Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 300

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

“If they don’t tell us what they do with it, why would we trust them?” Trust, transparency and benefit-sharing in Smart Farming

Open access
Jakku, Emma, Taylor, Bruce, Fleming, Aysha, Mason, Claire, Fielke, Simon, Sounness, Chris, Thorburn, Peter·2019·NJAS: Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences

Abstract

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.

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 · 10.1016/j.njas.2018.11.002

Cites

7 of 7 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 7 references

Cited by

See all 300

Metadata

Authors
Jakku, E., Taylor, B., Fleming, A., Mason, C., Fielke, S., Sounness, C., & Thorburn, P.
Venue
NJAS: Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences
Published
2019-12-01
Volume
90-91
Issue
1
Pages
1-13
ISSN
  • 1573-5214 (ISSN-L)
  • 2212-1307
OpenAlex
W2904911455
Cited by
300
References
7
FWCI
17.19
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: “If they don’t tell us what they do with it, why would we trust them?” Trust, transparency and benefit-sharing in Smart Farming. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.njas.2018.11.002
The paper
Jakku, E., Taylor, B., Fleming, A., Mason, C., Fielke, S., Sounness, C., & Thorburn, P. (2019). “If they don’t tell us what they do with it, why would we trust them?” Trust, transparency and benefit-sharing in Smart Farming. NJAS: Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2018.11.002

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.