General or Specific? Retrofitting AI and IoT-Enabled Hydroponic Grow Tents for Use in Different Climates Across Rural Africa
Abstract
Climate change threatens African subsistence farming with erratic rainfall, droughts, and seasonal shifts causing devastating crop failures. Hydroponic farming, often recommended to mitigate these threats, requires constant monitoring and knowledge, which can be overwhelming for first-time growers. Research has explored using the Internet of Things (IoT) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) to automate and monitor hydroponic systems. Still, few studies have tested these systems in the field with farmers. Our previous work involved an eight-month deployment of an AI and IoT-enabled hydroponic system with rural subsistence farmers in South Africa. We conducted focus groups and observed the hydroponic systems using a qualitative approach. This paper discusses lessons learned from deploying the system in Namibia. We found that generalized AI models are unlikely to succeed due to differences in water quality, climate, participant readiness, and internet connectivity. Therefore, AI and IoT systems for rural Africa must be tailor-made to be functional and effective for crop growth.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The application and hydroponic system had already been tested in the Donkerbos community for six months, revealing several challenges.
“Whereas the northern Otjisa community had no prior experience with the hydroponic system, the application and the hydroponic system had already been tested in the Donkerbos community for six months, revealing several challenges [71].”
From Designing Responsible AI with Indigenous Communities: Towards Participatory AI with ovaHimba and San People in Namibia (2026) · cites this paper as [71]
A relational focus on learning and co-evolvement between community, the AI systems and wider ecological environment would be the basis of a strong and long-term trustworthy relation.
“This relational focus on learning and co-evolvement between community, the AI systems and wider ecological environment would be the basis of a strong and long-term trustworthy relation Till et al. [70, 71], Winschiers-Theophilus et al. [77].”
From Designing Responsible AI with Indigenous Communities: Towards Participatory AI with ovaHimba and San People in Namibia (2026) · cites this paper as [71]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Indongo, N. N., Smith, R. C., Winschiers-Theophilus, H., Kandjengo, S., & Mbinge, U. (2026) · Proceedings of the 19th Participatory Design Conference 2026, Vol. 1: Full Papers · doi:10.1145/3796624.3796667
Self-citation
- Authors
- Till, S., Wilson, T., Karamata, R., Beukes, F., Kaundje, M., & Winschiers-Theophilus, H.
- Affiliations
- The Independent Institute of Education (ZA)
- Namibia University of Science and Technology (NA)
- Software Engineering, NUST,Windhoek,Namibia
- Venue
- 2024 International Conference on Emerging Trends in Networks and Computer Communications (ETNCC)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2024-07-23
- Pages
- 1-9
- OpenAlex
- W4405719005
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3
- FWCI
- 5.65
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Conference on Emerging Trends in Networks and Computer Communications (ETNCC) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Aquatic Science › Innovations in Aquaponics and Hydroponics Systems
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Smart Agriculture and AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › ICT in Developing Communities
- Keywords
- hydroponics, Internet of Things, artificial intelligence, subsistence farming, climate change adaptation, rural Africa, Namibia, water quality, internet access, farmer readiness, crop monitoring
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
