NJAS: Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/tjls20

In the starting blocks for smart agriculture: The

internet as a source of knowledge in transitional
agriculture

Krzysztof Janc, Konrad Czapiewski & Marcin Wójcik

To cite this article: Krzysztof Janc, Konrad Czapiewski & Marcin Wójcik (2019) In the starting
blocks for smart agriculture: The internet as a source of knowledge in transitional agriculture,
NJAS: Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 90-91:1, 1-12, DOI: 10.1016/j.njas.2019.100309

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2019.100309

Published online: 25 Mar 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 955

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 8 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tjls21
 NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 90–91 (2019) 100309

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences

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

Research paper

In the starting blocks for smart agriculture: The internet as a source of T

knowledge in transitional agriculture
⁎
Krzysztof Janca, , Konrad Czapiewskib, Marcin Wójcikc
a
University of Wroclaw, ul Kuźnicza 49/55, 50-138, Wrocław, Poland
b
Polish Academy of Sciences, ul. Twarda 51/55, 00-818, Warsaw, Poland
c
University of Lodz, ul. Kopcińskiego 31, 90-142, Łódź, Poland

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The work described here has sought to define the role of the Internet in knowledge acquisition among Polish
Internet farmers, as well as the diversity characterising their professional activity conducted online. Relevant discussion
Knowledge is in this way broadened to reflect the conditioning underpinning smart agriculture, most especially in the
Economic transition context of states emerging from a period of economic transition. Particular attention is here paid to the factor of
Agriculture
choice of source of information assisting with the running of a farm. Analyses relating to this matter are founded
Poland
upon questionnaires supplied by almost 2500 farmers. The results show that the Internet does not constitute the
most important information source for Polish farmers, though there is a close link between use of the Internet
and their basic social characteristics, as also associated with structural features of Polish agriculture. On that
basis, it can be considered that Polish farming still finds itself at the preliminary phase of entry into smart
agriculture. The Polish case shows that we cannot assume that there is a readiness for smart farming in all places.

1. Introduction
Smart agriculture is constituted by farms and farmers using ad-
vances in information and communication technologies to react to
challenges In this case, social, economic and technological change in
rural areas is very much conditioned by the development of smart
farming. Thus, as new challenges are faced, rural communities and the
rural economy (including farming) ought to take the smart develop-
ment model into account more and more (Naldi et al., 2015). When we
speak of any economic sector being” smart”, account is taken of the fact
that a territorial (local or regional) system comprises its entire array of
interconnected components. This is particularly true of agriculture,
given the way this is entirely rooted in the community operating in the
specific area. That in turn denotes influence exerted by community
resources of knowledge, means of functioning and approaches to eco-
nomic activity (Woods, 2005; Price and Evans, 2009). As territorial
components comprise the economy, the environment, management and
residents (Kumar and Dahiya, 2017), a basis for these to come together
as a cohesive whole can be provided by ICT1 .
The bases upon which ICT is used, as well what determines
effectiveness of that use, are very much constituted by issues relating to
the human condition – for instance level of education (van Deursen, van
Dijk, 2011), but also local resources such as networks of acquaint-
anceship and support (Selwyn et al., 2005; Courtois and Verdegem,
2016) and actual characteristics of farms (Czapiewski et al., 2012). This
in essence leaves “smart people” as elements crucial to each and every
smart area (Kumar and Dahiya, 2017). Beyond that, the basis for the
utilisation of all kinds of smart solutions arrived at by the people will
comprise aspects associated with knowledge transfer, where this is
taken to mean adoption as much as transmission (Davenport and
Prusak, 1998). In essence then, the matters of key importance to smart
areas and smart agriculture are fast and direct access to information,
and hence knowledge, and then the ability for these to be absorbed, as
deemed to be a function of individualised “absorption capacity” at the
level of the given receiver (Zahra and George, 2002), and as coupled
with effectiveness of application in practice.
It should be stressed that smart farming, treated as farms and
farmers interlinked via ICT, extends beyond the notion of precision
agriculture (e.g. Sundmaeker et al., 2016), given that the latter is taken
to mean the collection and processing of data from monitoring, as

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: krzysztof.janc@uwr.edu.pl (K. Janc), konrad@twarda.pan.pl (K. Czapiewski), wojcik@geo.uni.lodz.pl (M. Wójcik).
1
According to World Bank, ICT (Information & Communications Technologies) consists of hardware, software, networks, and media for the collection, storage,
processing, transmission, and presentation of information (Information and Communication Technologies. A World Bank Group Strategy, 2002). In this article, ICT
refers to the computer and internet connections used in the handling and communication of information.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2019.100309
Received 30 November 2018; Received in revised form 10 September 2019; Accepted 11 September 2019
Available online 24 September 2019
1573-5214/ © 2019 Royal Netherlands Society for Agricultural Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
K. Janc, et al.
linked up with different treatments of the land, means of cultivation
and ways of raising livestock, in order that rational decisionmaking can
be engaged in to improve production from both the qualitative and
quantitative points of view (McBratney et al., 2005). With smart
farming, in contrast, the ICT helps to bring together the knowledge
resources of farmers, with multiplier effects ensuing, and new modes of
operation emerging as a result.
The main objective of the research2 reported here was to define the
role the Internet plays in knowledge acquisition among Polish farmers
and provide insights into the diversity of professional activity con-
ducted by Polish farmers online. To this end, the role of the Internet in
the running of a farm was considered in relation to such features as age
and education of the farmer, production profile and economic status as
self-assessed.
Analysis is based on material that encompassed more than 2400
survey questionnaires. They consist of questions regarding those social
and economic characteristics of farmers and their farms proving most
important from the point of view of the development of digital com-
petences. The latter are treated as a foundation upon which smart so-
lutions in the process of farm management gain implementation. In
effect, then, an attempt was made to determine possibilities for farming
to transition to the stage of smart development, albeit with an indica-
tion also given of the most important factors either advantageous to this
process of transition, or else acting to hamper it.
Since the late 1980s and early 1990s, agriculture in Poland has
undergone two major revolutions needing to be regarded as major
shifts. The first of these went hand in hand with the post-communist
transition, the second with accession to the European Union. Both shifts
imposed organisational, production-related and technological change
upon a Polish agriculture that continued to be dominated by a pre-
dominantly family-farming-centred model (Gorlach et al., 1994;
Fedyszak-Radziejowska, 2010).
This article is organised in such a way that a literature-based mat-
ters associated with smart farming is first given, prior to a shift of at-
tention to the link between the Internet and knowledge relevant to
agricultural activity. Research methodologies are discussed in another
part, before results are presented. As typically, these results support
engagement in a more general discussion, as well as the formulation of
certain conclusions.
2. Smart agriculture
Solutions to be found on the Internet constitute the “nervous
system” underpinning smart areas and smart agriculture, given the re-
sponsibility for the flow of information and the capacity for fast action.
The role with respect to smart farming will be exactly the same as with
the upcoming Industry 4.0 (Lasi et al., 2014) – also known as the Fourth
Industrial Revolution3 - and the smart factories that are its key com-
ponents (Wang et al., 2016). That leaves smart farming definable (of
course in general terms) as that kind of farming whose deployment of
ICT-based solutions ensures better and more effective monitoring and
management of a farm, and (yet more generally) of farming activity
(e.g. Wolfert et al., 2017). A key instrument in this case is the so-called
“Internet of Things” (IoT) (Zhao et al., 2010) or “Web of Things” (WoT),
in which more attention is actually paid to the application layer than to
the technical one (Guinard et al., 2010)4 . The actual use of such
2
Research conducted within the framework of Scientific Project 2011/01/D/
HS4/03295, Models of knowledge transfer in agriculture and its influence on
agricultural productivity – spatial analysis, as financed by the Polish National
Science Centre.
3
After Renjen (2018), Industry 4.0 could be described briefly as analytics,
artificial intelligence and IoT bringing together physical and digital technolo-
gies with a view to creating digital enterprises that are interconnected and
therefore capable of more-informed decisionmaking.
4
In the case of the Web of Things, devices communicate with one another via
2
NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 90–91 (2019) 100309
instruments in agriculture remains fragmentary, with true integration
lacking, and arising solutions adopted often still being in the experi-
mental phase (Verdouw et al., 2016).
There are further elements, proper to contemporary ICT, which are
also proving to have growing significance for agriculture, i.e. GPS
(Schönfeld et al., 2018), cloud computing (TongKe, 2013; Channe et al.,
2015), edge and fog computing (Ferrández-Pastor et al., 2018) and Big
Data analyses (Lokers et al., 2016). New technologies and requirements
with respect to knowledge thus serve to move farming’s organisational
culture away from experience-based management and towards data-
based management (Butler and Holloway, 2016). As Lokers et al.
(2016) remarked, data (and more precisely Big Data) constitute a raw
material. Deriving from various sensors, including those involving
people, these are being transformed into knowledge, with action then
made possible, and decisionmaking offered support (Barnaghi et al.,
2013).
Reports on smart farming make it clear that social aspects associated
with users are most often marginalised. Poppe et al. (2015) for example
emphasise that certain farms and areas will not be able to compete in
the domain of smart farming if the basic infrastructure is not made
available. This is obvious insofar as the development of IoT and other
technologies assigns a bare-minimum role to human beings where in-
formation exchange and the management of selected processes are
concerned. And this is not least a reflection of the way devices com-
municate autonomously with one another and are themselves involved
in information exchange.
That said, a focus on the technological aspects alone would seem
inadequate. Walter et al. (2017) indicate how new technologies still
look very costly from the perspective of a small farm. Put that together
with real-life limitations on both knowledge and skills, and essential
limitations on the development of smart farming may be being im-
posed, in developing countries in particular. The self-same issue is
pointed to by Fleming et al. (2018), who stress that, while all have
theoretical chances of benefiting, real benefits from, for example, Big
Data only really accrue to a few farmers running large farms.
Control over decisionmaking represents a further key problem. The
so-called Second Machine Age (after Brynjolfsson and Macafee, 2014) is
now being entered by agriculture, as in fact by the entire economy, and
this will entail clever machines being designed to make better decisions
than farmers. This is then a source of fresh smart-farming challenges,
not least farmers’ loss of a key role in decisionmaking in the face of a
greater influence of algorithms devised by scientists and/or those who
produce farm equipment. This in some sense leaves processes taking
place on a farmer’s own farm out of his/her control (Jeanneaux, 2017),
and again demands a view that social aspects of the transition from
conventional farming to smart farming are as important as technolo-
gical ones.
An essential contribution to the state of the art is here made through
the incorporation of social conditioning into the study of implementa-
tion processes where smart farming solutions are concerned. Analyses
carried out are of key value where a very large number of farms are
sampled, and both structural differentiation and diversity of location
are then depicted effectively. A significant novel feature of the ap-
proach being espoused is thus the perceived need to consider the per-
spective on smart farming manifested by the immediate social actors in
the discussion, i.e. the farmers themselves.
In addition, it is possible to note this kind of gap in even
(footnote continued)
WWW protocols, such that applications and services can be put in place.
Application of existing WoT standards facilitates integration between many
different pieces of equipment and installations, as well as their servicing at user
level by way of online applications, as in the case of remote home-security
system monitoring and administration, and remote home electricity grid usage
monitoring.
K. Janc, et al.
comprehensive studies concerned with countries (mainly CEECs) in
which profound processes of agricultural transformation are taking
place. There is thus no doubt that the aspect of the use of Internet in the
pursuit of farming activity is just one of the elements coming together
to represent smart farming solutions, and even it seems not to have had
due weight assigned to it.
3. Theory: knowledge – Internet – agriculture
In farming, as in remaining sectors of economic activity, knowledge
is a key factor allowing effectiveness to be maintained and increased
(see Floriańczyk et al., 2012). The very first studies on the moder-
nisation of agriculture demonstrated that farmers’ knowledge acquisi-
tion in respect of available production technologies was a necessity if
economic development of farms was to increase (Wilcox, 1943). Levels
of knowledge and education then started to be listed among variables
explaining differences in productivity among farms and the differ-
entiation of this phenomenon across space. While some models treated
technology and knowledge as external factors Eicher and Staatz, 1998,
one of the key economic concepts (the model of induced development
in farming presented by Hayami and Ruttan (1985)) deemed the re-
spective variables endogenous.
Davenport and Prusak (1998, p. 5) emphasised that knowledge is” a
fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and
expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and in-
corporating new experiences and information. It originates and is ap-
plied in the minds of knowers”. Information and knowledge are thus
treated as goods that satisfy elementary human need. Yet, as distinct
from other goods, these ones are “volatile” resources (and so can be
forgotten or deformed, for example). At the same time, information and
knowledge are endowed with other specific and valuable attributes, in
that: a) knowledge is not used up in the production process, and can be
made subject to multiplication; b) a person transmitting knowledge
does not lose it, but continues to have it at his/her disposal; c)
knowledge can be acquired with relative ease (given sufficient moti-
vation and conditions), and can then be at the unique disposal of the
person who has acquired it (Drucker, 1994; Nonaka and Takeuchi,
1995).
Knowledge is characterised by lack of homogeneity (Bathelt et al.,
2004). Polanyi (1966) introduced a classification of knowledge into the
codified or formal (also called explicit) and the informal or hidden (i.e.
tacit). Codified knowledge may readily be represented by symbols, so it
is usually transmitted easily (often cost-free), potentially over long
distances, owing to information technologies. Tacit knowledge is not
articulated, and is rooted (Maggioni and Uberti, 2009). Informal
knowledge is also strongly associated with a place, results from the
context and specificity of an area, and originates from a variety of
sources, i.e. the science, tradition, culture and economy of that area
(Storper and Venables, 2004; Hilpert, 2006).
Consideration of the context and rooted nature of knowledge de-
mands that reference be made to a concept complementary to that of
human capital, i.e. to social capital (Coleman, 1988; Putnam, 2000;
Cote, 2001). The general conceptualisation of the latter relates to a
capacity and skill to achieve cooperation between people within a
group or organisation, with a view to common interests being pursued.
Reference is thus made to the basic nature of social interactions, as this
facilitates understanding of behaviour, in this case decisions regarding
the choice of sources of knowledge (as inter alia influenced by peers).
As Aldrich (2012) notes, dense social networks and tight bonds with
relatives and neighbours differ from weaker ones in providing for
readier access to the information needed to operate and coordinate
systems of information exchange and knowledge acquisition, as well as
for facilitated decisionmaking (Granovetter, 1973). Social capital needs
to be taken account of as knowledge transfer is considered. The sig-
nificance will differ in line with the form this takes, i.e. “bonding” –
involving ties between people in similar situations (e.g. family
3
NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 90–91 (2019) 100309
members, close friends or neighbours), “bridging” – involving re-
lationships between friends of friends, or “linking” – involving re-
lationships between individuals and institutions (Putnam, 2000;
Woolcock, 2001; Aldrich, 2012).
The Internet and knowledge are interrelated in a bi-directional
fashion. On the one hand, the ownership of adequate resources of
knowledge allows for the use of ICT, and increases the effectiveness of
that use (Czapiewski et al., 2012). On the other hand, the Internet opens
up better access to information, with this in turn generating a potential
for knowledge to be increased, while also allowing for knowledge ac-
quisition and sharing (Baumüller, 2017). Furthermore, the diffusion of
ICT has markedly lowered the costs of producing and disseminating
information. Consequently, increases in the volume of information and
in numbers of available information sources are both observed
(Flanagin and Metzger, 2008). These are all matters of fundamental
importance, in agriculture in particular, given the lack of mobility or
low level of mobility that in turn reflect strong attachment to a given
place (Fujita et al., 1999). Even in its intensive form, agriculture is al-
ways a surface-based function, and, in line with the specificity of this
form of economic activity, the mobility of the farming population is also
strongly limited.
Given the point-wise character and concentration of traditional
sources of knowledge in the largest urban centres, farmers have been
thought to experience impeded access (Czapiewski and Janc, 2011).
Equally, the instantaneous nature of appearances on the Internet ra-
pidly came to be perceived as a means by which the resistance arising
out of physical distance might be overcome (Gannon, 2008). Utilisation
of the Web as an essential source of information thus entails a
“shrinking” of physical distance with respect to the sources of knowl-
edge, and this ought to denote better transfer of knowledge in agri-
culture, and a curbing of conditions disadvantageous to productive
activity.
Specifically, the Internet allows for the exchange and sharing of
knowledge (Grimshaw, 2011), e.g. the current situation on agricultural
markets, weather conditions for farmers, and government and local-
government programmes; while also allowing intermediation to be
circumvented as new solutions and technologies of production are
sought (Floriańczyk et al., 2012). Therefore, thanks to the Internet, a
farmer can acquire knowledge and broaden it, make contact with other
producers, promote his/her own products and services, order necessary
means of production, and discharge administrative duties (Heilig, 2003;
Akca et al., 2007).
Galloway et al. (2011) further indicate that, among the primary
benefits accruing from the use of the Internet in farming activity (not
least effectiveness of transactions, interaction with customers, and im-
proved functioning of the logistic chain), there is the very important
matter of networking, as connected with the sharing of knowledge. In
that regard, use of the Internet has a key role to play in reducing in-
formation asymmetry otherwise likely to arise (Jeffcoat et al., 2012). In
particular this implies equalisation of chances when it comes to agents’
functioning, irrespective of their physical locations and opportunities to
access sources of information “on the ground”. And, as Marra et al.
(2010) noted, better access to information entails increased knowledge
on innovations capable of being introduced on farms, with uncertainty
as to the potential benefits of these being introduced reduced at the
same time.
At this juncture it is appropriate to ponder whether resort to the
Web genuinely signifies the possibility of all kinds of knowledge being
acquired. And, while this is certainly true with respect to codified
knowledge, a far more problematical matter is tacit knowledge, bearing
in mind the spatial context associated with that, and the significance of
proximity. While Feng et al. (2005) suggest a contribution of the In-
ternet in transferring some tacit-knowledge resources (i.e. the so-called
intermediate tacit knowledge); and while Torre (2008) emphasises that
permanent proximity is not a precondition for the knowledge transfer
process relevant to this (given that it may also be temporary or
K. Janc, et al.
transient, for example relating to meetings at conferences, workshops,
short-duration internships and exchange programmes), there remain
questions regarding the transmission of the pool of experience, acquired
practice, etc., in their entirety.
Worth considering alongside the positive influence of the Internet
on knowledge-acquisition processes in regard to the running of a farm is
the possibility that the results of information dissemination might ac-
tually be negative. For some farmers, the Internet may seem to pose a
threat to traditional, inter-generational channels of knowledge transfer
(Wójcik et al., 2019), as well as to jobs (Pantea et al., 2014). Equally, as
use of the Internet requires the necessary skills, a lack thereof may only
deepen the disparities already noted between farmers. This is especially
important in the face of limited WWW resources in” more minor” lan-
guages (Kale et al., 2015), and the access to some resources being in
consequence limited further – to just some groups of farmers. On the
other hand, an orientation towards” international knowledge” denotes
a lack of rootedness of information obtained in any local area or on any
local market (Aker et al., 2016). Yet a further key challenge relating to
farmers’ use of the Internet pertains to the locating of trustworthy and
reliable information, as opposed to fake news (Lubell and McRoberts,
2018).
4. Study area and methodology
If smart farming is to operate effectively, not just on selected large
farms, it is necessary for farmers to have the knowledge on the concept
as such, the conditions underpinning its implementation, and the
functioning of particular component technologies. A farmer should then
possess certain minimum skills when it comes to data (e.g. in quanti-
tative and qualitative statistical analysis, error identification and the
management of (e.g. Big Data) databases). This will allow conclusions
to be drawn from analysis, with the result that production processes are
actually improved (van Huylenbroeck and Durand, 2003).
All of the above denotes a starting point to be found among such
fundamental questions as: how do the farmers use the Internet?; what
information do they look for?; and what are their priorities as they run
their farm? Such issues relating to knowledge and basic skills with the
use of ICT look particularly important in regions where agriculture is
based on small-scale farms, with crops grown and livestock raised on
small pieces of land lacking advanced and expensive technologies
(Kirsten and van Zyl, 1998), and on which a single person is usually
responsible for the majority (if not all) of activities relating to man-
agement and production.
On a European scale, Poland can be seen as a country of average-
level development when it comes to the bases upon which the in-
formation society functions. As Cruz-Jesus et al. (2016) made clear,
Poland is close to the EU average for the adoption of ICT by individuals,
while being in a clearly worse-off position for eLearning, cross-border
eCom, as well as civil-society participation. Where access to the Internet
is concerned, 2017 data revealed that Poland resembled certain other
CEECs in having under 90% of its households with fixed broadband
availability. This is a relatively low value for Europe, given the nu-
merous countries in which the parameter is now at 100%. In rural
areas, Poland is again below the EU average, with a value for fixed
broadband coverage just exceeding 80% (Broadband Coverage in
Europe, 2017, 2018).
Poland is an interesting country in which to study the conditions
underpinning and effects arising from transformations in agriculture
(and rural areas more broadly) given its status among CEECs transi-
tioning both out of communism and into the EU. This transition process
in farming and the rural economy as a whole is still ongoing, not least in
line with a still-declining role in the overall economy. At 2.2%, Poland’s
2016 share of GDP accounted for by agriculture is comparable with
figures in the wider region (Table 1). And, while the share of total
employment accounted for by agriculture as of 2017 was still high, at
around 10%, the corresponding figure was at 18% when Polish
4
NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 90–91 (2019) 100309
membership in the EU commenced 15 years ago. Part of the change that
denotes reflects modernisation across the sector, and that has been
accompanied more recently by improved revenues that may now assure
farmers of average wages comparable with those in other sectors. This
is in turn linked with both professional advancement and innovation, as
well as strategic openness to change and a willingness to learn con-
stantly (see, e.g., Markuszewska, 2015; Fałkowski et al., 2017).
However, further consideration of Poland’s ratios regarding gen-
eration of GDP and share of employment suggests that the process of
transition in agriculture still has some way to go. Furthermore, Polish
agriculture remains very differentiated in structural terms. Thus, more
than half of all farms in Poland cover less than 5 ha, while more than
20% of all farmland is in the hands of just the 1% of largest farms
(Charakterystyka gospodarstw rolnych w 2016 roku, 2017). That just
serves to underline a basic feature of the deepening disparities now
observable between farms which have embarked upon modernisation
and those that have adopted a persistence (subsistence) strategy, in-
evitably denoting a gradual loss of economic functions (Wójcik et al.,
2019).
Empirical material for the study reported here was acquired by way
of a questionnaire-based survey carried out among farmers in 2014. The
questionnaire involved an indication of the most important sources of
knowledge, an assessment of the degree to which information is used in
running a farm, as well as insight into the means of acquisition of
knowledge relating to production and the sale of produce. Socio-de-
mographic characteristics of respondents and the economic profile of
their farms were also taken account of. On the basis of there being
1.42 M farms in Poland in 2014, and in line with a 95% confidence level
and 2% margin of error, the sample size needed for the research was set
at 2397 at minimum (Brannen, 1992; Rogerson, 2001; Hesse-Biber,
2010).
The research began with the development of a ranking of rural
municipalities (at the LAU2 level5) in regard to the significance of the
farming function. The aim here was to confine analysis to those areas in
which agriculture was a genuinely significant profile for inhabitants’
activity. A further categorisation involved a breakdown of farms in all
16 Polish regions by area (into categories of less than 10 ha, 10–15 ha
and more than 15 ha). It was then on the basis of this ranking that a
selection of 67 municipalities (located in all regions) was made, with
these by definition being areas of diversified farm-size structure in
which the farming function was of genuine significance.
The distribution of questionnaires among farmers took place via all
the primary schools located in the municipalities under study. In each
case, school authorities were asked to hand out questionnaires to all
pupils whose parents (or grandparents) engage in farming activity.
Ultimately, 2411 responses (fully filled-out questionnaires) were re-
ceived, and from almost all of the selected municipalities located in all
Poland’s regions6 .
While the method applied does not allow all farmers to be reached,
the lack of access to other effective distribution channels (e.g. involving
microdata addresses, including e-mail addresses) makes this the best
way of ensuring that a large population is studied. This methodology
has been applied repeatedly in Poland (e.g. Komornicki et al., 2013),
and is subject to confirmation that results obtained in other ways (e.g.
via telephone conversations or the Internet) are comparable. The major
downside is nevertheless that information is obtained from a rather
5
The lower LAU level (Local Administrative Unit 2, formerly NUTS level 5)
consists of municipalities or equivalent units in the 28 EU Member States.
6
For such a number of responses to be received, it was necessary to send out
15,312 questionnaires in total. In fact, a response rate of 15.7% would need to
be regarded as relatively high, bearing in mind that a large proportion of
questionnaires reached country-dwellers not even involved in farming.
Furthermore, several schools consenting to participate at the outset ultimately
went on to withdraw their cooperation.
K. Janc, et al. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 90–91 (2019) 100309

Table 1
A basic characterisation of agriculture in selected CEECs.
Source: Eurostat.
Country Populationa Average farm Contribution of agriculture to Gross Very small Family Employment in Farmers with full agricultural
areab Domestic Productc farmsd farmse agriculturef trainingg

Poland 38.0 10.2 2.2 64.8 99.3 10.1 27.4

Bulgaria 7.1 22.0 3.2 81.0 95.4 17.5 6.5
Czech Rep 10.6 130.2 0.8 31.7 86.0 2.7 38.7
Hungary 9.8 10.9 2.6 83.2 97.5 5.7 4.4
Romania 19.6 3.6 4.1 94.6 99.3 23.0 9.1
Slovakia 5.4 73.6 0.7 68.3 87.0 2.1 9.2
EU 28 average 511.5 16.6 1.2 67.6 94.7 4.2 9.1

a
(2017).
b
(ha) (2016).
c
(2017) (%).
d
(with < EUR 8 000 of standard output) (%) (2016).
e
with > 50% of regular labour from family members) (%) (2016).
f
(%)(2016).
g
(%)(2016).

closely-defined socio-demographic group (consisting of still-mobile Table 2

people who are parents, or at least who live alongside children). Key characteristics of the farmers studied.
Among respondents, 66% were male, while the average age was 42 Source: author’s own research.
years. Farmers with university-level education accounted for 8% of the Variable group frequency (n)* percentage
total (those with agricultural education for 3%)7 . That left 42% of the
sample with secondary education (with secondary agricultural educa- Sex Male 1583 66.8
Female 787 33.2
tion accounting for 22%). Overall, more than half of all respondents
Age up to 29 37 1.6
lacked formal agricultural education. On average, at the moment they 30-39 902 38.5
filled in the questionnaire, respondents had been managing their farms 40-49 950 40.5
for more than 18 years. This meant that they had very important 50-59 373 15.9
farming experience at their disposal, as well as comprehensive knowl- above 59 81 3.5
Education primary 182 7.5
edge of procedures related to farming activity. The average acreage of at trade schools 1007 41.8
the farms respondents managed was 17.4 ha, denoting a slight over- secondary general 180 7.5
representation of the larger (over 15-hectare) farms in comparison with secondary vocational 809 33.6
the typical structure known for Poland, with some attendant under- higher 186 7.7
Agricultural education none 999 41.4
representation of farms in the smallest size categories (below 5 ha). In
agricultural course 275 11.4
this regard it should be noted that the last two decades have seen areas vocational 479 19.9
of farms in Poland unchanged in half of all cases, while increasing in secondary 498 20.7
area in as many as 45% of cases (Table 2). higher 631 2.6
The study offers confirmation of the progressing development of the Self-assessment of farm developing 481 20.0
stable 1302 54.0
disparities among Polish farms already referred to. In the case of lacking development 553 22.9
roughly 1/3 of surveyed farms the income from agriculture constitutes prospects
the main source of upkeep. At the same time, these are the farms selling Income from above 80% 865 35.9
almost their entire production externally (on the basis of a moder- agriculture 60-80% 287 11.9
40-60% 353 14.6
nisation strategy). That leaves 1/3 of all farms in which the opposite
20-40% 414 17.2
situation (involving the persistence strategy) is to be observed. The below 20% 372 15.4
phenomenon is made yet more visible by analysis of self-assessment of
farmers in relation to the economics of their own farms, with only 20% * the totals for answers in different categories differ on account of the lack of
of respondents treating these as “developing”. responses to certain questions.

According to data from the Central Statistical Office, in 2017 regular

5. Results
Worth noting at the outset is the limited inclusion of small villages
of fewer than 100 inhabitants, given the real situation where Internet
coverage and access in Poland are concerned (Janc, 2017). This is de-
spite a definite closing of the gap between towns and cities on the one
hand and rural areas (i.e. areas formally enjoying rural status) on the
other (Fig. 1). That still means – on the whole – that any failures to use
the Internet in rural areas are less and less associated with purely in-
frastructural or technological factors. This is also true for broadband, an
important element in capacity to introduce smart farming effectively.
Of all professional groups in Poland, farmers constitute the one
(other than pensioners) making the least-frequent use of the Internet.
7
All figures represent absolute values (raw sample percentages).
use was made of the Internet by some 50% of farmers (persons aged
16–74 enjoying the status of paid employees working a farm they
owned or leased). This is an indication of a significant increase above
the level noted in 2013 (30%), but both figures are put in perspective by
the comparable figure for persons working in other sectors of the
economy in 2017, which was 84% (Information Society in Poland.
Results of Statistical Surveys in Years 2013-2017, 2017Information
Society in Poland, 2017Information Society in Poland. Results of Sta-
tistical Surveys in Years 2013-2017, 2017Information Society in Po-
land, 2017Information Society in Poland. Results of Statistical Surveys
in Years 2013-2017, 2017).
Farmers are not taking full advantage of the possibilities online
services represent, in either their private or their professional lives.
Only 14% of farmers access the Internet via a smartphone, compared to
47% for remaining employed persons8 . Likewise, where 2% of farmers

5
K. Janc, et al.
Fig. 1. Access to the Internet in Poland in the years 2004–201610 (A – overall, B – broadband).
Source: author’s own elaboration based on data from Poland’s Central Statistical Office (now Statistics Poland).
store data in the Cloud, the figure for all others in work is 19%. Further
comparisons of the same kind relate to the use of social media – 48%
compared with 64%, use of online banking – 28% vs. 63%, and online
shopping – 58% vs. 76% (Information Society in Poland. Results of
Statistical Surveys in Years 2013-2017, 2017Information Society in
Poland, 2017Information Society in Poland. Results of Statistical Sur-
veys in Years 2013-2017, 2017Information Society in Poland, 2017In-
formation Society in Poland. Results of Statistical Surveys in Years
2013-2017, 2017).
It is also important to determine the place the Internet occupies,
among other sources of the information needed to engage in farming
activity. From among the 17 potential sources of information detailed
in the questionnaire9, farmers most often indicated TV/radio (58% at
least once a month), then knowledge present in the family (38%) and
the professional press (37%). Meanwhile, the web-based (online) ser-
vices were indicated as an “often used” source by 34% of respondents.
All of these sources represent a constant presence in the surroundings of
farmers, and access to them is easy. Several times a year farmers make
use of sources located farther away (both physically and socially), in-
cluding specialised shops (46%), neighbours (44%) and producers
(43%). Farmers overall rarely use (while 45% of respondents never use)
specialised fairs and exchanges as occasions at which to gain informa-
tion. There is also a virtual absence of NGO operations as sources of
information, with more than 80% of respondents not availing of this
kind of help. A similar situation applies to the branch organisations
(eschewed by 72%). It must also be added that quite a large share
(35%) of respondents have never used the Internet for such informa-
tion-related purposes.
Questions allowing the significance of particular sources to be
8
In the research cited, farmers were identified as one of the categories of
people in work. The category of other employed persons thus relates to all of
those in non-agricultural professions.
9
All categories were elaborated a priori, by way of an analysis of the subject
literature.
10
The higher the value of the measure calculated in this way, the smaller the
gap separating rural areas from towns (the perfect situation is when the value
equals 1 – meaning the same level in all areas)
6
NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 90–91 (2019) 100309
assessed reveal the major importance most frequently attached to the
family (by 30%), followed by radio and TV broadcasts (29%), and then
by press and the Internet (21% each). Equally, where the latter category
was concerned, as many as 28% of respondents stated simultaneously
that this source lacked significance where increasing effectiveness of
the farm they managed was concerned.
It can be concluded from this summary that, while the Internet does
play an important role from the point of view of frequency of use as a
necessary source of information, a considerable share of all farmers see
it as not bringing any essential value, and do not therefore make true
use of it. In this sense, the Internet loses out to the “traditional” sources
of information – whether acquired from the social environment in
which farmers operate, or associated with older technologies.
Both the frequency of use of the Internet as a source of knowledge,
and the perception of its significance, were found to be higher where
the level of general and professional education of farmers was higher,
and where the share of output sold externally was higher. Similarly,
farmers assessing their farms as “developing” (in the context of eco-
nomic prospects) make use of the Internet one-and-a-half times as often,
and evaluate its utility more positively by 30%, than do those farmers
not seeing their farms as having prospects for development.
For the farmers involved in the study, the functions most important
to their professional activity are those associated with passive use of the
Internet, i.e. with information acquisition. This is referred to in the five
categories indicated most frequently (all referred to by more than 28%
of respondents) as key from the perspective of the functioning of a farm
(Fig. 2). The categories also offer a distinct perception of the conditions
in which farming activity is pursued, in relation to external subsidies,
technologies and means of production. The active forms of Web use are
used to only a relatively limited extent, though most can find direct
expression in increased effectiveness and increased revenue-generating
possibilities for a given farm. Only 16% of respondents used online
banking, and even less so the functionalities allowing resources of ex-
plicit and tacit knowledge to be increased via acquisition of practical
skills and exchange of information with other farmers (participation in
web fora, online training and courses was found to apply to only just
over 3% of respondents). The use of the Internet as a medium providing
for the sale/purchase of goods also plays only a marginal role.
K. Janc, et al. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 90–91 (2019) 100309

profile on social
managing own

media

0.0
0.0

1.2

0.7

0.9
participation in
web-based fora

10.7
5.8

4.9

3.0

1.8
produce
selling

13.7
own

8.4

8.9

7.3

7.1
own produce
advertising

7.1
1.3

4.5

3.1

2.7
purchase of

production
Fig. 2. Activities engaged in through Internet use.

means of
Source: author’s own research.

32.7
11.6

16.0

13.2

10.6
The patterns of use of the Internet for farming-related purposes are

banking
seen to depend on basic characteristics of farmers and their farms.

online

41.1
17.4

21.9

15.2

15.0
Table 3 details the use of particular functionalities in relation to the
general level of education of responding farmers. As remaining analyses
imply, this particular characteristic of farmers is crucial in terms of the
agricultural

choice of knowledge sources and use of the Web. The better-educated

surveying

websites

farmers are found to take more frequent advantage of virtually every

kind of functionality, and in particular of those contributing to flex-
53.0
47.1

42.0

37.2

37.2
ibility of the production process.
Thus, for instance, use is made of online banking by 41% of those
Use of particular functionalities as related to general levels of education of farmers (percentage values).

courses
online

who use the Internet at all and have tertiary education, as opposed to
2.4
5.2

4.5

4.0

3.5
15% of those with primary education. Likewise, online purchase of
means of production is a matter for 33% with tertiary education and
information on the
purchase of means

just 11% of those only educated to primary level. Better-educated

of production

farmers are also more likely to sell their produce with the help of the
Internet.
The above forms of Internet use allow for the reduction of the ne-
43.5
38.7

34.6

37.9

27.4

gative influence of physical distance on engagement in key activities

connected with farm management, and also allow for better time
new technologies
information on

management. Likewise, when it comes to efforts aimed primarily at

obtaining information on various subjects, better-educated respondents
generally take more frequent advantage of the Internet, though here
57.1
52.9

50.9

45.4

30.1

differences are slight.

It is important to note that “active presence on web-based fora as-
possibility of selling
information on the

sociated with farming” is yet a further domain of better-educated

farmers. This kind of activity is important insofar as it implies in-
volvement in the transfer of tacit knowledge – sharing and exchange of
produce

experience and information with other people. The pursuit of farming

31.0
40.6

40.0

34.2

32.7

business requires, on the one hand, a knowledge of processes and un-

dertaken actions, and, on the other an active attitude to the search for
new resources of knowledge. It should also be noted how lack of use of
information on

the Internet for the purposes of farm management relates closely to

Source: author’s own research.

EU funds

social features within the studied population – as 38% of farmers with

primary education did not use the Internet for this purpose, compared
66.7
57.4

52.0

51.1

53.1

with only 10% of those educated to higher level.

The results presented make very clear the difference between
Tertiary (n = 168)

Primary (n = 113)
General secondary
Level of education

farmers of differing levels of education when it comes to use of the

secondary
(n = 155)

(n = 688)

(n = 742)
Trade school

Internet to meet needs as regards the running of a farm. In the context

Vocational

of professional decisionmaking – farmers’ own assessments of their

Table 3

farms, monitored operations, better acquaintanceship with the com-

plexities of the farm environment, and the introduction of new, more-

7
K. Janc, et al.
sophisticated solutions into the farming process, it is each time the
better-educated farmers that fare better.
Beyond the issue of whether Internet functionalities are taken ad-
vantage of at all in relation to farm management, a further key matter
concerns the number of such functionalities farmers use. The most ty-
pical situations involve respondents using one such functionality (in
24% of case) or at most two (28%). Only 13% of respondents take
advantage of five or more functionalities. And in this context, the evi-
dent determinants of more-versatile use of the Internet are: (1) general
educational level of farmers – given that 40% of those with primary
education make use of just one functionality, compared with just 13%
of those with tertiary education, while 5% of respondents with primary
education make use of five and more functionalities, compared with
30% where tertiary education has been completed; (2) the fact of
farmers having had a professional agricultural education; (3) a larger
share of overall household income deriving from farming; (4) a more-
pronounced orientation towards the sale of agricultural produce; (5) a
better economic situation in general (as regards the extent to which the
farm can be considered to be developing); and (6) an increase in farm
area achieved in the recent period.
The trend outlined above is further confirmed by reference to
average values for numbers of functionalities respondents use, as set
against selected social characteristics of farmers and their farms
(Fig. 3). Clearly, the factor differentiating the population under study
most markedly is level of education, be that general and/or profes-
sional. A particularly visible “transition” is between the highest edu-
cational levels – general tertiary (3.6 functionalities used on average)
and agricultural tertiary (3.9) – and the ones just below that, with
general secondary education on 2.8 and secondary agricultural educa-
tion on 2.9. Similarly distinct is the strong age-dependence, with the
youngest respondents making use of 30% more web functionalities on
average than their oldest counterparts.
Remaining characteristics also relate to the number of online
functionalities made use of, especially to the relationship between how
long the Internet has been present in the given household and the re-
spective level of activity. A longer period of presence of the Internet is
seen to denote more-versatile use. However, the questionnaire-based
study implies that the majority of farmers only started to use the
Internet post-2005. Up to that time, only 16% of respondents’ house-
holds had Internet access at all, while by 2008 that figure had already
exceeded 50%, and by 2010 it was close to 80%. Such results illustrate
clearly how socio-demographic factors do much more to differentiate
the population of farmers clearly, from the point of view of behaviour
used to acquire knowledge via the Internet, than do features of the farm
these people run.
6. Discussion
Results obtained on the basis of questionnaire-based research
among Polish farmers point to several key features associated with the
use of the Internet as a source of information serving the pursuit of
business activity. However, conclusions arising on the basis of these
need to bear certain methodological limitations in mind. The subjects of
study were a particular group of farmers, and the work cannot be said
to offer a true reflection of the farming population as a whole, given a
(school-distribution) methodology that ensures a sample younger than
the overall population and better-educated, as well as the inclusion of
farms that are somewhat larger than average, and somewhat more
commercial (given the presence of farmers who basically live in a
household at least including a young generation). Another limitation of
study is fact that estimates of sampling and non-sampling error/biases
were not included.
Beyond that, it can be noted that the Internet does not constitute
Polish farmers’ most important source of information, as it still lags
behind traditional sources present in the social environment for much
longer, and most especially sources of a personal nature present within
8
NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 90–91 (2019) 100309
family or among friends and neighbours. A clear significance of other
farmers as sources of information is not confined to Poland, having for
example been noted among New Zealand’s sheep and beef farmers
(Corner-Thomas et al., 2017), or the farmers of Ohio (Diekmann et al.,
2009) and Illinois (Villamil et al., 2012). This finding can be linked to
the significance of social factors in the transfer of knowledge, and,
consequently to preferences where sources of information are con-
cerned.
As Roux et al. (2006) note, the diffusion of new knowledge is pos-
sible provided there are no social and cultural divisions between au-
thors and users. Social factors also relate to the notion of context as a
factor shaping the behaviour underpinning acquisition of information.
Patterns of behaviour and information needs are different, depending
on the context (McCreadie and Rice, 1999; Johnson, 2009). In the cases
of family and neighbours, a common context involving lack of socially
separating distance is usually ensured. The Internet does not provide
such a guarantee, especially to those generations of farmers for whom it
has not constituted an everyday instrument of communication or in-
formation acquisition. As we set our results against the background of
knowledge-related issues, we note that Polish farmers prefer those
sources of knowledge associated more fully with a greater capacity to
transmit tacit knowledge. However, once use of the Internet has been
commenced with, behaviour of users becomes oriented towards the
acquisition of codified knowledge – mainly comprising pieces of in-
formation of various kinds.
Unlike bonding (exclusive), the bridging (inclusive) type of social
capital is a vector for the development of new ideas, values and per-
spectives. According to Granovetter (1983) weakly-tied clusters (cap-
able of being identified with bridging social capital) have more op-
portunities for diverse knowledge- and information-sharing. On the
other hand, when it comes to farmers lacking opportunities to use
formal sources of information (via linking social capital), these people
are often seen to rely on informal sources of information, with agri-
cultural knowledge transferring via farmers’ social interactions (Conley
and Udry, 2001; Saint Ville et al., 2016; Pratiwi and Suzuki, 2017). The
same conclusions can be drawn from the analysis of material obtained
in the study of Polish farmers. First of all, contacts and direct talks with
the nearest family, neighbours or representatives of various institutions
remain the most important sources of knowledge (see also Wójcik et al.,
2019). Secondly, if farmers already use the Internet, they are usually
passive, do not actively participate in internet forums and specialist
groups on social media, and therefore do not shape any form of social
capital.
The Internet also needs to be treated (after Kavanaugh et al., 2005)
as a vector that can integrate innovation in agriculture. By broadening
and strengthening networks of linkages within agricultural commu-
nities, the Internet provides for the sharing of ideas and for a mobili-
sation of knowledge in the interests of innovative activity (Kaushik
et al., 2018). The results presented here show clearly how the Internet
does not play a major role for Polish farmers, when it comes to use
being made of bridging social capital. The Internet is far more a source
of information than it is a medium via which interactions can be es-
tablished and maintained.
Our observed, very-high share of people making no use whatever of
the potential in farm management the Internet has to offer suggests the
formation of “two-speed” farmer populations, from this point of view at
least. Such processes are also visible in countries better developed in
socio-economic terms. Farrington et al. (2015) indicate that the in-
habitants of peripheral rural areas in the United Kingdom differ from
inhabitants of other areas in enjoying more limited chances of be-
coming more-advanced Web users who take advantage of a broader
spectrum of Internet-based solutions. This also means lower chances of
becoming so-called “next-generation users”, i.e. those using various
devices to access the Web, also from a variety of locations (Blank and
Dutton, 2014). This kind of process had been diagnosed well before,
and was termed the digital vicious circle (Warren, 2007). New Internet
K. Janc, et al. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 90–91 (2019) 100309

Fig. 3. Average numbers of functionalities of the Internet used in relation to selected characteristics of farmers and their farms.
Source: author’s own research.

9
K. Janc, et al.
solutions and forms of use are adopted more easily by the more-ex-
perienced, and this may lead to a fundamental worsening of disparities
in capacities for development between different groups. Salemink et al.
(2017) summarizing a massive body of scientific literature about ICT
use on rural areas, stated that in significant amount of papers scholars
consider socioeconomic context, level of education, skills, attitudes as a
important factors of digital inequalities. The work presented here sup-
ports the contention that, in countries in transition whose farming is
differentiated strongly in terms of farm area, market orientation, and
the socio-demographic characteristics of farmers (Charakterystyka
gospodarstw rolnych w 2016 roku, 2017), a considerable part of this
population has only weak bases upon which smart farming solutions
might be introduced.
The use of the Internet by farmers in Poland is primarily passive,
with the main aim being acquisition of information. Active forms of
Web use requiring interaction on the part of the user are much less
common. Our analysis further justifies a contention that farmers studied
have Web-oriented skills that are still at an early stage of development.
Resources of digital competence are thus limited, and reasons for this
situation should be looked for in: (1) a low level of knowledge and skill
when it comes to operation of the devices making use of the Internet
possible – with the effect that farmers are prevented from taking active
advantage of possibilities the Internet offers; and (2) a failure of farmers
to see much benefit for themselves out of using the Internet to buy or
sell agricultural produce – with the effect that little or no use of such
functionalities is made.
Noting the experiences of farmers in Western Europe, as well as the
growth of e-services (including e-commerce) among all users in both
Poland and other CEECs (see, e.g., Janc, 2017), it should be supposed
that the first aforementioned factor plays a leading role; and that is all
the more the case – as Seri et al. (2014) anyway indicated – given the
way that adequate infrastructural advancement, and in particular ac-
cess to broadband Internet, is such an important factor where the use of
e-services is concerned. However, as such technological disparities be-
tween town and countryside noted previously in Poland are diminishing
steadily (Fig. 1), increasing importance needs to be attributed to “soft”
factors like competence and knowledge.
Analysis likewise indicates how strongly related use of the Internet
is to such basic social characteristics of farmers as level of education
and age, as well as key features of farms themselves. Confirmation of
the results of analyses of the adoption of solutions from the domain of
precision farming is thus offered. Work on farmer behaviour in
Germany and Denmark by Tamirat et al. (2018) also stresses the im-
portance of participation at workshops and exhibitions, given the way
this increases farmers’ propensity to introduce modern solutions on
their farms. However, the example of Poland shows that farmers do not
have to have these kinds of sources of information, as they rather
concentrate on those available in the immediate environment, indeed
virtually “without leaving the farm” at all.
A will to introduce new solutions is also found to depend on num-
bers of information sources (Lambert et al., 2015), as well as use of a
smartphone with Internet access (Castle et al., 2016). Such issues
should be looked at from the point of view of the number of Web
functionalities farmers actually use. As our research results show, as-
pects like farmers’ levels of education, ages and market orientations
combine with the length of the period over which the Internet has been
used to influence the number of Internet functionalities resorted to. As
Park (2017) noted, technology forms an environment in which ex-
perience is an important resource, influencing use of new devices and
services. This is one aspect making up the so-called digital capital, as
constituted by a set of characteristics that influence people’s interaction
with the Internet, and the way use is made of it. This resource thus has
major capacity to bring benefits and increase profits from farm man-
agement, especially where functioning in the reality of smart rural
development is concerned.
Investigations among Hungarian farmers first demonstrated how
10
NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 90–91 (2019) 100309
significant an issue farm size could be. A key conclusion concerned the
lack of suitability of introducing advanced solutions on smaller farms,
above all given the high investment costs denoted (Takácsné György
et al., 2018). Our study offers up similar conclusions, while it is likewise
significant that younger farmers elsewhere prove more willing to in-
troduce newer solutions (Barnes et al., 2019), as the present study
supports this assertion as well.
Pointing to the main challenges “digital farmers” face, Cho (2018)
notes the strong link between the model of smart agriculture and
knowledge resources. Upskilling among farmers is thus a must, as is
awareness of constant change (of conditions) and an adequate level of
digital literacy. In this context, our conclusions regarding features of
farmers and their farms reveal a significant social barrier to the creation
of bases for smart agriculture. The very technology involved, let alone
its use in increasing productivity, demands that a social foundation take
shape, with farmers in this way endowed with adequate digital capital.
In general, farmers in Poland make insufficient use of the Internet as a
source of knowledge and support regarding production. Limited digital
competences and largely undiversified forms of Internet use form a
weak link in undertakings aiming to put in place a smart agriculture
that can actually function.
For such reasons, Poland resembles other countries in remaining on
the starting block where the smart revolution in agriculture is con-
cerned. Furthermore, the socio-demographic characteristics of Polish
farmers link up with Internet use in a manner that suggests only limited
possibilities for agriculture to transition in the direction of a smart
phase. Large market-oriented farms, managed by well-educated farmers
who function easily in an environment filled with new Internet-based
technologies have a chance to move effectively into the application of
solutions from the domain of smart agriculture. In contrast, the ma-
jority of Polish farms burdened by such disadvantages as small area,
limited market orientation and limited possibilities for investment in
advanced solutions, as combined with disadvantageous social char-
acteristics, will have clearly-limited possibilities for transformation
within the framework of the smart-agriculture paradigm.
7. Conclusions
The development of Polish agriculture through adoption of the
smart farming model is conditioned economically and technologically
(on the one hand), but also socially (on the other). Polish farming
continues with its process of transition, with changes taking place
needing to be perceived, not only from the structural-transformation
point of view, but also increasingly in relation to institutions and
technologies. Indeed, the technological revolution Polish agriculture
faces is different in nature from those of the last 30 years involving
systemic transformation away from communism, and then (in fact al-
most simultaneously) European Union accession. This is because the
new kind of change is more conditioned socially.
The relevant technological challenges Poland faces can be con-
sidered in the very same context. New technologies and arising digi-
tally-based innovations provoke apprehension and fear, as once did the
newly-encountered economic and institutional conditions. That may
mean technology being perceived as threatening by farmers, as pressure
exerted from outside and working to erode a feeling of common interest
based around collective behaviour. Thus far constituting one of
Poland’s best-integrated interest groups, farmers may feel that new
technological requirements work to undermine the previous feeling and
institutions associated with common knowledge acquisition very much
based on local ties of blood and neighbourliness. Furthermore, the way
new technologies are dealt with proves a highly individualistic matter,
via which the linkages taking shape tend to bypass hitherto-existing
structures. All of this means that a challenge to the introduction of the
smart model into farming lies in the development of a new knowledge
culture founded upon common experience of digital change and its
absorption in local environments.
K. Janc, et al.
Given that the main factors influencing the intensity and effective-
ness of Internet use are relevant skills and competences (as quantified in
particular in line with the level of education), it is necessary to re-
commend that greater emphasis be placed on education. It is in this way
that conditions will take shape for people to build up their own digital
environments, with fundamental capacities allowing for use of the
functionalities the Web offers.
In contrast, a lack of adequate knowledge and skills regarding use of
the Internet acts to narrow the scope of opportunities for farm devel-
opment. In the face of that, comprehensive solutions by which a
properly directed and specialised educational offer and assistance are
put in place (as opposed to just a series of independent, single-shot
initiatives) are needed to encourage increased use of the Web by
farmers, ensuring its treatment and perception among them as an
agricultural instrument of fundamental significance, or in fact as
nothing less than a means of production. In contrast, EU-funded un-
dertakings pursued in the years 2007–2013 by Poland in particular, and
the CEECs in general, sought primarily to support technological infra-
structural development (Czapiewski et al., 2012).
Even more fundamentally, a targeting of the competences of farmers
and efforts made to increase their digital capital cannot operate in
isolation of efforts striving to achieve further essential changes in
farming structure. In this regard, the pursuit of principles linked with
the implementation of smart rural development is crucially hampered
by the fact that too large a share of all farms in Poland are small, and
feature only very limited market orientation.
Finally, beyond the Polish context, we can state that intensifying the
Internet use in countries with a high share of family farms requires
attention to social and cultural factors. In this case, it is important to
achieve a balance between technological progress (digital competence)
and the social context of such innovations (e.g. level of education, so-
cial competences). The results of recent studies have shown that a
major role in the process by which farmers’ knowledge takes shape is
played by microsocial conditioning (Wójcik et al., 2019). This is con-
firmed by the observations that Andersson et al. (2016), among others,
present; as well as those of Koster et al. (2014), who argue that local
conditions is of key significance to the transfer of knowledge (see
Nooteboom, 2000). Thus, we should pay more attention to issues re-
lated to neighbourhood information sharing practices between farmers
– how they obtain information, what is exchanged.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the two anonymous Reviewers and Dr.
Emma Jakku whose comments/suggestions helped improve and clarify
this manuscript.
References
Akca, H., Sayili, M., Esengun, K., 2007. Challenge of rural people to reduce digital divide
in the globalized world: theory and practice. Gov. Inf. Q. 24, 404–413.
Aker, J.C., Ghosh, I., Burrell, J., 2016. The promise (and pitfalls) of ICT for agriculture
initiatives. Agric. Econ. 47, 35–48.
Aldrich, D.P., 2012. Building Resilience: Social Capital in Post-disaster Recovery.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Andersson, M., Klaesson, J., Larsson, J.P., 2016. How local are spatial density ex-
ternalities? Neighbourhood effects in agglomeration economies. Reg. Stud. 50,
1082–1095.
Barnaghi, P., Sheth, A., Henson, C., 2013. From data to actionable knowledge: big data
challenges in the web of things. IEEE Intell. Syst. 28, 6–11.
Barnes, A.P., Soto, I., Eory, V., Beck, B., Balafoutis, A., Sánchez, B., Vangeyte, J., Fountas,
S., Van der Val, T., Gómez-Barbero, M., 2019. Exploring the adoption of precision
agricultural technologies: a cross regional study of EU farmers. Land Use Policy 80,
163–174.
Bathelt, H., Malmberg, A., Maskell, P., 2004. Clusters and knowledge: local buzz, global
pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 28, 31–56.
Baumüller, H., 2017. Towards smart farming? Mobile technology trends and their po-
tential for developing country agriculture. In: Skouby, K.E., Williams, I., Gyamfi, A.
(Eds.), Handbook for ICT in Developing Countries: 5G Perspectives. River Publishers,
pp. 191–201.
Blank, G., Dutton, W.H., 2014. Next generation internet users: a new digital divide. In:
11
NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 90–91 (2019) 100309
Graham, M., Dutton, W.H. (Eds.), Society and the Internet: How Networks of
Information and Communication Are Changing Our Lives. Oxford University Press,
Oxford, pp. 36–52.
Brannen, J. (Ed.), 1992. Mixing Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Research.
Routledge, London.
Broadband Coverage in Europe, 2017. 2018. European Commission, Luxembourg.
Brynjolfsson, E., Macafee, A., 2014. The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and
Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies. W. W. Norton & Company, New York.
Butler, D., Holloway, L., 2016. Technology and restructuring the social field of dairy
farming: hybrid capitals, ‘Stockmanship’ and automatic milking systems. Sociol.
Rural 56, 513–530.
Castle, M.H., Lubben, B.D., Luck, J.D., 2016. Factors Influencing the Adoption of
Precision Agriculture Technologies by Nebraska Producers. Agricultural Economics
Department Working Paper 3. University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln.
Channe, H., Kothari, S., Kadam, D., 2015. Multidisciplinary model for smart agriculture
using internet-of-things (IoT), sensors, cloud-computing, mobile-computing & big-
data analysis. Int. J. Comput. Technol. Appl. 6, 374–382.
Charakterystyka gospodarstw rolnych w 2016 roku, 2017. Główny Urząd Statystyczny.
Warsaw. .
Cho, G., 2018. The Australian digital farmer: challenges and opportunities. IOP Conf. Ser.:
Earth Environ. Sci. 185, 185.
Coleman, J.S., 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital. Am. J. Sociol. 94,
95–120.
Conley, T., Udry, C., 2001. Social learning through networks: the adoption of new agri-
cultural technologies in Ghana. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 83, 668–673.
Corner-Thomas, R.A., Kenyon, P.R., Morris, S.T., Ridler, A.L., Hickson, R.E., Greer, A.W.,
Blair, H.T., 2017. Farmer perceptions of the relative usefulness of information pro-
viders and technology transfer methods. N. Z. J. Agr. Res. 60, 245–262.
Cote, S., 2001. The contribution of human and social capital. Can. J. Policy Res. 2, 29–36.
Courtois, C., Verdegem, P., 2016. With a little help from my friends: an analysis of the role
of social support in digital inequalities. New Media Soc. 188, 1508–1527.
Cruz-Jesus, F., Vicente, M.R., Bacao, F., Oliveira, T., 2016. The education-related digital
divide: an analysis for the EU-28. Comput. Hum. Behav. 56, 72–82.
Czapiewski, K., Janc, K., 2011. Accessibility to education and its impact on regional
development in Poland. In: Adams, N., Cotella, G., Nunes, R. (Eds.), Territorial
Development, Cohesion and Spatial Planning. Knowledge and Policy Development in
an Enlarged EU. Routledge, London; New York, pp. 345–372.
Czapiewski, K., Kulikowski, R., Bański, J., Bednarek-Szczepańska, M., Mazur, M., Ferenc,
M., 2012. Wykorzystanie ICT w rolnictwie Mazowsza – ujęcie przestrzenne. Studia
Obszarów Wiejskich 30, IGiPZ PAN. Warsaw. .
Davenport, T.H., Prusak, L., 1998. Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What
They Know. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Diekmann, F., Loibl, C., Batte, M.T., 2009. The economics of agricultural information:
factors affecting commercial farmers’ information strategies in Ohio. Rev. Agric.
Econ. 31, 853–872.
Drucker, P.F., 1994. Post-Capitalist Society. Routledge, New York.
Eicher, C.K., Staatz, J.M. (Eds.), 1998. International Agricultural Development. Johns
Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Fałkowski, J., Chlebicka, A., Łopaciuk-Gonczaryk, B., 2017. Social relationships and
governing collaborative actions in rural areas: some evidence from agricultural
producer groups in Poland. J. Rural Stud. 49, 104–116.
Farrington, J., Philip, L., Cottrill, C., Abbott, P., Blank, G., Dutton, W.H., 2015. Two-speed
Britain: Rural Internet Use. Aberdeen University Press, Aberdeen.
Fedyszak-Radziejowska, B., 2010. Społeczności wiejskie pięć lat po akcesji do UE – sukces
spóźnionej transformacji. In: Wilkin, J., Nurzyńska, I. (Eds.), Polska wieś 2010.
Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar, Warszawa, pp. 67–93.
Feng, W., Duan, Y., Fu, Z., Mathews, B., 2005. ICT supported knowledge transfer for
agricultural extension. In Artificial Intelligence Applications and Innovations In:
Daoliang, L., Baoij, W. (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence Applications and Innovations.
Springer, New York, pp. 833–844.
Ferrández-Pastor, F.J., García-Chamizo, J.M., Nieto-Hidalgo, M., Mora-Martínez, J.,
2018. Precision agriculture design method using a distributed computing architecture
on internet of things context. Sensors (Basel) 18, 1731.
Flanagin, A.J., Metzger, M.J., 2008. The credibility of volunteered geographic informa-
tion. GeoJournal 72, 137–148.
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. Agron.
Sustain. Dev. 38, 24.
Floriańczyk, Z., Janc, K., Czapiewski, K.Ł., 2012. The importance and diffusion of
knowledge in the agricultural sector: the Polish experiences. Geogr. Pol. 85, 45–56.
Fujita, M., Krugman, P., Venables, A.J., 1999. The Spatial Economy. Cities, Regions and
International Trade. The MIT Press, Cambridge.
Galloway, L., Sanders, J., Deakins, D., 2011. Rural small firms’ use of the internet: from
global to local. J. Rural Stud. 27, 254–262.
Gannon, R., 2008. Digital divides within households. In: Rusten, G., Skerratt, S. (Eds.),
Information and Communication Technologies in Rural Society. Being Rural in a
Digital Age. Routledge, Oxon, pp. 107–124.
Gorlach, K., Nowak, K., Saręga, Z., 1994. Family farms in post-communist Poland. From
repressive tolerance to oppressive freedom. In: Jansen, A., Symes, D. (Eds.),
Agricultural Restructuring and Rural Change in Europe. Agricultural University
Wageningen, Wageningen, pp. 153–162.
Granovetter, M.S., 1973. The strength of weak ties. Am. J. Sociol. 78, 1360–1380.
Grimshaw, D.J., 2011. Beyond technology: making information work for livelihoods. In:
Grimshaw, D.J., Kala, S. (Eds.), Strengthening Rural Livelihoods: The Impact of
Information and Communication Technologies in Asia. International Development
Research Centre, Ottawa, pp. 1–14.
K. Janc, et al.
Guinard, D., Trifa, V., Wilde, E., 2010. A resource oriented architecture for the web of
things. Internet Things. https://doi.org/10.1109/IOT.2010.5678452.
Hayami, Y., Ruttan, V., 1985. Agricultural Development: An International Perspective.
The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore.
Heilig, G., 2003. Information society and the countryside: can internet-based system bring
income alternatives to rural areas? In: Bański, J., Owsiński, J. (Eds.), Alternatives for
European Rural Areas. ERDN, Warsaw, pp. 65–79.
Hesse-Biber, S.N., 2010. Mixed Method Research; Merging Theory With Practice. Guilford
Press, New York.
Hilpert, U., 2006. Knowledge in the region: development based on tradition, culture and
change. Eur. Plan. Stud. 14, 581–599.
Information and Communication Techniologies, 2002. A World Bank Group Strategy.
World Bank, Washington.
Information Society in Poland, 2017. Results of Statistical Surveys in Years 2013-2017.
Central Statistical Office, Warsaw.
Janc, K., 2017. Geografia internetu, Rozprawy Naukowe Instytutu Geografii i Rozwoju
Regionalnego 41. IGRR UWr, Wrocław.
Jeanneaux, P., 2017. Digital Agriculture: the End of Farmer’s Decision-making? SDSC
Chair – UMR INRA SAD-APT Seminar ‘Changes in Sustainable Organization and Food
Sector Management. Workshop: Digital technology and Big Data in agriculture, food
processing industry, and retail, Paris, France. June 1-2, 2017http://www.chaire-sdsc.
org/IMG/pdf/170518_jeanneaux_agrinum_fullpaper_sdscseminar_062017_cle81fdd7-
1.pdf(Accessed 15 March 2019).
Jeffcoat, C., Davis, A.F., Hu, W., 2012. Willingness to pay for broadband access by
Kentucky farmers. J. Agr. Appl. Econ 44, 323–334.
Johnson, D.J., 2009. An impressionistic mapping of information behavior with special
attention to contexts, rationality, and ignorance. Inf. Process. Manage. 45, 593–604.
Kale, R.B., Rohilla, P.P., Meena, M.S., Wadkar, S.K., 2015. Information and commu-
nication technologies for agricultural knowledge management in India. J. Glob.
Commun. 8, 16–22.
Kaushik, P., Chowdhury, A., Hambly Odame, H., van Paassen, A., 2018. Social media for
enhancing stakeholders’ innovation networks in Ontario. Can. J. Agric. Food Inf. 19,
331–353.
Kavanaugh, A.L., Reese, D.D., Carroll, J.M., Rosson, M.B., 2005. Weak ties in networked
communities. Inf. Soc. 21, 119–131.
Kirsten, J., van Zyl, J., 1998. Defining small-scale farmers in the South African context.
Agrekon 37, 551–562.
Komornicki, T., Rosik, P., Śleszyński, P., Solon, J., Wiśniewski, R., Stępniak, M.,
Czapiewski, K., Goliszek, S., 2013. Impact of the Construction of Motorways and
Expressways on Socio-economic and Territorial Development of Poland. Ministry of
Infrastructure and Development, Warsaw.
Koster, H.R.A., van Ommeren, J., Rietveld, P., 2014. Is the sky the limit? High-rise
buildings and office rents. J. Econ. Geogr. 14, 125–153.
Kumar, V.T.M., Dahiya, B., 2017. Smart economy in smart cities. In: Kumar, V.T.M. (Ed.),
Smart Economy in Smart Cities: International Collaborative Research: Ottawa, St.
Louis, Stuttgart, Bologna, Cape Town, Nairobi, Dakar, Lagos, New Delhi, Varanasi,
Vijayawada, Kozhikode, Hong Kong. Springer, Singapur, pp. 3–76.
Lambert, D.M., Paudel, K.P., Larson, J.A., 2015. Bundled adoption of precision agriculture
technologies by cotton producers. J. Agr. Resour. Econ. 40, 325–345.
Lasi, H., Fettke, P., Kemper, H.G., Feld, T., Hoffmann, M., 2014. Industry 4.0. Bus. Inf.
Syst. Eng. 6, 239–242.
Lokers, R., Knapen, R., Janssen, S., van Randen, Y., Jansen, J., 2016. Analysis of Big Data
technologies for use in agro-environmental science. Environ. Model. Softw. 84,
494–504.
Lubell, M., McRoberts, N., 2018. Closing the extension gap: information and commu-
nication technology in sustainable agriculture. Calif. Agric. 72, 236–242.
Maggioni, M.A., Uberti, T.E., 2009. Knowledge networks across Europe: which distance
matters? Ann. Reg. Sci. 43, 691–720.
Markuszewska, I., 2015. Intensification or extensification of Polish agriculture? In
searching of directions of changes. A case study: The north-western region of Poland.
J. Agribus. Rural Dev. 35, 67–73.
Marra, M.C., Rejesus, R.M., Roberts, R.K., English, B.C., Larson, J.A., Larkin, S.L., Martin,
S., 2010. Estimating the demand and willingness-to-pay for cotton yield monitors.
Precis. Agric. 11, 215–238.
McBratney, A., Whelan, B., Ancev, T., Bouma, J., 2005. Future directions of precision
agriculture. Precis. Agric. 6, 7–23.
McCreadie, M., Rice, R.E., 1999. Trends in analyzing access to information. Part I: cross-
disciplinary conceptualizations of access. Inf. Process. Manage. 35, 45–76.
Naldi, L., Nilsson, P., Westlund, H., Wixe, S., 2015. What is smart rural development. J.
Rural Stud. 40, 90–101.
Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H., 1995. The Knowledge Creation Company: How Japanese
Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press, New York.
Nooteboom, B., 2000. Learning and Innovation in Organizations and Economies. Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Pantea, S., Biagi, F., Sabadash, A., 2014. Are ICT Displacing Workers? Evidence From
12
NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 90–91 (2019) 100309
Seven European Countries. Digital Economy Working Paper 2014/07. Joint Research
Centre, European Commission.
Park, S., 2017. Digital Capital. Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Polanyi, M., 1966. The Tacit Dimension. Routledge, London.
Poppe, K.J., Wolfert, J., Verdouw, C.N., Renwick, A., 2015. A European perspective on
the economics of Big Data. Farm Policy J. 12, 11–19.
Pratiwi, A., Suzuki, A., 2017. Effects of farmers’ social networks on knowledge acquisi-
tion: lessons from agricultural training in rural Indonesia. J. Econ. Struct. 6, 1–23.
Price, L., Evans, N., 2009. From stress to distress: conceptualizing the British family
farming patriarchal way of life. J. Rural Stud. 25, 1–11.
Putnam, R.D., 2000. Bowling Alone. The Collapse and Revival of American Community.
Simon & Schuster, New York.
Renjen, P., 2018. Industry 4.0. Are you ready? Deloitte Rev. 22, 9–11.
Rogerson, P.A., 2001. Statistical Methods for Geography. SAGE Publications, London.
Roux, D.J., Rogers, K.H., Biggs, H., Ashton, P.J., Sergeant, A., 2006. Bridging the science-
management divide: moving from unidirectional knowledge transfer to knowledge
interfacing and sharing. Ecol. Soc. 11, 1–20.
Saint Ville, A.S., Hickey, G.M., Locher, U., Phillip, L.E., 2016. Exploring the role of social
capital in influencing knowledge flows and innovation in smallholder farming com-
munities in the Caribbean. Food Secur. 8, 535–549.
Salemink, K., Strijker, D., Bosworth, G., 2017. Rural development in the digital age: a
systematic literature review on unequal ICT availability, adoption, and use in rural
areas. J. Rural Stud. 54, 360–371.
Schönfeld, M., Heil, R., Bittner, L., 2018. Big data on a farm-smart farming. In: Hoeren, T.,
Kolany-Raiser, B. (Eds.), Big Data in Context. Law. Springer, Cham, pp. 109–120.
Selwyn, N., Gorard, S., Furlong, J., 2005. Whose Internet is it anyway? Exploring
adults’(non) use of the Internet in everyday life. Eur. J. Commun. 20, 5–26.
Seri, P., Bianchi, A., Matteucci, N., 2014. Diffusion and usage of public e-services in
Europe: an assessment of country level indicators and drivers. Telecommun. Policy
38, 496–513.
Storper, M., Venables, A.J., 2004. Buzz: face-to-face contact and the urban economy. J.
Econ. Geogr. 4, 351–370.
Sundmaeker, H., Verdouw, C., Wolfert, S., Pérez Freire, L., 2016. Internet of food and
farm 2020. In: Vermesan, O., Friess, P. (Eds.), Digitising the Industry-Internet of
Things Connecting Physical, Digital and Virtual Worlds. River Publishers, Gistrup, pp.
129–151.
Takácsné György, K., Lámfalusi, I., Molnár, A., Sulyok, D., Gaál, M., Keményné Horváth,
Z., Domán, C., Illés, I., Kiss, A., Péter, K., Kemény, G., 2018. Precision agriculture in
Hungary: assessment of perceptions and accounting records of FADN arable farms.
Stud. Agric. Econ. 120, 47–54.
Tamirat, T.W., Pedersen, S.M., Lind, K.M., 2018. Farm and operator characteristics af-
fecting adoption of precision agriculture in Denmark and Germany. Acta Agric.
Scand. B 68, 349–357.
TongKe, F., 2013. Smart agriculture based on cloud computing and IOT. J. Converg. Inf.
Technol. 8.
Torre, A., 2008. On the role played by temporary geographical proximity in knowledge
transmission. Reg. Stud. 42, 869–889.
Van Deursen, A., Van Dijk, J.A.G.M., 2011. Internet skills and the digital divide. New
Media Soc. 13, 893–911.
Van Huylenbroeck, G., Durand, G., 2003. Multifunctional Agriculture. A New Paradigm
for European Rural Agriculture and Rural Development. Ashgate, Aldershot. .
Verdouw, C.N., Wolfert, J., Tekinerdogan, B., 2016. Internet of things in agriculture. CAB
Rev. 11, 1–12.
Villamil, M.B., Alexander, M., Silvis, A.H., Gray, M.E., 2012. Producer perceptions and
information needs regarding their adoption of bioenergy crops. Renew. Sust. Energ.
Rev. 16, 3604–3612.
Walter, A., Finger, R., Huber, R., Buchmann, N., 2017. Opinion: smart farming is key to
developing sustainable agriculture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 114, 6148–6150.
Wang, S., Wan, J., Li, D., Zhang, C., 2016. Implementing smart factory of industrie 4.0: an
outlook. Int. J. Distrib. Sens. Netw. 12.
Warren, M., 2007. The digital vicious cycle: links between social disadvantage and digital
exclusion in rural areas. Telecommun. Policy 31, 374–388.
Wilcox, W.W., 1943. Capital in agriculture. Q. J. Econ. 58, 49–64.
Wójcik, M., Jeziorska-Biel, P., Czapiewski, K., 2019. Between words: a generational dis-
cussion about farming knowledge sources. J. Rural Stud. 67, 130–141.
Wolfert, S., Ge, L., Verdouw, C., Bogaardt, M.J., 2017. Big data in smart farming–a re-
view. Agric. Syst. 153, 69–80.
Woods, M., 2005. Rural Geography. Sage Publications, London.
Woolcock, M., 2001. The place of social capital in understanding social and economic
outcomes. Can. J. Policy Res. 2, 11–17.
Zahra, S., George, G., 2002. Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and ex-
tension. Acad. Manage. Rev. 27, 185–203.
Zhao, J.C., Zhang, J.F., Feng, Y., Guo, J.X., 2010. The study and application of the IOT
technology in agriculture. In: 3rd International Conference on Computer Science and
Information Technology. Chengdu. pp. 462–465.