Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 369

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 62 of the 62 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Managing Socio-Ethical Challenges in the Development of Smart Farming: From a Fragmented to a Comprehensive Approach for Responsible Research and Innovation

Open access
Eastwood, C., Klerkx, L., Ayre, M., Dela Rue, B.·2019·Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics
DOI 10.1007/s10806-017-9704-5
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Smart farming (also referred to as digital farming, digital agriculture and precision agriculture) has largely been driven by productivity and efficiency aims, but there is an increasing awareness of potential socio-ethical challenges. The responsible research and innovation (RRI) approach aims to address such challenges but has had limited application in smart farming contexts. Using smart dairying research and development (R&D) in New Zealand (NZ) as a case study, we examine the extent to which principles of RRI have been applied in NZ smart dairying development and assess the broader lessons for RRI application in smart farming. We draw on insights from: a review of research on dairy technology use in NZ; interviews with smart dairying stakeholders; and the application of an analytical framework based on RRI dimensions. We conclude that smart dairying R&D and innovation activities have focused on technology development and on-farm use without considering socio-ethical implications and have excluded certain actors such as citizens and consumers. This indicates that readiness to enact RRI in this context is not yet optimal, and future RRI efforts require leadership by government or dairy sector organisations to fully embed RRI principles in the guidelines for large R&D project design (what has also been referred to as ‘RRI maturity’). More broadly, enacting RRI in smart farming requires initial identification of RRI readiness in a given sector or country and devising a roadmap and coherent project portfolio to support capacity building for enacting RRI. Additionally, methods (such as RRI indicators) for operationalising RRI must be adapted to the context of the national or sectoral innovation system in which smart farming is being developed.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10806-017-9704-5

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 62 references

Research works printed but not linked: 27

  1. Ballingall, J., & Pambudi, D. (2017). Dairy trade’s economic contribution to New Zealand (pp. 1–42). Wellington, New Zealand: NZ Institute of Economic Research (Inc).
  2. Bronson, K. (2015). Responsible to whom? Seed innovations and the corporatization of agriculture. Journal of Responsible Innovation,2(1), 62–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2015.1010769 . · doi:10.1080/23299460.2015.1010769
  3. Bruijnis, M. R. N., Blok, V., Stassen, E. N., & Gremmen, H. G. J. (2015). Moral “lock-In” in responsible innovation: The ethical and social aspects of killing day-old chicks and Its alternatives. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics,28(5), 939–960. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-015-9566-7 . · doi:10.1007/s10806-015-9566-7
  4. Dela Rue, B. T., & Eastwood, C. R. (2017). Individualised feeding of concentrate supplement in pasture-based dairy systems: Practices and perceptions of New Zealand dairy farmers and their advisors. Animal Production Science,57(7), 1543–1549. https://doi.org/10.1071/AN16471 . · doi:10.1071/an16471
  5. Doole, G. J., & Romera, A. J. (2015). Trade-offs between profit, production, and environmental footprint on pasture-based dairy farms in the Waikato region of New Zealand. Agricultural Systems,141, 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2015.09.005 . · doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2015.09.005
  6. Draganova, I., Yule, I., Stevenson, M., & Betteridge, K. (2016). The effects of temporal and environmental factors on the urination behaviour of dairy cows using tracking and sensor technologies. Precision Agriculture,17, 407–420. · doi:10.1007/s11119-015-9427-4
  7. Driessen, C., & Heutinck, L. (2015). Cows desiring to be milked? Milking robots and the co-evolution of ethics and technology on Dutch dairy farms. Agriculture and Human Values,32(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-014-9515-5 . · doi:10.1007/s10460-014-9515-5
  8. Eastwood, C. R., Jago, J. G., Edwards, J. P., & Burke, J. K. (2016). Getting the most out of advanced farm management technologies: Roles of technology suppliers and dairy industry organisations in supporting precision dairy farmers. Animal Production Science,56(10), 1752–1760. https://doi.org/10.1071/AN141015 . · doi:10.1071/an141015
  9. Eastwood, C. R., & Yule, I. (2015). Challenges and opportunities for precision dairy farming in New Zealand. Farm Policy Journal,12(1), 33–41.
  10. Grandin, T. (2014). Animal welfare and society concerns finding the missing link. Meat Science,98(3), 461–469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.05.011 . · doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.05.011
  11. Guston, D. H. (2014a). Giving content to responsible innovation. Journal of Responsible Innovation,1(3), 251–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2014.972085 . · doi:10.1080/23299460.2014.972085
  12. Holloway, L., Bear, C., & Wilkinson, K. (2014). Robotic milking technologies and renegotiating situated ethical relationships on UK dairy farms. Agriculture and Human Values,31(2), 185–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-013-9473-3 . · doi:10.1007/s10460-013-9473-3
  13. Iatridis, K., & Schroeder, D. (2016). Responsible research and innovation in industry: The case for corporate responsibility tools. Cham: Springer International Publishing. · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21693-5
  14. Jago, J., Eastwood, C. R., Kerrisk, K., & Yule, I. (2013). Precision dairy farming in Australasia: Adoption, risks and opportunities. Animal Production Science,53(9), 907–916. https://doi.org/10.1071/AN12330 . · doi:10.1071/an12330
  15. Kamphuis, C., Dela Rue, B. T., & Eastwood, C. R. (2016). Field validation of protocols developed to evaluate in-line mastitis detection systems. Journal of Dairy Science,99(2), 1619–1631. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-10253 . · doi:10.3168/jds.2015-10253
  16. Kolbach, R., Kerrisk, K. L., García, S. C., & Dhand, N. K. (2012). Attachment accuracy of a novel prototype robotic rotary and investigation of two management strategies for incomplete milked quarters. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture,88, 120–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2012.07.011 . · doi:10.1016/j.compag.2012.07.011
  17. LIC & DairyNZ. (2016). New Zealand dairy statistics 2015–16. Hamilton: DairyNZ.
  18. Macnaghten, P. (2016). Responsible innovation and the reshaping of existing technological trajectories: The hard case of genetically modified crops. Journal of Responsible Innovation,3(3), 282–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2016.1255700 . · doi:10.1080/23299460.2016.1255700
  19. Millar, K. M. (2000). Respect for animal autonomy in bioethical analysis: The case of Automatic Milking Systems (AMS). Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics,12(1), 41–50. · doi:10.1023/a:1009548025408
  20. Ravn, T., Nielsen, M. W., & Mejlgaard, N. (2015). Metrics and indicators of Responsible Research and Innovation Progress report D3.2. European Commission, Brussels.
  21. Saunders, C., Dalziel, P., Guenther, M., Saunders, J., & Rutherford, P. (2016). The land and the brand. AERU Research Report No. 339. Lincoln, New Zealand: Lincoln University. AERU.
  22. Schrijver, R., Poppe, K., & Daheim, C. (2016). Precision agriculture and the future of farming in Europe: Scientific Foresight Study. Brussels: European Parliament Research Service.
  23. Shadbolt, N., Apparao, D., Hunter, S., Bicknell, K., & Dooley, A. (2017). Scenario analysis to determine possible, plausible futures for the New Zealand dairy industry. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research,60(3), 349–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.2017.1351377 . · doi:10.1080/00288233.2017.1351377
  24. Tipples, R., & Wilson, J. (2005). The dairy farming population and migrations. Primary Industry Management,8(1), 41–45.
  25. Umstatter, C. (2011). The evolution of virtual fences: A review. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture,75(1), 10–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2010.10.005 . · doi:10.1016/j.compag.2010.10.005
  26. Wiek, A., Foley, R. W., Guston, D. H., & Bernstein, M. J. (2016). Broken promises and breaking ground for responsible innovation: Intervention research to transform business-as-usual in nanotechnology innovation. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,28(6), 639–650. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2015.1129399 . · doi:10.1080/09537325.2015.1129399
  27. Woolford, M., Claycomb, R., Jago, J., Davis, K., Ohnstad, I., Wieliczko, R., et al. (2004). Automatic dairy farming in New Zealand using extensive grazing systems. In Proceedings of an International Symposium on Automatic Milking: A Better Understanding, 2004 (pp. 280–285).

Cited by

See all 369

Metadata

Authors
Eastwood, C., Klerkx, L., Ayre, M., & Dela Rue, B.
Venue
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2017-12-26
Volume
32
Issue
5-6
Pages
741-768
ISSN
  • 0893-4282 (ISSN-L)
  • 1187-7863
  • 1573-322X
DOI
10.1007/s10806-017-9704-5
OpenAlex
W2777145000
Cited by
369
References
62
FWCI
13.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 (tdm)
Funders
  • DairyNZ
  • Ministry of Primary Industries New Zealand

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Managing Socio-Ethical Challenges in the Development of Smart Farming: From a Fragmented to a Comprehensive Approach for Responsible Research and Innovation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s10806-017-9704-5
The paper
Eastwood, C., Klerkx, L., Ayre, M., & Dela Rue, B. (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 Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-017-9704-5

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.