Understanding farmers’ intention to perform result-based agri-environmental schemes for the improved provision of biodiversity and soil quality

Figures & data

Figure 1. Theoretical research framework: Basic and extended Technology Acceptance Model.

Table 1. Reliability and validity testing.

Constructs	Measurement items	MSA	Communality	KMO value	Composite reliability	Cronbach’s α	AVE	SMC	Factor loading (stand.)
Intention to perform (ITP)
	ITP1	0.815	0.659	0.724 (middling)	0.919	0.916	0.792	0.675	0.821
	ITP2	0.661	0.937					0.903	0.950
	ITP3	0.724	0.774					0.800	0.894
Attitude towards use (ATT)
	ATT1	0.828	0.697	0.750 (middling)	0.920	0.919	0.794	0.695	0.834
	ATT2	0.727	0.828					0.814	0.902
	ATT3	0.711	0.858					0.873	0.934
Perceived ease of use (PEOU)
	PEOU1	0.794	0.554	0.797 (middling)	0.864	0.850	0.614	0.534	0.731
	PEOU2	0.809	0.660					0.667	0.817
	PEOU3	0.785	0.708					0.687	0.829
	PEOU4	0.799	0.535					0.569	0.754
Perceived usefulness (PU)
	PU1	0.622	0.596	0.636 (mediocre)	0.831	0.807	0.628	0.674	0.821
	PU2	0.589	0.963					0.846	0.920
	PU3	0.768	0.336					0.365	0.604
Self-efficacy (SE)
	SE1	0.756	0.731	0.751 (middling)	0.894	0.895	0.739	0.719	0.848
	SE2	0.758	0.728					0.724	0.851
	SE3	0.740	0.758					0.773	0.879
Subjective norm (SN)
	SN1	0.701	0.706	0.738 (middling)	0.801	0.798	0.573	0.635	0.799
	SN2	0.744	0.469					0.537	0.731
	SN3	0.661	0.550					0.548	0.740
Perceived risk (PR)
	PR1	0.736	0.500	0.705 (middling)	0.800	0.798	0.571	0.500	0.707
	PR2	0.677	0.658					0.638	0.799
	PR3	0.708	0.558					0.576	0.759

MSA: Measure of Sampling Adequacy; KMO value: Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin value (values less than 0.6 are not adequate, 0.6 to 0.69 are mediocre, 0.7 to 0.79 are middling, and 0.8 to 1 are adequate); AVE: average variance extracted; SCM: squared multiple correlation.

Table 2. Quality indicators for the assessment of the overall fit of the basic and extended TAM.

Model fit	Basic TAM	Extended TAM	Quality thresholds
RMSEA	0.072	0.067	≤0.05–0.08 (Browne and Cudeck 1992)
CMIN/DF	2.224	2.058	≤2.5 (Homburg and Baumgartner 1995)
SRMR	0.0693	0.0793	≤0.10 (Homburg et al. 2008)
IFI	0.964	0.936	≥0.90 (Bollen 1989)
TLI	0.954	0.925	≥0.90 (Homburg and Baumgartner 1995)
CFI	0.964	0.936	≥0.90 (Homburg and Baumgartner 1995)

RMSEA: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; CMIN/DF: Minimum Discrepancy Function by Degrees of Freedom divided; SRMR: Standardized Root Mean Squared Residual; IFI = Incremental Fit Index; TLI: Tucker-Lewis Index; CFI: Comparative Fit Index.

Note. Quality thresholds used are the cut-off values from the literature.

Table 3. Basic TAM and extended TAM – squared multiple correlations R².

Construct	Estimate
Basic TAM
PU	0.175
ATT	0.479
ITP	0.343
Extended TAM
PEOU	0.386
PU	0.351
ATT	0.477
ITP	0.507

Figure 2. Tested extended TAM structural model with standardized path coefficients and explained variances.

Table 4. Tested structural model – results.

Construct	d	Construct	Estimate	S.E.	C.R.	P	Estimate	Hypothesis	Result
Basic TAM
PEOU	→	PU	0.485	0.084	5.760	***	0.418	H4	Supported
PU	→	ATT	0.489	0.077	6.373	***	0.440	H2	Supported
PEOU	→	ATT	0.492	0.087	5.643	***	0.381	H3	Supported
ATT	→	ITP	0.604	0.063	9.637	***	0.586	H1	Supported
Extended TAM
SE	→	PEOU	0.585	0.069	8.493	***	0.607	H7	Supported
PR	→	PEOU	−0.214	0.068	−3.155	0.002	−0.222	H8	Supported
PEOU	→	PU	0.225	0.082	2.752	0.006	0.202	H4	Supported
SN	→	PU	0.605	0.099	6.134	***	0.512	H5	Supported
PEOU	→	ATT	0.448	0.084	5.351	***	0.355	H3	Supported
PU	→	ATT	0.554	0.077	7.153	***	0.489	H2	Supported
ATT	→	ITP	0.454	0.059	7.756	***	0.432	H1	Supported
SE	→	ITP	0.560	0.075	7.482	***	0.439	H6	Supported

Note. *** , **, * show significance at 1%, 5% & 10% levels, respectively.

Browne, Michael W., and Robert Cudeck. 1992. “Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit.” Sociological Methods & Research 21: 230–258. doi:10.1177/0049124192021002005.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Homburg, Christian, and Hans Baumgartner. 1995. “Beurteilung von Kausalmodellen: Bestandsaufnahme Und Anwendungsempfehlungen.” Marketing: Zeitschrift Für Forschung Und Praxis 17 (3): 162–176.

 Google Scholar

Homburg, Christian, Christian Pflesser, and Martin Klarmann. 2008. “Strukturgleichungsmodelle Mit Latenten Variablen: Kausalanalyse.” In Handbuch Marktforschung: Methoden, Anwendungen, Praxisbeispiele, edited by Andreas Herrmann, 547–577. Wiesbaden: Gabler.

 Google Scholar

Bollen, K. 1989. Structural Equation Models with Latent Variables. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

 Google Scholar