IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v12y2023i1p179-d1026294.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Practicing Critical Zone Observation in Agricultural Landscapes: Communities, Technology, Environment and Archaeology

Author

Listed:
  • Rachel Opitz

    (Archaeology, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK)

  • Philippe De Smedt

    (Department of Environment & Department of Archaeology, Ghent University, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium)

  • Victorino Mayoral-Herrera

    (Instituto Arqueologia Mérida, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 06800 Mérida, Spain)

  • Stefano Campana

    (Landscape Archaeology & Remote Sensing Lab, Dipartimento di Scienze Storiche e dei Beni Culturali, University of Siena, 53100 Siena, Italy)

  • Marco Vieri

    (Department of Agricultural, Alimentary, Environmental and Forestry Sciences, University of Florence, 50121 Florence, Italy)

  • Eamonn Baldwin

    (Archaeology, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK)

  • Carolina Perna

    (Department of Agricultural, Alimentary, Environmental and Forestry Sciences, University of Florence, 50121 Florence, Italy)

  • Daniele Sarri

    (Department of Agricultural, Alimentary, Environmental and Forestry Sciences, University of Florence, 50121 Florence, Italy)

  • Jeroen Verhegge

    (Department of Environment & Department of Archaeology, Ghent University, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium)

Abstract

The aims of agricultural land management change continuously, reflecting shifts in wider societal priorities. Currently, these include addressing the climate crisis, promoting environmental sustainability, and supporting the livelihoods of rural communities while ensuring food security. Working toward these aims requires information on the character of agricultural land and how dynamic processes influence it. Remote and near-surface sensing data are important sources of information on the characteristics of soils, plants, water, topography, and related processes. Sensing data are collected, analysed, and used in decision-making by specialists in multiple domains connected to land management. While progress has been made to connect the use of sensing data across agricultural and environmental applications under the umbrella of integrated sustainable land management, archaeological and heritage uses of these data remain largely disconnected. This creates barriers to accounting for the impacts of past human activities on contemporary agricultural landscapes through the alteration of soils, topography, and plant communities. In parallel, it hinders the creation of knowledge about the archaeological features which form an essential part of the heritage of agricultural landscapes. The ipaast-czo project explores the potential of a coordinated approach across all these domains, which would reduce these barriers and provide benefits by better integrating information generated using sensing. To do so, both conceptual and practical barriers to developing shared practices and how these might be overcome were considered. In this study, a conceptual framework designed to create a shared understanding of how agricultural landscapes work and enable collaboration around their management was proposed. This framework treats present-day rural agricultural landscapes as Critical Zones: complex entities shaped by long-term human–environment interactions including contemporary farming. Practitioners in precision agriculture and archaeological remote and near-surface sensing, as well as users of these data, were engaged using workshops and interviews. The relationships between practitioners’ objectives, data requirements for their applications, and their perceptions of the benefits and disadvantages of changing working practices were interrogated. The conceptual framework and assessment of practical benefits and challenges emerging from this work provide a foundation for leveraging shared sensing data and methods for long-term integrated sustainable land management.

Suggested Citation

  • Rachel Opitz & Philippe De Smedt & Victorino Mayoral-Herrera & Stefano Campana & Marco Vieri & Eamonn Baldwin & Carolina Perna & Daniele Sarri & Jeroen Verhegge, 2023. "Practicing Critical Zone Observation in Agricultural Landscapes: Communities, Technology, Environment and Archaeology," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-20, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:1:p:179-:d:1026294
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/1/179/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/1/179/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Basharat Ali & Peter Dahlhaus, 2022. "The Role of FAIR Data towards Sustainable Agricultural Performance: A Systematic Literature Review," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-17, February.
    2. Madhu Khanna, 2021. "Digital Transformation of the Agricultural Sector: Pathways, Drivers and Policy Implications," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(4), pages 1221-1242, December.
    3. Keith H Coble & Ashok K Mishra & Shannon Ferrell & Terry Griffin, 2018. "Big Data in Agriculture: A Challenge for the Future," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 40(1), pages 79-96.
    4. Schaller, Lena & Targetti, Stefano & Villanueva, Anastasio J. & Zasada, Ingo & Kantelhardt, Jochen & Arriaza, Manuel & Bal, Tufan & Fedrigotti, Valérie Bossi & Giray, F. Handan & Häfner, Kati & Majews, 2018. "Agricultural landscapes, ecosystem services and regional competitiveness—Assessing drivers and mechanisms in nine European case study areas," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 735-745.
    5. Dempsey, Benedict, 2021. "Understanding conflicting views in conservation: An analysis of England," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    6. Ehlers, Melf-Hinrich & Huber, Robert & Finger, Robert, 2021. "Agricultural policy in the era of digitalisation," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    7. Isto Huvila, 2019. "Management of Archaeological Information and Knowledge in Digital Environment," Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning, in: Meliha Handzic & Daniela Carlucci (ed.), Knowledge Management, Arts, and Humanities, pages 147-169, Springer.
    8. Braat, Leon C. & de Groot, Rudolf, 2012. "The ecosystem services agenda:bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 4-15.
    9. Regina Birner & Thomas Daum & Carl Pray, 2021. "Who drives the digital revolution in agriculture? A review of supply‐side trends, players and challenges," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(4), pages 1260-1285, December.
    10. Nadia Bartolini & Caitlin DeSilvey, 2021. "Landscape futures: decision-making in uncertain times, a literature review," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(1), pages 8-24, January.
    11. 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. "Exploring the adoption of precision agricultural technologies: A cross regional study of EU farmers," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 163-174.
    12. Karimi, Azadeh & Yazdandad, Hossein & Fagerholm, Nora, 2020. "Evaluating social perceptions of ecosystem services, biodiversity, and land management: Trade-offs, synergies and implications for landscape planning and management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    13. Mark V. Brady & Jordan Hristov & Fredrik Wilhelmsson & Katarina Hedlund, 2019. "Roadmap for Valuing Soil Ecosystem Services to Inform Multi-Level Decision-Making in Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-20, September.
    14. Brown, Calum & Kovács, Eszter & Herzon, Irina & Villamayor-Tomas, Sergio & Albizua, Amaia & Galanaki, Antonia & Grammatikopoulou, Ioanna & McCracken, Davy & Olsson, Johanna Alkan & Zinngrebe, Yves, 2021. "Simplistic understandings of farmer motivations could undermine the environmental potential of the common agricultural policy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    15. George Cusworth & Jennifer Dodsworth, 2021. "Using the ‘good farmer’ concept to explore agricultural attitudes to the provision of public goods. A case study of participants in an English agri-environment scheme," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(4), pages 929-941, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nurul Atiqah binti Mohd Suib & Norlida Hanim Mohd Salleh & Md Shafiin Shukor & Norshamliza Chamhuri & Shahida Shahimi & Kamalrudin Mohamed Salleh & Khairuman Hashim, 2023. "The Influence of Good Agricultural Practice (GAP) on the Productivity and Well-Being of Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO)-Certified Independent Smallholders in Malaysia," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-19, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Robert Finger, 2023. "Digital innovations for sustainable and resilient agricultural systems," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 50(4), pages 1277-1309.
    2. Basharat Ali & Peter Dahlhaus, 2022. "Roles of Selective Agriculture Practices in Sustainable Agricultural Performance: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-15, March.
    3. Margherita Masi & Marcello Rosa & Yari Vecchio & Luca Bartoli & Felice Adinolfi, 2022. "The long way to innovation adoption: insights from precision agriculture," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 10(1), pages 1-17, December.
    4. Huang, Iona Y. & Behrendt, Karl & Parker, Eleanor & Hill, Nigel & Purewal, Amandeep Kaur & Swales, David & Baker, Sarah, 2022. "Ready or not, here I come: Understanding English farmers perceptions of the changes in UK agricultural and environmental policy," 96th Annual Conference, April 4-6, 2022, K U Leuven, Belgium 321210, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    5. Ingram, Julie & Maye, Damian & Bailye, Clive & Barnes, Andrew & Bear, Christopher & Bell, Matthew & Cutress, David & Davies, Lynfa & de Boon, Auvikki & Dinnie, Liz & Gairdner, Julian & Hafferty, Caitl, 2022. "What are the priority research questions for digital agriculture?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    6. Schnebelin, Éléonore, 2022. "Linking the diversity of ecologisation models to farmers' digital use profiles," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    7. Oksana Hrynevych & Miguel Blanco Canto & Mercedes Jiménez García, 2022. "Tendencies of Precision Agriculture in Ukraine: Disruptive Smart Farming Tools as Cooperation Drivers," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-15, May.
    8. Emily Duncan & Alesandros Glaros & Dennis Z. Ross & Eric Nost, 2021. "New but for whom? Discourses of innovation in precision agriculture," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(4), pages 1181-1199, December.
    9. Karina R. Mukhamedova & Natalya P. Cherepkova & Alexandr V. Korotkov & Zhanerke B. Dagasheva & Manuela Tvaronavičienė, 2022. "Digitalisation of Agricultural Production for Precision Farming: A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-11, November.
    10. Klingenberg, Cristina Orsolin & Valle Antunes Júnior, José Antônio & Müller-Seitz, Gordon, 2022. "Impacts of digitalization on value creation and capture: Evidence from the agricultural value chain," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    11. Paulus, Michael & Pfaff, Sara Anna, 2022. "Factors Affecting the Diffusion of Digital Farming Towards More Resilient Farming Systems - Empirical Evidence from Baden-Württemberg," 62nd Annual Conference, Stuttgart, Germany, September 7-9, 2022 329597, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    12. Monteiro Moretti, Débora & Baum, Chad M. & Ehlers, Melf-Hinrich & Finger, Robert & Bröring, Stefanie, 2023. "Exploring actors' perceptions of the precision agriculture innovation system – A Group Concept Mapping approach in Germany and Switzerland," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    13. Paulus, Anne & Hagemann, Nina & Baaken, Marieke C. & Roilo, Stephanie & Alarcón-Segura, Viviana & Cord, Anna F. & Beckmann, Michael, 2022. "Landscape context and farm characteristics are key to farmers' adoption of agri-environmental schemes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    14. Rob Roggema & Nico Tillie, 2022. "Realizing Emergent Ecologies: Nature-Based Solutions from Design to Implementation," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-15, November.
    15. Mathilde Aubry & Ben Hamadi & Roland Condor & Nazik Fadil & Christine Fournes, 2022. "Exploring digitalisation in the agri-food sector and its paradoxes: Evidence from a comparative study with small French companies," Post-Print hal-04430806, HAL.
    16. Hendrawan, Dienda C P & Musshoff, Oliver, 2022. "Oil Palm Smallholder Farmers' Livelihood Resilience and Decision Making in Replanting," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322441, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. Simelton, Elisabeth & Viet Dam, Bac, 2014. "Farmers in NE Viet Nam rank values of ecosystems from seven land uses," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 133-138.
    18. Freddie Sayi Siangulube & Mirjam A. F. Ros-Tonen & James Reed & Eric Rega Christophe Bayala & Terry Sunderland, 2023. "Spatial Tools for Inclusive Landscape Governance: Negotiating Land Use, Land-Cover Change, and Future Landscape Scenarios in Two Multistakeholder Platforms in Zambia," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-23, April.
    19. McGrath, Karen & Brown, Claire & Regan, Áine & Russell, Tomás, 2023. "Investigating narratives and trends in digital agriculture: A scoping study of social and behavioural science studies," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    20. Antonino Galati & Giuseppina Migliore & Alkis Thrassou & Giorgio Schifani & Giuseppina Rizzo & Nino Adamashvili & Maria Crescimanno, 2023. "Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Agri-Food Products Delivered with Electric Vehicles in the Short Supply Chains," FIIB Business Review, , vol. 12(2), pages 193-207, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:1:p:179-:d:1026294. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.