Experience versus expectation: farmers’ perceptions of smart farming technologies for cropping systems across Europe

  • Maria KerneckerEmail author
  • Andrea Knierim
  • Angelika Wurbs
  • Teresa Kraus
  • Friederike Borges


Technological innovations are changing mechanisation in agriculture. The most recent wave of innovations referred to as smart farming technologies (SFT), promise to improve farming by responding to economic, ecological, and social challenges and thereby sustainably develop agriculture throughout Europe. To better understand the relevance of ongoing technological progress for farming systems across Europe, 287 farmers were surveyed in 7 EU countries and in 4 cropping systems, alongside 22 in-depth semi-structured interviews with experts from the agricultural knowledge and innovation system. Of the surveyed farmers, about 50% were SFT adopters and 50% were non-adopters. The number of adopters increased with farm size, and there were more adopters among arable cropping systems than in tree crops. Although all farmers broadly perceive SFT as useful to farming and generally expect SFT to continue to be so, when it comes to specific on-farm challenges, farmers are less convinced of SFT potential. Moreover, farmers’ perceptions of SFT vary according to SFT characteristics and farming context. Interestingly, both adopter and non-adopter groups are hesitant regarding SFT adoption, such that adopters are somewhat disillusioned about the SFT that they have experience with, and non-adopters because they are not convinced that the appropriate technologies are available and accessible. About 60% of all farmers surveyed have a number of suggestions for SFT to become more relevant to a broader range of farms. Both farmers and experts generally consider peer-to-peer communication as important sources of information and deplore a lack of impartial advice. Experts are generally more convinced of SFT advantages, and are positive regarding the long-term trends of technological development. The findings support previous findings on using farmers’ perceptions in innovation processes, and provide insight to the recent trends regarding SFT application to diverse cropping systems across Europe. This suggests that differences related to agricultural structures and farming systems across Europe have to be considered if SFT development and dissemination should be improved.


Digital technology Smart farming Technological innovation Mixed methods Adoption studies 



This research was supported by the Smart-AKIS project, funded by the European Commission (Project Number 696294, Horizon 2020 Framework Programme). Thoughtful comments and suggestions by the editor and two anonymous reviewers were very much appreciated.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest.


  1. Aker, J. (2011). Dial “A” for agriculture: A review of information and communication technologies for agricultural extension in developing countries. Agricultural Economics, 42(6), 631–647. Scholar
  2. Babbie, E. R. (2015). The practice of social research. Scarborough: Nelson Education.Google Scholar
  3. Basso, B., Dumont, B., Cammarano, D., Pezzuolo, A., Marinell, F., & Sartori, L. (2015). Environmental and economic benefits of variable rate nitrogen fertilization in a nitrate vulnerable zone. Science of the Total Environment, 545–546(2016), 227–235. Scholar
  4. Borges, F., Kernecker, M., Knierim, A., & Wurbs, A. (2017). Report on factors affecting innovation,adoption and diffusion processes. Smart-AKIS Deliverable 2.3, Smart-AKIS Project, Grant Agreement Number 696294.Google Scholar
  5. Burton, R. J. F. (2014). The influence of farmer demographic characteristics on environmental behaviour: A review. Journal of Environmental Management, 135, 19–26. Scholar
  6. Carolan, M. (2017). Publicising food: Big data, precision agriculture, and co-experimental techniques of addition. Sociologia Ruralis, 57, 135–154. Scholar
  7. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousands Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  8. Daberkow, S. G., & McBride, W. D. (2003). Farm and operator characteristics affecting the awareness and adoption of precision agriculture technologies in the US. Precision Agriculture, 4(2), 163–177. Scholar
  9. DEFRA—Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, UK Government (2012). Farm practices survey October 2012—current farming issues. Online: (last accessed 10.12.2018).
  10. Dresing, T., & Pehl, T. (2015). Praxisbuch interview, transkription & analyse (6th ed.). Marburg: Eigenverlag.Google Scholar
  11. Eurostat. (2010). Retrieved April 1, 2019, from
  12. EU SCAR. (2012). “Agricultural knowledge and innovation systems in transition – a reflection paper,” Brussels. Retrieved April 1, 2019, from
  13. EU SCAR. (2013). “Agricultural knowledge and innovation systems towards 2020 - an orientation paper on linking innovation and research,” Brussels. Retrieved April 1, 2019, from
  14. Fleming, A., Jakku, E., Lim-Camacho, L., Taylor, B., & Thorburn, P. (2018). Is big data for big farming or for everyone? Perceptions in the Australian grains industry. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 38, 24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fountas, S., Carli, G., Sorensen, C. G., Tsiropoulos, Z., Cavalaris, C., Vatsanidou, A., et al. (2015). Farm management information systems: Current situation and future perspectives. Computer and Electronics in Agriculture, 115, 40–50. Scholar
  16. Hoffmann, V., Gerster-Bentaya, M., Christinck, A., & Lemma, M. (2009). Rural extension volume 1: Basic issues and concepts. Weikersheim: Margraf Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. Jakku, E., & Thorburn, P. J. (2010). A conceptual framework for guiding the participatory development of agricultural decision support systems. Agricultural Systems, 103, 675–682. Scholar
  18. Kemper, E. A., Stringfield, S., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Mixed methods sampling strategies in social science research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 273–296). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Knierim, A., Boenning, K., Caggiano, M., Cristóvão, A., Dirimanova, V., Koehnen, T., et al. (2015). The AKIS concept and its relevance in selected EU member states. Outlook on Agriculture, 44(1), 29–36. Scholar
  20. Knierim, A., Labarthe, P., Laurent, C., Prager, K., Kania, J., Madureira, L., et al. (2017). Pluralism of agricultural advisory service providers: Facts and insights from Europe. Journal of Rural Studies, 55, 45–58. Scholar
  21. Knuth, U. & Knierim, A. (2016). Interaction with and governance of increasingly pluralistic AKIS: a changing role for advisory services. Agricultural knowledge and innovation systems towards the future: a foresight paper. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, pp. 104–118.Google Scholar
  22. Kuehne, G., Llewellyn, R., Pannell, D. J., Wilkinson, R., Dolling, P., Ouzman, J., & Ewing, M. (2017). Predicting farmer uptake of new agricultural practices: A tool for research, extension and policy. Agricultural Systems, 156, 115–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kutter, T., Tiemann, S., Siebert, R., & Fountas, S. (2011). The role of communication and co-operation in the adoption of precision farming. Precision Agriculture, 12(1), 2–17. Scholar
  24. Lambert, D. M., Sullivan, P., Claassen, R., & Foreman, L. (2007). Profiles of US farm households adopting conservation-compatible practices. Land Use Policy, 24(1), 72–88. Scholar
  25. Lawson, L. G., Pedersen, S. M., Sorensen, C. G., Pesonen, L., Fountas, S., Werner, A., et al. (2011). A four nation survey of farm information management and advanced farming systems: A descriptive analysis of survey responses. Computer and Electronics in Agriculture, 77(1), 7–20. Scholar
  26. Long, T. B., Blok, V., & Coninx, I. (2016). Barriers to the adoption and diffusion of technological innovations for climate-smart agriculture in Europe: evidence from the Netherlands, France, Switzerland and Italy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 9–21. Scholar
  27. Maffioli, A., Ubfal, D., Vazquez-Bare, G., & Cerdan-Infantes, P. (2013). Improving technology adoption in agriculture through extension services: Evidence from Uruguay. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 5(1), 64–81. Scholar
  28. Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis, theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution. Klagenfurt: Social Science Open Access Repository.Google Scholar
  29. Mircioiu, C., & Atkinson, J. (2017). A comparison of parametric and non-parametric methods applied to a Likert scale. Pharmacy, 5(2), 26. Scholar
  30. Newing, H., Eagle, C. M., Puri, R., & Watson, C. W. (2010). Conducting research in conservation: Social science methods and practice. London: Routledge. Scholar
  31. Oreszczyn, S., Lane, A., & Carr, S. (2010). The role of networks of practice and webs of influencers on farmers’ engagement with and learning about agricultural innovations. Journal of Rural Studies, 26(4), 404–417. Scholar
  32. Paustian, M., & Theuvsen, L. (2017). Adoption of precision agriculture technologies by German crop farmers. Precision Agriculture, 18, 701. Scholar
  33. Pedersen, S. M., Fountas, S., & Blackmore, B. (2008). Agricultural robots: Applications and economic perspectives. Vienna: I-Tech Education and Publishing KG.Google Scholar
  34. Poppe, K. J. (2013). On markets and government: property rights to promote sustainability with market forces. Njas-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 66, 33–37. Scholar
  35. Preissel, S., Zander, P., & Knierim, A. (2017). Sustaining farming on marginal land: Farmers’ convictions, motivations and strategies in Northeastern Germany. Sociologia Ruralis, 57, 682–708. Scholar
  36. Punch, K. F. (2005). Introduction to social research. Quantitative and qualitative approaches (2nd ed.). New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  37. R Core Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
  38. Reichardt, M., & Jurgens, C. (2009). Adoption and future perspective of precision farming in Germany: results of several surveys among different agricultural target groups. Precision Agriculture, 10(1), 73–94. Scholar
  39. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  40. Scherer, L. A., Verburg, P. H., & Schulp, C. J. E. (2018). Opportunities for sustainable intensification in European agriculture. Global Environmental Change, 48, 43–55. Scholar
  41. Tey, Y. S., & Brindal, M. (2012). Factors influencing the adoption of precision agricultural technologies: a review for policy implications. Precision Agriculture, 13, 713–730. Scholar
  42. USDA Economic Research Service. (2010). “ARMS farm financial and crop production practices—tailored reports: Crop Production Practices”. Retrieved December 10, 2018, from
  43. Vanclay, F., & Lawrence, G. (1994). Farmer rationality and the adoption of environmentally sound practices; A critique of the assumptions of traditional agricultural extension. European Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 1(1), 59–90. Scholar
  44. Walter, A., Finger, R., Huber, R., & Buchmann, N. (2017). Smart farming is key to developing sustainable agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 114(24), 6148–6150. Scholar
  45. Wolfert, S., Ge, L., Verdouw, C., & Bogaardt, M.-J. (2017). Big data in smart farming: A review. Agricultural Systems, 153, 69–80. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF)MünchebergGermany
  2. 2.University of HohenheimStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations