Njas-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences最新文献

The absence of legal and regulatory frameworks around the collection, sharing and use of agricultural data contributes to the range of challenges currently being faced by farmers considering adoption of smart farming technologies. Many laws potentially influence the ownership, control of and access to data, in this paper we examine the attitudes of farmers to the collection, control, sharing and use of their farm data. Australian agriculture and the attitudes of Australian farmers to the adoption and uptake of smart farming technologies is used to highlight the tensions., however the issues and challenges raised are common to many agricultural industries throughout the world. We combine insights from a survey of Australian farmers with a legal analysis of the way in which agricultural data are collected, controlled, shared and used. We argue that the lack of transparency and clarity around issues such as data ownership, portability, privacy, trust and liability in the commercial relationships governing smart farming are contributing to farmers’ reluctance to engage in the widespread sharing of their farm data that smart farming facilitates. At the heart of the concerns is the lack of trust between the farmers as data contributors, and those third parties who collect, aggregate and share their data. The aim of this paper is to examine the issues giving rise to this lack of trust. We conclude with recommendations on how to address these concerns and facilitate the improved adoption of smart farming technologies, focusing on the need for the social architecture of the agricultural data relationships to change. To achieve this change, open dialogue, education and awareness raising and good data governance are essential to help build trust in the adoption of smart farming systems.

While there is a lot of literature from a natural or technical sciences perspective on different forms of digitalization in agriculture (big data, internet of things, augmented reality, robotics, sensors, 3D printing, system integration, ubiquitous connectivity, artificial intelligence, digital twins, and blockchain among others), social science researchers have recently started investigating different aspects of digital agriculture in relation to farm production systems, value chains and food systems. This has led to a burgeoning but scattered social science body of literature. There is hence lack of overview of how this field of study is developing, and what are established, emerging, and new themes and topics. This is where this article aims to make a contribution, beyond introducing this special issue which presents seventeen articles dealing with social, economic and institutional dynamics of precision farming, digital agriculture, smart farming or agriculture 4.0. An exploratory literature review shows that five thematic clusters of extant social science literature on digitalization in agriculture can be identified: 1) Adoption, uses and adaptation of digital technologies on farm; 2) Effects of digitalization on farmer identity, farmer skills, and farm work; 3) Power, ownership, privacy and ethics in digitalizing agricultural production systems and value chains; 4) Digitalization and agricultural knowledge and innovation systems (AKIS); and 5) Economics and management of digitalized agricultural production systems and value chains. The main contributions of the special issue articles are mapped against these thematic clusters, revealing new insights on the link between digital agriculture and farm diversity, new economic, business and institutional arrangements both on-farm, in the value chain and food system, and in the innovation system, and emerging ways to ethically govern digital agriculture. Emerging lines of social science enquiry within these thematic clusters are identified and new lines are suggested to create a future research agenda on digital agriculture, smart farming and agriculture 4.0. Also, four potential new thematic social science clusters are also identified, which so far seem weakly developed: 1) Digital agriculture socio-cyber-physical-ecological systems conceptualizations; 2) Digital agriculture policy processes; 3) Digitally enabled agricultural transition pathways; and 4) Global geography of digital agriculture development. This future research agenda provides ample scope for future interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary science on precision farming, digital agriculture, smart farming and agriculture 4.0.

Advances in Smart Farming and Big Data applications have the potential to help agricultural industries meet productivity and sustainability challenges. However, these benefits are unlikely to be realised if the social implications of these technological innovations are not adequately considered by those who promote them. Big Data applications are intrinsically socio-technical; their development and deployment are a product of social interactions between people, institutional and regulatory settings, as well as the technology itself. This paper explores the socio-technical factors and conditions that influence the development of Smart Farming and Big Data applications, using a multi-level perspective on transitions combined with social practice theory. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 26 Australian grain farmers and industry stakeholders to elicit their perspectives on benefits and risks of these changes. The analysis shows that issues related to trust are central concerns for many participants. These include procedural concerns about transparency and distributional concerns about who will benefit from access to and use of “farmers’ data”. These concerns create scepticism about the value of ‘smart’ technologies amongst some industry stakeholders, especially farmers. It also points to a divergence of expectations and norms between actors and institutions at the regime and niche levels in the emerging transition towards Smart Farming. Bridging this divide will require niche level interventions to enhance the agency of farmers and their local networks in these transactions, and, the cooperative design of new institutions at regime level to facilitate the fair and transparent allocation of risk and benefit in farming data information chains.

Economic viability of urban and peri-urban agriculture (UPA) is the key requirement for additional social, environmental, and landscape functions within urban and peri-urban areas. However the rapid progress of urbanization drives the loss of farmlands to industrial, residential and other urban uses, and the decline of farms and population working in agriculture. Hence, the literature highlights the need to popularize new ideas and strategies of preserving and developing farms in urbanized areas.The main aim of this research is both to identify and assess determinants of success of farms located in urban and peri-urban areas. The key question that has arisen is: how do different adjustment strategies, locations and farm resources affect the success of farms? For this purpose a web survey was conducted among 199 professional urban and peri-urban farms in the Ruhr Metropolis (Germany). It is an old-industrialized polycentric urban agglomeration where agriculture has a comparably high level of significance in current land use. Analyses were conducted taking a resource-based view and using the classification tree method. The data indicate that farms which use various adjustment strategies are more successful. Elements of successful strategies, are include tourism services (mainly horse-riding) and direct marketing. Results further indicate that the effectiveness of those strategies (farm success) is mainly dependent upon a farms locations. Distance from the customer seem to be of utmost importance, because by minimizing transport costs, customers choose entities that have the most convenient location for them. By assessing farm success from a long-term perspective, it was noted that positive prospects of development apply mainly to full-time farmers who use appropriate adjustment strategies. In contrast, farms, which do not use any elements of strategies relating to customers from urban areas, seem to achieve success chiefly from having a relatively large surface area of farmland.

Farmers may vary in their response to or anticipation of agrifood market changes, which probably depends on their entrepreneurial degree and networks. This paper aims to investigate the effects of farmers’ entrepreneurial degree and network content (i.e., business ties, technology ties, and network heterogeneity) on farm performance (i.e., innovative performance and financial performance). The data set was gathered through a survey of 262 vegetable farmers in West Java, Indonesia. Our findings reveal that more entrepreneurial farmers (106) have more business ties, technology ties, and heterogeneous networks compared to less entrepreneurial farmers (156). Further analyses using OLS regression confirm that farmers who are more entrepreneurial and have more business ties obtain both enhanced innovative and financial performance, while farmers who link to heterogeneous networks obtain only enhanced innovative performance. Overall, the findings of this study demonstrate that more entrepreneurial farmers with networks that are rich in business ties and diverse contacts have better farm performance.

Agricultural techniques and technologies that could foster sustainable intensification of farming (hereafter: SI practices) can originate from existing farm practices, from the adoption of externally suggested new practices, or from an adaptation of existing or new practices. The rate at which farmers use SI practices is often low and influenced by on-farm biophysical and socio-economic conditions. There is a narrow understanding of the role of motivations and the balance between external incentives and intrinsic motivations for use of SI practices. We analysed the role of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations among 246 sampled households alongside the perceived benefits and constraints from SI practices in five districts of Malawi and Tanzania. Our results showed that farmer decisions were not exclusively dependent on external incentives, but also on intrinsic values which farmers attach to their production resources and farming practices. Despite various benefits perceived, farmers highlighted the lack of financial resources as a major constraint to the use of externally proposed SI practices. While we hypothesized that intrinsic motivation would be much stronger than extrinsic in influencing decisions to use SI practices, our results demonstrated equal importance of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations in influencing the number of SI practices which smallholder farmers used. We suggest explicitly addressing both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations in further research in combination with socio-economic and biophysical variables to give a better reflection of what drives farmers’ decisions to use more sustainable farming practices. We argue that the design of SI research programs should support motivations of diversified farmers to participate in such programs. Emphasising farmers’ autonomy, a key to intrinsic motivation, can stimulate ownership of SI projects and smoothen the process of adoption, adaptation and use of SI practices by farmers, and is expected to reduce the mismatch between proposed practices and farmers’ expectations.

Citizens’ valuation of agrobiodiversity is important for retaining political interest in the subject, for legitimising agri-environment schemes and other conservation initiatives and for their own willingness to contribute to agrobiodiversity conservation. Still little is known about whether and how citizens value agrobiodiversity, how these valuations can be explained and what they imply for citizens’ preparedness to contribute to the enhancement of agrobiodiversity. We report on the findings of an exploratory survey aimed at uncovering the above mechanisms among a specific subgroup of Dutch citizens: students. We conclude that (a) students appreciate the intrinsic and aesthetic values of agrobiodiversity to some extent, but not its instrumental value; (b) valuations correlate with students’ fundamental values; (c) students’ attitudes correlate strongly to how they value agrobiodiversity. We recommend follow-up research among a more representative sample of Dutch citizens, with the aims to further test the mechanisms, assess valuations of agrobiodiversity by Dutch citizens in general and explore whether and how these valuations can be enhanced by the provision of information about the intrinsic and aesthetic values of agrobiodiversity.

The agriculture sector of the Donbass Region in eastern Ukraine is facing serious challenges caused by the ongoing military conflict and consequent disruption of the earlier-established value chains. An advisory service potentially could help farmers to adapt to the changed circumstances. To inform the development process, an interview survey was conducted among 80 farmers in the region of their perceived information and advisory needs. Most interviewees stated that many issues affect the performance of their farm. Of all the given farmer × issue ‘interactions’ (i.e. a given farmer facing a specific issue), advice had been sought in around 70 per cent of instances. For any specific issue, most farmers sought advice from several sources. Interviewees attached very high importance to accessibility, convenience, previous personal experience, personal recommendation and confidence in the quality of advice given. Friends and family was the most popular source of advice, with farmers’ organisations, local government agencies and agricultural Internet portals all being consulted by more than half of the interviewees. Many other sources were used by fewer than ten farmers. Twelve interviewees said that they would seek advice from advisory services if this was available. Following the analysis of the questionnaire results, three farmer focus groups were held to help interpret them. We conclude that, even in the absence of a formal advisory service, many farmers in the region are actively acquiring and sharing knowledge and that the agricultural innovation system continues to function despite the disruption caused by the conflict. Any new intervention should recognise this fact and be designed to improve knowledge flows between actors further, rather than to replace those that currently exist.

Upland agricultural systems are rapidly transitioning from traditional shifting cultivation to more commercialized agriculture, i.e. annual cash crop cultivation – a trend widely observed in the uplands of Northern Lao P.D.R. and with consequences to household livelihood strategies at the village-level. The main objective of this study was to compare village and household socioeconomic standings of two upland agricultural systems varying in degree of commercialization in Northern Lao P.D.R.: i) Navene, a village with a relatively recent introduction (2010) of the cash crop, fodder maize, where it is cultivated extensively with no added external inputs or mechanization and ii) Ko Ngiaw, where cultivation was introduced in 2004 and fodder maize is now successively cultivated on ploughed upland fields with herbicide application. Participatory mapping, household surveys (during planting and harvesting), farmer activity books and ranking exercises were conducted to collect data on village and household resources, crop production (upland rice, paddy rice and maize), labour productivity (maize) and general perspectives on commercial agriculture. We show both infrastructure development and accessibility (market access, support and services) are important underlying drivers of the commercialization of agriculture in upland areas. This leads to a transition of upland livelihoods towards market–orientation, with implications to household demographics, socioeconomic standings and income portfolios. Results capture how market integration progressively decouples livelihood strategies from the ‘land’, exposing households to market volatilizations, indebtedness and socio-cultural losses. Food security is no longer perceived from a ‘producer’s’ standpoint but from a ‘consumer’s’ as commercialized upland households are more dependent on markets for their food supply. We conclude that proper services, support and access to i.e. markets or non-farm employment in conjunction with infrastructure development should be prioritized if upland households are to transition towards commercialized agriculture equally and with minimal risk to their livelihood security.