Studies included in the final dataset.

<div><p>Automation and robotics technologies in agriculture promise to increase productivity with a smaller environmental footprint. However, adoption of agri-innovations is rarely a simple decision. The decision to adopt is determined by numerous factors. Employing a mixed methods narrative, interpretive knowledge synthesis, we review 72 unique studies between 2017–2021, and conduct a thematic analysis. Noting the innate complexity of agriculture, we identify 13 determinants of adoption of automation and robotic technologies in agriculture: data; farm characteristics and surrounding physical environment; farmer characteristics; policy and regulation; labour’s absorptive capacity; social elements; interoperability; standards; access to information; operational benefits; public infrastructure; technological characteristics; and uncertainty and risk. We conclude with seven observations. First, while automation and robotics are promising agri-innovations, they will not be appropriate or beneficial for all farms. There are other forms of agricultural innovation, and their uptake likely will always vary even within the same commodity and region. Second, taking a reductive approach to understanding adoption of agri-innovations may hinder the transformation to sustainable agriculture production systems; it is important to understand the role of complexity in shaping the dynamic interplay among determinants. Third, public infrastructure is more than just the Internet, yet there was little reference to other forms of public infrastructure in the dataset. Fourth, while many papers argue public policy is important for increasing the adoption of these innovations, few provide concrete policy suggestions or scalable examples. Fifth, trust and transparency are central to adoption. Technology developers need to take farmers concerns and needs seriously. Sixth, technology developers must offer practical solutions to real problems. Seventh, automation and robotics encompasses many technologies, and yet no standard or consistent terminology exists. This makes communication about these innovations more difficult. We propose a typology under the rubric of data-driven agricultural technologies.</p></div>

Publication Details

Journal
Figshare
Published
2024-11-18
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000110.s001
Primary Topic
Smart Agriculture and AI
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Studies included in the final dataset.

Figshare
Smart Agriculture and AI
article

Studies included in the final dataset.

article en

Abstract

<div><p>Automation and robotics technologies in agriculture promise to increase productivity with a smaller environmental footprint. However, adoption of agri-innovations is rarely a simple decision. The decision to adopt is determined by numerous factors. Employing a mixed methods narrative, interpretive knowledge synthesis, we review 72 unique studies between 2017–2021, and conduct a thematic analysis. Noting the innate complexity of agriculture, we identify 13 determinants of adoption of automation and robotic technologies in agriculture: data; farm characteristics and surrounding physical environment; farmer characteristics; policy and regulation; labour’s absorptive capacity; social elements; interoperability; standards; access to information; operational benefits; public infrastructure; technological characteristics; and uncertainty and risk. We conclude with seven observations. First, while automation and robotics are promising agri-innovations, they will not be appropriate or beneficial for all farms. There are other forms of agricultural innovation, and their uptake likely will always vary even within the same commodity and region. Second, taking a reductive approach to understanding adoption of agri-innovations may hinder the transformation to sustainable agriculture production systems; it is important to understand the role of complexity in shaping the dynamic interplay among determinants. Third, public infrastructure is more than just the Internet, yet there was little reference to other forms of public infrastructure in the dataset. Fourth, while many papers argue public policy is important for increasing the adoption of these innovations, few provide concrete policy suggestions or scalable examples. Fifth, trust and transparency are central to adoption. Technology developers need to take farmers concerns and needs seriously. Sixth, technology developers must offer practical solutions to real problems. Seventh, automation and robotics encompasses many technologies, and yet no standard or consistent terminology exists. This makes communication about these innovations more difficult. We propose a typology under the rubric of data-driven agricultural technologies.</p></div>

Figshare
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 47%
Smart Agriculture and AI
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.