IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v189y2023ics0040162522007910.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring actors' perceptions of the precision agriculture innovation system – A Group Concept Mapping approach in Germany and Switzerland

Author

Listed:
  • Monteiro Moretti, Débora
  • Baum, Chad M.
  • Ehlers, Melf-Hinrich
  • Finger, Robert
  • Bröring, Stefanie

Abstract

Precision Agriculture Technologies (PATs) promise to enhance productivity and foster sustainability. However, attempts to explain the low adoption of PATs, particularly in Europe, lack attention to the role of shared understanding of PATs among actors in the development and diffusion of this innovation. To uncover what could guide the emergence of a collective understanding of PATs, we explore how the actors comprising the nascent innovation system perceive PATs and how they perceive possibilities for influencing the precision agriculture innovation system. We utilize the mixed-method approach of Group Concept Mapping to uncover (in)congruences in relation to PAT perceptions of farmers from Germany and Switzerland vis-à-vis other stakeholders in the innovation system. We found that negative perceptions of the economic and social aspects of PATs are a source of discrepancies among the actors. Conversely, positive perceptions of the prospective value propositions of PATs seem to be a point of coherence. We argue that the maturity of the innovation system thus depends on the further alignment of such perceptions as well as the realization of the innovation's value proposition. Both practitioners and policymakers could strengthen the innovation system of PATs, with the help of intermediaries, through aligning perceptions of challenges and value propositions.

Suggested Citation

  • 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).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:189:y:2023:i:c:s0040162522007910
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122270
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162522007910
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122270?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shang, Linmei & Heckelei, Thomas & Gerullis, Maria K. & Börner, Jan & Rasch, Sebastian, 2021. "Adoption and diffusion of digital farming technologies - integrating farm-level evidence and system interaction," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    2. Weber, K. Matthias & Rohracher, Harald, 2012. "Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1037-1047.
    3. Kaplan, Sarah & Tripsas, Mary, 2008. "Thinking about technology: Applying a cognitive lens to technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 790-805, June.
    4. Laurens Klerkx & Marc Schut & Cees Leeuwis & Catherine Kilelu, 2012. "Advances in Knowledge Brokering in the Agricultural Sector: Towards Innovation System Facilitation," IDS Bulletin, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 43(5), pages 53-60, September.
    5. Langley, David J. & van Doorn, Jenny & Ng, Irene C.L. & Stieglitz, Stefan & Lazovik, Alexander & Boonstra, Albert, 2021. "The Internet of Everything: Smart things and their impact on business models," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 853-863.
    6. Enikő Lencsés & István Takács & Katalin Takács-György, 2014. "Farmers’ Perception of Precision Farming Technology among Hungarian Farmers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(12), pages 1-14, November.
    7. Geels, Frank W., 2020. "Micro-foundations of the multi-level perspective on socio-technical transitions: Developing a multi-dimensional model of agency through crossovers between social constructivism, evolutionary economics," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    8. Busse, M. & Schwerdtner, W. & Siebert, R. & Doernberg, A. & Kuntosch, A. & König, B. & Bokelmann, W., 2015. "Analysis of animal monitoring technologies in Germany from an innovation system perspective," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 55-65.
    9. Yari Vecchio & Giulio Paolo Agnusdei & Pier Paolo Miglietta & Fabian Capitanio, 2020. "Adoption of Precision Farming Tools: The Case of Italian Farmers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-16, January.
    10. Geels, Frank W., 2002. "Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8-9), pages 1257-1274, December.
    11. Musiolik, Jörg & Markard, Jochen & Hekkert, Marko & Furrer, Bettina, 2020. "Creating innovation systems: How resource constellations affect the strategies of system builders," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    12. Ehlers, Melf-Hinrich & Huber, Robert & Finger, Robert, 2021. "Agricultural policy in the era of digitalisation," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    13. Cloutier, L. Martin & Arcand, Sébastien & Laviolette, E. Michael & Renard, Laurent, 2017. "Collective Economic Conceptualization of Strategic Actions by Québec Cidermakers: A Mixed Methods–Based Approach," Journal of Wine Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(4), pages 405-415, November.
    14. Robert Finger & Scott M. Swinton & Nadja El Benni & Achim Walter, 2019. "Precision Farming at the Nexus of Agricultural Production and the Environment," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 11(1), pages 313-335, October.
    15. Thompson, Nathanael M. & Bir, Courtney & Widmar, David A. & Mintert, James R., 2019. "Farmer Perceptions Of Precision Agriculture Technology Benefits," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(1), pages 142-163, February.
    16. Lora Tsvetanova & Laura Carraresi & Michael Wustmans & Stefanie Bröring, 2021. "Actors’ strategic goals in emerging technological innovation systems: evidence from the biorefinery sector in Germany," Post-Print hal-03267347, HAL.
    17. Musiolik, Jörg & Markard, Jochen & Hekkert, Marko, 2012. "Networks and network resources in technological innovation systems: Towards a conceptual framework for system building," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 79(6), pages 1032-1048.
    18. Markard, Jochen & Truffer, Bernhard, 2008. "Technological innovation systems and the multi-level perspective: Towards an integrated framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 596-615, May.
    19. 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.
    20. Ehlers, Melf-Hinrich & Finger, Robert & El Benni, Nadja & Gocht, Alexander & Sørensen, Claus Aage Grøn & Gusset, Markus & Pfeifer, Catherine & Poppe, Krijn & Regan, Áine & Rose, David Christian & Wolf, 2022. "Scenarios for European agricultural policymaking in the era of digitalisation," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    21. Bergek, Anna & Jacobsson, Staffan & Carlsson, Bo & Lindmark, Sven & Rickne, Annika, 2008. "Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: A scheme of analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 407-429, April.
    22. Raven, Rob P.J.M., 2006. "Towards alternative trajectories? Reconfigurations in the Dutch electricity regime," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 581-595, May.
    23. Rose, David Christian & Wheeler, Rebecca & Winter, Michael & Lobley, Matt & Chivers, Charlotte-Anne, 2021. "Agriculture 4.0: Making it work for people, production, and the planet," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    24. Späti, Karin & Huber, Robert & Finger, Robert, 2021. "Benefits of Increasing Information Accuracy in Variable Rate Technologies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    25. Markard, Jochen & Wirth, Steffen & Truffer, Bernhard, 2016. "Institutional dynamics and technology legitimacy – A framework and a case study on biogas technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 330-344.
    26. Judith Tsouvalis & Susanne Seymour & Charles Watkins, 2000. "Exploring Knowledge-Cultures: Precision Farming, Yield Mapping, and the Expert–Farmer Interface," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 32(5), pages 909-924, May.
    27. 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.
    28. Pigford, Ashlee-Ann E. & Hickey, Gordon M. & Klerkx, Laurens, 2018. "Beyond agricultural innovation systems? Exploring an agricultural innovation ecosystems approach for niche design and development in sustainability transitions," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 116-121.
    29. Trochim, William M. K., 1989. "An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 1-16, January.
    30. Klerkx, Laurens & Aarts, Noelle & Leeuwis, Cees, 2010. "Adaptive management in agricultural innovation systems: The interactions between innovation networks and their environment," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(6), pages 390-400, July.
    31. Vecchio, Yari & De Rosa, Marcello & Adinolfi, Felice & Bartoli, Luca & Masi, Margherita, 2020. "Adoption of precision farming tools: A context-related analysis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    32. Rosas, Scott R. & Ridings, John W., 2017. "The use of concept mapping in measurement development and evaluation: Application and future directions," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 265-276.
    33. Fleming, Aysha & Jakku, Emma & Fielke, Simon & Taylor, Bruce M. & Lacey, Justine & Terhorst, Andrew & Stitzlein, Cara, 2021. "Foresighting Australian digital agricultural futures: Applying responsible innovation thinking to anticipate research and development impact under different scenarios," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    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. Markard, Jochen & Raven, Rob & Truffer, Bernhard, 2012. "Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 955-967.
    2. Verburg, René W. & Verberne, Emma & Negro, Simona O., 2022. "Accelerating the transition towards sustainable agriculture: The case of organic dairy farming in the Netherlands," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    3. Attila Havas & Doris Schartinger & K. Matthias Weber, 2022. "Innovation Studies, Social Innovation, and Sustainability Transitions Research: From mutual ignorance towards an integrative perspective?," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 2227, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    4. 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).
    5. Walrave, Bob & Raven, Rob, 2016. "Modelling the dynamics of technological innovation systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(9), pages 1833-1844.
    6. Haley, Brendan, 2018. "Integrating structural tensions into technological innovation systems analysis: Application to the case of transmission interconnections and renewable electricity in Nova Scotia, Canada," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(6), pages 1147-1160.
    7. Markard, Jochen, 2020. "The life cycle of technological innovation systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    8. Xiangping Jia, 2021. "Agro-Food Innovation and Sustainability Transition: A Conceptual Synthesis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-24, June.
    9. Allan Dahl Andersen & Jochen Markard, 2017. "Innovating incumbents and technological complementarities: How recent dynamics in the HVDC industry can inform transition theories," Working Papers on Innovation Studies 20170612, Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo.
    10. Garud, Raghu & Gehman, Joel, 2012. "Metatheoretical perspectives on sustainability journeys: Evolutionary, relational and durational," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 980-995.
    11. Markard, Jochen & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2016. "Analysis of complementarities: Framework and examples from the energy transition," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 63-75.
    12. Kriechbaum, Michael & Posch, Alfred & Hauswiesner, Angelika, 2021. "Hype cycles during socio-technical transitions: The dynamics of collective expectations about renewable energy in Germany," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    13. Rohe, Sebastian & Oltmer, Marie & Wolter, Hendrik & Gmeiner, Nina & Tschersich , Julia, 2022. "Forever Niche: Why do organic vegetable varieties not diffuse?," Papers in Innovation Studies 2022/8, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    14. Erlinghagen, Sabine & Markard, Jochen, 2012. "Smart grids and the transformation of the electricity sector: ICT firms as potential catalysts for sectoral change," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 895-906.
    15. Andersen, Allan Dahl & Markard, Jochen, 2020. "Multi-technology interaction in socio-technical transitions: How recent dynamics in HVDC technology can inform transition theories," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    16. Metta, Matteo & Ciliberti, Stefano & Obi, Chinedu & Bartolini, Fabio & Klerkx, Laurens & Brunori, Gianluca, 2022. "An integrated socio-cyber-physical system framework to assess responsible digitalisation in agriculture: A first application with Living Labs in Europe," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    17. Yap, Xiao-Shan & Truffer, Bernhard, 2019. "Shaping selection environments for industrial catch-up and sustainability transitions: A systemic perspective on endogenizing windows of opportunity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 1030-1047.
    18. Rohe, Sebastian & Chlebna, Camilla, 2021. "A spatial perspective on the legitimacy of a technological innovation system: Regional differences in onshore wind energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    19. Jonas Heiberg & Christian Binz & Bernhard Truffer, 2020. "Assessing transitions through socio-technical network analysis – a methodological framework and a case study from the water sector," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 2035, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Aug 2020.
    20. 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.

    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:eee:tefoso:v:189:y:2023:i:c:s0040162522007910. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    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.