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 accessAbstract
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.
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
Bourdieu, P. (1990) · doi:10.1515/9781503621749 · Cited by 17,271
Geels, F. W. (2002) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(02)00062-8 · Cited by 7,275
From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems
Geels, F. W. (2004) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.015 · Cited by 4,098
The Data Revolution: Big Data, Open Data, Data Infrastructures & Their Consequences
Kitchin, R. (2014) · doi:10.4135/9781473909472 · Cited by 1,469 · cited 1×
“Big Data applications are already being deployed to improve productivity and profitability in many sectors (van Rijmenam, 2017; Davenport and Dyché, 2013; Kitchin and Data, 2014).”
The Dynamics of Social Practice
(2012) · The Dynamics of Social Practice: Everyday Life and How it Changes · doi:10.4135/9781446250655.n1 · Cited by 846
Jakku, E., & Thorburn, P. J. (2010) · Agricultural Systems · doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2010.08.007 · Cited by 204
Self-citationGreen tides in Brittany: What can we learn about niche–regime interactions?
Diaz, M., Darnhofer, I., Darrot, C., & Beuret, J.-E. (2013) · Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions · doi:10.1016/j.eist.2013.04.002 · Cited by 130
Cited by
Klerkx, L., Jakku, E., & Labarthe, P. (2019) · NJAS: Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.njas.2019.100315 · Cited by 1,307
Self-citationLajoie-O'Malley, A., Bronson, K., van der Burg, S., & Klerkx, L. (2020) · Ecosystem Services · doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101183 · Cited by 390
The role of sensors, big data and machine learning in modern animal farming
Neethirajan, S. (2020) · Sensing and Bio-Sensing Research · doi:10.1016/j.sbsr.2020.100367 · Cited by 375
The Digitisation of Agriculture: a Survey of Research Activities on Smart Farming
Bacco, M., Barsocchi, P., Ferro, E., Gotta, A., & Ruggeri, M. (2019) · Array · doi:10.1016/j.array.2019.100009 · Cited by 346
Agriculture 4.0: Making it work for people, production, and the planet
Rose, D. C., Wheeler, R., Winter, M., Lobley, M., & Chivers, C.-A. (2021) · Land Use Policy · doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104933 · Cited by 346
Metadata
- Authors
- Jakku, E., Taylor, B., Fleming, A., Mason, C., Fielke, S., Sounness, C., & Thorburn, P.
- Venue
- NJAS: Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- 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.