Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 13 No. sp2 (2026): Recent Advances in Agriculture

Estimating the farmers’ acceptance of phygital services under the mobile agri support services (MASS) initiative: A difference-in-differences approach

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.12754
Submitted
15 November 2025
Published
12-05-2026

Abstract

Effective agricultural transformation in India requires inclusive models that can connect small and marginal farmers to timely knowledge, tools and services. Despite growing digital infrastructure, last-mile delivery remains a major challenge due to socio-economic and infrastructural barriers. This study evaluates the mobile agri support services (MASS) intervention of a phygital model integrating physical and digital extension tools to improve farmer engagement and adoption of agri-technologies in selected aspirational districts of Telangana. Mobile agri support services is a unique 'phygital' (physical + digital) platform tested for a period of one year (2nd June 2023 to 31st July 2024). A quasi-experimental research design with treatment and control groups was adopted. A total of 1000 farmers were selected from three aspirational districts of Telangana: Kumuram Bheem Asifabad, Jayashankar Bhupalpally and Bhadradri Kothagudem. A difference-in-difference (DID) approach and fixed-effects regression measured changes in farmers’ attitudes before and after the intervention. Results showed that before the intervention, over 85 % of farmers in both groups exhibited a low attitude toward phygital services and had little awareness of digital agricultural platforms. After the MASS intervention, 80–90 % of beneficiary farmers shifted to the high-attitude category, whereas 88–92 % of farmers in the control group remained in the low-attitude category. The DID analysis indicated a net increase of 78.11 units in attitude scores,  with the interaction effect statistically significant (p<0.01). Regression results further revealed that education, extension participation, media exposure, risk-taking ability and decision-making behaviour significantly influenced the adoption of phygital services. By combining mobile field demonstrations, expert interaction, soil testing, drone demonstrations and digital advisory platforms, the intervention effectively bridged the last-mile gap in agricultural extension. The findings highlight that phygital service delivery systems can serve as scalable and inclusive models for strengthening agricultural extension, improving technology adoption and supporting digital transformation in rural agriculture.

References

  1. 1. Chander M, Sulaiman RV. Phygital agricultural extension: the next frontier in knowledge delivery. J Ext Syst. 2021;37(2):1–10.
  2. 2. Rao DUM, Reddy AA, Kumar PS. Integrating physical and digital extension mechanisms for sustainable technology dissemination. Agric Ext Rev. 2022;34(3):10–18.
  3. 3. Nain MS, Singh R, Singh B. Digital and phygital innovations for last-mile agricultural extension: pathways and prospects. Indian J Ext Educ. 2023;59(1):1–9.
  4. 4. Singh SP, Reddy GP, Ramesh V. Evaluation of mobile agro-advisory vans for field-level extension delivery. J Agric Ext Manag. 2019;20(2):45–53.
  5. 5. Rajkumar R, Rao DUM, Sreekanth K. Mobile agro-service units for bridging the last-mile gap in technology dissemination. J Agric Ext Manag. 2021;22(1):33–42.
  6. 6. Meera SN, Jhamtani A, Rao DUM. Information and communication technology in agricultural development: a comparative analysis of three projects from India. Agric Res Ext Netw Pap. 2004;(135):1–56.
  7. 7. Saravanan R. ICTs for agricultural extension: Global experiments, innovations and experiences. New Delhi: New India Publishing Agency; 2010. https://doi.org/10.59317/9789389992816
  8. 8. Mittal S, Mehar M. Socio-economic factors affecting adoption of modern information and communication technology by farmers in India: analysis using multivariate logistic regression. Agric Econ Res Rev. 2016;29(2):265–74.
  9. 9. Jain R, Singh M, Chauhan J. Determinants of farmers’ intention toward mobile-based agricultural extension services: An application of UTAUT model. J Agric Educ Ext. 2020;26(2):175–88.
  10. 10. Sharma P, Singh S, Joshi R. Factors influencing adoption of ICT-based agricultural information systems among farmers in Northern India. Inf Technol Dev. 2021;27(2):292–310.
  11. 11. Cole S, Fernando AN. Mobileizing agricultural advice: technology adoption and knowledge gains from mobile phones. Am Econ Rev. 2020;110(10):3139–79.
  12. 12. Fabregas R, Kremer M, Schilbach F. Realizing the potential of digital development: the case of agricultural advice. Science. 2019;366(6471):eaay3038. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aay3038
  13. 13. Klerkx L, Jakku E, Labarthe P. A review of social science on digital agriculture, smart farming and agriculture 4.0: New contributions and a future research agenda. NJAS Wagening J Life Sci. 2019;90–91:100315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2019.100315
  14. 14. Birner R, Daum T, Pray C. Who drives the digital revolution in agriculture? A review of supply-side trends, players and challenges. Appl Econ Perspect Policy. 2021;43(4):1260–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13145
  15. 15. Trendov NM, Varas S, Zeng M. Digital technologies in agriculture and rural areas - status report. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); 2019.
  16. 16. Barrett CB, Benton TG, Cooper KA, Fanzo J, Gandhi R, Herrero M, et al. Bundling innovations to transform agri-food systems. Nat Sustain. 2022;5:974–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00661-8
  17. 17. Aker JC. Dial A for agriculture: A review of information and communication technologies for agricultural extension in developing countries. Agric Econ. 2011;42(6):631–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2011.00545.x

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.