The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Decision support tools for agriculture: Towards effective design and delivery
Open accessAbstract
Decision support tools, usually considered to be software-based, may be an important part of the quest for evidence-based decision-making in agriculture to improve productivity and environmental outputs. These tools can lead users through clear steps and suggest optimal decision paths or may act more as information sources to improve the evidence base for decisions. Yet, despite their availability in a wide range of formats, studies in several countries have shown uptake to be disappointingly low. This paper uses a mixed methods approach to investigate the factors affecting the uptake and use of decision support tools by farmers and advisers in the UK. Through a combination of qualitative interviews and quantitative surveys, we found that fifteen factors are influential in convincing farmers and advisers to use decision support tools, which include usability, cost-effectiveness, performance, relevance to user, and compatibility with compliance demands. This study finds a plethora of agricultural decision support tools in operation in the UK, yet, like other studies, shows that their uptake is low. A better understanding of the fifteen factors identified should lead to more effective design and delivery of tools in the future.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing
R Core Team (2025) · doi:10.32614/r.manuals · Cited by 352,181
User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward A Unified View1
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036540 · Cited by 45,035
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/41410412 · Cited by 15,756
The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): a literature review
Williams, M. D., Rana, N. P., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2015) · Journal of Enterprise Information Management · doi:10.1108/jeim-09-2014-0088 · Cited by 1,339
Changing systems for supporting farmers' decisions: problems, paradigms, and prospects
McCown, R. L. (2002) · Agricultural Systems · doi:10.1016/s0308-521x(02)00026-4 · Cited by 456
Ingram, J. (2008) · Agriculture and Human Values · doi:10.1007/s10460-008-9134-0 · Cited by 277
Organising evidence for environmental management decisions: a ‘4S’ hierarchy
Dicks, L. V., Walsh, J. C., & Sutherland, W. J. (2014) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2014.09.004 · Cited by 249
Self-citationFactors influencing decision support system acceptance
Shibl, R., Lawley, M., & Debuse, J. (2013) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2012.09.018 · Cited by 193
Rossi, V., Salinari, F., Poni, S., Caffi, T., & Bettati, T. (2013) · Computers and Electronics in Agriculture · doi:10.1016/j.compag.2013.10.011 · Cited by 190
The Use and Role of Predictive Systems in Disease Management
Gent, D. H., Mahaffee, W. F., McRoberts, N., & Pfender, W. F. (2013) · Annual Review of Phytopathology · doi:10.1146/annurev-phyto-082712-102356 · Cited by 132
Cited by
Revolution 4.0: Industry vs. Agriculture in a Future Development for SMEs
Zambon, I., Cecchini, M., Egidi, G., Saporito, M. G., & Colantoni, A. (2019) · Processes · doi:10.3390/pr7010036 · Cited by 426
Fuzzy Logic based Smart Irrigation System using Internet of Things
Krishnan, R. S., Julie, E. G., Robinson, Y. H., Raja, S., Kumar, R., Thong, P. H., & Son, L. H. (2020) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119902 · Cited by 269
Le Gal, P.-Y., Andrieu, N., Bruelle, G., Dugué, P., Monteil, C., Moulin, C.-H., Penot, E., & Ryschawy, J. (2022) · Computers and Electronics in Agriculture · doi:10.1016/j.compag.2021.106570 · Cited by 24
Metadata
- Authors
- Rose, D. C., Sutherland, W. J., Parker, C., Lobley, M., Winter, M., Morris, C., Twining, S., Ffoulkes, C., Amano, T., & Dicks, L. V.
- Venue
- Agricultural Systems
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-11
- Volume
- 149
- Pages
- 165-174
- ISSN
- 0308-521X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2524584798
- Cited by
- 528
- References
- 14
- FWCI
- 104.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: Decision support tools for agriculture: Towards effective design and delivery. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.09.009
- The paper
- Rose, D. C., Sutherland, W. J., Parker, C., Lobley, M., Winter, M., Morris, C., Twining, S., Ffoulkes, C., Amano, T., & Dicks, L. V. (2016). Decision support tools for agriculture: Towards effective design and delivery. Agricultural Systems. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.09.009
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.
