Agricultural Systems 208 (2023) 103656

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Agricultural Systems
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy

Farmers’ perception of the barriers that hinder the implementation of

agriculture 4.0
Franco da Silveira a, *, Sabrina Letícia Couto da Silva b, Filipe Molinar Machado c, Jayme Garcia
Arnal Barbedo d, Fernando Gonçalves Amaral a
a
Industrial Engineering Post-Graduate Program, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Av. Osvaldo Aranha 99, 90035-190 Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
b
Federal Institute of Education, Science, and Technology of Rio Grande do Sul, Campus Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
c
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Regional Integrated University of Alto Uruguay and the Missões, Av. Universidade das Missões 464, Santo Ângelo, RS, Brazil
d
Embrapa Agricultural Digital, Av. André Tosello, 209 - C.P. 6041, Campinas, SP 13083-886, Brazil

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• The barriers that hinder the develop­

ment of agriculture 4.0 in the Southern
region of Brazil are validated.
• Validation took place through the
perception of farmers located in the
states of Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Cat­
arina, and Paraná.
• Many barriers analyzed here were not
properly investigated in previous
studies, either in Brazil or in other
countries.
• This research provides relevant insights
that contribute to a systemic view about
the development of agriculture 4.0.

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Editor: Laurens Klerkx CONTEXT: Agriculture 4.0 can drive the growth of the agricultural production in emerging countries like Brazil,
which is known as one of the primary food and meat producers worldwide, by offering a range of technologies
Keywords: such as the Internet of Things (IoT), Artificial Intelligence (AI), Blockchain, and Machine Learning. However, the
Agriculture 4.0 development of agriculture 4.0 in Brazil is a complex process, and more needs to be known about the real barriers
Digital agriculture
that impact its adoption among the actors of the agricultural production chain. There is a need for more empirical
Agricultural production chain
studies about the perception of Brazilian farmers regarding the barriers that may compromise the successful path
Barriers
Brazil of agriculture 4.0.
OBJECTIVE: This article aims to validate the barriers that hinder the development of agriculture 4.0 in the
agricultural production chain of Southern Brazil.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: franco.da.silveira@hotmail.com (F. da Silveira), sabrina.silva@poa.ifrs.edu.br (S.L.C. da Silva), fmacmec@gmail.com (F.M. Machado), jayme.
barbedo@embrapa.br (J.G.A. Barbedo), amaral@producao.ufrgs.br (F.G. Amaral).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2023.103656
Received 12 January 2023; Received in revised form 27 March 2023; Accepted 28 March 2023
Available online 6 April 2023
0308-521X/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
F. da Silveira et al. Agricultural Systems 208 (2023) 103656

METHODS: Twenty-five barriers were chosen for validation based on a systematic review of the existing liter­
ature. A confirmatory factor analysis was performed using the statistical tests of Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin and Bartlett.
Validation was performed through the perception of farmers (n = 347) located in the states of Rio Grande do Sul,
Santa Catarina, and Paraná. The data were collected from an online questionnaire that identified the importance
of the barriers for the farmers in the sample.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The most frequent and important barriers mentioned by the farmers were: lack of
infrastructure, lack of solutions accessible to farmers, need to foster R&D and innovative business models, age group risk,
and lack of efficacy in the data on the rural environment. This information can contribute to constructing a
framework that seeks to overcome these barriers, thus facilitating the expansion and dissemination of agriculture
4.0 in Brazil.
SIGNIFICANCE: This study found that there is an open discussion about the barriers that hinder the adoption of
agriculture 4.0 in the agricultural production chain. It will be necessary to further investigate the most prominent
barriers in this study, as these may have significant impacts on other barriers. Thus, a systemic research that
seeks to improve the conditions for implementing agriculture 4.0 is of great importance.

1. Introduction
The challenge of feeding a population of approximately 10 billion
people (Hickey et al., 2019) in the coming 30 years, under the pressure
of the scarcity of natural resources (Rial-Lovera et al., 2017), together
with the need to ensure high productivity and agricultural profitability
without burdening the environment (Ayaz et al., 2019), led to the rise of
alternative production schemes based on the adoption of emerging
technologies (Lioutas and Charatsari, 2020) in a variety of institutional
and political contexts (Herrero et al., 2020). Emerging technological
options (Ayaz et al., 2019; Raj et al., 2021) such as robotics, artificial
intelligence (Klerkx and Rose, 2020; Rose et al., 2021), agricultural
internet of things (Liu et al., 2020; da Silveira et al., 2021), big data
analytics (Wolfert et al., 2017), machine learning, unmanned aerial
vehicles (Raj et al., 2021), genetic engineering of plants (Hofmann et al.,
2020) and vertical agriculture (Halgamuge et al., 2021) are considered
in scientific debates to be promising solutions to modernize the con­
ventional agri-food systems (Sumberg and Giller, 2022), thus reducing
environmental damage, and social inequality (O’Malley et al., 2020).
This transformation of the modern agri-food system was called
“agriculture 4.0” (Klerkx et al., 2019; Klerkx and Rose, 2020; Klerkx and
Begemann, 2020; da Silveira et al., 2021), or the fourth agricultural
revolution (Rose et al., 2021). Other terms such as “digital agriculture”
(Phillips et al., 2019), “smart agriculture” (Janc et al., 2019; Mistry et al.,
2020), “farming 4.0”, “landwirtschaft 4.0” (Braun et al., 2018), and “smart
farm” (Gan and Lee, 2018) are also utilized indistinctly in the literature.
Since agriculture 4.0 is a relatively new term, its definition is still under
construction by scholars in this field (Barrett and Rose, 2020). This study
follows the broad definition of agriculture 4.0 proposed by da Silveira
et al. (2021) for the agricultural production chain: “agriculture 4.0 is the
implementation of emerging technologies and innovative services on the
agriculture, that requires a cultural and behavioral change in all actors
involved in the agricultural production chain, to increase their productivity
and efficiency, and support a more sustainable agriculture, using precise and
momentary of information that will help make strategic decisions”.
Many studies try to anticipate the future paths of agriculture 4.0 (Raj
et al., 2021; Rose et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2021). However, the po­
tential of agriculture 4.0 varies among farmers, farms, and countries
(Grieve et al., 2019; Kernecker et al., 2020). It may be difficult to predict
the impact of such a disruptive change in the world (Eastwood et al.,
2021). Global understanding of the perception of the potential promised
by the introduction of agriculture 4.0 technologies is still limited (Pau­
schinger and Klauser, 2021; Zhang et al., 2021). More systemic views
seeking to deepen the conditions for its implementation are needed
(Javaid et al., 2022; Maffezzoli et al., 2022).
Some agriculture 4.0 technologies are already being used in devel­
oped countries (Goel et al., 2021). Most of the studies that explore the
development of agriculture 4.0 are conducted in the industrialized
countries (Balafoutis et al., 2017) of Europe (Bacco et al., 2019; Ker­
necker et al., 2020) and North America (Eastwood et al., 2019; Phillips
et al., 2019). In the United Kingdom, there are empirical analyses
regarding farmers’ and consultants’ perceptions of the fourth agricul­
tural revolution in this field (Barrett and Rose, 2020). In New Zealand, a
study analyzed how the different types of suppliers of agricultural
knowledge (agricultural consultants, scientific organizations, and tech­
nology suppliers) see agriculture 4.0 (Rijswijk et al., 2019). In the United
States, researchers consider that to improve the understanding of
farmers’ adoption decisions, or lack thereof, it is necessary to initially
verify their perceptions of the benefits that new technologies can offer
(Thompson et al., 2019). In Australia, research initiatives in this context
seek to improve the development of agriculture 4.0 through reports from
a diversified group of scientists and engineers (Fleming et al., 2021).
However, in most developing countries, the adoption rate of tech­
nologies from agriculture 4.0 is low (Bolfe et al., 2020a; Dixon et al.,
2021; Goel et al., 2021). In India, technologies in agriculture are limited
(Ceballos et al., 2020), and on the African continent, there is evidence
that not even agricultural mechanization is promoted (Daum and Birner,
2020). Jellason et al. (2021) reported that agriculture 4.0 in many low-
income countries of sub-Saharan Africa has the potential to create
problems instead of bringing benefits due to an insufficient under­
standing of the challenges that the continent must overcome to embrace
this technological revolution. In Central America, barriers during the
implementation of the agriculture 4.0 model negatively impact the
success of local and national projects (Owens et al., 2020). Table 1
presents the barriers that may have difficulties in the development of
agriculture 4.0 in the agricultural production chain. Unless these bar­
riers are confirmed, the construction of guidelines to overcome them
may be generic and uncertain. The elaboration of Table 1 was based on
the Systematic Literature Review (SLR) regarding the development of
agriculture 4.0 in the agricultural production chain by da Silveira et al.
(2021). Its systematization considered the stages of open codification,
categorization, and abstraction (Elo and Helvi, 2008) in analyzing the
articles of this SLR.
In this context, an analysis of the farmers’ perception of the barriers
that hinder the development of agriculture 4.0 in different geographic
areas is crucial to maximizing its advantages and benefits worldwide
(Hinson et al., 2019; Klerkx and Rose, 2020). This research reports the
first study aimed at validating the barriers that difficulties the devel­
opment of agriculture 4.0 in Southern Brazil. Amid the sanitary crisis of
Covid-19 (Rizou et al., 2020), Brazilian agribusiness showed resilience,
with several records achieved by the sector in 2020 (CEPEA, 2021). The
participation of this sector in the total Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
remained at around 30% in 2021 (CEPEA, 2021). Nevertheless, it will be
a challenge to meet the yield projections for 2030–2031 (MAPA, 2021a)
and, at the same time, be aligned with the Sustainable Development
Goals (e.g., SDG12) of the “2030 Agenda” (Hinson et al., 2019; Fanzo
et al., 2021). Therefore, it is essential to understand the real barriers that
slow down the adoption of the agriculture 4.0 model in Brazil (Bolfe
et al., 2020a; da Silveira et al., 2021). This knowledge may help mitigate
the significant heterogeneity in the adoption of agriculture 4.0

2
F. da Silveira et al.
Table 1
Barriers that difficulties the development of agriculture 4.0 in the agricultural
production chain.*
ID Barrier SLR Description
B1 Technological This is a problem that may
Complexity arise due to the lack of
usability of the technological
equipment of agriculture 4.0
for the actors of the
agricultural production chain
(e.g., the usability of
autonomous machines,
equipment, sensors, apps,
and software that perform
the collection and analysis of
agricultural data).
This refers to the existing
constraints to adapting the
technical issues of equipment
and software from different
Incompatibility between
B2 technology companies with
Components
existing agricultural
operations (e.g., integration
of data from multiple
different sensors).
Energy scarcity and power
consumption may hinder the
development of agriculture
4.0 among the actors of the
Energy Management
B3 agricultural production chain
Problems
(e.g., battery consumption
and autonomy during
operation by drones and/or
autonomous robots).
It is necessary to develop a
robust infrastructure for
B4 Lack of Infrastructure
better digital connectivity in
rural areas.
There is a big flow of
information that occurs in
the agricultural production
Concerns about
B5 chain, which represents a
Reliability Issues
threat to cybernetic security
and problems of data
privacy.
These are the expenditures to
commission the
infrastructure needed for
rural communities and the
High Cost of Facility operational costs coming
B6
Maintenance from data interoperability (e.
g., autonomous machines,
equipment apps., software,
telecommunications
infrastructure).
This refers to the costs of
skilled labor needed to
High Cost of Skilled
B7 control and keep the
Labor
agriculture 4.0 technologies
working.
This refers to the solutions
for the decision-making
process that may not be
High Cost of Operational
B8 practical due to high costs (e.
Components
g., powerful computer
boards, multispectral
cameras, and software).
The high investment needed
to acquire the equipment and
technological components
Lack of Solutions discourages the adoption of
B9
Accessible to Farmers agriculture 4.0 (e.g.,
autonomous machinery,
equipment, agricultural
robots).
Agricultural Systems 208 (2023) 103656
Table 1 (continued )
ID Barrier SLR Description Dimension
The social, ethical, and
Dimension environmental implications
Technological may give rise to potential
costs in the large-scale
introduction of agriculture
Concerns about
4.0, which may impair its
B10 Environmental, Ethical
adoption among the actors in
and Social Costs
the agricultural production
chain (e.g., use of
environmental preservation
areas, solar energy, the
health of rural workers).
This refers to the lack of
availability and accessibility
of the technologies of
agriculture 4.0 for the actors
of agricultural production. It
is necessary to develop a new
Limited Availability and
B11 structure of agricultural
Accessibility
policy to stimulate the
implementation of the
agriculture 4.0 technologies
(e.g., autonomous
machinery, equipment, apps,
and software).
This refers to structures
needed to speed up the
development of agriculture
Lack of Farm-Centered
4.0 (e.g., farmer
B12 and Farmer-Centered
cooperatives, rural
Approaches
government organizations,
private agricultural
enterprises).
The development of
agriculture 4.0 requires an
Need for an Action Plan action plan that will make it
Political
B13 for Technology easier to implement the
Implementation emerging technologies (e.g.,
governmental proposals of
chamber 4.0).
Agriculture 4.0 requires a
policy update as new
technologies for agriculture
are developed (e.g., land
Political Challenges and/
ownership regulation, laws,
or Lack of Procedures
B14 agreements, and rules about
and Agreements
the use of agricultural data
regarding the use of Data
and the functioning of
autonomous agricultural
machinery and equipment in
the fields).
There is a lack of integration
between universities and
technology incubation
Need to foster R&D and centers (e.g., innovation
B15 Innovative Business hubs, startups), and of
Models investment in R&D to
facilitate the development of
Economic technologies in agriculture
4.0.
The agricultural education
system must include the
competencies required by
agriculture 4.0 (e.g.,
B16 Problems in Education formation, qualification,
training, capacitation in the
analysis of agricultural data,
data transfer to practical Social
knowledge).
The use of technologies
B17 Age Group Risk related to agriculture 4.0
decreases with age.
It refers to the competencies
Lack of Digital Skills
B18 required to practice
and/or Skilled Labor
agriculture 4.0 (e.g.,
(continued on next page)
3
F. da Silveira et al. Agricultural Systems 208 (2023) 103656

Table 1 (continued ) 2. Characterization of the study

ID Barrier SLR Description Dimension
2.1. Area of study
technical know-how, digital
and technological skills).
It is still necessary to develop Southern Brazil is responsible for approximately 41.26% (US
guidelines for the actors of $38.628.350,410) of the total agribusiness exports (MAPA, 2021a). The
Asymmetry of
the agricultural production states of Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina, and Paraná from the South
B19 chain that will provide a
Information Region, together are responsible for a planted area of 20.874 million
clear comprehension of the
advantages of implementing hectares (2020− 2021), but there is an expected expansion to 23.082
agriculture 4.0. million hectares (2030− 2031) (MAPA, 2021b), which is the second-
It is defined as the largest planted area of the country. In addition, this region has been
interruptions in the existing developing a thriving ecosystem of innovation in agribusiness, being
Interruption of Existing work caused by introducing
B20
Work new technologies in the
home to 25.2% (397) of all Brazilian Agtechs (Figueiredo et al., 2021),
agricultural production with a focus on the development of technological solutions for agricul­
chain. ture (Ramos and Pedroso, 2021). Fig. 1 shows the distribution of the
Challenges of the The harsh agricultural survey respondents.
B21 Influence of Climate and environment can reduce the
of System Behaviors life cycle of the technologies.
This refers to the efficacy of 2.2. Importance of the farmers in the development of agriculture 4.0
the climate forecast data in
Lack of efficacy in the the rural environment (e.g., The farmers are key to dealing with the uncertainties involved in
B22 Data on the Rural environmental temperature,
agriculture 4.0 (Maria et al., 2021). In the technology adoption process,
Environment air humidity, soil humidity,
the incidence of solar
the farmer is considered the main driver (Paustian and Theuvsen, 2017;
radiation, and precipitation). Kernecker et al., 2020). However, there needs to be a better under­
It refers to the restrictions on standing of how farmers, as end-users of agricultural technologies, may
the radical mode of food contribute to the development of agriculture 4.0 (Eastwood and Ren­
production, food
wick, 2020; Kernecker et al., 2020). Thus, understanding the percep­
B23 Sustainable Restrictions consumption, and disposal of Environmental
food wastes that may be tions of Brazilian farmers regarding the barriers that hinder the
developed by consumers in development of agriculture 4.0 may provide important insights for the
agriculture 4.0. strategic design of the Action Plan (2021–2024) launched by the Agro
It is a challenge to develop 4.0 Chamber. The objective of the “Action Plan” is to promote actions for
Limited Techniques for useful techniques for data
B24
Data Collection on Farms collection in the agricultural
the development and generation of solutions for Brazilian agriculture,
production chain. for the expansion of the internet in rural areas, and the promotion and
It refers to the technologies of diffusion of innovative technologies and services in the rural environ­
agriculture 4.0 for the ment (MCTI, 2021).
Concerns about
agricultural production chain
B25 Sustainable Sources of Souza et al. (2019) reported that farmers in the Southern region of
that has sustainable
Energy
characteristics (but low Brazil have the highest levels of technology adoption in the country.
productivity). Farmers in this region stand out for having an ecosystem that favors
access to emerging technologies. Therefore, they embrace agriculture
Note: *Elaborated based on the SLR developed by da Silveira et al. (2021).
4.0 (Brasil, 2021). In addition, the percentage of illiterate farmers in the
South region (4.2%) is low compared to the North (20.4%) and North­
technologies (Bolfe et al., 2020a). In Brazil, there is significant adoption
east (38.2%) regions (Buainain et al., 2021a). Regarding population
of these types of technology in the production of sugarcane (Santoro
trends, farmers of the South region are primarily male, with an average
et al., 2017), soybeans (Machado et al., 2016; Tetila et al., 2020), fru­
age that is steadily growing (IBGE, 2017). Small and medium-sized
ticulture (Carrer et al., 2017; Pereira et al., 2018), hydroponic horti­
properties are predominant and are fundamental in local economies
culture (Santos et al., 2020; Campos et al., 2021), among others
(Foguesatto et al., 2019; Arends-Kuenning et al., 2021). This region’s
(Barbedo, 2018). On the other hand, technology adoption tends to be
average area of agricultural establishments is 50.2 ha (Johnston et al.,
lower (Bolfe et al., 2020b) in the production of maize (Ramos et al.,
2020). In addition, approximately 78.1% (665.569) of the total pro­
2020), beef cattle (Barbedo and Koenigkan, 2018), coffee (Leme et al.,
duction units (852.609) are family farms (IBGE, 2017). Notably, the
2020), and cotton (Alves et al., 2020; Oliveira et al., 2020).
small farmers in this region are pluriactive, multifunctional, and pro­
The results of this study can not only be helpful to other developing
duce several crops. On the other hand, large and medium-sized rural
countries but also add to systemic-oriented discussions on the agri-food
properties are characterized by a monoculture (Johnston et al., 2020).
system of the 21st Century (O’Malley et al., 2020; Spanaki et al., 2021),
Farmers of this region also play a significant role in the international
encouraging the development of actions by decision-makers at all scales
market by exporting important agricultural commodities, such as rice
of the agricultural production chain to meet the global targets of the
(Ribas et al., 2021), soybeans, and corn (Santos et al., 2021).
“2030 Agenda” (Fanzo et al., 2021). With less than a decade to go until
2030, it is necessary to accelerate anticipations of possible futures and
3. Methodological procedures
think about the current trajectories of agriculture 4.0 (Rose and Chil­
vers, 2018); which can help put the world on a more sustainable and
3.1. Study design
resilient path (Fleming et al., 2021). The sections of this article are
structured as follows. Section 2 contains the research scenario in which
Due to the restrictions caused by the Covid-19 pandemic on the
the study region is characterized, and the process of farmer selection to
development of scientific research at a global level (Singh and Sagar,
participate in the study is described. Section 3 shows the methodological
2021), the present study used an online survey to collect data. The
procedures for the treatment and analysis of the data (design, sampling
research instrument (questionnaire) was elaborated using “Google
strategy, and sample size). The results are shown in Section 4, followed
Forms” and divided into four sections to collect data regarding the
by discussions in Section 5 and conclusions in Section 6.
barriers that hinder the development of agriculture 4.0 in the agricul­
tural production chain. The study developed by da Silveira et al. (2021)

4
F. da Silveira et al.
Fig. 1. Distribution of survey respondents in Southern Brazil (n = 347).
provided the basis for the questions. The data were collected between
February 6 and April 28, 2021. The format and content of the ques­
tionnaire were validated by three researchers with experience in the
technologies of agriculture 4.0.
Validation of the research questionnaire used to collect data followed
the following steps: i) planning what would be measured; ii) formulation
of the questions to obtain the necessary information, iii) definition of the
text and order of the questions and the visual aspect of the questionnaire
on the online platform; iv) simulation of answers in the questionnaire on
the online platform by researchers; v) testing the questionnaire using a
small sample of the farmers as a means to identifying omissions and
ambiguity; and vi) problem correction and validation of the changes.
The researchers who participated in this process were male with the
following backgrounds: Researcher 1 - bachelor in mechanical engi­
neering, a master’s in production engineering, and a Ph.D. in agriculture
engineering; Researcher 2 - bachelor in mechanical engineering, a
master’s in production engineering, and a Ph.D. student in production
engineering; and Researcher 3 - bachelor, master, and Ph.D. in electrical
engineering.
The questions were written using simple language in order to be
easily understood, using as reference a pilot study with ten farmers to
identify possible problems related to the research questions, omissions,
and other challenges experienced by the respondents of online research
(Andrade, 2020). The final questionnaire was modified based on this
feedback. The results of the pilot were included in the main study as the
questions in both cases were essentially the same.
Section 1 of the questionnaire contained a brief description of the
research, including objectives, authors, contact of the authors for
questions, institutions involved, a statement about the importance of
participation, confidentiality terms, and timetable. Section 2 included
questions involving the sociodemographic and educational profile of the
farmers, which helped characterize the research sample regarding
gender, age, level of formal education, farm location, size of cultivated
area, and the farm’s main crop. Section 3 evaluated the importance of
the barriers that difficult the development of agriculture 4.0 (Table 1).
5
Agricultural Systems 208 (2023) 103656
Five subsections with five questions each were applied: technological,
economic, political, cultural, and environmental. To determine the
importance of the barriers, the five-point Likert Scale (Likert, 1932),
ranging from “not important = 1” to “very important = 5”, was applied.
Finally, Section 4 included a message thanking the respondents and a
question about their interest in receiving the results of this study. The
questionnaire can be accessed in the link: https://docs.google.com
/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdePbgXDzAximehLKyC9fuUDc_6WJQct48nwxQ
VUdeQioTWqg/viewform?usp=sf_link.
3.2. Sampling strategy
An invitation containing the study’s objectives and the research link
was widely promoted on social networks (e.g., Facebook, WhatsApp,
LinkedIn, and Instagram). There was also the support of technicians
from government agencies, such as the Brazilian Company of Agricul­
tural and Livestock Research (EMBRAPA - Brazilian Agricultural Research
Corporation), Universities (Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Federal
University of Santa Maria, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Federal
University of Paraná), State Departments of Agriculture and Rural
Extension Companies (EMATER, EPAGRI, Casa da Agricultura). The re­
spondents were encouraged to contact the researchers responsible for
the study for further information before answering the questions. The
subjects included in this study had to be 18 years or older and reside in
one of the three Southern Brazilian states. No financial compensation
was awarded for participation, and the right to confidentiality and an­
onymity was ensured.
3.3. Sample size
The minimum size of the population sample was calculated based on
the official data provided by the latest agricultural and livestock census
in the Distribution of survey respondents in Southern Brazil (2.340,866
million farmers). Of these, 42.4% are in Rio Grande do Sul, 36.2% in
Paraná, and 21.4% in Santa Catarina (IBGE, 2017). The minimum
F. da Silveira et al. Agricultural Systems 208 (2023) 103656

sample size needed for a maximum margin of error of 5% within a Table 2

confidence interval of 90% was 271 farmers (Som, 1995; Fuller, 2011). Sociodemographic characteristics of the farmers of the study sample (n = 347).
The sample obtained was 347 farmers, distributed proportionally to the Variable N %
population strata of the three states (Table 3), resulting in a margin of
Sex
error of 4.4%. According to the official data provided by the Brazilian Male 303 87.3
government (IBGE, 2017), this research sample is considered represen­ Female 44 12.7
tative of the population of farmers of the agricultural production chain Total 347 100.0
in the South region of the country. Age (years)
Up to 20 29 8.4
21 to 30 145 41.8
3.4. Statistical analysis 31 to 40 81 23.3
41 to 50 33 9.5
The data provided by the respondents was revised, codified, and 51 to 60 35 10.1
Over 60 24 6.9
inserted into three platforms. The first was MS Excel, used to tabulate
Total 347 100.0
the data. The statistical analysis was done using the Statistical Package Schooling
for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 28.0 and the SPSS AMOs version 28. Basic Education 26 7.5
Descriptive analyses included frequency tables, graphs, and calculations Middle Education 67 19.3
Technical Middle Education 54 15.6
of summary measures (mean and standard deviation) (Boone and Boone,
Undergraduate 152 43.8
2012); inferential analyses focused on measuring the questionnaire’s Specialization 6 1.7
reliability by Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient (Streiner, 2003) and on Master’s 22 6.3
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) (Hair et al., 2006). Doctorate 20 5.8
The CFA is a multivariate statistical technique that reduces the Total 347 100.0
Time working with the crop (years)
dimensionality of the variable space (Orçan, 2018). This reduction is
Up to 10 168 48.4
represented by a new variable (component) that expresses a linear 11 to 20 95 27.4
combination of the original variables, all metric or quantitative (Hair 21 to 30 48 13.8
et al., 2006). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO)’s test was adopted to 31 to 40 25 7.2
determine the proportion of data variance that can be considered com­ Over 40 11 3.2
Total 347 100.0
mon to all variables, i.e., attributed to a common factor (Glen, 2020).
Acceptable values are expected to lie between 0.5 and 1 (Hair et al., Obs.: The categorical variables are presented as frequencies and proportions.
2006). Next, the Bartlett test was adopted to determine whether the
correlation matrix between the variables is an identity matrix, thus
Table 3
indicating the absence of correlation between the variables (Bartlett,
Characteristics of the farmers’ agricultural production in the study sample (n =
1947). Still, in the CFA, the adequacy of the model was verified through
347).
the following adjustment indicators: ratio of chi-square in relation to
Variable N %
degrees of freedom (χ2/gl), Comparative-Fit Index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis
Index (TLI), and Root Mean Square Error Approximation (RMSEA). For to Land Surface (hectares)
obtain satisfactory levels of fit, it is required that the ratio χ2/df is less Up to 20 104 30.0
21 to 100 138 39.8
than two (Ullman, 2013), that CFI and TLI values are above 0.90 (Hoyle,
>100 105 30.2
1995), and that the RMSEA values are located below 0.08 (adequate fit) Total 347 100.0
or below 0.05 (excellent fit) (Browne and Cudeck, 1993). A significance Main crop produced
level of 5% (p < 0.05) was adopted for all tests. Maize 201 57.9
Rice 36 10.4
Soy beans 36 10.4
4. Results Wheat 15 4.3
Fruticulture 19 5.5
4.1. Descriptive analysis Other* 40 11.5
Total 347 100.0
State
4.1.1. Sociodemographic characteristics of the study participants
Paraná 118 34.0
Table 2 presents the sociodemographic characteristics of the farmers Rio Grande do Sul 148 42.7
who participated in the study. The sample studied is composed of 303 Santa Catarina 81 23.3
(87.3%) men (mean age = 34.2 years, SD = 13.5 years) and 44 (12.7%) Total 347 100.0
women (mean age = 30.3 years, SD = 11.4). The farmers belonged to Obs.: The categorical variables are presented as frequencies and proportions.
different age groups, with 41.8% aged between 21 and 30 years (145 *Other: (oats, tobacco, beans, garlic, onions).
samples). Approximately 57.6% of the farmers in the sample studied had
completed at least one of the following stages in higher education: un­ Sul, 118 (34%) from Paraná, and 81 (23.3%) from Santa Catarina.
dergraduate (43.8%), specialization (1.7%), master’s (6.3%), and
doctorate (5.8%). Regarding the time working with the crops, 168
(48.4%) of the participants in the study answered that they had worked 4.2. Barriers that difficulties the development of agriculture 4.0
for up to 10 years, while 95 (27.4%) responded that they had 11 to 20
years. The mean time the farmers worked on the crops was 15.9 ± 11.3 The data in Fig. 2 shows equivalence between all validated barriers
years (ranging from 1 to 55 years). The typical respondent was male, of the technological dimension. This reinforces that agriculture 4.0 has
younger than 30 years of age, possessing at least one higher education several complex technological aspects that must be considered. Thus,
degree, and working with the current crops for <10 years. barriers such as B1 - Technological Complexity (4), B2 - Incompatibility
Between Components (4), B3 - Energy Management Problems (4), B4 - Lack
4.1.2. Information concerning agricultural production of Infrastructure (4), and B5 - Concerns about Reliability Issues (4) should
The results of Table 3 show that most farms in the study are relatively be addressed for a more comprehensive implementation of agriculture
small (<100 ha) and are dedicated to producing maize. As to the region, 4.0. Although these barriers did not reach the maximum score (5), all
148 (42.7%) of the respondents were from the state of Rio Grande do were identified as important (4).

6
F. da Silveira et al. Agricultural Systems 208 (2023) 103656

Fig. 2. Technological barriers.

Fig. 3. Economic barriers.

Fig. 3 presents the results for the economic dimension. Barrier B9 -
Lack of Solutions Accessible to Farmers (5) reached the maximum score
according to the perception of the farmers in the study. These results
draw attention to a complementary problem: economic inequality
among farmers in Southern Brazil. Farmers with greater purchasing
power in the agricultural production chain may be more likely to adopt
agriculture 4.0 than farmers with lower income. The other barriers were
flagged as important (4), demonstrating that this dimension also has
different implications that must be taken care of and mitigated.
In the political dimension (Fig. 4), as in the technological dimension
(Fig. 1), there was no difference in the median score (4) between these
validated barriers. The results demonstrate that a set of measures to
overcome them are necessary to promote agriculture 4.0 among farmers.
The data presented in Fig. 5 shed light on what must be resolved to
improve the Brazilian shortage of skilled labor in agriculture 4.0. The
barriers with the highest median score (5) were B16 - Problems in

Fig. 4. Political barriers.

7
F. da Silveira et al.
Fig. 5. Social barriers.
Education and B17 - Age Group Risk. It should be mentioned that the
social dimension (4.4) was the most significant among the farmers in
this study (economic dimension = 4.2, environmental dimension = 4.2,
political dimension = 4, and technological dimension = 4).
Fig. 6 shows the median score of barriers in the environmental
dimension. The barrier B25 - Concerns about Sustainable Sources of Energy
(3) was the least important. This barrier was also the least mentioned by
farmers considering the 25 barriers of the research.
Table 4 shows the distribution of the “levels of importance” attributed
by the farmers to the 25 barriers adopted in this study. The proportions
in the table corroborate the results in Figs. 2 to 6. In the technological
dimension, the barrier B3 - Energy Management Problems had the greatest
frequency observed 39 (11.2) in “Not Important”. On the other hand, in
“Slightly Important”, barrier B5 - Concerns about Reliability Issues was the
most often mentioned 43 (12.4). As to “Somewhat Important”, the barrier
B2 - Incompatibility between Components was the most cited 63 (18.2).
Regarding “Important”, the barrier B2 also was observed to have the
highest frequency observed 127 (36.6). Concerning the variable “Very
Important”, the barrier B4 - Lack of Infrastructure was most considered
166 (47.8).
As to the economic dimension, the barrier B8 - High Cost of Opera­
tional Components had the greatest frequency observed 23 (6.6) in “Not
Important”. Continuing the analysis of the data, it is perceived that in
“Slightly Important” the barrier B10 - Concerns about Environmental,
Ethical and Social Costs was the most mentioned 34 (9.8). In the case of
“Somewhat Important”, the barrier B10 also was recorded as the most
important 57 (16.4). As to variable “Important”, it is found that barrier
B7 - High Cost of Skilled Labor was the most cited 122 (35.2). Regarding
Fig. 6. Environmental barriers.
8
Agricultural Systems 208 (2023) 103656
“Very Important”, it is observed that barrier B9 - Lack of Solutions
Accessible to Farmers had the most observed frequency among the re­
spondents 180 (51.9).
Regarding the political dimension, the barrier B14 - Political Chal­
lenges and/or Lack of Procedures and Agreements regarding the use of Data
was the most mentioned 27 (7.8) in the element “Not Important”. This
was repeated in “Slightly Important”, where barrier B14 was most
considered 41 (11.8). About the variable “Somewhat Important”, it is
noted that barriers B11 - Limited Availability and Accessibility and B14 had
the most observations of the respondents of sample 63 (18.2). On the
other hand, in the case of “Important”, the barrier B12 - Lack of Farm-
Centered and Farmer-Centered Approaches was the most evaluated 145
(41.8). About “Very Important”, the barrier B15 - Need to foster R&D, and
Innovative Business Models was most mentioned 148 (42.7).
Initially, in the cultural dimension, the barrier B19 - Asymmetry of
Information was classified in the variable “Not Important” as the one with
the greatest frequency observed 25 (7.2). Barrier B19 was also the most
cited among the farmers in “Slightly Important” 31 (8.9), “Somewhat
Important” 52 (15.0), and “Important” 126 (36.3). “Very Important” ob­
tained barrier B17 - Age Group Risk as the most significant 195 (56.2).
When considering the environmental dimension of Table 4, it is
found that barrier B25 - Concerns about Sustainable Sources of Energy was
the most considered for “Not Important” 60 (17.3), “Slightly Important” 64
(18.4), and “Somewhat Important” 50 (14.4). As to “Important”, barrier
B23 - Sustainable Restrictions had the most indications 126 (36.3).
Finally, in “Very Important” barrier B22 - Lack of efficacy in the Data on the
Rural Environment was most mentioned among the farmers in sample
202 (58.2).
F. da Silveira et al.
Table 4
Barriers that difficulties the development of agriculture 4.0 in the agricultural production chain in Southern Brazil.
An analysis was also performed about the greater frequency observed
considering the barriers of all dimensions. Barrier B25 was the most
pointed out in the case of “Not Important” 60 (17.3), and also of “Slightly
Important” 64 (18.4). As regards the variable “Somewhat Important”,
barriers B2 - Incompatibility between Components, B11 - Limited Avail­
ability and Accessibility, and B14 - Political Challenges and/or Lack of
Procedures and Agreements regarding the use of Data presented the most
indications 63 (18.2); and regarding “Important”, barrier B2 was the
most cited 127 (36.6). In “Very Important” it was found that barrier B22
had the greatest evaluations by the farmers of sample 202 (58.2) among
the barriers of all dimensions.
9
Agricultural Systems 208 (2023) 103656
4.3. Confirmatory factor analysis
All values for Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients were above 0.8
(Table 5), indicating that the applied questionnaire had good consis­
tency (Streiner, 2003). The most consistent constructs were the Tech­
nological Barriers (0.966) and the Political Barriers (0.904). The general
coefficient of consistency was 0.952, denoting high internal consistency.
The sample used in this study was deemed adequate for applying
confirmatory factor analyses (KMO = 0.942). In addition, the Bartlett
test rejected the hypothesis that the matrix of correlations among the
variables is of the identity type (p < 0.05). Thus, after verifying the
F. da Silveira et al. Agricultural Systems 208 (2023) 103656

Table 5 by colors) that compose the Survey questionnaire were identified and
Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients (by construct and general) of the data collection confirmed. As observed in the last row, the 5 factors extracted account
instrument. for 72.2% of the accumulated variance of the answers (Factor 1 =
Construct* n◦ of questions Cronbach’s Alpha 47.9%, Factor 2 = 7.9%, Factor 3 = 6.6%, Factor 4 = 5.3%, and Factor 5
1 – Technological Barriers 5 0.966
= 4.4%).
2 – Economic Barriers 5 0.817 The components generated in the confirmatory factor analysis indi­
3 – Political Barriers 5 0.904 cate that the questions were properly grouped in their original con­
4 – Social Barriers 5 0.893 structs. These results also indicate that the constructs could be reordered
5 – Environmental Barriers 5 0.868
to reflect their importance better (Table 7).
General 25 0.952
Considering the CFA performed in the AMOS software and the
Obs.: *The constructs are the dimensions presented in Table 1. respective adjustment values, the results showed that the tested model of
5 factors, presents an adequate adjustment, with χ2 = 448.3; χ2/df =
assumptions, the factor analysis proper was performed, considering 1.69; CFI = 0.932; TLI = 0.912 e RMSEA = 0.068.
Principal Components as an extraction method in the analysis, and the Fig. 7 shows the trajectory diagram (Marsh et al., 2020), constructed
Varimax rotation method, with a criterion of inclusion of the factor in with the help of SPSS AMOS Graphics software v. 28.0, depicting the
the analysis if it presented an eigenvalue >1 (unit). distribution and organization of the latent variables generated from the
Table 6 shows the result of the Exploratory Factor Analysis with the confirmatory factor analysis. In this diagram, the rectangles represent
matrix of the coefficients of the components generated and their the variables observed; the ellipses represent the latent variables (non-
respective loading factor. The 5 components (constructs, differentiated observable) and are utilized to represent the random errors. A straight
arrow with a single head indicates the path or the causal relationship
between two latent variables.
Table 6
Structural matrix of the coefficients and factors (components) of the research Confirming the previous results, the latent variables that presented
instrument (questionnaire) resulting from the confirmatory factor analysis*. the highest factor loads were related to the Political (1.01) and Tech­
nological Barriers (0.91). The highest covariance values were observed
between Technological and Economic Barriers (0.54); Technological
and Political Barriers (0.54); and Political and Social Barriers (0.68).

5. Discussion

Several barriers identified in the development of agriculture 4.0 in

the agricultural production chain were validated in this study from the
perspective of farmers (n = 347) in Southern Brazil. The study provides
strong evidence that many barriers (Table 1) affect the development of
agriculture 4.0 in Brazil. The study also highlights the differences in
perception among the farmers in the sample (Table 4). All barriers in all
dimensions analyzed (technological, economic, political, social, and
environmental) were deemed at least moderately important by the
farmers. This information can contribute to constructing a framework to
overcome these barriers, thus facilitating the expansion and dissemi­
nation of agriculture 4.0 in Brazil. The framework will be able to
demonstrate the interrelationships between the barriers validated here
to better assess which barriers are the root of the problem and which
need to be addressed first when implementing agriculture 4.0. This will
better direct the development of strategies that seek to overcome them.
Therefore, the validation of these barriers can help both developed
countries (e.g., United Kingdom, Ingram et al., 2022) and developing
countries (e.g., Sub-Saharan Africa, Jellason et al., 2021; Ayim et al.,
2022; McCampbell et al., 2022; McCampbell et al., 2023; China, Jiang
et al., 2022; Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, and Chile, Puntel et al., 2022) to
formulate the policies on agriculture 4.0. Developing countries currently
have weak and relatively small evidence compared to more digitally
advanced countries and regions (notably Australia, New Zealand, and
North America) (Ingram et al., 2022; Jakku et al., 2023). This is
important because the transition from conventional to modern agri-food
systems (Spanaki et al., 2021) has some potential trade-offs (e.g., lack of
digital skills, high cost of investment in technologies, lack of public

Table 7
Comparative matrix of the order of the questions.
Original order Order after analysis

1 –Technological Barriers (B1 to B5) 4 – Social Barriers (B16 to B20)

2 – Economic Barriers (B6 to B10)
Obs.: *Extraction Method: Principal Components Analysis and Rotation 3 – Political Barriers (B11 to B15)
4 – Social Barriers (B16 to B20)
Method (Varimax with Kaiser Normalization). The rotation converged in 10
5 – Environmental Barriers (B21 to B25)
iterations.
3 – Political Barriers (B16 to B20)
1 – Technological Barriers (B1 to B5)
2 – Economic Barriers (B6 to B10)
5 – Environmental Barriers (B21 to B25)

10
F. da Silveira et al.
Fig. 7. Trajectory diagram of the confirmatory factor analysis.
Obs.: * B1 to B25 – Barriers in the development of agriculture 4.0 in the agricultural production chain (see Table 1).
policies) that require a deeper analysis of the systemic effects of this
radical change (da Silveira et al., 2021).
This study deepened the empirical analysis of barriers and their ef­
fects by considering the entire ecosystem of the agricultural production
chain, differently from previous studies dedicated to specific cases (e.g.,
political dimension barriers, Rotz et al., 2019; social dimension barriers,
Giua et al., 2022; economic and technological dimension barriers, Gal­
lardo et al., 2019; Thompson et al., 2019; Barrett and Rose, 2020; Ker­
necker et al., 2020; Berthold et al., 2021; Raj et al., 2021) - see Sections
5.1 to 5.5 for more details. In all, 25 barriers that inhibit the introduction
of agriculture 4.0 into the agricultural production chain in Southern
Brazil were validated. The most frequent barriers pointed out by farmers
regarding the most significant variable “Very Important” were B4 - Lack
of Infrastructure in the technological dimension: 166 (47.8); B9 - Lack of
Solutions Accessible to Farmers in the economic dimension: 180 (51.9);
B15 - Need to foster R&D and Innovative Business Models in the political
dimension: 148 (42.7); B17 - Age Group Risk in the social dimension: 195
(56.2); and B22 - Lack of efficacy in the Data on the Rural Environment in
the environmental dimension: 202 (58.2). These barriers are discussed
in the following sections, together with some suggestions on how to
address them. In addition, Table 8 presents a summary of the most
important barriers identified in this study compared to other research.
5.1. Technological
There are not many studies dedicated to the technological barriers
that hinder the development of agriculture 4.0 (da Silveira and Amaral,
2023), and most of those focus on specific technologies (e.g., Block­
chain, Torky and Hassanein, 2020; Machine Learning, García et al.,
2020; Artificial Intelligence, Spanaki et al., 2021; and Internet of Things,
Tao et al., 2021) rather than on the farmers themselves (Drewry et al.,
2019; Bolfe et al., 2020a; Giua et al., 2022). In this study, farmers
considered barrier B4 - Lack of Infrastructure particularly relevant.
Interdisciplinary specialists in the field of agricultural digitalization in
Europe corroborate this evidence by mentioning that the lack of infra­
structure may significantly impact digital connectivity in rural areas
(Ferrari et al., 2022). Rural areas with limited digital connectivity suffer
economic challenges and are less capable of leveraging competitive
advantages in the agricultural production chain (Morris et al., 2022).
Furthermore, the deployment of 5G networks, which can significantly
boost agriculture 4.0 (van Hilten and Wolfert, 2022), will require
11
Agricultural Systems 208 (2023) 103656
additional high investments to upgrade mobile communication infra­
structure in rural areas (Oughton et al., 2019; Tang et al., 2021).
Therefore, improving farm infrastructure is essential to increase the
adoption of technologies from the 4.0 agriculture model (Kernecker
et al., 2020; Porciello et al., 2022). However, devising practical solutions
for the telecommunication infrastructure of rural areas is still chal­
lenging, especially in remote areas (Salemink et al., 2017; Palmer-Abbs
et al., 2021).
• Studies point out that national and regional governments should
intervene and fund the infrastructure needed to ensure that rural
areas can benefit from the technologies of agriculture 4.0 (Cowie
et al., 2020) and that the transition is inclusive and fair (Chiles et al.,
2021). Indeed, governments and other actors in the agriculture 4.0
ecosystem need to understand the different infrastructure strategies
and reduce investment costs (Oughton et al., 2019; Oughton et al.,
2022). In Brazil, the need to expand infrastructure to improve con­
nectivity in the field stimulated the development of a National
Internet of Things Plan (IoT.BR), regulated by Federal Decree No.
9854/2019 (Brasil, 2019b). This plan aims to deploy IoT in rural
areas. The Chamber of Agro 4.0, led by Mapa and the Ministry of
Science, Technology, Innovations, and Communications (Ministério
da Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovações e Comunicações - MCTIC), aims to
promote actions to expand the internet in the countryside and in­
vestments in innovative technologies and services in the rural envi­
ronment and, therefore, increase the productivity in the field (Brasil,
2020).
5.2. Economic
Farmers also identified barrier B9 - Lack of Solutions Accessible to
Farmers as one of the great obstacles to the success of agriculture 4.0.
Ingram et al. (2022) acknowledge that costs associated with agriculture
4.0 technologies may hamper their adoption. Farmers tend to be more
interested in technological solutions if they see that the benefits surpass
the costs (Marshall et al., 2020; Eastwood et al., 2021; Rijswijk et al.,
2021). Scholars add that the lack of solutions accessible to farmers may
increase socioeconomic inequality through the division between those
who can pay for the technologies and those who cannot (Fleming et al.,
2021). There are cases where the development of agriculture 4.0 is
constrained by skepticism about the economic returns of its technologies
F. da Silveira et al. Agricultural Systems 208 (2023) 103656

Table 8 Table 8 (continued )

Summary of the barriers of agriculture 4.0. Barrier Dimension Method Country Reference
Barrier Dimension Method Country Reference
Infrastructure
*Lack of Considerations in
Infrastructure, Rural Areas,
Engås
Lack of Solutions Farmers’
Technological Case Study Brazil et al.
Accessible to Investment
(2023)
Farmers, Need to Inertia,
Technological,
foster R&D and Brazil Technology
Economic,
Innovative Survey (347 × Access
Political, Social,
Business Models, farmers) Insufficient
Environmental
Age Group Risk, Network Mohr and
Content
Lack of efficacy in Coverage, Great Social Germany Höhler
Analysis
the Data on the Market Power of (2023)
Rural Providers
Environment
Note: All 25 barriers in this study were considered at least moderately important
Data Ownership
and Control, the by farmers. *In this table are only the barriers classified as very important.
Production of
Rotz et al.
Technologies and Political Review × (Balafoutis et al., 2020). Therefore, more attention must be paid to the
(2019)
Data
cost of technologies to ensure that agriculture 4.0 decreases inequality
Development,
Data Security and not the opposite (Klerkx and Rose, 2020; Shang et al., 2021; Steinke
*Acquisition Costs, et al., 2022).
Problems with/or Brazil
Bolfe et al.
Lack of Technological Survey (504 • Studies on the advancement of agriculture 4.0 indicate that it is
(2020a)
Connectivity in farmers)
Rural Areas
necessary to improve public policies to reduce costs for farmers
High Investment seeking to implement it (Lioutas et al., 2021; Ehlers et al., 2022).
Costs, Too Farmers’ further acceptance and adoption of agriculture 4.0 tech­
Complex to Use, nologies will depend on successful policy interventions (Jellason
Technology not
et al., 2021; UK Parliament, 2022). For larger farmers, subsidies
Appropriate for
Farm Context and Europe Kernecker should be scaled up to promote the adoption of agriculture 4.0
Size, Added Technological Survey (287 et al. technologies with positive externalities (Xie and Huang, 2021). In
Value is Unclear, farmers) (2020) the case of small farmers, efforts should be made to expand their
Lack of Access access to information and confidence in favorable agricultural
and Live
Demonstrations
technology policies (Kukk et al., 2022). In Brazil, the cost of agri­
of the Use of culture 4.0 technologies is not low and demands large investments by
Technologies farmers (Bolfe et al., 2020a). As a result, large Brazilian farmers find
Cost of the it easier to access and finance these new technologies. Small and
Technologies and
medium-sized Brazilian farmers have relied on funding from the
Accessibility,
Limitations in National Program for Strengthening Family Agriculture (Programa
Embedding Local Nacional de Fortalecimento da Agricultura Familiar - PRONAF), the
Ecological National Support Program for Medium Rural Producers (Programa
Knowledge Economic, Systematic Benyam Nacional de Apoio ao Médio Produtor Rural - PRONAMP), the Incentive
(values), Design Political, Social, Literature et al.
Program for Technological Innovation in Agricultural Production
×
Complexities and Environmental Review (2021)
Challenges in the (Programa de Incentivo à Inovação Tecnológica na Produção Agro­
Application, pecuária - INOVAGRO), which undoubtedly promote access to re­
Technology sources for funding and investment through conventional credit
Adoption Driving
lines, linked to the acquisition of agricultural technologies (BNDES,
Labor
Displacement 2023). However, agriculture 4.0 requires a clear understanding of
Fail to Use the investments needed and demanded by Brazilian farmers, such as
Adaptable Tools, the lines of credit that are compatible, in terms of flexibility, time,
Unaffordability, and conditions, with the cycle of implantation of their technologies
Digital
Illiterateness,
and with the deadline’s maturity and revenue generation (Buainain
Systematic Kudama et al., 2021a).
Low Participation Technological,
Literature × et al.
of Women and Social
Review (2021)
Old Smallholder
Farmers Due to
5.3. Political
Their Low
Income and The barrier B15 - Need to foster R&D and Innovative Business Models
Education Status was deemed very important. Ingram et al. (2022) highlight the need to
Cost of Deploying
create innovative and sustainable business models to supply viable
the Technology
Prohibitive or digital solutions to include more farmers in the agriculture 4.0 process.
Economic,
Challenging, Lack Cesco et al. Countries like Australia (Digiscape Future Science Platform, Common­
Environmental, Case Study Europe
of Suitable
Social
(2023) wealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization - CSIRO), France
Training, (#DigitAg), New Zealand (AgResearch), and the Netherlands (Research
Landscape, and
Environment
Institutes such as Wageningen University and Research) already have large
science and innovation programs (Klerkx et al., 2019; Klerkx and Rose,
2020; Jakku et al., 2023). In contrast, 20 of the 47 countries of the Af­
rican Union still need to attain the objectives of the Comprehensive

12
F. da Silveira et al.
African Agriculture Development Program (CAADP), launched in 2006,
to improve the agricultural sector (Tsan et al., 2019). This scenario is
made worse by the low investment in R&D in agriculture in these
countries (Jellason et al., 2021).
• Complex technologies from agriculture 4.0 require a collaborative
approach between the public and private sectors in R&D for inno­
vation and diffusion to be successful (Eastwood et al., 2017). How­
ever, agricultural public policies need to be improved in order to help
realize the opportunities brought about by the development and
implementation of agriculture 4.0 (Kukk et al., 2022). For example,
Japan has been promoting the development of a standardized
package of intelligent agricultural technologies to improve farming
efficiency (Washizu and Nakano, 2022). With such a package, agri­
culture 4.0 could be expanded without resorting to, for example,
improving the information literacy of farmers (Washizu and Nakano,
2022). In Brazil, efforts are being made by R&D institutions, com­
panies, accelerators, and innovation hubs that focus on technological
solutions of agriculture 4.0 for agribusiness, such as TechStart Agro
Digital (Romani et al., 2020). Nevertheless, real progress is only
possible if the link between universities, public institutions, and the
private sector is strengthened (Leso et al., 2022). The partnership
models in Brazil in which the public sector (e.g., universities,
EMBRAPA, Ministério da Agricultura e Pecuária - MAPA, and Ministério
da Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação - MCTI) and private sector (e.g.,
agricultural machines and implements, AgTechs, and agricultural
startups) work together needs to be encouraged. This type of model is
fundamental to establishing an innovation ecosystem in agriculture
4.0 that focuses on the search for appropriate technological solutions
for Brazilian farmers, especially the most vulnerable ones who are
exposed to the greatest risks of exclusion from the productive dy­
namics, which are generally small and medium farmers (Buainain
et al., 2021b).
5.4. Social
Another very relevant barrier was the B17 - Age Group Risk. Ronaghi
and Forouharfar (2020) reinforce this finding by noticing that older
farmers in Iran are unlikely to adopt the technologies originating in
agriculture 4.0 due to resistance to change. Other studies reached
similar conclusions (Lowenberg-DeBoer and Erickson, 2019; Lampach
et al., 2021; Xie and Huang, 2021). However, even younger farmers may
worry that they do not have the necessary skills to use these technologies
(Lioutas and Charatsari, 2020). Thus, understanding how each age
group perceives the changes in agriculture 4.0 is crucial to create spe­
cific strategies for overcoming this barrier (Daum et al., 2022).
• The adoption rate of agriculture 4.0 may increase as farmers become
more familiar with its benefits (Giua et al., 2022; Mohr and Höhler,
2023). Efforts to educate farmers on using agriculture 4.0 technol­
ogies need to be implemented, as this improves perception (Jithin
Das et al., 2019). It is also important to target different age groups
and to effectively explore other media channels (Jithin Das et al.,
2019; Klerkx, 2021; Ahikiriza et al., 2022; Mohr and Höhler, 2023).
Moreover, for agriculture 4.0 to be fairer and more inclusive, the role
of some players (e.g., consultants, extension workers, or colleagues)
around farmers must improve (Giua et al., 2022; Konečná and
Sutherland, 2022). Another possibility is the development of intel­
ligent agricultural communities, which can encompass the entire
agricultural production chain (O’Shaughnessy et al., 2021). In Brazil,
incentives are needed for the professional training of actors in using
agriculture 4.0 technologies to minimize the impacts on the rural
world and the rural labor market. Even the youngest are having
“traditional” training since neither agricultural technical schools,
nor universities (e.g., agronomy, engineering, among others) have
adjusted their curriculums and practices to prepare technicians to
13
Agricultural Systems 208 (2023) 103656
deal with the innovations underway in agriculture 4.0. In this sense,
an effort will be necessary to rethink the traditional training of
professionals who work in the agricultural production chain, which
still does not seem to be on the agenda of the leading educational
institutions, whether in the public or private sector, as these main­
tain education quite compartmentalized among traditional careers
(Buainain et al., 2021a). However, some alternatives are already
being taken to improve the training of professionals in agriculture
4.0, as in the case of Federal Decree n◦ 10.052/2019 (Brasil, 2019a).
This decree establishes that it is the responsibility of the Brazilian
Commission for Precision and Digital Agriculture (Comissão Brasi­
leira de Agricultura de Precisão e Digital - CBAPD) to support profes­
sional qualification programs, training, and qualification, to
encourage the implementation of public policies and to identify the
demands and trends in the agricultural production chain (Souza and
Bidarra, 2022).
5.5. Environmental
There is strong evidence that the adoption of agriculture 4.0 tech­
nologies by farmers “will not ensure sustainable agriculture if they are not
used and implemented sustainably on a large scale” (Gangwar et al., 2021,
p.10). Despite this, studies on the adoption of technology by farmers
rarely consider the environmental dimension (Drewry et al., 2019;
Shang et al., 2021; Zheng et al., 2022). Therefore, it is necessary to
stimulate new thoughts and new directions regarding agriculture 4.0 so
that solutions aiming at addressing the barriers of the environmental
dimension will be further explored and developed (Ingram et al., 2022;
Porciello et al., 2022).
In this study, the barrier B22 - Lack of efficacy in the Data on the Rural
Environment was the most prominent in the environmental dimension.
This dimension is likely due to the harsh environment in which agri­
culture 4.0 technologies are implemented (Shepherd et al., 2018).
Moreover, as in many technological transformations in agriculture (e.g.,
modern sustainable greenhouses, Achour et al., 2021; modern animal
husbandry, Eastwood et al., 2021; swarm robots in mechanized agri­
cultural operations, Albiero et al., 2022), undesirable effects may
develop after adoption (e.g., data integrity, system failures, battery
problems, data storage) (Tao et al., 2021). Data issues need to be
properly resolved (Jakku et al., 2019) so the full potential of data-based
technologies can be fully explored in the decision-making process (Saiz-
Rubio and Rovira-Más, 2020). Studies indicate that three additional
challenges require attention: i) problems with the use of data, ii) inef­
fective use of technology, and iii) premature introduction of the tech­
nology without sufficient testing or evidence (Neethirajan, 2020, p.6).
• More efforts are needed to develop standard data collection, pro­
cessing, and analysis to improve their integrity and quality (Jung
et al., 2021). Studies also point out that farmers must participate in
the process of implementing agriculture 4.0 technologies, as they can
contribute to overcoming the barrier B22 through reports on “pre­
venting errors and shaping the accuracy of digital technologies when
calibrating technologies or corroborating advice algorithmic” (Visser
et al., 2021; Kvam et al., 2022). In Brazil, Embrapa has been
contributing to efforts of this type by making databases such as
Digipathos available (Embrapa, 2019). This repository was created to
serve as a reference for the development of methods for the auto­
matic detection and recognition of plant diseases in the Brazilian
context. All images are labeled by experienced phytopathologists,
thus providing reliable data for training the developed algorithms. A
complementary step towards adding value to databases is adherence
to the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable)
principles, which dictate the standards of findability, accessibility,
interoperability, and reusability (Wilkinson et al., 2016). Another
promising alternative to overcome this barrier is the “digital twins”
concept (Pylianidis et al., 2021; Verdouw et al., 2021).
F. da Silveira et al.
5.6. Validation of the construct of this study
The validity of the construct of this study was confirmed for all
barriers considered in Table 1. Factor loads were significant in all con­
structs analyzed (Fig. 7). However, new validations carried out with
farmers from other Brazilian regions and other countries may increase
the reliability of these results. Also, since the respondents’ participation
was fully online, the research sample may be represented by socioeco­
nomically privileged individuals. This is reflected in the high proportion
of respondents with undergraduate and graduate degrees. This is not
surprising, as people with a higher level of formal education have a
better understanding of the value of a survey of this kind and are
naturally more willing to participate. Likewise, younger farmers are
more connected and may be more predisposed to participate in studies
like this. However, these potential biases do not invalidate the conclu­
sions achieved. This study may be more representative of farmers who
are aware of agriculture 4.0 and are willing to contribute to a relatively
new field of research (Klerkx and Rose, 2020; da Silveira et al., 2021;
Steinke et al., 2022), but this is not necessarily a weakness as they can
provide the most relevant information to generate hypotheses that help
meet the Objectives of Sustainable Development of 2030 Agenda (Hin­
son et al., 2019; Fanzo et al., 2021). Although the context and the ob­
servations are specific to the South region of Brazil, the analyses
presented in this research supply relevant insights into farmers’ per­
ceptions regarding barriers to the adoption of agriculture 4.0 and
contribute to broader scientific debates on this topic (Barrett and Rose,
2020; Rose et al., 2021; McCampbell et al., 2022).
6. Conclusion
This research aimed to validate 25 barriers that hinder the devel­
opment of agriculture 4.0 in Southern Brazil. Validation was performed
through confirmatory factor analysis. The most frequent and important
barriers mentioned by farmers in this study’s sample were: lack of
infrastructure, lack of solutions accessible to farmers, need to foster R&D
and innovative business models, age group risk, and lack of efficacy in
the data in the rural environment. As these barriers become better
known, the issues that require more attention become clearer. However,
our evidence shows that all barriers in all analyzed dimensions (tech­
nological, economic, political, social, and environmental) need atten­
tion, as they were considered at least moderately important by farmers.
Although this research yielded significant results about farmers’
perceptions in the South region of Brazil, it had a few limitations. Even
though the sample size was satisfactory, its characteristics do not
represent the diversity of the Brazilian agricultural production chain.
For instance, the metrics of the projection of future harvests in Brazilian
agribusiness cover 30 products. Moreover, other Brazilian regions (e.g.,
Center-West, Northeast, North, Southeast) may have different charac­
teristics that could lead to different results. Due to Brazil’s cultural
heterogeneity, the importance attributed to each barrier may vary.
As to the validated barriers (Table 4), future research could inves­
tigate their interactions. This would enable the development of a
structure to overcome these barriers, allowing the identification of the
issues that require greater attention. It would also be useful to extend the
study to other countries to identify differences and commonalities in the
farmers’ perceptions, furthering the reach of the findings reported in this
article.
Many barriers and dimensions analyzed here have not been properly
investigated in previous studies in Brazil or elsewhere. Addressing them
is critical to facilitate the implementation of agriculture 4.0 and intro­
duce a more systemic way of viewing the issue. Although farmers’ needs,
expectations, and perceptions may vary between countries and regions,
many of the conclusions reached in this research regarding “very
important” barriers (Table 8) are general enough to offer at least some
cues about the barriers that might affect farmers anywhere. Those cues
can be a good reference for future studies dealing with similar themes in
14
Agricultural Systems 208 (2023) 103656
different regional and cultural contexts.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Franco da Silveira: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal
analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project
administration, Validation, Software, Data curation, Writing – original
draft, Writing – review & editing. Sabrina Letícia Couto da Silva: Data
curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Data
curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Filipe
Molinar Machado: Conceptualization, Validation, Investigation,
Writing – review & editing. Jayme Garcia Arnal Barbedo: Conceptu­
alization, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & edit­
ing, Visualization. Fernando Gonçalves Amaral: Conceptualization,
Funding acquisition, Methodology, Validation, Project administration,
Writing – review & editing, Visualization, Supervision.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
i have shared the link in my manuscript
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support of the
Coordination of Improvement of Higher Level Personnel (CAPES) and
the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Devel­
opment (CNPq), Brazil. The authors thank the anonymous reviewers and
the editor for their valuable comments and suggestions for improving
the paper. We also thank the farmers who participated in this study for
their consent and availability in this research.
References
Achour, Y., Ouammi, A., Zejli, D., 2021. Technological progresses in modern sustainable
greenhouses cultivation as the path towards precision agriculture. Renew. Sust.
Energ. Rev. 147 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111251.
Ahikiriza, E., Wesana, J., Van Huylenbroeck, G., Kabbiri, R., De Steur, H., Lauwers, L.,
Gellynck, X., 2022. Farmer knowledge and the intention to use smartphone-based
information management technologies in Uganda. Comput. Electron. Agric. 202
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2022.107413.
Albiero, D., Garcia, Á.P., Umezu, C.K., Paulo, R.L., 2022. Swarm robots in mechanized
agricultural operations: a review about challenges for research. Comput. Electron.
Agric. 193 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2021.106608.
Alves, A.N., Souza, W.S.R., Borges, D.L., 2020. Cotton pests classification in field-based
images using deep residual networks. Comput. Electron. Agric. 174 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.compag.2020.105488.
Andrade, C., 2020. The limitations of online surveys. Indian J. Psychol. Med. 42 (6)
https://doi.org/10.1177/0253717620957496.
Arends-Kuenning, M., Kamei, A., Garcias, M., Romani, G.E., Shikida, L.F.A., 2021.
Gender, education, and farm succession in Western Paraná State, Brazil. Land Use
Policy 107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105453.
Ayaz, M., Ammad-Uddin, M., Sharif, Z., Mansour, -H.M., E, A., 2019. Aggoune Internet-
of-things (iot)-based smart agriculture: toward making the fields talk. IEEE Access 7.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2932609, 551–129.
Ayim, C., Kassahun, A., Addison, C., Tekinerdogan, B., 2022. Adoption of ICT
innovations in the agriculture sector in Africa: a review of the literature. Agric. Food
Secur. 11, 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-022-00364-7.
Bacco, M., Barsocchi, P., Ferro, E., Gotta, A., Rugerri, M., 2019. The digitisation of
agriculture: a survey of research activities on smart farming. Array. 3-4 https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.array.2019.100009.
Balafoutis, A., Beck, B., Fountas, S., Vangeyte, J., Wal, T., Soto, I., Gómez-Barbero, M.,
Barnes, A., Eory, V., 2017. Precision agriculture technologies positively contributing
to GHG emissions mitigation, farm productivity and economics. Sustainability 9 (8),
1339–1367. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9081339.
Balafoutis, A.T., Van Evert, F.K., Fountas, S., 2020. Smart farming technology trends:
economic and environmental effects, labor impact, and adoption readiness.
Agronomy. 10 (5) https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10050743.
F. da Silveira et al.
Barbedo, J.G.A., 2018. Impact of dataset size and variety on the effectiveness of deep
learning and transfer learning for plant disease classification. Comput. Electron.
Agric. 153, 46–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2018.08.013.
Barbedo, J.G.A., Koenigkan, L.V., 2018. Perspectives on the use of unmanned aerial
systems to monitor cattle. Outlook Agric. 47 (3), 214–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0030727018781876.
Barrett, H., Rose, D.C., 2020. Perceptions of the fourth agricultural revolution: what’s in,
what’s out, and what consequences are anticipated? Sociol. Rural. 62 (2), 162–189.
https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12324.
Bartlett, M.S., 1947. Multivariate analysis. Suppl. J. R. Stat. Soc. 9 (2), 176–197. https://
doi.org/10.2307/2984113.
Benyam, A.A., Soma, T., Fraser, E., 2021. Digital agricultural technologies for food loss
and waste prevention and reduction: global trends, adoption opportunities and
barriers. J. Clean. Prod. 323 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129099.
Berthold, T.A., Ajaz, A., Olsovsky, T., Kathuria, D., 2021. Identifying barriers to adoption
of irrigation scheduling tools in Rio Grande Basin. Smart Agric. Technol. 1 https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.atech.2021.100016.
BNDES. Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social, 2023. Normativos -
Aviso n◦ 02/2023. Retrieved March 15, 2023 from. https://www.bndes.gov.br/wps/
wcm/connect/site/3b683cd0-5224-4686-9c4e-78db99c1ecfd/23avadig02+Reaber
tura+Protocolo+PAGFs+2022-2023.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID=onPmacK.
Bolfe, E.L., Castro Jorge, L.A., Del’Arco, I.S., Luchiari Júnior, A., Costa, C.C., Victoria, D.
C., Inamasu, R.Y., Grego, C.R., Ferreira, V.R., Ramirez, A.R., 2020a. Precision and
digital agriculture: adoption of technologies and perception of Brazilian farmers.
Agriculture. 10 (12), 653. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture10120653.
Bolfe, E.L., Barbedo, J.G.A., Massruhá, S.M.F.S., Souza, K.X.S., Assad, E.D., 2020b.
Desafios, tendências e oportunidades em agricultura digital no Brasil. In:
Massruhá, S.M.F.S., Leite, M.A.A., Oliveira, S.R.M., Meira, C.A.A., Luchiari
Junior, A., Bolfe, E.L. (Eds.), Agricultura digital: pesquisa, desenvolvimento e
inovação nas cadeias produtivas, 1. Embrapa. cap, Brasília, DF, pp. 20–45. Retrieved
October 25, 2021 from. https://www.embrapa.br/busca-de-publicacoes/-/publicac
ao/1126213/agricultura-digital-pesquisa-desenvolvimento-e-inovacao-nas-cadei
as-produtivas. Retrieved October 25, 2021 from.
Bolfe, E.L., Castro Jorge, L.A., Del’Arco, I.S., Luchiari Júnior, A., Costa, C.C., Victoria, D.
C., Inamasu, R.Y., Grego, C.R., Ferreira, V.R., Ramirez, A.R., 2020a. Precision and
digital agriculture: adoption of technologies and perception of Brazilian farmers.
Agriculture. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture10120653.
Boone, H.N., Boone, D.A., 2012. Analyzing Likert data. J. Ext. 50.
Brasil, 2019a. Decreto n◦ 10.052, de 9 de outubro de 2019. Institui a Comissão Brasileira
de Agricultura de Precisão e Digital. 2019a. Retrieved March 15, 2023 from. https:
//www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2019-2022/2019/decreto/d10052.htm.
Brasil, 2019b. Decreto n◦ 9.854, de 25 de junho de 2019. Institui o Plano Nacional de
Internet das Coisas e dispõe sobre a Câmara de Gestão e Acompanhamento do
Desenvolvimento de Sistemas de Comunicação Máquina a Máquina e Internet das
Coisas. 2019b. Retrieved March 15, 2023 from. http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_
03/_ato2019-2022/2019/decreto/D9854.htm.
Brasil, 2020. Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento. Programa levará
tecnologias 4.0 para o agronegócio. Retrieved March 15, 2023 from. https://www.
gov.br/agricultura/pt-br/assuntos/noticias/programa-levara-tecnologias-4-0-para-o
-agronegocio.
Brasil, 2021. Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento. Potencialidades e
desafios do agro 4.0: GT III “Cadeias Produtivas e Desenvolvimento de
Fornecedores” Câmara do Agro 4.0 (MAPA/MCTI) / Ministério da Agricultura,
Pecuária e Abastecimento. Secretaria de Inovação, Desenvolvimento Sustentável e
Irrigação. – Brasília: Mapa/ACES, 66 p. Retrieved January 10, 2022 from. htt
ps://www.gov.br/agricultura/pt-br/assuntos/inovacao/agricultura-digita
l/GT3VERSAOABNT.pdf.
Braun, A.T., Colangelo, E., Steckel, T., 2018. Farming in the Era of Industrie 4.0. In:
Procedia CIRP, 72, pp. 979–984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2018.03.176.
Browne, M.W., Cudeck, R., 1993. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen, Em
K.A., Long, J.S. (Eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models. Sage, Newbury Park, CA,
pp. 136–162.
Buainain, A.M., Cavalcante Filho, P.G., Consoline, L., 2021a. Estado atual da agricultura
digital no Brasil: Inclusão dos agricultores familiares e pequenos produtores rurais.
Documentos de Projetos (LC/TS.2021/61), Santiago, Comissão Econômica para a
América Latina e o Caribe (CEPAL). Retrieved November 10, 2022 from. https://re
positorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/46958/1/S2100279_pt.pdf.
Buainain, A.M., Cavalcante Filho, P.G., Consoline, L., 2021b. O ecossistema de inovação
na agricultura brasileira: entre o protagonismo de instituições públicas e privadas.
In: Anais do 59◦ Congresso da Sociedade Brasileira de Economia, Administração e
Sociologia Rural (SOBER) & 6◦ Encontro Brasileiro de Pesquisadores em
Cooperativismo (EBPC). Anais...Brasília (DF), UnB. Retrieved March 15, 2023
https//www.even3.com.br/anais/soberebpc2021/343791-O-ECOSSISTEMA-DE-
INOVACAO-NA-AGRICULTURA-BRASILEIRA–ENTRE-O-PROTAGONISMO-DE-
INSTITUICOES-PUBLICAS-E-PRIVADAS.
Campos, H.M., Oliveira, H.F.E., Mesquita, M., Castro, L.E.V., Ferrarezi, R.S., 2021. Low-
cost open-source platform for irrigation automation. Comput. Electron. Agric. 190
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2021.106481.
Carrer, M.J., Souza Filho, H.M., Batalha, M.O., 2017. Factors influencing the adoption of
farm management information systems (FMIS) by Brazilian citrus farmers. Comput.
Electron. Agric. 138, 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2017.04.004.
Ceballos, F., Kannan, S., Kramer, B., 2020. Impacts of a national lockdown on
smallholder farmers’ income and food security: empirical evidence from two states
in India. World Dev. 136 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105069.
CEPEA, 2021. PIB do agronegócio brasileiro. Esalq/USP. Retrieved September 05, 2021
from. https://www.cepea.esalq.usp.br/br/pib-do-agronegocio-brasileiro.aspx.
15
Agricultural Systems 208 (2023) 103656
Cesco, S., Sambo, P., Borin, M., Basso, B., Orzes, G., Mazzetto, F., 2023. Smart agriculture
and digital twins: applications and challenges in a vision of sustainability. Eur. J.
Agron. 146 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2023.126809.
Chiles, R.M., Broad, G., Gagnon, M., Negowetti, N., Glenna, L., Griffin, M.A.M., Tami-
Barrera, L., Baker, S., Beck, K., 2021. Democratizing ownership and participation in
the 4th industrial revolution: challenges and opportunities in cellular agriculture.
Agric. Hum. Values 38, 943–961. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-021-10237-7.
Cowie, P., Townsend, L., Salemink, K., 2020. Smart rural futures: will rural areas be left
behind in the 4th industrial revolution? J. Rural. Stud. 79, 169–176. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.08.042.
Da Silveira, F., Amaral, F.G., 2023. Agriculture 4.0. In: Zhang, Q. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
Smart Agriculture Technologies. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
030-89123-7_207-2.
Da Silveira, F., Lermen, F.H., Amaral, F.G., 2021. An overview of agriculture 4.0
development: systematic review of descriptions, technologies, barriers, advantages,
and disadvantages. Comput. Electron. Agric. 189 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compag.2021.106405.
Daum, T., Birner, R., 2020. Agricultural mechanization in Africa: myths, realities and an
emerging research agenda. Glob. Food Secur. 26 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
gfs.2020.100393.
Daum, T., Adegbola, P.Y., Adegbola, C., Daudu, C., Issa, F., Kamau, G., Kergna, A.O.,
Mose, L., Ndirpaya, Y., Fatunbi, O., Zossou, R., Kirui, O., Birner, R., 2022.
Mechanization, digitalization, and rural youth - stakeholder perceptions on three
mega-topics for agricultural transformation in four African countries. Glob. Food
Secur. 32 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2022.100616.
Dixon, J.M., Weerahewa, J., Hellin, J., Rubzen, M.F.R., Huang, J., Kumar, S., Das, A.,
Qureshi, M.E., Krupnik, T.J., Shideed, K., Jat, M.L., Prasad, P.V.V., Yadav, S.,
Irshad, A., Asanaliev, A., Abugalieva, A., Karimov, A., Bhattarai, B., Balgos, C.Q.,
Benu, F., Ehara, H., Pant, J., Sarmiento, J.M.P., Newby, J.C., Pretty, J., Tokuda, H.,
Weyerhaeuser, H., Digal, L.N., Li, L., Sarkar, M.A.R., Abedin, M.Z.,
Schreinemachers, P., Grafton, Q., Sharma, R.C., Saidzoda, S., Ridaura, S.L.,
Coffey, S., Kam, S.P., Win, S.S., Praneetvatakul, S., Maraseni, T., Touch, V.,
Liang, W., Saharawat, Y.S., Timsina, J., 2021. Response and resilience of Asian
agrifood systems to COVID-19: an assessment across twenty-five countries and four
regional farming and food systems. Agric. Syst. 193 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
agsy.2021.103168.
Drewry, J.L., Shutske, J.M., Brian, D.T., Luck, D., Pitman, L., 2019. Assessment of digital
technology adoption and access barriers among crop, dairy and livestock producers
in Wisconsin. Comput. Electron. Agric. 165 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compag.2019.104960.
Eastwood, C.R., Renwick, A., 2020. Innovation uncertainty impacts the adoption of
smarter farming approaches. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 4 https://doi.org/10.3389/
fsufs.2020.00024.
Eastwood, C., Klerkx, L., Nettle, R., 2017. Dynamics and distribution of public and
private research and extension roles for technological innovation and diffusion: case
studies of the implementation and adaptation of precision farming technologies.
J. Rural. Stud. 49, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.11.008.
Eastwood, C., Klerkx, L., Ayre, M., Dela Rue, B., 2019. Managing socio-ethical challenges
in the development of smart farming: from a fragmented to a comprehensive
approach for responsible research and innovation. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 32,
741–768. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-017-9704-5.
Eastwood, C.R., Edwards, J.P., Turner, J.A., 2021. Review: anticipating alternative
trajectories for responsible agriculture 4.0 innovation in livestock systems. Animal
15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2021.100296.
Ehlers, M.-H., Finger, R., Benni, N.E., Gocht, A., Sorensen, C.A.G., Gusset, M., Pfeifer, C.,
Poppe, K., Regan, Á., Rose, D.C., Wolfert, S., Huber, R., 2022. Scenarios for European
agricultural policymaking in the era of digitalization. Agric. Syst. 196 https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103318.
Elo, S., Helvi, K., 2008. The qualitative content analysis process. J. Adv. Nurs. 62 (1),
107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x.
Embrapa. Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária, 2019. Digipathosrep. Retrieved
March 15, 2023. https://www.digipathos-rep.cnptia.embrapa.br/.
Engås, K.G., Raja, J.Z., Neufang, I.F., 2023. Decoding technological frames: an
exploratory study of access to and meaningful engagement with digital technologies
in agriculture. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 190 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
techfore.2023.122405.
Fanzo, J., Haddad, L., Schneider, K.R., Béné, C., Covic, N.M., Guarin, A., Herforth, A.W.,
Herrero, M., Sumaila, U.R., Aburto, N.J., Amuyunzu-Nyamongo, M., Barquera, S.,
Battersby, J., Beal, T., Molina, P.B., Brusset, E., Cafiero, C., Campeau, C., Caron, P.,
Cattaneo, A., Conforti, P., Davis, C., DeClerck, F.A.J., Elouafi, I., Fabi, C., Gephart, J.
A., Golden, C.D., Hendriks, S.L., Huang, J., Laar, A., Lal, R., Lidder, P., Loken, B.,
Marshall, Q., Masuda, Y.J., McLaren, R., Neufeld, L.M., Nordhagen, S., Remans, R.,
Resnick, D., Silverberg, M., Cullen, M.T., Tubiello, F.N., Vivero-Pol, J.L., Wei, S.,
Moncayo, J.R., 2021. Viewpoint: rigorous monitoring is necessary to guide food
system transformation in the countdown to the 2030 global goals. Food Policy 104.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102163.
Ferrari, A., Bacco, M., Gaber, K., Jedlitschka, A., Hess, S., Kaipainen, J., Koltsida, P.,
Toli, E., Brunori, G., 2022. Drivers, barriers and impacts of digitalization in rural
areas from the viewpoint of experts. Inf. Softw. Technol. 145 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.infsof.2021.106816.
Figueiredo, S.S.S., Jardim, F., Sakuda, L.O., 2021. Relatório do Radar Agtech Brasil
2020/2021: Mapeamento das Startups do Setor Agro Brasileiro. Embrapa, SP
Ventures e Homo Ludens: Brasília, 2021. Retrieved October 27, 2021 from. htt
ps://radaragtech.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Radar-Agtech-Brasil-2020-
2021-Embrapa-SP-Ventures-Homo-Ludens-Relatorio-Final.pdf.
F. da Silveira et al.
Fleming, A., Jakku, E., Fielke, S., Taylor, B.M., Lacey, J., Terhorst, A., Stitzlein, C., 2021.
Foresighting Australian digital agricultural futures: applying responsible innovation
thinking to anticipate research and development impact under different scenarios.
Agric. Syst. 190 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103120.
Foguesatto, C.R., Borges, J.A.R., Machado, J.A.D., 2019. Farmers’ typologies regarding
environmental values and climate change: evidence from southern Brazil. J. Clean.
Prod. 232, 400–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.275.
Fuller, W.A., 2011. Sampling Statistics. John Wiley & Sons.
Gallardo, R.K., Grant, K., Brown, D.J., McFerson, J.R., Lewis, K.M., Einhorn, T., Sazo, M.
M., 2019. Perceptions of precision agriculture technologies in the U.S. fresh apple
industry. HortTechnology. 29 (2), 151–162. https://doi.org/10.21273/
HORTTECH04214-18.
Gan, H., Lee, W.S., 2018. Development of a navigation system for a smart farm. IFAC –
Pap. OnLine 51 (17), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.08.051.
Gangwar, D.S., Tyagi, S., Soni, S.K., 2021. A techno-economic analysis of digital
agriculture services: an ecological approach toward green growth. Int. J. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 19, 3859–3870. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-021-03300-7.
García, R., Aguilar, J., Toro, M., Pinto, A., Rodríguez, P., 2020. A systematic literature
review on the use of machine learning in precision livestock farming. Comput.
Electron. Agric. 179 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2020.105826.
Giua, C., Materia, V.C., Camazi, L., 2022. Smart farming technologies adoption: which
factors play a role in the digital transition? Technol. Soc. 68 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101869.
Glen, S., 2020. StatisticsHowTo: Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Test for Sampling Adequacy.
Retrieved October 25, 2021 from. http://www.statisticshowto.datasciencecentral.
com/kaiser-meyer-olkin/.
Goel, K.F., Yadav, C.S., Vishnoi, S., Rastogi, R., 2021. Smart agriculture – urgent need of
the day in developing countries. Sustain. Comput. Inform. Syst. 30 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.suscom.2021.100512.
Grieve, B.D., Duckett, T., Collison, M., Boyd, L., Weste, J., Yin, H., Arvin, F., Pearson, S.,
2019. The challenges posed by global broadacre crops in delivering smart agri-
robotic solutions: a fundamental rethink is required. Glob. Food Secur. 23, 116–124.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2019.04.011.
Hair, J., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., 2006. Multivariate Data
Analysis, 6ª edição. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Halgamuge, M.N., Bojovschi, A., Fisher, P.M.J., Le, T.C., Adeloju, S., Murphy, S., 2021.
Internet of things and autonomous control for vertical cultivation walls towards
smart food growing: a review. Urban For. Urban Green. 61 https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ufug.2021.127094.
Herrero, M., Thornton, P.K., Mason-D’Croz, D., et al., 2020. Innovation can accelerate
the transition towards a sustainable food system. Nat. Food 1, 266–272. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s43016-020-0074-1.
Hickey, L.T., Hafeez, A.N., Robinson, H., et al., 2019. Breeding crops to feed 10 billion.
Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 744–754. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0152-9.
Hinson, R., Lensink, R., Mueller, A., 2019. Transforming agribusiness in developing
countries: SDGs and the role of FinTech. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 41, 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.07.002.
Hofmann, T., Lowry, G.V., Ghoshal, S., Tufenkji, N., Brambilla, D., Dutcher, J.R.,
Gilbertson, L.M., Giraldo, J.P., Kinsella, J.M., Landry, M.P., Lovell, W., Naccache, R.,
Paret, M., Pedersen, J.A., Unrine, J.M., White, J.C., Wilkinson, K.J., 2020.
Technology readiness and overcoming barriers to sustainably implement
nanotechnology-enabled plant agriculture. Nat. Food 1, 416–425. https://doi.org/
10.1038/s43016-020-0110-1.
Hoyle, R.H., 1995. The structural equation modeling aproach: Basic concepts and
fundamental issues. In: Hoyle, Em R.H. (Ed.), Structural Equation Modeling.
Concepts, Issues and Applications. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 1–15.
IBGE, Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, 2017. Número de estabelecimentos
agropecuários, Quantidade produzida e Área colhida, por produtos da lavoura
temporária. Censo Agropecuário. Retrieved September 07, 2021 from. https://www.
ibge.gov.br/estatisticas/economicas/agricultura-e-pecuaria/21814-2017-censo-agro
pecuario.html?=&t=resultados.
Ingram, J., Maye, D., Bailye, C., Barnes, A., Bear, C., Bell, M., Cutress, D., Davies, L., De
Boon, A., Dinnie, L., Gairdner, J., Hafferty, C., Holloway, L., Kindred, D., Kirby, D.,
Leake, B., Manning, L., Marchant, B., Wilson, L., 2022. What are the priority research
questions for digital agriculture? Land Use Policy 114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
landusepol.2021.105962.
Jakku, E., Taylor, B., Fleming, A., Mason, C., Fielke, S., Sounness, C., Thorburn, P., 2019.
“If they don’t tell us what they do with it, why would we trust them?” trust,
transparency and benefit-sharing in smart farming. NJAS - Wageningen J. Life Sci.
90-91 (1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2018.11.002.
Jakku, E., Fleming, A., Espig, M., Fielke, S., Finlay-Smits, S.C., Turner, J.A., 2023.
Disruption disrupted? Reflecting on the relationship between responsible innovation
and digital agriculture research and development at multiple levels in Australia and
Aotearoa New Zealand. Agric. Syst. 204 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
agsy.2022.103555.
Janc, K., Czapiewski, K., Wójcik, M., 2019. In the starting blocks for smart agriculture:
the internet as a source of knowledge in transitional agriculture. NJAS - Wageningen
J. Life Sci. 90-91 (1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2019.100309.
Javaid, M., Haleem, A., Singh, R.P., Suman, R., 2022. Enhancing smart farming through
the applications of agriculture 4.0 technologies. Int. J. Intell. Network 3, 150–164.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijin.2022.09.004.
Jellason, N.P., Robinson, E.J.Z., Ogbaga, C.C., 2021. Agriculture 4.0: is Sub-Saharan
Africa ready? Appl. Sci. 11 (12) https://doi.org/10.3390/app11125750.
Jiang, S., Zhou, J., Qiu, S., 2022. Digital agriculture and urbanization: mechanism and
empirical research. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 180 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
techfore.2022.121724.
16
Agricultural Systems 208 (2023) 103656
Jithin Das, V., Sharma, S., Kaushik, A., 2019. Views of Irish farmers on smart farming
technologies: an observational study. AgriEngineering. 1 (2) https://doi.org/
10.3390/agriengineering1020013.
Johnston, F.L., Santana, A.S.D., Santos, G.R.D., 2020. Produção agropecuária e
cooperativismo na região Sul do Brasil: destaques dos dados do censo agropecuário
de 2017. https://doi.org/10.38116/brua23art10.
Jung, J., Maeda, M., Chang, A., Bhandari, M., Ashapure, A., Landivar-Bowles, J., 2021.
The potential of remote sensing and artificial intelligence as tools to improve the
resilience of agriculture production systems. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 70, 15–22.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2020.09.003.
Kernecker, M., Knierim, A., Wurbs, A., Kraus, T., Borges, F., 2020. Experience versus
expectation: farmers’ perceptions of smart farming technologies for cropping
systems across Europe. Precis. Agric. 21, 34–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-
019-09651-z.
Klerkx, L., 2021. Digital and virtual spaces as sites of extension and advisory services
research: social media, gaming, and digitally integrated and augmented advice.
J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 27 (3), 277–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1389224X.2021.1934998.
Klerkx, L., Begemann, S., 2020. Supporting food systems transformation: the what, why,
who, where and how of mission-oriented agricultural innovation systems. Agric.
Syst. 184 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102901.
Klerkx, L., Rose, D., 2020. Dealing with the game-changing technologies of agriculture
4.0: how do we manage diversity and responsibility in food system transition
pathways? Glob. Food Secur. 24 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2019.100347.
Klerkx, L., Jakku, E., Labarthe, P., 2019. A review of social science on digital agriculture,
smart farming and agriculture 4.0: new contributions and a future research agenda.
NJAS - Wageningen J. Life Sci. 90-91 (1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
njas.2019.100315.
Konečná, M.M., Sutherland, L.-A., 2022. Digital innovations in the Czech Republic:
developing the inner circle of the triggering change model. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 28
(5), 577–600. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2022.2039247.
Kudama, G., Dangia, M., Wana, H., Tadese, B., 2021. Will digital solution transform Sub-
Sahara African agriculture? Artif. Intell. Agric. 5, 292–300. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.aiia.2021.12.001.
Kukk, M., Põder, A., Viira, A.-H., 2022. The role of public policies in the digitalisation of
the agri-food sector. A systematic review. NJAS Impact Agric. Life Sci. 94 (1),
217–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/27685241.2022.2147870.
Kvam, G.-T., Hårstad, R.M.B., Stræte, E.P., 2022. The role of farmers’ microAKIS at
different stages of uptake of digital technology. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 28 (5), 671–688.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2022.2046617.
Lampach, N., To-The, N., Nguyen-Anh, T., 2021. Technical efficiency and the adoption of
multiple agricultural technologies in the mountainous areas of northern Vietnam.
Land Use Policy 103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105289.
Leme, D.S., Silva, S.A., Barbosa, B.H.G., Borén, F.M., Pereira, R.G.F.A., 2020. Recognition
of coffee roasting degree using a computer vision system. Comput. Electron. Agric.
156, 312–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2018.11.029.
Leso, B.H., Enrique, D.V., Peruchi, D.F., 2022. O papel do ecossistema de inovação para
desenvolver uma agricultura inteligente. Exacta. 20, 140–158. https://doi.org/
10.5585/exactaep.2021.17362.
Likert, R., 1932. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch. Psychol. 140, 1–50.
Lioutas, E., Charatsari, C., 2020. Smart farming and short food supply chains: are they
compatible? Land Use Policy 94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
landusepol.2020.104541.
Lioutas, E., Charatsari, C., De Rosa, M., 2021. Digitalization of agriculture: a way to solve
the food problem or a trolley dilemma? Technol. Soc. 67 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
techsoc.2021.101744.
Liu, Y., Ma, X., Shu, L., Hancke, G.P., Abu-Mahfouz, A.M., 2020. From industry 4.0 to
agriculture 4.0: current status, enabling technologies, and research challenges. IEEE
Trans. Ind. Inform. 17 (6) https://doi.org/10.1109/TII.2020.3003910.
Lowenberg-DeBoer, J., Erickson, B., 2019. Setting the record straight on precision
agriculture adoption. Agron. J. 111 (4), 1552–1569. https://doi.org/10.2134/
agronj2018.12.0779.
Machado, B.B., Orue, J.P.M., Arruda, M.S., Santos, C.V., Sarath, D.S., Gonçalves, W.N.,
Silva, G.G., Pistori, H., Roel, A.R., Rodrigues Junior, J., 2016. BioLeaf: a professional
mobile application to measure foliar damage caused by insect herbivory. Comput.
Electron. Agric. 129, 44–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2016.09.007.
Maffezzoli, F., Ardolino, M., Bacchetti, A., Perona, M., Renga, F., 2022. Agriculture 4.0: a
systematic literature review on the paradigm, technologies and benefits. Futures.
142 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2022.102998.
Maria, K., Maria, B., Andrea, K., 2021. Exploring actors, their constellations, and roles in
digital agricultural innovations. Agric. Syst. 186 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
agsy.2020.102952.
Marsh, H.W., Guo, J., Dicke, T., Parker, P.D., Craven, R.G., 2020. Confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA), exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM), and set-ESEM:
optimal balance between goodness of fit and parsimony. Multivar. Behav. Res. 55
(1), 102–119.
Marshall, A., Dezuanni, M., Burgess, J., Thomas, J., Wilson, C.K., 2020. Australian
farmers left behind in the digital economy – insights from the Australian digital
inclusion index. J. Rural. Stud. 80, 195–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jrurstud.2020.09.001.
McCampbell, M., Schumann, C., Klerkx, L., 2022. Goodintentions in complex realities:
challenges for designing responsibly in digital agriculturein low-income countries.
Sociol. Rural. 62 (2), 279–304. https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12359.
McCampbell, M., Adewopo, J., Klerkx, L., Leeuwis, C., 2023. Are farmers ready to use
phone-based digital tools for agronomic advice? Ex-ante user readiness assessment
F. da Silveira et al.
using the case of Rwandan banana farmers. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 29 (1), 29–51.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2021.1984955.
Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento. MAPA, 2021a. Projeções do
Agronegócio: Brasil 2020/21 a 2030/31 - Projeções de Longo Prazo. Retrieved
October 25, 2021 from. https://www.gov.br/agricultura/pt-br/assuntos/politica-a
gricola/todas-publicacoes-de-politica-agricola/projecoes-do-agronegocio/projecoe
s-do-agronegocio-2020-2021-a-2030-2031.pdf/view.
Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento. MAPA, 2021b. AGROSTAT -
Estatisticas de Comércio Exterior do Agronegócio Brasileiro. Retrieved October 27,
2021 from. https://indicadores.agricultura.gov.br/agrostat/index.htm.
Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovações. MCTI, 2021. Plano de Ação da Câmara do
AGRO 4.0 (2021–2024). Retrieved November 03, 2021 from. https://www.gov.br/m
cti/pt-br/acompanhe-o-mcti/transformacaodigital/arquivoscamaraagro/ca_plano-
de-acao-2021-2024_26-04-2021.pdf.
Mistry, I., Tanwar, S., Tyagi, S., Kumar, N., 2020. Blockchain for 5G-enabled IoT for
industrial automation: a systematic review, solutions, and challenges. Mech. Syst.
Signal Process. 135 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2019.106382.
Mohr, S., Höhler, J., 2023. Media coverage of digitalization in agriculture - an analysis of
media content. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 187 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
techfore.2022.122238.
Morris, J., Morris, W., Bowen, R., 2022. Implications of the digital divide on rural SME
resilience. J. Rural. Stud. 89, 369–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jrurstud.2022.01.005.
Neethirajan, S., 2020. The role of sensors, big data and machine learning in modern
animal farming. Sens. Bio-Sens. Res. 29 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
sbsr.2020.100367.
Oliveira, D.T., Silva, R.P., Maldonado Junior, W., Zerbato, C., 2020. Convolutional
neural networks in predicting cotton yield from images of commercial fields.
Comput. Electron. Agric. 171 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2020.105307.
O’Malley, A.L., Bronson, K., Van der Burg, S., Klerkx, L., 2020. The future(s) of digital
agriculture and sustainable food systems: an analysis of high-level policy documents.
Ecosyst. Serv. 45 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101183.
Orçan, F., 2018. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: which one to use first?
J. Meas. Eval. Educ. Psychol. 9, 414–421. https://doi.org/10.21031/epod.394323.
O’Shaughnessy, S.A., Kim, M., Lee, S., Kim, Y., Kim, H., Shekailo, J., 2021. Towards
smart farming solutions in the U.S. and South Korea: a comparison of the current
status. Geogr. Sustain. 2 (4), 312–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geosus.2021.12.002.
Oughton, E.J., Frias, Z., van der Gaast, S., van der Berg, R., 2019. Assessing the capacity,
coverage and cost of 5G infrastructure strategies: analysis of the Netherlands.
Telematics Inform. 37, 50–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2019.01.003.
Oughton, E.J., Comini, N., Foster, V., Hall, J.W., 2022. Policy choices can help keep 4G
and 5G universal broadband affordable. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 176 https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121409.
Owens, P.R., Dorantes, M.J., Fuentes, B.A., Libohova, Z., Schmidt, A., 2020. Taking
digital soil mapping to the field: lessons learned from the water smart agriculture soil
mapping project in Central America. Geoderma Reg. 22 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geodrs.2020.e00285.
Palmer-Abbs, M., Cottrill, C., Farrington, J., 2021. The digital lottery: the impact of next
generation broadband on rural small and micro businesses in the North East of
Scotland. J. Rural. Stud. 81, 99–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jrurstud.2020.08.049.
Pauschinger, D., Klauser, F.R., 2021. The introduction of digital technologies into
agriculture: space, materiality and the public–private interacting forms of authority
and expertise. J. Rural. Stud. 91, 217–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jrurstud.2021.06.015.
Paustian, M., Theuvsen, L., 2017. Adoption of precision agriculture technologies by
German crop farmers. Precis. Agric. 18, 701–716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-
016-9482-5.
Pereira, L.F.S., Bardon Junior, S., Valous, N.A., Bardin, D.F., 2018. Predicting the
ripening of papaya fruit with digital imaging and random forests. Comput. Electron.
Agric. 145, 76–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2017.12.029.
Phillips, P.W.B., Relf-Eckstein, J.-A., Jobe, G., Wixted, B., 2019. Configuring the new
digital landscape in western Canadian agriculture. NJAS - Wageningen J. Life Sci.
90-91 (1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2019.04.001.
Porciello, J., Coggins, S., Mabaya, E., Otunba-Payne, G., 2022. Digital agriculture
services in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic scoping review. Glob.
Food Secur. 34 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2022.100640.
Puntel, L.A., Bolfe, É.L., Melchiori, R.J.M., Ortega, R., Tiscornia, G., Roel, A.,
Scaramuzza, F., Best, S., Berger, A.G., Hansel, D.S.S., Palacios Durán, D., Balboa, G.
R., 2022. How digital is agriculture in a subset of countries from South America?
Adoption and limitations. Crop Pasture Sci. https://doi.org/10.1071/CP21759.
Pylianidis, C., Osinga, S., Athanasiadis, I.N., 2021. Introducing digital twins to
agriculture. Comput. Electron. Agric. 184 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compag.2020.105942.
Raj, M., Gupta, S., Chamola, V., Elhence, Anubhav, Garg, T., Atiquzzaman, M.,
Niyato, D., 2021. A survey on the role of internet of things for adopting and
promoting agriculture 4.0. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 187 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jnca.2021.103107.
Ramos, P.H.B., Pedroso, M.C., 2021. Classification and categorization of Brazilian
agricultural startups (Agtechs). Innov. Manag. Rev. 18, 237–257. https://doi.org/
10.1108/INMR-12-2019-0160.
Ramos, A.P.M., Osco, L.P., Furuya, D.E.G., Gonçalves, W.N., Santana, D.C., Teodoro, L.P.
R., Silva Junior, C.A., Silva, G.F.C., Li, J., Baio, F.H.R., Marcato Junior, J.,
Teodoro, P.E., Pistori, H., 2020. A random forest ranking approach to predict yield in
17
Agricultural Systems 208 (2023) 103656
maize with uav-based vegetation spectral índices. Comput. Electron. Agric. 178
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2020.105791.
Rial-Lovera, K., Davies, P., Cannon, N.D., 2017. Implications of climate change
predictions for UK cropping and prospects for possible mitigation: a review of
challenges and potential responses. J. Sci. Food Agric. 97, 17–32. https://doi.org/
10.1002/jsfa.7767.
Ribas, G.G., Zanon, A.J., Streck, N.A., Pilecco, I.B., Souza, P.M., Heinnemann, A.B.,
Grassini, P., 2021. Assessing yield and economic impact of introducing soybean to
the lowland rice system in southern Brazil. Agric. Syst. 188 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.agsy.2020.103036.
Rijswijk, K., Klerkx, L., Turner, J.A., 2019. Digitalization in the New Zealand agricultural
knowledge and innovation system: initial understandings and emerging
organizational responses to digital agriculture. NJAS - Wageningen J. Life Sci. 90-91
(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2019.100313.
Rijswijk, K., Klerkx, L., Bacco, M., Bartolini, F., Bulten, E., Debruyne, L., Dessein, J.,
Scotti, I., Brunori, G., 2021. Digital transformation of agriculture and rural areas: a
socio-cyber-physical system framework to support responsibilization. J. Rural. Stud.
85, 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.05.003.
Rizou, M., Galanakis, I.M., Aldawoud, T.M.S., Galanakis, C.M., 2020. Safety of foods,
food supply chain and environment within the COVID-19 pandemic. Trends Food
Sci. Technol. 102, 293–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2020.06.008.
Romani, L.A.S., Barini, J.M., Drucker, D.P., Vaz, G.J., Mondo, V.H.V., Moura, M.F.,
Bolfe, E.L., Souza, P.H.P., Oliveira, S.R.M., Junior, A.L., 2020. Role of research and
development institutions and AgTechs in the digital transformation of agriculture in
Brazil. Rev. Ciênc. Agron. https://doi.org/10.5935/1806-6690.20200082.
Ronaghi, M.H., Forouharfar, A., 2020. A contextualized study of the usage of the internet
of things (IoTs) in smart farming in a typical middle eastern country within the
context of unified theory of acceptance and use of technology model (UTAUT).
Technol. Soc. 63 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101415.
Rose, D.C., Chilvers, J., 2018. Agriculture 4.0: broadening responsible innovation in an
era of smart farming. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2 https://doi.org/10.3389/
fsufs.2018.00087.
Rose, D.C., Wheeler, R., Winter, M., Lobley, M., Chivers, C.A., 2021. Agriculture 4.0:
making it work for people, production, and the planet. Land Use Policy 100, 104933.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104933.
Rotz, S., Duncan, E., Small, M., Botschner, J., Dara, R., Mosby, I., Reed, M., Fraser, E.D.
G., 2019. The politics of digital agricultural technologies: a preliminary review.
Sociol. Rural. 59 (2), 203–229. https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12233.
Saiz-Rubio, V., Rovira-Más, F., 2020. From smart farming towards agriculture 5.0: a
review on crop data management. Agronomy. 10 (2), 207. https://doi.org/10.3390/
agronomy10020207.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.09.001.
Santoro, E., Soler, E.M., Cherri, A.C., 2017. Route optimization in mechanized sugarcane
harvesting. Comput. Electron. Agric. 141, 140–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compag.2017.07.013.
Santos, U.J.L., Pessin, G., Costa, C.A., Righi, R.R., 2020. AgriPrediction: a proactive
internet of things model to anticipate problems and improve production in
agricultural crops. Comput. Electron. Agric. 161, 202–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.compag.2018.10.010.
Santos, J.A., Roldan, L.B., Loo, M.K.L., 2021. Clarifying relationships between
networking, absorptive capacity and financial performance among South Brazilian
farmers. J. Rural. Stud. 84, 90–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.02.011.
Shang, L., Heckelei, T., Gerullis, M.K., Borner, J., Rasch, S., 2021. Adoption and diffusion
of digital farming technologies - integrating farm-level evidence and system
interaction. Agric. Syst. 190 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103074.
Shepherd, M., Turner, J.A., Pequeno, B., Wheeler, D., 2018. Priorities for science to
overcome hurdles thwarting the full promise of the ‘digital agriculture’ revolution.
J. Sci. Food Agric. 100 (14), 5083–5092. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.9346.
Singh, S., Sagar, R., 2021. A critical look at online survey or questionnaire-based research
studies during COVID-19. Asian J. Psychiatr. 65 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ajp.2021.102850.
Som, R.K., 1995. Practical Sampling Techniques. CRC press.
Souza, M.P.R., Bidarra, Z.S., 2022. Política pública de apoio à agricultura digital. Política
pública de apoio à agricultura digital. Rev. Polít. Agrí. 31 (2), 18. Retrieved March
15, 2023. https://seer.sede.embrapa.br/index.php/RPA/article/view/1705/pdf.
Souza, P.M., Fornazier, A., Souza, H.M., Ponciano, N.J., 2019. Regional differences of
technology in family farming in Brazil. Rev. Econ. Sociol. Rural. 57 https://doi.org/
10.1590/1806-9479.2019.169354.
Spanaki, K., Sivarajah, U., Fakhimi, M., Despoudi, S., Irani, Z., 2021. Artificial
intelligence and food security: swarm intelligence of AgriTech drones for smart
AgriFood operations. Prod. Plan. Control 33 (16), 1498–1516. https://doi.org/
10.1080/09537287.2021.1882688.
Steinke, J., Ortiz-Crespo, B., Etten, J.V., Muller, A., 2022. Participatory design of digital
innovation in agricultural research-for-development: insights from practice. 195.
Agric. Syst. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103313.
Streiner, D.L., 2003. Being inconsistent about consistency: when coefficient alpha does
and doesn’t matter. J. Pers. Assess. 80 (3), 217–222. https://doi.org/10.1207/
S15327752JPA8003_01.
Sumberg, J., Giller, K.E., 2022. What is ‘conventional’ agriculture? Glob. Food Secur. 32
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2022.100617.
Tang, Y., Dananjayan, S., Hou, C., Guo, Q., Luo, S., He, Y., 2021. A survey on the 5G
network and its impact on agriculture: challenges and opportunities. Comput.
Electron. Agric. 180 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2020.105895.
F. da Silveira et al. Agricultural Systems 208 (2023) 103656

Tao, W., Zhao, L., Wang, G., Liang, R., 2021. Review of the internet of things Franco da Silveira is a Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering (Graduate Program in Industrial
communication technologies in smart agriculture and challenges. Comput. Electron. Engineering - Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS). He holds a Master’s De­
Agric. 189 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2021.106352. gree in Industrial Engineering from the Federal University of Santa Maria (UFSM), Brazil.
Tetila, E.C., Machado, B.B., Astolfi, G., Belete, A.S., Amorim, W.P., Roel, A.R., Pistori, H., He also has a bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering from the Regional Integrated
2020. Detection and classification of soybean pests using deep learning with UAV University of Alto Uruguay and the Missões (URI). His research mainly spans the topics of
images. Comput. Electron. Agric. 179 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. agriculture 4.0, agricultural machinery, and intellectual property in the agricultural ma­
compag.2020.105836. chinery sector.
Thompson, N.M., Bir, C., Widmar, D.A., Mintert, J.R., 2019. Farmer perceptions of
precision agriculture technology benefits. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 51 (1), 142–163.
Sabrina Letícia Couto da Silva is a Post-Doctoral Student and Doctor in Production
https://doi.org/10.1017/aae.2018.27.
Engineering (Graduate Program in Industrial Engineering - Federal University of Rio
Torky, M., Hassanein, A.E., 2020. Integrating blockchain and the internet of things in
Grande do Sul); Master in Epidemiology (Graduate Program in Epidemiology - Federal
precision agriculture: analysis, opportunities, and challenges. Comput. Electron.
University of Rio Grande do Sul); Specialist in Statistics Teaching (Franciscan University);
Agric. 178 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2020.105476.
Bachelor of Statistics (Institute of Mathematics - Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul.
Tsan, M., Totapally, S., Hailu, M., Addom, B.K., 2019. The Digitalisation of African
Since 2010, works in teaching, research, and extension (as a professor) at the Federal
Agriculture Report 2018–2019. The Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural
Institute of Education, Science, and Technology of Rio Grande do Sul - Porto Alegre
Cooperation (CTA), Wageningen, The Netherlands, p. 241. Retrieved February 11,
campus. Her research interest involves multidisciplinary subjects, all related to the area of
2022 from. https://www.cta.int/en/digitalisation-agriculture-africa. Retrieved
Statistics, such as: teaching Statistics; agriculture 4.0; occupational epidemiology; health
February 11, 2022 from.
and safety; environmental management indicators.
UK Parliament, 2022. AGR0001 - Unlocking the Potential of Agricultural Science and
Technology. Retrieved November 17, 2022 from. https://app.overton.io/document.
php?policy_document_id=ukparliament_select-594a5af0f439c9e290a536f998865 Filipe Molinar Machado holds a B.S. in Mechanical and Industrial Engineering at URI,
ce4&funder_highlight=UKRI%20(Special%20project,%20May%202022). and Master’s in industrial engineering at UFSM, and Ph.D. in Agriculture Engineering from
Ullman, J.B., 2013. Structural equation modeling. In: Tabachnick, Em B.G., Fidell, L.S. UFSM. He is a Professor in the Industrial and Mechanical Engineering Department at URI.
(Eds.), Using Multivariate Statistics, 6th ed. Pearson, New Jersey, pp. 681–785. Her research mainly spans the topics of agricultural machinery product development,
van Hilten, M., Wolfert, S., 2022. 5G in agri-food - a review on current status, innovation, and agriculture 4.0.
opportunities and challenges. Comput. Electron. Agric. 201 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.compag.2022.107291.
Jayme Garcia Arnal Barbedo received his bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering
Verdouw, C., Tekinerdogan, B., Beulens, A., Wolfert, S., 2021. Digital twins in smart
from the Federal University of Mato Grosso do Sul in 1998, and his M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees
farming. Agric. Syst. 189 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.103046.
from the State University of Campinas, Campinas, Brazil, in 2001 and 2004. From 2004 to
Visser, O., Sippel, S.R., Thiemann, L., 2021. Imprecision farming? Examining the (in)
2005, he was a researcher at CPqD Telecom and IT Solutions, Campinas, Brazil. From 2006
accuracy and risks of digital agriculture. J. Rural. Stud. 86, 623–632. https://doi.
to 2007, he was with the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University,
org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.07.024.
Cambridge, MA, USA, as a Postdoctoral Fellow. In 2008, he was with the Department of
Washizu, A., Nakano, S., 2022. Exploring the characteristics of smart agricultural
Computer Science of the University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada, as a Postdoctoral
development in Japan: analysis using a smart agricultural kaizen level technology
Fellow. Since 2011, he works as senior researcher at the Digital Agriculture unit of the
map. Comput. Electron. Agric. 198 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2022.107001.
Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa), in Campinas, Brazil. He has
Wilkinson, M., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I., et al., 2016. The FAIR guiding principles
published more than 40 articles in peer-reviewed journals in the areas of digital signal
for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci. Data 3, 160018. https://doi.
processing, digital image processing, biosystems engineering, machine learning, artificial
org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18.
intelligence, and agriculture. His research interests include the detection and recognition
Wolfert, S., Ge, L., Verdouw, C., Bogaardt, M.J., 2017. Big data in smart farming – a
of diseases in plants, cattle monitoring using UAV images, and detection of diseases, toxins,
review. Agric. Syst. 153, 69–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.01.023.
and spurious objects in grains, among others.
Xie, H., Huang, Y., 2021. Influencing factors of farmers’ adoption of pro-environmental
agricultural technologies in China: meta-analysis. Land Use Policy 109. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105622. Fernando Gonçalves Amaral holds a B.S. in Civil Engineering at Catholic University of
Zhang, A., Heath, R., McRobert, K., Llewellyn, R., Sanderson, J., Wiseman, L., Pelotas and two Masters in Ergonomics at Université Catholique de Louvain (Belgium) and
Rainbow, R., 2021. Who will benefit from big data? Farmers’ perspective on École Pratique des Hautes Études (France). He holds a Ph.D. in Ergonomics from Université
willingness to share farm data. J. Rural Stud. 88, 346–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/ Catholique de Louvain. He is Full Professor in the Industrial Engineering Department at
j.jrurstud.2021.08.006. UFRGS. His research mainly spans the topics of ergonomics, health, agriculture, and
Zheng, Y., Zhu, T., Jia, W., 2022. Does internet use promote the adoption of agricultural safety.
technology? Evidence from 1 449 farm households in 14 Chinese provinces.
J. Integr. Agric. 21 (1), 282–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(21)63750-4.

18