness to pay for smart farming technologies: Evidence from a smart drip irrigation technology in North China. China Agricultural Economic Review, 16, 114–134.

Train K, Weeks M. 2005. Discrete choice models in preference space and willingness-to-pay space. In: Scarpa R, Alberini A, eds., Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht. pp. 1–16.

Train K E. 2009. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Wachenheim C, Fan L, Zheng S. 2021. Adoption of unmanned aerial vehicles for pesticide application: Role of social network, resource endowment, and perceptions. Technology in Society, 64, 101470.

Ward P S, Bell A R, Droppelmann K, Benton T G. 2018. Early adoption of conservation agriculture practices: Understanding partial compliance in programs with multiple adoption decisions. Land Use Policy, 70, 27–37.

Wu H X, Song Y, Yu L S, Ge Y. 2023. Uncertainty aversion and farmers’ innovative seed adoption: Evidence from a field experiment in rural China. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 22, 1928–1944.

Yue M, Li W J, Jin S, Chen J, Chang Q, Glyn J, Cao Y Y, Yang G J, Li Z H, Frewer L J. 2023. Farmers’ precision pesticide technology adoption and its influencing factors: Evidence from apple production areas in China. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 22, 292–305.

Zheng S, Wang Z, Wachenheim C J. 2019. Technology adoption among farmers in Jilin Province, China. China Agricultural Economic Review, 11, 206–216.

Zuo A, Wheeler S A, Sun H. 2021. Flying over the farm: Understanding drone adoption by Australian irrigators. Precision Agriculture, 22, 1973–1991.

不确定性条件下农户采纳农业无人机服务的选择偏好——基于中国湖北的选择实验研究

Farmers’ preferences for agricultural drone services under uncertainty: A choice experiment in Hubei, China

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 0

编辑推荐

Metrics