The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Adoption and diffusion of digital farming technologies - integrating farm-level evidence and system interaction
Open accessAbstract
Adoption and diffusion of digital farming technologies are expected to help transform current agricultural systems towards sustainability. To enable and steer transformation we need to understand the mechanisms of adoption and diffusion holistically. Our current understanding is mainly informed by empirical farm-level adoption studies and by agent-based models simulating systemic diffusion mechanisms. These two approaches are weakly integrated. Our objective is to build an empirically grounded conceptual framework for adoption and diffusion of digital farming technologies by synthesizing literature on these alternative approaches. We review 32 empirical farm-level studies on the adoption of precision and digital farming technologies and 27 agent-based models on the diffusion of agricultural innovations. Empirical findings are synthesized in terms of significance and partially standardized coefficients, and diffusion studies are categorized by their approaches and theoretical frameworks. We show that farm-level studies focus on farm and operator characteristics but pay less attention to attributes of technology, interactions, institutional and psychological factors. Agent-based models, despite their usefulness for representing system interaction, only loosely connect with empirical farm-level findings. Based on the identified gaps, we develop a conceptual framework integrating farm-level evidence on adoption with a systemic perspective on technology diffusion. Our empirically grounded conceptual framework is the first holistic approach to connect the dots between the wealth of empirical research on technology adoption with more model-driven investigation of innovation diffusion in agent-based studies. Focusing on digital farming technologies, it may serve as a reference for those studying the adoption and diffusion of such technologies beyond farm scale. Furthermore, this framework can be the basis for contextual applications to inform policy-makers trying to foster the diffusion of suitable digital technologies through interventions as it highlights where policy can impact important aspects of adoption via relevant processes of diffusion.
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
The theory of planned behavior
Ajzen, I. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t · Cited by 90,587
Perceived Behavioral Control, Self‐Efficacy, Locus of Control, and the Theory of Planned Behavior 1
Ajzen, I. (2002) · Journal of Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00236.x · Cited by 7,629
Exploring the adoption of precision agricultural technologies: a cross regional study of EU farmers
Barnes, A. P., Soto, I., Eory, V., Beck, B., Balafoutis, A., Sánchez, B., Vangeyte, J., Fountas, S., van der Wal, T., & Gómez-Barbero, M. (2019) · Land Use Policy · doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.10.004 · Cited by 494
A framework for mapping and comparing behavioural theories in models of social-ecological systems
Schlüter, M., Baeza, A., Dressler, G., Frank, K., Groeneveld, J., Jager, W., Janssen, M. A., McAllister, R. R. J., Müller, B., Orach, K., et al. (2017) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.08.008 · Cited by 475
Predicting farmer uptake of new agricultural practices: a tool for research, extension and policy
Kuehne, G., Llewellyn, R., Pannell, D. J., Wilkinson, R., Dolling, P., Ouzman, J., & Ewing, M. (2017) · Agricultural Systems · doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2017.06.007 · Cited by 367
Cited by
Aguiar-Noury, F., Buckley, C., & Hynes, S. (2025) · Agricultural Systems · doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2024.104202 · Cited by 12
Metadata
- Authors
- Shang, L., Heckelei, T., Gerullis, M. K., Börner, J., & Rasch, S.
- Venue
- Agricultural Systems
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-05
- Volume
- 190
- Pages
- 103074
- ISSN
- 0308-521X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3131531230
- Cited by
- 258
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 50.82
- 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
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.