IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/gjagec/355609.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public Acceptance of Robots and Autonomous Crop Farming – A Cluster Analysis of German Citizens’ Attitudes and Concerns

Author

Listed:
  • Zeddies, Hendrik Hilmar
  • Busch, Gesa

Abstract

Public acceptance is essential for technology innovation in agriculture. Due to the recent advances in artificial intelligence, robotics and autonomous systems (RAS) could soon revolutionize crop farming landscapes. What is society's view on crops being produced with the help of autonomous machines and how do different groups accept the technologies? A sample of 567 German citizens was segmented into clusters using an unsupervised machine-learning technique. The analysis elaborated on heterogeneity in public attitudes concerning challenges and advances of RAS and investigated political attitudes in relation to RAS attitudes. A majority of the participants are in favor of the use of RAS. While 41% of the participants positioned themselves as positive (Proponents), about 19% even showed a strong positive attitude towards RAS use (Enthusiasts). The ease of farm work and environmental benefits drive RAS acceptance among Proponents and Enthusiasts. Nevertheless, 29% support RAS use overall but raise concerns regarding socio-economic impacts (Skeptical Proponents), and 11% (Skeptics) take a skeptical stance. Skeptical Proponents and Skeptics fear negative consequences for family farms and are doubtful about potential positive environmental contributions. A higher share of right-wing and non-voter participants is detected among the more skeptical clusters, while green (environmental) party voters are among the more positive participants. Potential concerns should be recognized and addressed by the farming sector on the development path to more automated agriculture. Food production is a sensitive topic affecting everyone, which should be considered in communication efforts. The advantages of RAS technologies need to be articulated through targeted scientific communication.

Suggested Citation

  • Zeddies, Hendrik Hilmar & Busch, Gesa, 2025. "Public Acceptance of Robots and Autonomous Crop Farming – A Cluster Analysis of German Citizens’ Attitudes and Concerns," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 74, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:gjagec:355609
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.355609
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/355609/files/2283_Zeddies_and_Busch.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.355609?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wilmes, Rolf & Waldhof, Gabi & Breunig, Peter, 2022. "Can digital farming technologies enhance the willingness to buy products from current farming systems?," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 17(11), pages 1-20.
    2. Wustenhagen, Rolf & Wolsink, Maarten & Burer, Mary Jean, 2007. "Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2683-2691, May.
    3. Matin Qaim, 2020. "Role of New Plant Breeding Technologies for Food Security and Sustainable Agricultural Development," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(2), pages 129-150, June.
    4. Mohr, Svenja & Höhler, Julia, 2023. "Media coverage of digitalization in agriculture - an analysis of media content," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    5. Khasawneh, Odai Y., 2018. "Technophobia: Examining its hidden factors and defining it," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 93-100.
    6. Emmann, Carsten H. & Arens, Ludwig & Theuvsen, Ludwig, 2013. "Individual acceptance of the biogas innovation: A structural equation model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 372-378.
    7. Johanna Pfeiffer & Andreas Gabriel & Markus Gandorfer, 2021. "Understanding the public attitudinal acceptance of digital farming technologies: a nationwide survey in Germany," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(1), pages 107-128, February.
    8. Martin C. Parlasca & Matin Qaim, 2022. "Meat Consumption and Sustainability," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 14(1), pages 17-41, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Tilman Reinhardt, 2023. "The farm to fork strategy and the digital transformation of the agrifood sector—An assessment from the perspective of innovation systems," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(2), pages 819-838, June.
    2. Stanislav Martinát & Justyna Chodkowska-Miszczuk & Marián Kulla & Josef Navrátil & Petr Klusáček & Petr Dvořák & Ladislav Novotný & Tomáš Krejčí & Loránt Pregi & Jakub Trojan & Bohumil Frantál, 2022. "Best Practice Forever? Dynamics behind the Perception of Farm-Fed Anaerobic Digestion Plants in Rural Peripheries," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-17, March.
    3. Busse, Maria & Siebert, Rosemarie, 2018. "Acceptance studies in the field of land use—A critical and systematic review to advance the conceptualization of acceptance and acceptability," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 235-245.
    4. Jie Ren & Jar-Der Luo & Ke Rong, 2020. "How Do Venture Capitals Build Up Syndication Ecosystems for Sustainable Development?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-14, May.
    5. Koecklin, Manuel Tong & Longoria, Genaro & Fitiwi, Desta Z. & DeCarolis, Joseph F. & Curtis, John, 2021. "Public acceptance of renewable electricity generation and transmission network developments: Insights from Ireland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    6. Lyhne, Ivar & Aaen, Sara Bjørn & Nielsen, Helle & Kørnøv, Lone & Larsen, Sanne Vammen, 2018. "Citizens’ self-mobilization, motivational factors, and the group of most engaged citizens: The case of a radioactive waste repository in Denmark," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 433-442.
    7. Hogan, Jessica L. & Warren, Charles R. & Simpson, Michael & McCauley, Darren, 2022. "What makes local energy projects acceptable? Probing the connection between ownership structures and community acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    8. Petr Prochazka & Jana Soukupova & Josef Abrham & Kevin J. Mullen & Karel Tomsik & Lukas Cechura & Inna Cabelkova & Lubos Smutka, 2025. "Protein consumption in Europe: Sustainability, tradition, and policy implications," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(1), pages 1124-1135, February.
    9. Taran Loper & Victoria L. Crittenden, 2017. "Energy Security: Shaping The Consumer Decision Making Process In Emerging Economies," Organizations and Markets in Emerging Economies, Faculty of Economics, Vilnius University, vol. 8(1).
    10. Baral, Nabin & Rabotyagov, Sergey, 2017. "How much are wood-based cellulosic biofuels worth in the Pacific Northwest? Ex-ante and ex-post analysis of local people's willingness to pay," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 99-106.
    11. Ioannidis, Romanos & Koutsoyiannis, Demetris, 2020. "A review of land use, visibility and public perception of renewable energy in the context of landscape impact," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    12. Kaufmann, Nicholas & Carolus, Thomas & Starzmann, Ralf, 2019. "Turbines for modular tidal current energy converters," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 451-460.
    13. Stéphan Marette & John Beghin & Anne‐Célia Disdier & Eliza Mojduszka, 2023. "Can foods produced with new plant engineering techniques succeed in the marketplace? A case study of apples," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(1), pages 414-435, March.
    14. Vincent Smith & Justus H. H. Wesseler & David Zilberman, 2021. "New Plant Breeding Technologies: An Assessment of the Political Economy of the Regulatory Environment and Implications for Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-18, March.
    15. P.W.J. de Bijl & Helanya Fourie, 2019. "The energy transition: Does ownership matter for realizing public interest objectives?," Working Papers 19-24, Utrecht School of Economics.
    16. Dugstad, Anders & Grimsrud, Kristine & Kipperberg, Gorm & Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2020. "Acceptance of wind power development and exposure – Not-in-anybody's-backyard," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    17. Antoine Boche & Clément Foucher & Luiz Fernando Lavado Villa, 2022. "Understanding Microgrid Sustainability: A Systemic and Comprehensive Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-29, April.
    18. Lei Zhang & Lili Xu & Mingzi Gao & Mingdong Zhou, 2024. "Can Agricultural Credit Promote the Green Transformation of China’s Agriculture?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(24), pages 1-14, December.
    19. Vringer, Kees & Carabain, Christine L., 2020. "Measuring the legitimacy of energy transition policy in the Netherlands," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    20. Vaona, Andrea, 2013. "The sclerosis of regional electricity intensities in Italy: An aggregate and sectoral analysis," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 880-889.

    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:ags:gjagec:355609. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iahubde.html .

    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.