Digital inequalities in the agricultural sector have become a prominent concern since the advent of digital technologies. To address these inequalities among farmers, it is essential to gain a comprehensive understanding of their nature and underlying determinants. Drawing upon Van Dijk's theory of resources and appropriation, this study was conducted in Benin, a West African country, involving a sample of 307 smallholder farmers. Structural equation models are used to analyze the data. Firstly, the results reveal that the attitude of farmers is positively associated with their material access to digital technology, which, in turn, fosters the development of their digital skills encompassing both formal and strategic skills. These skills propel the integration of digital technology into agricultural practices. Farmers’ attitudes not only influence their access to digital tools but also significantly shape the development of their skill sets and the effective use of digital technologies in agriculture. Consequently, attitude emerges as an important factor in appropriating digital technology. Furthermore, this study identifies personal characteristics of farmers, including gender, age, income, level of education, and the presence of school-going children in their households, as factors influencing digital inequalities. Policies should foster positive attitudes, enhance digital skills, ensure equitable access, and address gender-specific barriers to reduce digital inequalities among smallholder farmers in agriculture.
ACED (2023) Écosystème de l’agriculture numérique au Bénin: Une analyse de l’environnement institutionnel, des solutions numériques et des acteurs. Rapport de recherche. Abomey-Calavi, Bénin, p.46.
2.
BarrettHRoseDC (2022) Perceptions of the fourth agricultural revolution: what’s in, what’s out, and what consequences are anticipated?Sociologia Ruralis62: 162–189.
3.
Barzilai-NahonK (2006) Gaps and bits: conceptualizing measurements for digital divide/s. The Information Society22(5): 269–278.
4.
BlankGGroseljD (2014) Dimensions of Internet use: amount, variety, and types. Information, Communication & Society17(4): 417–435.
5.
BlankGReisdorfB (2023) Digital inequalities and public health during COVID-19: media dependency and vaccination. Information, Communication & Society26(5): 1045–1065.
6.
BoerPSVan DeursenAJVan RompayTJ (2019) Accepting the Internet-of-Things in our homes: the role of user skills. Telematics and Informatics36: 147–156.
7.
BolNHelbergerNWeertJC (2018) Differences in mobile health app use: a source of new digital inequalities?The Information Society34(3): 183–193.
8.
BüchiMFesticNLatzerM (2018) How social well-being is affected by digital inequalities. International Journal of Communication12: 3686–3706. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3871751.
9.
ChaqfehMAsimRAlShebliB, et al. (2023) Towards a World Wide Web without digital inequality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences120(3): e2212649120.
10.
ChenWLiX (2022) Digital inequalities in American disadvantaged urban communities: access, skills, and expectations for digital inclusion programs. Information, Communication & Society25(13): 1916–1933.
11.
DurandAZijlstraTvan OortN, et al. (2022) Access denied? Digital inequality in transport services. Transport Reviews42(1): 32–57.
12.
DurndellAHaagZ (2002) Computer self efficacy, computer anxiety, attitudes towards the Internet and reported experience with the Internet, by gender, in an East European sample. Computers in Human Behavior18(5): 521–535.
13.
EastwoodCKlerkxLAyreM, et al. (2019) Managing socio-ethical challenges in the development of smart farming: from a fragmented to a comprehensive approach for responsible research and innovation. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics32: 741–768.
14.
FrancisJBallCKadylakT, et al. (2019) Aging in the digital age: conceptualizing technology adoption and digital inequalities. In: Ageing and Digital Technology: Designing and Evaluating Emerging Technologies for Older Adults. Singapore: Springer, pp.35–49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3693-5_3
15.
GolderWNewmanLBiedrzyckiK, et al. (2010). Digital technology access and use as 21st century determinants of health: impact of social and economic disadvantage. In: Implementing Health in All Policies: Adelaide. Department of Health, South Australia, pp.133–143.
16.
HabibiAYusopFDRazakRA (2020) The role of TPACK in affecting pre-service language teachers’ ICT integration during teaching practices: Indonesian context. Education and Information Technologies25: 1929–1949.
17.
HelsperEJ (2020) Digital inequalities amongst digital natives. In: The Routledge Companion to Digital Media and Children. Australia: Routledge, pp.435–448.
18.
HeponiemiTGluschkoffKLeemannL, et al. (2023) Digital inequality in Finland: access, skills and attitudes as social impact mediators. New Media & Society25(9): 2475–2491.
19.
IslamMNInanTT (2021) Exploring the fundamental factors of digital inequality in Bangladesh. SAGE Open11(2): 21582440211021407.
20.
JantjiesM (2020) How South Africa can address digital inequalities in e-learning. The Conversation29: 3.
21.
LezocheMHernandezJEDíazMDMEA, et al. (2020) Agri-food 4.0: a survey of the supply chains and technologies for the future agriculture. Computers in Industry117: 103187.
22.
LiSXuLDZhaoS (2015) The internet of things: a survey. Information Systems Frontiers17: 243–259.
23.
LissitsaSZychlinskiEKaganM (2022) The silent generation vs baby boomers: socio-demographic and psychological predictors of the “gray” digital inequalities. Computers in Human Behavior128: 107098.
NguyenMHGruberJFuchsJ, et al. (2020) Changes in digital communication during the COVID-19 global pandemic: implications for digital inequality and future research. Social Media+ Society6(3): 2056305120948255.
26.
NguyenMHHargittaiEMarlerW (2021) Digital inequality in communication during a time of physical distancing: the case of COVID-19. Computers in Human Behavior120: 106717.
27.
OyedemiTD (2012) Digital inequalities and implications for social inequalities: a study of Internet penetration amongst university students in South Africa. Telematics and Informatics29(3): 302–313.
28.
ÖzsoyDMuschertG (2020) A comparison of high-skill and low-skill internet users in Northeast Anatolia, Turkey. In: Digital Inequalities in the Global South, pp.177–195. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32706-4_9.
29.
ParkS (2017) Digital inequalities in rural Australia: a double jeopardy of remoteness and social exclusion. Journal of Rural Studies54: 399–407.
30.
RamalingamBHernandezK (2016) 11. The multiple forms of digital inequality. In: World Social Science Report, 2016: Challenging Inequalities; Pathways to a Just World. France: UNESCO Publishing, p.68.
31.
ReisdorfBCGroseljD (2017) Internet (non-) use types and motivational access: implications for digital inequalities research. New Media & Society19(8): 1157–1176.
32.
RobinsonLCottenSROnoH, et al. (2015) Digital inequalities and why they matter. Information, Communication & Society18(5): 569–582.
33.
RoseDCChilversJ (2018) Agriculture 4.0: Broadening responsible innovation in an era of smart farming. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems2: 87.
34.
RoseKEldridgeSChapinL (2015) The internet of things: an overview. The Internet Society (ISOC)80(15): 1–53.
35.
Saiz-RubioVRovira-MásF (2020) From smart farming towards agriculture 5.0: a review on crop data management. Agronomy10(2): 07.
36.
ScheerderAVan DeursenAVan DijkJ (2017) Determinants of Internet skills, uses and outcomes. A systematic review of the second-and third-level digital divide. Telematics and Informatics34(8): 1607–1624.
37.
SenapathyM (2021) Digital divide on agriculture using ICT devices among the farmers in Wolaita Zone, Southern Ethiopia. Transformacje4(111): 3.
38.
ShepherdMTurnerJASmallB, et al. (2018) Priorities for science to overcome hurdles thwarting the full promise of the “digital agriculture” revolution. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture100(14): 5083–5092.
39.
SoomroKAKaleUCurtisR, et al. (2020) Digital divide among higher education faculty. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education17: 1–16.
40.
Torres-DiazJDuartJ (2015) Determinants of digital inequality in universities: the case of Ecuador. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society11(3): 150–161.
41.
TossouSHOkouFAKpanouSBVK (2020) A systematic review of policy enforcement as a catalyst for digitalizing agriculture in West and East Africa. Journal of African Development21(1): 68–95.
42.
van der ZeeuwAVan DeursenAJJansenG (2019) Inequalities in the social use of the Internet of Things: a capital and skills perspective. New Media & Society21(6): 1344–1361.
43.
Van DeursenAJHelsperEEynonR, et al. (2017) The compoundness and sequentiality of digital inequality. International Journal of Communication11: 452–473.
44.
Van DeursenAJvan der ZeeuwAde BoerP, et al. (2021) Digital inequalities in the Internet of Things: differences in attitudes, material access, skills, and usage. Information, Communication & Society24(2): 258–276.
45.
Van DeursenAJVan DijkJA (2014) Digital Skills: Unlocking the Information Society. Singapore: Springer.
46.
Van DijkJA (2005) The Deepening Divide: Inequality in the Information Society. USA: Sage publications.
47.
Van DijkJA (2013) A theory of the digital divide. In: The Digital Divide. London: Routledge, pp.49–72.
ZhangMZhaoPQiaoS (2020) Smartness-induced transport inequality: privacy concern,lacking knowledge of smartphone use and unequal access to transport information. Transport Policy99: 175–185.
