NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 90–91 (2019) 100314

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/njas

Research paper

Smart farming technology innovations – Insights and reflections from the T

German Smart-AKIS hub
Andrea Knierima,*, Maria Kerneckerb, Klaus Erdlec, Teresa Krausb, Friederike Borgesb,
Angelika Wurbsb
a
Universität Hohenheim, and Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Germany
b
Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Germany
c
Deutsche Landwirtschaftsgesellschaft (DLG) e.V., Germany

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Digitalisation in agriculture is considered the fourth revolution in farming, which is expressed by a broad range
Smart farming technologies of available digital technologies and data applications. Politicians and experts assume that smart farming
Innovation adoption technologies (SFT) have a strong potential to enhance economic performance of farming and will contribute to
Germany agricultural sustainability as they may increase precision of inputs to crops and soils based on site-specific needs,
Multi-actor approach
and link these aspects to farm management systems. This paper explores farmers' and other stakeholders’ per-
ceptions and attitudes towards SFT in Germany with a multi-actor approach. Quantitative and qualitative data
show that while there are generally positive attitudes, farmers are less enthusiastic with regard to expected
positive effects of SFT for the environment. Also, there is still a number of adoption barriers on the technology
level as well as due to an unfavorable institutional and infrastructural environment. Although a multi-actor
approach was practiced, close cooperation of practitioners with developers were not frequently observed nor
could they be easily supported through action-research. Notwithstanding, through the multi-actor approach, a
comprehensive situational picture of SFT appraisal was composed and, a general raise of awareness among the
respective AKIS actors generated.

1. Introduction cooperation between different actors, and in particular between science

The European Union has made it its political aim to foster agri-
cultural productivity and sustainability through increased generation
and diffusion of innovations that enhance the sector’s overall compe-
titiveness (EU SCAR, 2012, 2013). With this aim, two complementary
policy measures have been implemented in the current policy period
(2014–2020) that rely on the so-called “multi-actor approach.” These
measures are (i) the European Innovation Partnership AGRI that is
operationalised through the European Fund of Rural Development (EU,
2013) and (ii) a number of calls in the Horizon 2020 research pro-
gramme aiming to bridge the research and innovation divide. The
multi-actor approach is a recent instrument meant to render science
more immediately relevant for practice by cultivating close science-
practice collaborations and ensuring that results get translated (EIP
Agri, 2018; Ingram et al., 2018). Conceptually, both measures have
integrated the multi-actor approach by using an agricultural knowledge
and innovation system (AKIS) paradigm. This paradigm assumes that
whether or not an innovation is realised, depends on how effective the
and practice actors, is during an innovation process (EU SCAR, 2012,
2013; Wielinga et al., 2017). Consequently, these policy measures can
inherently induce a shift in the role of scientists, from distant ob-
servation towards more direct interaction with practice, which possibly
leads to dilemmas and tensions when bridging research and interven-
tions for innovation implementation.
1.1. Digitalisation innovation as a means to increase agricultural
sustainability
One of the most prominent fields of agricultural innovation is di-
gitalisation, also considered the fourth revolution in farming (Walter
et al., 2017). This process is driven by a rapid increase in the use of big
data for further developing existing technologies for farming (e.g.
tractor-based tools that rely on GNSS), apps for mobile devices and
software that aim to link data on agricultural production processes (e.g.
input quantity and timing) with information on farm-level work pro-
cesses and quality management, along with other aspects, along the

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: andrea.knierim@uni-hohenheim.de (A. Knierim).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2019.100314
Received 24 November 2018; Received in revised form 22 October 2019; Accepted 23 October 2019
Available online 13 November 2019
1573-5214/ © 2019 Royal Netherlands Society for Agricultural Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
A. Knierim, et al.
value chain (Wolfert et al., 2017). According to Fountas et al. (2015),
four general types of technological applications can currently be dis-
tinguished: 1) recording and mapping technologies, which collect pre-
cise data for subsequent site-specific application, 2) tractor GPS and
connected tools that use real time kinetics to appropriately apply
variable rates of inputs and accurately guide tractors, 3) apps and farm
management and information systems (FMIS) which integrate and
connect with mobile devices for easier monitoring and management
and 4) autonomously operating machines (e.g. weeding and harvesting
robots). Although extremely diverse, this broad range of technologies is
supposed to contribute to a “smarter” way of farming that benefits
cultivation practices, crop yield and quality, and farm work, so that “it
reduces the environmental and climate impact of farming, increase
resilience and soil health and decrease costs for farmers” (COM,
2017:12). We refer to these technologies as smart farming technologies
(SFT).
Farming will likely develop in a number of directions, including
intensive, agro-ecological, organic, and others. Whichever trajectory
farming will take, SFT might be utilized and integrated. However, the
future for SFT might be associated with input-intensive farming. Within
this context, technology developers, policy makers, and experts widely
expect that SFT will contribute to agricultural sustainability because of
their ability to increase precision of input application to crops and soils
based on site-specific needs, and to directly connect management
practices with farm management systems (Walter et al., 2017; COM,
2017; Müller, 2016), making farms more prepared to cope with labour
shortage and climate change (Poppe et al., 2013). However, since the
introduction of precision agriculture, these types of technologies have
been criticised, emphasising the need for clear evidence of the eco-
nomic and environmental benefits for farmers (Wolf and Buttel, 1996).
Whether or not SFT will indeed contribute to environmental sustain-
ability, perpetuate the “technological treadmill” (Levins and Cochrane,
1996), or increase or decrease farmers’ technological dependency
(Carolan, 2017) could depend on how perceived barriers to SFT adop-
tion – in particular risks – are addressed and dealt with during the in-
novation process.
A few studies indicate that European farmers are hesitant to adopt
SFT at large (Reichardt and Jurgens, 2009; Long et al., 2016; Kernecker
et al., 2019). Moreover, in their exploration of the factors influencing
adoption and diffusion, studies have frequently been limited to con-
sidering only a small selection of factors, may it be farmers’ age, edu-
cation, technological affinity (Tey and Brindall, 2012; Paustian and
Theuvsen, 2017), innovations’ characteristics and whether the tech-
nology fits to the farm (Kutter et al., 2011), or farm-related factors such
as economic strengths (Long et al., 2016 and references therein), full-
time farming (Daberkow and McBride, 2003), farm size (Kutter et al.,
2011), or proximity to SFT vendors (Reichardt and Jürgens, 2009).
Another limitation is that many of these studies are conducted with
empirical surveys that are not representative of the heterogeneous
farming community throughout different regions or countries. For ex-
ample, the studies by Reichardt and Jürgens (2009), and Reichhardt
et al. (2009) rely on surveys conducted solely with farmers attending
Agritechnica, the biggest European Agricultural Technology Exhibition,
which automatically preselects for farmers who are looking for in-
formation on agricultural technology. In other cases, samplings tend to
be small or targeting experts only (Kutter et al., 2011; Busse et al.,
2014). Thus, detailed knowledge about how SFT are perceived, what
SFT characteristics respond to farmers’ needs and innovation adoption,
is sparse. This knowledge gap is one obstacle for SFT to contribute to
more resilient agriculture, as it was expressed by the EU Commission in
their declaration on “the future of food and farming”(COM, 2017:12).
1.2. Project framework and objectives of the paper
As a response to the challenge of improving agricultural digitalisa-
tion, the” smart-AKIS” project (www.smart-akis.com) was designed as
2
NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 90–91 (2019) 100314
an EU horizon 2020 Coordination and Support Action (CSA). Its aim
was to address this knowledge gap by using a multi-actor approach to
study SFT innovation and to enrich SFT innovation processes. Given the
political expectations related to technological progress for sustainable
agriculture, and the premise that using a multi-actor approach in a
project could effectively improve innovation processes, we designed
and implemented a research project to systematically explore:
• Stakeholders’, and in particular farmers’, perceptions of SFT as a
practical solution to advance farming performance and agricultural
sustainability;
• Stakeholders’ participation in SFT development to ensure that
technological progress is implemented in a user-oriented and so-
cially inclusive way;
• The strengths, weaknesses, and added value of using a multi-actor
approach for developing and disseminating SFT innovations; and
• Scientists’ roles and interventions in such multi-actor settings, aimed
at interactive innovation development and dissemination support
based on the example of SFT.
Here, we make use of the data collected with research activities in
the German smart-AKIS hub. The aim of this paper is consequently
twofold: (a) to present a multi-faceted picture of the current state of SFT
innovation in Germany, and discuss findings in comparison with the
latest evidence from other European countries, and (b) to demonstrate
the methodological strengths and challenges of the multi-actor ap-
proach applied for improving innovation processes, including innova-
tion development, adoption, and dissemination. Conclusions will be
drawn at two levels that correspond with our aims. First, we address the
current state of knowledge and further research needs for SFT innova-
tion in Germany with a particular focus on the role of the AKIS and
related dynamics. We then illustrate and critically discuss the benefits
of using an action-oriented, multi-actor research approach. In parti-
cular, we create transparency about the German hub’s activities and
discuss their impacts in terms of action-research.
2. Conceptual background
The conceptual background of the above-mentioned policies (EU
H2020 CSA, European Innovation Partnership AGRI) relies on a com-
bination of agricultural knowledge and innovation system theories
(Ison, 2012; Touzard et al., 2015), and a multi-level governance ap-
proach towards transformative processes in societies (Geels, 2002). For
the case we present here, we use the procedural understanding of the
AKIS concept, which means that the core interest is on the interactions
and linkages among the manifold actors to support improved problem
solving and innovation (Leeuwis and van den Ban, 2004; Klerkx et al.,
2012; Knierim et al., 2015). Empirical studies have illustrated that in-
novations towards more sustainable forms of agriculture emerge from
targeted cooperation among heterogeneous actors (Moschitz et al.,
2015; Schmid et al., 2016) and can be successfully promulgated
through concerted interventions from actor networks at either local,
regional, national, and/or international levels (Beers and Geerling-Eiff,
2013). From a social science perspective, such politically induced, in-
teractive network settings that involve researchers and practitioners
from diverse fields, can also be considered a “real world laboratory”
implemented with a transdisciplinary research approach (Renn, 2018).
In other words, for social scientists, a multi-actor approach towards
innovation development is simultaneously research on and support to
innovation processes within a knowledge system context.
The study of innovation processes includes both the individual level
of an innovation’s adoption, and the collective consideration of and
decision-making in regard to an innovation’s development, im-
plementation, and diffusion process within a social system (Rogers,
2003; Karnowski, 2017). In this study, successful SFT innovations are
investigated using a static lens on the one side, which considers (i) the
A. Knierim, et al.
innovation’s attributes, (ii) farm characteristics, and farmer character-
istics, attitudes, and perspectives, (iii) information sources and channels
in play, and (iv) the influences coming from the surrounding social
system (Hoffmann et al., 2009:100). Secondly, we consider innovation
as a process, taking into account the innovation’s development over
time, and the interactions and communication flows within actor net-
works that occur during the process (Wielinga et al., 2017). However,
there is no formula for the influencing factors’ concurrences, but rather
contingencies (Albrecht, 1963; Hoffmann, 2007). Empirically, a sys-
temic and situational conceptualisation of individual behaviour change
has been substantiated for environmentally innovative agricultural
practices (e.g. Siebert et al., 2006; Burton, 2014), although this has not
been applied to SFT innovation processes yet. Most importantly, how-
ever, the majority of studies on agricultural technology adoption ne-
glect farmers’ perceptions, attitudes and, interests regarding the tech-
nologies, thus omitting their subjective perspectives. Investigating
farmers’ perceptions and application of SFT, and in particular how their
active participation in innovation and knowledge networks could be
improved, provide new insights into how and why farmers adopt SFT or
not. Previous studies have emphasized the key role that farmers’ par-
ticipation and connectedness to networks and communities of practice
have for innovation generation and adoption (Leeuwis and van den
Ban, 2004; Klerkx et al., 2010). This is attributed to farmers exchanging
and sharing trusted knowledge (Läpple et al., 2016). However, given
that they are part of heterogeneous networks and communities invol-
ving multiple actors (besides farmers), a lack of interaction with these
other actors can hamper their participation in and access to innovation
processes (Dolinska and D’Aquino, 2016), including SFT adoption.
Operating in the multi-actor setting, we use an action research fra-
mework to clarify scientists’ roles in the research process. Action research
is characterised as “a participatory process concerned with developing
practical knowing in the pursuit of worthwhile human purposes. It seeks
to bring together action and reflection, theory and practice, in partici-
pation with others, in the pursuit of practical solutions to issues of
pressing concern to people and more generally the flourishing of in-
dividual persons and their communities” (Reason and Bradbury, 2008:4).
More precisely, our project’s approach require actors to take a position
on how project objectives were determined, and how research was de-
signed and implemented so that the results can be interpreted appro-
priately. Project activities consisted of classical empirical field studies,
and participatory research involving consortium partners from various
professional fields, and interactive workshops and (semi-) public events
with a broader range of interested stakeholders. Within this context, we
use an action research concept to clarify our epistemological perspective
and refer to Checkland and Holwell (1998) who highlight action research
as an iterative and reflexive integration of classical research elements
into real-life situations. Classical research is characterised by a re-
searcher’s framework of ideas which are applied to an area of concern
with the help of methods and thereby produce results and learning
outcomes Fig. 1. In an action research approach (Fig. 1), the researcher
enters into a “real world problem situation” instead of an “area of con-
cern”, which means that actions are not only shaped by ideas and
methods but also by interactions in the field. In such settings, findings are
obtained by both classical empirical research and by using and reflecting
upon results of researchers’ interventions.
In this paper, the presented concepts constitute the framework of
ideas of the researchers, as documented at the outset of the project in a
deliverable (Kernecker et al., 2017). Further explanations of how the
action research was implemented, are presented in the methods section.
3. Methods and material
3.1. The empirical case
Our empirical material originates from the smart-AKIS field re-
search and in particular from the German smart-AKIS project hub,
3
NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 90–91 (2019) 100314
which was established in cooperation between the DLG (German agri-
cultural society, an independent professional farmers’ association at the
national level) and ZALF (an independent public research body). From
early 2016 to mid-2018, the two partners cooperated in empirical re-
search, regional innovation workshops (RIW) and other public events,
aiming to identify farmers’ needs and interests with regard to digital
and smart farming technologies, and to investigate factors affecting the
generation, adoption, and diffusion processes of SFT in the larger AKIS.
A mixed-methods approach was chosen (Creswell and Plano-Clark,
2007), combining instruments from both classical empirical and parti-
cipatory research in (i) a farmers’ survey, (ii) expert consultation and
(iii) a series of multi-actor workshops in combination with further
(semi-) public communicative activities.
3.2. Methods of data collection and analysis
Both a standardised survey and a semi-structured interview scheme
were elaborated in cooperation between the scientific partner (ZALF)
and other partners in the consortium (among them the German DLG).
Research questions were based on findings from the literature on
technology adoption and were also based on the interests of the project
partners, specifically those from farmers’ and advisory organisations,
companies, and other consortium members. To ensure that SFT were
understood and communicated coherently, the survey included images
of the four SFT types: (1) recording and mapping technologies, 2)
tractor GPS and connected tools, 3) apps and farm management and
information systems (FMIS), and 4) autonomously operating machines.
The survey was implemented by the Smart-AKIS partners in seven
European countries (the UK, the Netherlands, France, Spain, Greece,
Serbia, and Germany). Data was predominantly quantitatively pro-
cessed and analysed by ZALF (Kernecker et al., 2017).
To complement the survey, semi-structured expert interviews were
conducted with actors from science, industries and the wider public
(administration, media etc.) (Newing et al., 2010). A software sup-
ported transcription and qualitative content analysis were undertaken,
applying a deductive category assignment (Dresing and Pehl, 2015;
Mayring, 2010, 2014). The results were summarised in a report (Borges
et al., 2017). As many experts made statements with an international
rather than a national perspective, we do not refer here to German
experts only, but present excerpts of the aggregated findings.
As a third empirical component, 3 multi-actor workshops were held
during 2017–2018 in different locations throughout Germany: Saxony-
Anhalt (RIW1), Bavaria (RIW2), and Saxony (RIW3). Each workshop
followed an agenda that was jointly decided upon by the German hub
and targeted a range of different actors (farmers, technology providing
companies, members of the agricultural administration, agricultural
advisors, etc.). Most participants were contacted personally via phone
or email by the DLG partner and a few through the ZALF network. The
program of each of the workshops followed a project-related, pre-
defined scheme and focused on the initial phases in an innovation
process and related specific requirements for integrating SFT into
farming. Specifically, the focus of each of the RIW were (i) identifying
and confirming farmers’ needs and main challenges for SFT adoption,
(ii) identifying the particular needs of small-scale farmers or small-
structured farms and presenting potential solutions; and (iii) inviting
innovators (researchers, start-ups, consultants) and funders to create
potential funded project groups. Methodologically, the workshops were
composed of (i) targeted inputs from scientists and experts in the sub-
ject matter (out of the team of authors); (ii) presentations on SFT from
technology providers, (iii) facilitated and documented group discus-
sions, and (iv) participatory ranking and assessments with all workshop
participants.
Finally, the partners separately or jointly presented smart-AKIS
findings during exhibitions, fairs, innovation network events and si-
milar occasions in order to sensitise for SFT innovation and to mobilise
stakeholders for participation in project activities.
A. Knierim, et al. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 90–91 (2019) 100314

Fig. 1. Generic research components and their arrangement in the action research frame (Checkland and Holwell, 1998:15).

3.3. Sampling
Sampling was done separately for each of the different components.
For the farmers’ survey, a purposive scheme was designed combining a)
the dominant cropping systems per country, including arable farming,
orchards, field vegetable and vineyards (based on a selection for in-
vestigations in all 7 EU regions of the project), b) a range of re-
presentative farm size classes, and c) adopters and non-adopters of SFT
from a wide range of ages. We aimed to conduct surveys with 5–15
farmers from the relevant size classes for each cropping system, and
thereby reflect the heterogeneity of European cropping systems to
capture the technological needs, ideas, interests, and perceptions from a
stratified farming population. As the sampling of farmers was restricted
by consortium partners’ resources for field work, a bias towards orga-
nisationally related farmers cannot be excluded. We collected surveys
from a total of 287 farmers from across Europe. Here, we rely on the 27
responses from arable German farmers (Table 1).
The selection of experts for consultative interviews was based on
previous projects’ experiences and on recommendations of some project
partners, such as members of CEMA, the European Agricultural
Machinery Association, and colleagues from each of the hubs. Here, we
present aggregated insights from all 22 experts (10 from industry, 4
from practice and 8 from research) and highlight selected responses
from the 3 German experts (2 from research, one from practice).
For the RIWs, particular attention was paid to a mixed actor com-
position in order to reach cross-cutting discussions and multiple per-
spectives on the issues addressed. This aim was largely achieved for the
first and the second workshop, while the third workshop had an” in-
novation development” focus and therefore a reduced and selective
sample of participants (Table 2).
4. Findings
In the following, we present quantitative and qualitative findings
from the German smart-AKIS hub and contrast these with cross-cutting
findings from all seven case-studies which were described in more de-
tail by Kernecker et al. (2019).
4.1. German farmer sample
In Germany, a total of 27 farmers participated in the survey, among
which 25 had mainly arable crops and 2 farmers produced mainly open

Table 1
Stratification of farmers surveyed; Number of adopter (A) and non-adopters (NA) are listed according to farm size class, and both country (above) and cropping
system (below).
0-2 ha 2-10ha 11-50ha 51-100ha 101-200ha 201-500ha over 500 ha

A NA A NA A NA A NA A NA A NA A NA Total A Total NA Total

France 0 0 2 8 3 7 3 6 8 6 4 0 2 0 22 27 49
Germany 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 1 2 1 5 0 14 0 25 3 28
Greece 0 9 14 33 3 7 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 51 68
Serbia 1 3 2 17 1 6 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 31 36
Spain 0 0 0 1 4 10 2 1 5 4 1 0 0 0 12 16 28
Netherlands 0 0 2 1 12 2 6 5 9 3 4 0 0 0 33 11 44
UK 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 4 0 6 1 19 0 30 4 34
Total 1 12 20 63 24 33 16 20 28 14 20 1 35 0 144 143 287

Arable 1 3 2 10 6 6 10 15 21 11 18 1 29 0 87 46 133
Orchards 0 8 6 21 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 33 46
Vegetables 0 0 0 9 3 7 4 4 5 2 2 0 6 0 20 22 42
Vineyards 0 1 12 23 8 16 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 24 42 66
Total 1 12 20 63 24 33 16 20 28 14 20 1 35 0 144 143 287

4
A. Knierim, et al. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 90–91 (2019) 100314

Table 2 were non-adopters, which makes the German sample stand out from the
Participants in the regional workshops (RIW) according to professional affilia- rest. The use of mobile phones was common among all groups, in-
tion. cluding German farmers, where only one farmer did not have a mobile
Actor group RIW 1 RIW 2 RIW3 phone. In all countries except Serbia, farmers documented their data by
using either manual or digital or both methods. German farmers man-
Researchers 17 28 4 aged their farm data digitally (7 farmers), by hand (2 farmers), and
Industry 24 19 2 (start-ups)
both digitally and manually (18 farmers). Only in the Netherlands and
Farmers 13 15
Advisors/consultants 12 5 1 the UK, there was a larger proportion of farmers who documented their
Funding party 2 farm data solely digitally and a correspondingly slim proportion of
Total 66 67 9 farmers who documented their data only by hand.
In sum, the German sample is characterized by large farms, one
dominant cropping system, and a relatively young, highly educated
group of farmers which have almost all already some experience with
SFT, in particular with tractor-based GPS and associated tools.
Although this homogeneity of the sample can partly be attributed to the
way the interviewees were recruited, which relied on the DLG farmers’
network and a field day event among ZALF partners, there are inter-
esting parallels to the Dutch and the UK sample which suggest a certain
socio-structural and farming system related predisposition for SFT.

4.2. Farmers’ attitudes, expectation, and perceptions of SFT

All farmers across all participating countries had positive attitudes

Fig. 2. Total number of farmers surveyed per country, grouped according to the
different cropping systems.
field vegetable crops (Fig. 2). Farm size was quite large in general, with
14 farms having more than 500 ha, and 5 others having between 200
and 500 ha (Table 1). Such sizes are far beyond the German average
size of 59 ha for full-time farms (BMEL, 2015:47). In this regard, the
sample is quite unique. Both farm size and cropping patterns were quite
similar for the German and the UK hub, while the other participating
countries reached a higher variation of farms, covering at least 3
cropping systems and a more equal representation of the different size
classes (Kernecker et al., 2019). Like the majority of all participating
farms, 15 out of the 27 German farms were family farms, most of them
run at full-time or almost full-time. Lastly, the participating farms re-
flect the spatial diversity of Germany, being located in 10 out of the 13
non-urban states (“Länder”) which allows us to at least partly capture
the regional diversity with the sample.
Roughly half of the German farmers belonged to the group of young
farmers (age class 20–29), and they all had either a technical or uni-
versity education. In this regard, again, there were similarities to the
farmers surveyed in the UK, while in the samples from the other
countries, farmers had more diverse educational backgrounds. Almost
all of the German arable crop farmers used SFT, and only 2 farmers
regarding technology in general, and in this regard, German farmers did
not differ from the other groups. Most farmers were active in seeking
solutions through their own, farm-level experimentation: Throughout
Europe, 78% of the farmers do experiment on their farms, either by
themselves (30%), with other farmers (8%), or with researchers or
advisors (26%). Furthermore, 70% of the farmers had pro-actively
sought out information on SFT. Over half of the farmers said they vis-
ited trade fairs more than once a year, and about 30% said they visited
once a year. These figures were reflected in the German sample: 6 out of
the 27 farmers stated that they do not experiment on their farm, only 4
farmers had not sought out information on SFT, and all but 2 farmers
attend trade fairs and exhibits at least once a year.
With a number of closed questions, we explored farmers’ expecta-
tions of SFT to support their farms’ performance and environmental
sustainability. As a point of reference for the survey questions, we asked
farmers to keep in mind one of the pre-defined SFT types that were
presented in images, and to agree or disagree with statements on what
that particular SFT could do for farming performance and environ-
mental impact. 21 out of 27 farmers referred to GPS related technolo-
gies. All responses were largely positive, in particular, those to more
general statements, for example, “SFT is useful for farming” (Fig. 3). A
more cautious attitude was expressed with regard to SFT’ potential to
improve environmental or work comfort conditions with 8 and 11
people disagreeing. In general, the more specific questions had more

Fig. 3. German farmers’ expectations of SFT potential for general on-farm considerations.

5
A. Knierim, et al.
Fig. 4. German farmers' ranking of farm challenges that could make SFT a promising means to increase sustainability.
contested responses – both among German farmers and also in the total
European sample.
Furthermore, we asked farmers to rank societal challenges related to
agricultural production that make or could make SFT more important
for their farms. These questions revealed more explicit expectations
that farmers had for SFT to fulfil certain environmental requirements.
About 80% of the German farmers (21 out of 27 farmers) considered
using SFT to reduce N use as important or very important. Soil con-
servation was also considered of high importance, as was regulation
compliance and biodiversity conservation. Reducing herbicides and
harvest losses were the least important, on average, for German farmers
(Fig. 4). The German farmers’ ranking differed considerably to the total
sample in terms of attributing importance to the SFT to overcome
challenges in general (absolute mean values). Obviously, German
farmers’ perception of SFT’ potential to effectively deal with challenges
reflects the current issue of nitrate emission into water bodies, and
related recent changes in fertilizer regulation, expanding upon the Ni-
trate Directive. However, the general expectations for SFT are relatively
modest compared to the total sample.
In sum, we observe a high interest in and a generally positive atti-
tude towards SFT among a well-informed and SFT experienced sample
of German farmers. Judgements from this same group were somewhat
more cautious when survey statements became more specific with re-
gard to SFT potential for certain farming outcomes. In particular,
technologies’ contributions to increase farm-level environmental sus-
tainability were moderately rated.
Out of the 27 German farmers, 19 provided feedback about barriers
to SFT adoption highlighting costs (8 mentions) and compatibility (6
mentions) predominantly, mirroring the total sample in regard to the
barriers they perceived (Kernecker et al., 2019). Other key statements
addressed the need to consolidate functions, thereby adapting the SFT
to address not only single farming issues, but taking the holistic nature
of farming into account. Moreover, one farmer mentioned that new SFT
are not particularly needed, but that manufacturers and developers
should focus on optimizing existing SFT. Specifically, the constant on-
slaught of new SFT slows adoption, since farmers need time to become
adapted to devices. In regard to barriers to SFT adoption, German
farmers differed from the European sample, since access through in-
formation and infrastructure was not mentioned – only cost.
4.3. Experts’ perspectives – qualitative findings
In regard to farmers’ and farms’ characteristics and how they relate
to SFT innovation processes, all experts considered age as a crucial
6
NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 90–91 (2019) 100314
determinant for adoption. Experts argue that older generations tend to
suspend the farms’ technological equipment, and a disruption of tech-
nology is expected with the generation change. Referring to farmers’
level of education, opinions were split. While northern European experts
emphasized the importance of further education towards innovative
technology adoption, southern European experts addressed a general
lack of education as a hindering factor. Farmers’ general interest in new
technologies was broadly confirmed. While various economic argu-
ments were prominent as fostering factors, the interest in more en-
vironmentally friendly or sustainable operations was considered as a
non-primary need but a welcomed side-effect of the technologies. Some
of the experts didn’t consider structural factors, including farm size, as
decisive alone but only in combination with a particular cropping
system. On the other hand, several interviewees of the practice group
emphasized that economic farm size does matter because of farms’
capacity to invest and the resulting economy of scales. Nevertheless,
some experts suggested that in the long run, this scale advantage may
become obsolete as a drift towards autonomous machines and robotics
with a more flexible scope of application is expected.
Furthermore, experts stated that farmers are not primarily inter-
ested in technology, but rather in tools for farming. They believed that
farmers’ attitudes and values play a major role for their decision making,
since farmers think systemically and are generally well informed of
both challenges and potential solutions. Moreover, experts stated that
farmers think broadly, so that when farmers consider using or adopting
SFT, they consider all technological possibilities to address their needs.
For example, the limited availability of labour force may become more
and more a constraint for farm management, and SFT could, therefore,
be a possibility to replace manpower. However, experts denied that this
was farmers’ intentions and instead highlighted a deficit of skilled
workers that can operate SFT. One of the experts addressed not only the
divide in the technological markets between large and small farms, but
also between conventional and organic farms, and lamented that there
were not single technologies applicable to all and any types of farms.
On a similar note, experts addressed the high value that farmers attri-
bute to their autonomy and stated: “farmers hate black boxes (…) a
farmer would only accept technology when the technology is telling him why
it suggests something” (research expert). Consequently, farmers tend to
avoid lock-ins with technology companies, a particularly pertinent issue
for small-scale farmers. The interface between the SFT manufacturer or
developer and the agricultural user also caught experts’ attention and it
was frequently observed that “industry is offering something that doesn’t
fit to the needs of farmers” (research expert), thereby requesting that
technology development and practice targeted real practical problems
A. Knierim, et al.
in SFT innovation processes. Obviously, there are communication
challenges and one problem “in smart farming technologies is that a
farmer has to learn the vocabulary of the programmer” (research expert).
Besides farm-level factors and farmers’ characteristics, experts re-
ferred to a number of further influencing factors from the direct and the
wider social environment. A strong emphasis was put on access to
impartial information and client-tailored advice, which was perceived
as lacking all over Europe. Secondly, supportive political instruments
were acknowledged. Thirdly, societal expectations and rising demand
for quality products was considered as supporting SFT innovation
adoption, especially in northern Europe. And, as a further crucial point
for SFT dissemination, rural areas’ infrastructures for digitalisation
were emphasised.
4.4. German regional innovation workshops
The regional innovation workshops (RIW) confirmed and expanded
upon findings from the farmer survey and expert interviews regarding
stakeholders’ perceptions of SFT to deal with on-farm challenges.
Specifically, the invited product presentations from private companies in
RIW 1 and 2 corresponded with the anticipated interests of the partici-
pants, notably farmers. Also, both workshops served to crosscheck,
complement, and differentiate previous findings. SFT’ relative advantage
for large farms was both confirmed, and questioned at the same time
(“Digital platforms are a great help for farms, regardless of the size of the
farm”, participant RIW 1). Barriers to SFT adoption and dissemination
that were discussed at the RIW 1 and 2, allowed us to identify four main
constraints: missing standards, hardware development, mobile/digital
infrastructure, and communication and information (Erdle, 2018). A lack
of standardization at device interfaces to ensure rapid and secure ex-
change of data between different systems was widely criticised. Also,
there is a mismatch between hardware developments and the speed of
software solution development. For example, software, data analysis, and
information supply are ahead of machine steering (seed densities, tilling
technology). However, there is not yet sufficient infrastructure available
for the exchange and transportation of large amounts of data required for
using SFT in agriculture, which is particularly true for rural areas in
Eastern Germany. Another complaint was that information on SFT for
farmers is not neutral. Finally, a number of farmers cannot reproduce the
advantages of using SFT, especially when the costs of SFT exceed the
direct visible benefit. While during RIW 2, small-scale farmers tended to
confirm both interests in and similar problems to cope with SFT, the
specific challenge they formulated, is to keep up with the learning and
training requirements that are connected to the application of new
technologies, because they usually have less time availabilities. On the
other hand, they addressed specific needs and opportunities for SFT,
which included work assistance through automated steering systems, or
an improved section control when working on small fields with irregular
shapes (Pfeiffer et al., 2018).
The workshops also yielded more concrete feedbacks on particular
technologies. For example, while tools for fertilizer and pesticide ap-
plication are adopted frequently due to their direct effect on crop
production, digital platforms are viewed with more scepticism because
there is no visible direct benefit for the production system.
Furthermore, the question arose whether it was SFT supply or demand
shaping what farmers adopt and how. SFT developers lamented that
farmers did not have enough ideas for SFT. On the other hand, farmers
lamented that they want SFT developers to supply solutions that work
and are relevant, and that instead SFT providers took a “wait-and-see”
position for what is demanded in practice. Furthermore, consultants
and farmers agreed that the current vocational education does not meet
the needs for using SFT appropriately in farming. Simultaneously, basic
knowledge about soil-plant-climate interactions and basic plant pro-
duction seems to be getting lost.
Finally, the RIW findings deviated from survey and interview find-
ings by contesting the assumption that farm size matters for adoption.
7
NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 90–91 (2019) 100314
While survey findings clearly indicated that across Europe, SFT adop-
tion has increased with farm size until now, and several experts con-
firmed the trend and likelihood of larger farms to be the SFT adopters,
the second RIW on small farm structures in southern Germany clearly
revealed that participating farmers did not agree. Farmers and other
workshop participants suggested that rather than size, adoption was
hindered due to lack of education and information related to both SFT
and agronomy for farmers, advisors, and SFT providers. In this sense,
farmers’ uptake of SFT was influenced by their trust in and risks asso-
ciated with SFT use, which was one reason for their pursuit to com-
municate with other AKIS stakeholders (Pfeiffer et al., 2018).
The RIW 1 and 2 did not generate direct interactions related to SFT
innovations among the various participating actors, even though this
was a goal for the workshops. On the contrary, a certain reservation of
both the industry partners and farmers to discuss innovative ideas was
observed. This can be explained by the potentially competitive situation
that resulted from having a range of private entrepreneurs jointly in the
workshops. The third RIW was planned to overcome this dilemma and
dedicated to defining and developing two particular projects for in-
novative technologies with selected business and research partners.
Consequently, the number of participants in RIW 3 was considerably
lower and the diversity of actors clearly reduced compared to the first
ones (Table 1). Also, the input of the ZALF-DLG team was targeted
towards financing and project development measures and instruments
only. In this regard, the results with regard to the factors enhancing SFT
innovation generation and adoption were limited to economic chal-
lenges in the phase of prototype development.
4.5. Multi-actor approach in SFT innovation processes
The smart-AKIS multi-actor approach in Germany was implemented
through the continued cooperation between ZALF and DLG and through
the multi-actor composition of the three regional workshops. The ZALF-
DLG cooperation was effective in data production and knowledge
generation, in the outreach to the AKIS actor groups, and with regard to
SFT awareness creation in several farmers’ communities. Nevertheless,
the cooperation was also demanding in terms of communication time,
and in particular, data collection was hampered by different expecta-
tions and methodological approaches, so that in this regard, the shared
work was not efficient. This science-practice cooperation was perceived
as gradually improving, and finally matured during the last year of
project. The cooperation was operationalized when DLG utilized data
from the survey to stimulate workshop input. Since the project ended,
the German hub or ZALF-DLG cooperation no longer exists, so the
smart-AKIS approach did not allow a lasting science-practice partner-
ship to be built up.
The RIWs used the multi-actor approach, and provided insight to the
complexity of the SFT innovation processes, yielded considerable ad-
ditional information regarding farmers’ needs and science-practice co-
operation, and therefore allowed us to learn new lessons about the
innovation system. The success of the RIWs was clearly due to the
specific focus, both on topics, goals, and regions, which can be attrib-
uted to the DLG’s excellent links to the practitioners within the AKIS.
Still, a high level of engagement of both DLG and ZALF was necessary to
mobilize participants and to carry out an interactive programme. In
contrast to assumptions made in the project proposal, the workshops’
multi-actor settings did not directly lead to establishing or further de-
veloping SFT innovations.
Aside from their professional profiles, the authors were strongly
involved in dissemination activities such as an interactive presentation
to the Agritechnica audience, presenting to interested farmers at other
events, interacting with other groups within the German EIP-agri net-
works, reaching out to the wider public interested in science, and
creating awareness for the web-based technology portal. These en-
gagements were inherent to the project’s character, and were personally
rewarding. However, they were surprisingly demanding in time and
A. Knierim, et al.
resources and had little relevance to the scientific professional profile.
5. Discussion
5.1. Current knowledge and further research needs for SFT innovation
In the framework of the innovation-supportive research project
smart-AKIS, which applied a multi-actor approach, we studied the
factors influencing farmers’ SFT adoption in Germany. Findings partly
confirm and partly expand on and differentiate current knowledge on
farmers’ and farming systems’ characteristics that are favourable to SFT
adoption. First, the farming system that we studied is highly familiar
with SFT, mostly due to the prevalence of GPS-based technologies in
arable farming. This phenomenon of farming system- specific tech-
nology choices was even more evident for the other smart-AKIS re-
gional cases, where large differences between regions, farm structures,
and cropping systems reflected how SFT could respond to farmers’
needs and farming objectives (Kernecker et al., 2019). To our knowl-
edge, such particular relationships have not yet been addressed else-
where in the literature and would merit further systematic exploration.
Secondly, the socio-demographic characteristics of the German sample,
which included young, well-educated farmers who are responsible for
large, arable crop farms often with > 500 ha, largely correspond to
what has been formerly reported for Germany and other EU countries
(Paustian and Theuvsen, 2017; Pierpaoli et al., 2013). This trend is
ascribed to scale effects and related economic profitability (see Barnes
et al., 2019 and references therein).
In regard to farmers’ perceptions, we were able to expand upon
previously unaddressed factors, including farmers’ attitudes towards
SFT for dealing with societal challenges. We observed that positive
expectations of SFT potentials are widely expressed by experts and
stakeholders from the wider AKIS (Busse et al., 2014; Antle et al., 2017;
Walter et al., 2017), including experts’ views that were presented here.
The obvious reservation of the German farmers towards SFT perfor-
mance in moderating farms’ external (i.e. environmental) effects, is in
contrast to their general technology-affirmative attitude. This result is
interpreted as farmers’ realistic assessment of technological pros and
cons, which is however weakened by the deplored lack of information,
training, and access to advice on SFT innovations. Farmers’ attitudes
and perceptions have been widely studied in relation to adoption of
agri-environmental schemes or conservation management practices
(e.g. Morris and Potter, 1995; Defrancesco et al., 2008; Mills et al.,
2017; Werner et al., 2017). However, based on our review of the lit-
erature, how technologies are truly viewed as a means to achieve
agricultural sustainability has not been studied.
We used the procedural AKIS concept (Klerkx et al., 2012) to study
the performance of SFT innovation processes, which allowed us to
systematically explore actors’ linkages, their effective cooperation and
co-design. Through the RIW, we found evidence of a lack of effective
interaction and knowledge flows, in particular between farmers and
technology providers. Also, there was an almost complete lack of en-
gagement from the agricultural advisors’ group, a gap confirmed by
some of the experts. Weak links between AKIS actors have been re-
cognized as a bottleneck for effectively implementing agricultural
technology systems (van Crowder and Anderson, 1997). Such frag-
mented AKIS is apparently not as prolific as e.g. ‘learning innovation
networks for sustainable agriculture’ (LINSAs) (Moschitz et al., 2015),
and one barrier to innovation is the missing support function of pro-
viding access to impartial information and advice (Faure et al., 2019),
which can be attributed to the regionalised, highly pluralistic extension
system in Germany (Knierim et al., 2015).
5.2. Benefits of using a multi-actor approach and action research
Methodologically, the multi-actor approach yielded a diversity of
perspectives on SFT innovation that emerged from the various research
8
NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 90–91 (2019) 100314
settings that we used in this study. In particular, we found that RIW
were successful in that they provided a platform for the many different
actors to engage in a dialogue regarding SFT innovation processes, even
if in these settings company representatives were not prepared to ne-
gotiate in public. In sum, the multi-actor approach (i) yielded com-
plementary data, which portrayed the current state of SFT adoption and
diffusion in Germany; (ii) created awareness for SFT innovation pro-
cesses among diverse actors, and (iii) mobilized a few actors in project
development. However, looking closer at the multi-actor settings we
engaged in, we have to conclude that apparently, they were not con-
ducive enough to close divides between the various private en-
trepreneurial actors. We ascribe this to the characteristics of the SFT in
question, to their non-triability, reduced observability and limited re-
lative advantages (Rogers, 2003, Erdle, 2018), and, to the incontestable
barriers of the infrastructural environment, such as missing technolo-
gical standards, mismatches in hardware and software developments
and deficits of digital infrastructures, notably in rural areas (Walter
et al., 2017; Erdle, 2018). Most obviously, both such hindering factors
cannot be overcome in a project setting, thus challenging the assump-
tions behind the political instruments used by the EU.
As social scientists cooperating with different actors involved in the
exploration and support of (SFT) innovations, our interventions in ‘real-
life’ settings resulted in an expansion of roles, which was challenging -
in particular, the time allotted to communication with project partners
and the wider AKIS network. Taking on roles as facilitator, informant or
process designer, and engaging in related activities required openness, a
learning attitude, and high flexibility (Schmid et al., 2016). Thus, this
kind of action research was personally enriching and rewarding, how-
ever, insights and professional stimulations in a strict social science
sense were mostly of general character and did not delve deep con-
ceptually. In sum, acknowledging and working with perspectives from
other sectors, including industry, practice, and policy, generated more
questions than answers with regard to the design of effective multi-
actor innovation processes. Moreover, participation in such a project
made us question how well disseminating SFT and other innovations
fits to scientists’ professional profile, or if it is too close to the market or
politics (see, for example, Jain et al., 2009). Further reflexive research
and work to consider how the strengths of the multi-actor approach can
be combined with a scientifically more rewarding action research
format is necessary.
6. Conclusion
With this study, we present a topical overview of smart farming
technology (SFT) adoption and its influencing factors in Germany, as
perceived by a range of stakeholders, in particular different farmer
groups, experts and multi-actor constellations. Farmers’ perceptions
and judgements, although obtained from different intentionally con-
stituted samples, are quite complementary. Farmers, both in a survey
and during regional innovation workshops (RIW), had a positive view
towards SFT in general, but perceived a broad range of barriers when it
came to implementation. Partially, these barriers could be overcome by
a better adjustment of technologies to farmers’ needs and farm condi-
tions, which however would require additional activities from both,
farmers and technology providers. On the other hand, an improved
enabling environment would greatly improve the favourable adoption
conditions, in particular focusing on better access to SFT related in-
formation, training and advisory services and to reliable digital infra-
structure.
The multi-actor approach that we used, allowed to obtain in-
formation on SFT innovation processes that was relevant to more di-
verse actors, and provided insight to the inconsistencies in the ex-
pectations, goals related to SFT innovations, and deficits in the SFT
related AKIS. As a sum, the science-practice cooperation between the
public research body and the professional farmers’ organisation to im-
plement the German smart-AKIS hub, was successful in sensitising and
A. Knierim, et al. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 90–91 (2019) 100314

mobilising professional actors. However, the project’s time was much legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32013R1305.
too short to evaluate possible impacts, and with its end, the cooperation EU SCAR, 2012. Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems in Transition – A
Reflection Paper. Brussels.
ended, so that its effective success can hardly be assessed. EU SCAR, 2013. Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems Towards 2020 - An
Finally, the multi-actor approach in this type of funding measure, Orientation Paper on Linking Innovation and Research. Brussels.
clearly impacted on the scientists’ roles, and expanded upon their Fountas, S., Carli, G., Sorensen, C.G., Tsiropoulos, Z., Cavalaris, C., Vatsanidou, A., Liakos,
B., Canavari, M., Wiebensohn, J., Tisserye, B., 2015. Farm management information
professional profile, leading away from traditional duties to being co- systems: current situation and future perspectives. Comput. Electron. Agric. 115,
ordinators, facilitators, and conducting outreach for disseminating in- 40–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2015.05.011.
formation on SFT innovations. Whether or not these activities go be- Geels, F.W., 2002. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a
multi-level perspective and a case study. Res. Policy 31, 1257–1274.
yond the scope of participatory, multi-actor research, and more into Hoffmann, V., 2007. Five editions (1962–2003) of Everett Rogers’s diffusion of innova-
marketing and representing industry is unclear – at least this tension tions. Book Review. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 13 (2), 147–158.
highlights the fine line separating these worlds. Hoffmann, V., Gerster-Bentaya, M., Christinck, A., Lemma, M. (Eds.), 2009. Handbook:
Rural Extension, Volume 1, Basic Issues and Concepts. Margraf Publishers,
Weikersheim.
Acknowledgements Ingram, J., Dywer, J., Gaskell, P., Mills, J., de Wolf, P., 2018. Reconceptualising trans-
lation in agricultural innovation: a co-translation approach to bring research
The authors acknowledge the smart-AKIS project consortium. This knowledge and practice closer together. Land Use Policy 70, 38–51.
Ison, R., 2012. systems practice: making the systems in farming systems research effec-
work was funded by the EU horizon 2020 Program, grant agreement n° tive. In: Darnhofer, I., Gibbon, D., Dedieu, B. (Eds.), Farming Systems into the 21st
696294. The authors are grateful for constructive comments and va- Century: The New Dynamic. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 141–157 15.
luable hints from two anonymous referees and the guest editor. Jain, S., George, G., Maltarich, M., 2009. Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role
identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity.
Res. Policy 38, 922–935.
References Karnowski, V., 2017. Diffusionstheorie. Konzepte, Ansätze der Medien- und
Kommunikationswissenschaft. Nomos Verlag 116p.
Kernecker, M., Knierim, A., Wurbs, A., 2017. Report on farmers’ needs, innovative ideas
Albrecht, H. (1963) Zum heutigen Stand der adoption-Forschung in den Vereinigten
and interests. Smart-AKIS Deliverable 2.2. ZALF. . https://www.smart-akis.com/
Staaten. Versuch einer kritischen Analyse im Hinblick auf die Relevanz für die
wpcontent/uploads/2017/02/D2.2.-Report-on-farmers-needs.pdf.
Landwirtschaftliche Beratung. Berichte über Landwirtschaft, 41 (H2):233-282.
Kernecker, M., Knierim, A., Wurbs, A., Kraus, T., Borges, F., 2019. Experience versus
Antle, J.M., Jones, J.W., Rosenzweig, C., 2017. Next generation agricultural system
expectation: farmers’ perceptions of smart farming technologies for cropping systems
models and knowledge products: synthesis and strategy. Agric. Syst. 155, 179–185.
across Europe. Precis. Agric.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.05.006.
Klerkx, L., Aarts, N., Leeuwis, C., 2010. Adaptive management in agricultural innovation
Barnes, A., De Soto, I., Eory, V., Beck, B., Balafoutis, A., Sánchez, B., Vangeyte, J.,
systems: the interactions between innovation networks and their environment. Agric.
Fountas, S., van der Wal, T., Gómez-Barbero, M., 2019. Influencing factors and in-
Syst. 103, 390–400.
centives on the intention to adopt precision agricultural technologies within arable
Klerkx, L., van Mierlo, B., Leeuwis, C., 2012. Evolution of systems approaches to agri-
farming systems. Environ. Sci. Policy 93, 66–74.
cultural innovation: concepts, analysis and interventions. In: Darnhofer, I., Gibbon,
Beers, P.J., Geerling-Eiff, F., 2013. Networks as policy instruments for innovation. J.
D., Dedieu, B. (Eds.), Farming Systems into the 21st Century: The New Dynamic.
Agric. Educ. Ext. 20, 363–379.
Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 457–482 Chapter 20.
BMEL (Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft), 2015. Agrarbericht.
Knierim, A., Boenning, K., Caggiano, M., Cristóvão, A., Dirimanova, V., Koehnen, T.,
Berlin. http://www.bmel-statistik.de/fileadmin/user_upload/monatsberichte/DFB-
Labarthe, P., Prage, K., 2015. The AKIS concept and its relevance in selected EU
0010010-2015.pdf [accessed 17.04.2019]. .
member states. Outlook Agric. 44 (1), S.29–36. https://doi.org/10.5367/oa.2015.
Borges, Friederike, Kernecker, Maria, Knierim, Andrea, Wurbs, Angelika, 2017. Report on
0194.
Factors Affecting Innovation, Adoption and Diffusion Processes. Müncheberg.
Kutter, T., Tiemann, S., Siebert, R., Fountas, S., 2011. The role of communication and co-
Smart-AKIS project, 696294. .
operation in the adoption of precision farming. Precis. Agric. 12 (1), 2–17. https://
Burton, R.J., 2014. The influence of farmer demographic characeristics on environmental
doi.org/10.1007/s11119-009-9150-0.
behaviour: a review. J. Environ. Manage. (135), 19–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Läpple, D., Renwick, A., Cullinan, J., Thorne, F., 2016. What drives innovation in the
jenvman.2013.12.005.
agricultural sector? A spatial analysis of knowledge spillovers. Land Use Policy 56,
Busse, M., Doernberg, A., Siebert, R., Kuntosch, A., Schwerdtner, W., König, B.,
238–250.
Bokelmann, W., 2014. Innovation mechanisms in German precision farming. Precis.
Leeuwis, C., van den Ban, A., 2004. Communication for Rural Innovation: Rethinking
Agric. 15, 403–426.
Agricultural Extension. Blackwell Science, Oxford.
Carolan, M., 2017. Publicising food: big data, precision agriculture, and Co-experimental
Levins, R.A., Cochrane, W.W., 1996. The treadmill revisited. Land Econ. 72, 550–553.
techniques of addition. Sociol. Rural. 57, 135–154.
Long, T.B., Blok, V., Coninx, I., 2016. Barriers to the adoption and diffusion of techno-
Checkland, P., Holwell, S., 1998. Action research: its nature and validity. Syst. Pract.
logical innovations for climate-smart agriculture in Europe: evidence from the
Action Res. 11, 9–21.
Netherlands, France, Switzerland and Italy. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 9–21. https://doi.
COM (European Commission), 2017. Communication From the Commission to the
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.044.
European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and
Mayring, P., 2014. Qualitative Content Analysis. Theoretical Foundation, Basic
the Committee of the Regions. The Future of Food and Farming, Brussels 29.11.2017,
Procedures and Software Solution, Klagenfurt: Social Science Open Access
COM (2017)713 final.
Repository.
Creswell, J.W., Plano-Clark, V., 2007. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods
Mayring, P., 2010. Qualitative inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken, 11 ed. Beltz
Research. Sage, California.
Verlag, Weinheim, Basel.
Daberkow, S.G., McBride, W.D., 2003. Farm and operator characteristics affecting the
Mills, J., Gaskell, P., Ingram, J., Dwyer, J., Reed, M., Short, C., 2017. Engaging farmers in
awareness and adoption of precision agriculture technologies in the US. Precis. Agric.
environmental management through a better understanding of behaviour. Agric.
4 (2), 163–177. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1024557205871.
Human Values 34, 283–299.
Defrancesco, E., Gatto, P., Runge, F., Trestini, S., 2008. Factors affecting farmers’ parti-
Morris, C., Potter, C., 1995. Recruiting the new conservationists: farmers’ adoption of
cipation in agri-environmental measures: a northern italian perspective. J. Agric.
agrienvironmental schemes in the U.K. J. Rural Stud. 11, 51–63.
Econ. 59, 114–131.
Learning and innovation networks for sustainable agriculture: processes of co-evolution,
Dolinska, A., d’Aquino, P., 2016. Farmers as agents in innovation systems. Empowering
joint reflection and facilitation. Moschitz, H., Brunori, G., Roep, D., Tisenkopfs, T.
farmers for innovation through communities of practice. Agric. Syst. 142, 122–130.
(Eds.), JAEE 21 (1) special issue.
Dresing, T., Pehl, T., 2015. Praxisbuch Interview, Transkription & Analyse6. Eigenverlag,
Müller, H., 2016. Digitalisierung: Wohin geht die Reise. DLG Mitteilungen (10). pp.
Marburg.
S.14–17.
Faure, G., Knierim, A., Koutsouris, A., Ndah, H.T., Audouin, S., Zarokosta, E., Wielinga,
Newing, H., Eagle, C.M., Puri, R., Watson, C.W., 2010. Conducting Research in
E., Triomphe, B., Mathé, S., Temple, L., Heanue, K., 2019. How to strengthen in-
Conservation: Social Science Methods and Practice. https://doi.org/10.4324/
novation support services in Agriculture with regard to multi-stakeholder ap-
9780203846452.
proaches. JIEM 28, 145–169. https://doi.org/10.3917/jie.028.0145.
Paustian, M., Theuvsen, L., 2017. Adoption of precision agriculture technologies by
EIP Agri, 2018. EIP Agri Brochure on Horizon 2020 Projects. Brussels. 2018. https://ec.
German crop farmers. Precis. Agric. 18, 701. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-016-
europa.eu/eip/agriculture/en/publications/eip-agri-brochure-horizon-2020-multi-
9482-5(Pierpaoli et al.,2013).
actor, last accessed on 30.10.2018.
Pfeiffer, J., Erdle, K., Gandorfer, M., 2018. ): Smarte Technik, große Wirkung? Schule und
Erdle, K., 2018. Smart AKIS Regional Report. The German Innovation Hub. Deliverable
Beratung, 5-6:55-56. Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Ernährung. Landwirtschaft
3.2, DLG. . https://www.smart-akis.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/GERMANY_
und Forsten.
RIW_Report.pdf.
Pierpaoli, E., Carli, G., Pignatti, E., Canavari, M., 2013. Drivers of precision agriculture
EU (European Parliament and Council), 2013. Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the
technologies adoption: a literature review. Procedia Technol. 8, 61–69.
European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on Support for Rural
Poppe, K.J., Wolfert, S., Verdouw, C., Verwaart, T., 2013. Information and communica-
Development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)
tion technology as a driver for change in agri-food chains. EuroChoices 12, 60–65.
and Repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/
Reason, P., Bradbury, H., 2008. Inquiry & participation in search of a world worthy of

9
A. Knierim, et al.
human aspiration. In: Reason, P., Bradbury, H. (Eds.), Handbook of Action Research:
Participative Inquiry and Practice. SAGE publications limited Ltd, London.
Reichardt, M., Jurgens, C., 2009. Adoption and future perspective of precision farming in
Germany: results of several surveys among different agricultural target groups.
Precis. Agric. 10 (1), 73–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-008-9101-1.
Renn, O., 2018. Real world laboratories – the road to transdisciplinary research? GAIA 27
(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.27.S1.1.
Rogers, E.M., 2003. Diffusion of Innovations, 5th edn. Free Press, New York.
Schmid, J.C., Knierim, A., Knuth, U., 2016. Policy-induced innovations networks on cli-
mate change adaptation – an ex-post analysis of collaboration success and its influ-
encing factors. Environ. Sci. Policy 56, S67–79.
Siebert, R., Toogood, M., Knierim, A., 2006. Factors affecting european farmers ‘partici-
pation in biodiversity policies. Sociol. Rural. 46 (4), 318–340.
Tey, Y.S., Brindal, M., 2012. Factors influencing the adoption of precision agricultural
technologies: a review for policy implications. Precis. Agric. 13, 713–730. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11119-012-9273-6.
Touzard, J.M., Temple, L., Faure, G., Triomphe, B., 2015. Innovation systems and
10
NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 90–91 (2019) 100314
knowledge communities in the agriculture and agrifood sector: a literature review. J.
Innov. Econ. Manage. 2 (17), 117–142.
van Crowder, L., Anderson, J., 1997. Linking research, extension and education: why is
the problem so persistent and pervasive? Eur. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 3 (4), 241–249.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13892249785300061.
Walter, A., Finger, R., Huber, R., Buchmann, N., 2017. Smart farming is key to developing
sustainable agriculture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 114 (24), 6148–6150.
Wielinga, E., Koutsouris, A., Knierim, A., Guichiaoua, A., 2017. Generating space for
innovations in agriculture: the AgriSpin project. Stud. Agric. Econ. 119, 26–33.
https://doi.org/10.7896/j.1043.
Werner, M., Wauters, E., Bijttebier, J., Steinmann, H.-H., Ruysschaert, G., Knierim, A.,
2017. Farm level implementation of soil conservation measures: farmers’ beliefs and
intentions. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 32, 524–537.
Wolf, S.A., Buttel, F.H., 1996. The political economy of precision farming. Am. J. Agric.
Econ. 78, 1269–1274.
Wolfert, S., Ge, L., Verdouw, C., Bogaardt, M.-J., 2017. Big data in smart farming – a
review. Agric. Syst. 153, 69–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.01.023.