Planning for Education and Training in Digital Agricultural

Technology in British Columbia

by
Bhoosun Nuckchady

BEnv, Simon Fraser University, 2018

Project Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Resource Management (Planning)

in the
School of Resource and Environmental Management
Faculty of Environment

Project No. 763

© Bhoosun Nuckchady 2021

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
Spring 2021

Copyright in this work is held by the author. Please ensure that any reproduction
or re-use is done in accordance with the relevant national copyright legislation.
Declaration of Committee

Name: Bhoosun Nuckchady

Degree: Master of Resource Management (Planning)

Title: Planning for Education and Training in Digital

Agricultural Technology in British Columbia

Project Number: 763

Committee: Chair: Samantha Jung

Master of Resource Management
Candidate, Resource and
Environmental Management

Tammara Soma
Supervisor
Assistant Professor, Resource and
Environmental Management

Emily Hansen
Committee Member
Research Associate, Institute for Sustainable
Food Systems
Kwantlen Polytechnic University

ii
Ethics Statement

iii
Abstract

British Columbia’s food system is experiencing a trend in digital agriculture which will
impact agricultural activities and land use in the province. This model of agriculture
requires computing and big data analysis skills. However, it remains unclear whether
current food-focused academic institutions are approaching digital agriculture, and if so,
whether concerns around equity, privacy, accessibility, and the barriers to digital
agriculture adoption are considered. To better understand the status of education and
training in digital agriculture, key informant interviews were conducted with 12
participants, including educators, policymakers, and private training consultants in the
food and agricultural sector in British Columbia.

While this study identified potentials around improving sustainability and collaboration
through open access platforms, concerns were raised that digital agriculture is more
likely to favour multi-national corporations and large-scale farms. Hence, educators
should adopt an equity lens by considering the concerns of small and marginalized
farmers in digital agriculture training.

Keywords: Digital Agriculture; Food System; Training; Education; British Columbia

iv
Dedication

To my parents and my best friend.

v
Acknowledgements

This research project was made possible with the grant obtained from the Social
Science and Humanities Research Council Insight grant.

I would first like to thank Dr. Tammara Soma for believing in my ability and providing me
with the opportunity to be her graduate student. Carrying out the MRM research project
in a COVID-19 pandemic was not the easiest of things, but her unconditional support
and encouragement kept me going. I thank her for her patience, kindness, guidance,
and for lifting my spirits when needed.

I am forever grateful to my parents and my best friend for being very supportive and
understanding throughout my graduate journey. Without their blessings and support, I
would have not reached very far.

A special thanks to my REM cohort, the REM faculty members, and our academic
advisors for their support and advices.

Finally, thank you to all of the educators, policymakers and private consultants who
participated in this research. Your insight and knowledge were valuable to my project.

vi
Table of Contents
Declaration of Committee ................................................................................................ ii
Ethics Statement ............................................................................................................ iii
Abstract .......................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................ vi
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................vii

Chapter 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................

1

Chapter 2. Literature Review ........................................................................................ 6

2.1. Food System Planning ............................................................................................. 6
2.2. The Role of Academic Institutions in Training Future Food Systems Professionals 10
2.3. Digital Agriculture Revolution.................................................................................. 13

Chapter 3. Methodology ............................................................................................. 18

3.1. Case Study: Context of Agriculture in British Columbia .......................................... 18
3.2. Research Design .................................................................................................... 19
3.3. Data Analysis ......................................................................................................... 20
3.4. Limitations .............................................................................................................. 21

Chapter 4. Results and Discussion ........................................................................... 22

4.1 Definition of Digital Agriculture................................................................................. 22
4.2 Benefits of Digital Agriculture................................................................................... 23
4.3 Concerns around the use of Digital Agriculture ........................................................ 24
4.4 Barriers to Digital Agriculture adoption in BC ........................................................... 28
4.5 Training in Digital Agriculture ................................................................................... 30
4.6 Youth and Digital Agriculture ................................................................................... 32
4.7 Policies for Digital Agriculture Adoption ................................................................... 34

Chapter 5. Recommendations and Conclusion ........................................................ 36

5.1. Recommendations ................................................................................................. 37
5.1.1 Investment in internet infrastructure in rural communities ..................................... 37
5.1.2 Create more awareness and outreach of free and open access farmer-led
digital agricultural tools and engage agricultural extension workers. .................... 37
5.1.3 Inclusion of the equity aspect of Digital Agricultural Technologies in food systems
education and decision-making ........................................................................... 38
5.1.4 Collaboration and engagement with Canada’s Food Policy Council and small
farming stakeholders ........................................................................................... 39
5.1.5 Raising awareness about the role of food systems planners (planners in general) in
community engagement around Digital Agricultural Technologies ....................... 39
5.2. Concluding Remarks ..............................................................................................41

References ................................................................................................................... 42

Appendix A. .Interview Question................................................................................. 52

vii
Appendix B. NVivo Coding............................................................................................ 53

viii
Chapter 1. Introduction

By 2050, the world population is expected to reach 10 billion people with

numerous scholars claiming that such a scenario will require around twice the production
of food to meet the consumption patterns of an additional 2.5 billion people (Kern, 2015;
Hickey et al., 2019). Furthermore, intensive industrial agriculture has led to many
environmental challenges such as soil loss, deteriorating water quality, and, increasing
carbon emissions due to increased agricultural inputs and imports of food products over
long distances (Parcerisas &Dupras, 2018; Sandstrom et al., 2018). Such an increased
demand in food production and consumption will produce further strain on the global and
local food systems unless sustainable solutions that would help farmers feed a greater
world population are adopted (Kern, 2015). A transition to a more sustainable food
system will be confronted with competition for natural resources such as water and land,
socio-economic concerns such as rural livelihood and community development, human
health, and environmental integrity (Pigford et al., 2018).

Increasingly, this transition towards more sustainable food system has included
the growing use of digital agriculture technologies (DAT). Digital agriculture is the
application of data gathering, data processing, data analysis and automation
technologies on the overall agricultural value chain (Kooistra et al, 2015). A digital
agricultural system analyzes agricultural data ranging from soil conditions, weather,
energy use, market assessment and more, for the optimization of agricultural production
and marketing processes (Shen et al., 2010; Klerkx et al., 2019). All of the data collected
would then be analyzed to better interpret the past and project the future through
continuous monitoring (Klerkx et al., 2019). While computers and global position
systems have been integral to food production for decades, the application of digital
technologies in agriculture is gaining ground in the form of sensors collecting data and
intelligent machines for mining these sets of agricultural information (Lajoie-O’Malley et
al., 2020). The rise of DAT is due to the emergence of open-source Big Data analytical
platforms, such as cloud computing and machine learning algorithm that use artificial
intelligence to combine big sets of on-farm data from different sources into useful
information (Ali et al., 2016; Ozdogan et al., 2017).

1
 On a global scale, digital agriculture is already prevalent in numerous continents.
North America currently accounts for the largest share in the global digital farming
market due to high investment in research and development in advanced agricultural
techniques by major agritech companies in the region (Innovation News Network, 2020).
During the Covid-19 pandemic, the global digital market size is estimated to grow from
USD 5.6 billion to USD 6.2 billion by 2021 due to a greater demand for agricultural food
products, a shift in consumer preferences for higher quality food products and a lack of
agricultural workers (Research and Market, 2020). A world bank report entitled,
“Harvesting Prosperity: Technology and Productivity in Agriculture” pointed out that
governments of developed countries have invested up to 3.25% of the agricultural
domestic product (GDP) in agricultural research while in developing countries public
spending on agricultural R&D was only 0.52% in 2011(Fuglie et al., 2019).

The rise of the global digitization of agriculture technologies is occurring within a

landscape of uncertainty in Canadian agriculture. Since the end of the great depression,
Canada has experienced a downward trend in the number of farms and farmers
(Weersink, 2018), while the land area per farm increased (Statistics Canada, 2017).
From 1941 to 2016, the number of farms decreased from 732,832 farms to 193,492
which represents a drop of 74% over 75 years (Chen et al., 2019). Conversely, the
average area per farm increased from 40 hectares to 332 hectares in 1871 and 2016
respectively (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 2017). In 2018, the primary agriculture
sector employed around 265,000 employees and contributed around $32.3 billion which
represents around 1.7% of the Canadian GDP (Government of Canada, 2020). While
farm market receipt has remained at a high record due to grain and oilseeds exports,
this has not necessarily been accompanied by increases in farm gate revenue or farmer
incomes (Qualman, 2017). It is to be noted that the sole proprietorship farm share
dropped from 92% in 1971 to 52% in 2016 and the average age of farmers has
increased up to 54 years old (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 2017; Statistics
Canada, 2017). A few scholars have noted that the digitization of farming activities may
result in less reliance on low-paid labourers in the field (Edward et al., 2020). However,
despite the adoption of DAT by large corporate farms, there is no definitive data which
supports the assertion that reducing reliance on low paid labourers is associated with an
overall decrease in production cost. It is within this context of ageing farmers,
consolidated farms, precarious labour, and environmental pressures to feed a growing

2
population that there has been a growing call by scholars identifying the potential of
digital agriculture (Basso & Antle, 2020; Shepherd et al, 2018; Balafoutis et al. 2017;
Rose & Chilvers, 2018)

For decades, the agriculture sector in Canada has been undergoing a trend
towards digital revolution. The promise of DAT is that it presents an opportunity for
improved productivity and environmental benefits through the more efficient use of
natural resources (Newell & Taylor, 2018; Rose & Chilvers,2018). Some of the claimed
benefits of digital agriculture are increased yields with less input, greater environmental
stewardship, and social benefits such as less manual labour on farms (Edwards et al.,
2020). On the other hand, there are also documented concerns. Due to the changing
nature of farm work, farmers may lose connection to the land and employ fewer farm
labourers to do manual work in the field (Rose and Chilvers,2018; Edwards et al.,2020).
Weersink (2018) also noted that digitization of the farm sector in Canada has led to the
decrease in “average-sized farms” and a subsequent increase in large farms due to
technological innovations that accelerate production operations. Older farmers and rural
farming communities could be excluded from this agricultural digital revolution due to a
lack of training and internet connectivity. While farmers may not always understand the
data obtained from digital devices, there are documented issues around trust on data
ownership and privacy (Rotz et al., 2019; Weersink et al., 2018).

The Government of Canada is investing around $49.5 million to engage

agricultural stakeholders from the different provinces in the development of digital
agricultural tools (Brunner, 2019). Another federal and provincial program which aims to
increase agricultural outputs using new agricultural technological innovations is the
Canadian Agricultural Partnership with $3 billion budget (2018-2023) (Government of
Canada, 2020). Such financial incentives provide an immense opportunity for Canadian
provinces including British Columbia to develop their agritech sector. In July 2019, the
Government of British Columbia set up the Food Security Task Force to investigate the
benefits and costs of digitizing B.C.’s Food System (Government of BC, 2020). The
findings of the task force identified digital agriculture as the way going forward for a
sustainable food system which reduces food insecurity and GHG emissions. Particularly
important to food system planning is BC’s Food Security Task Force recommendation
that up to a quarter percent (0.25%) of the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) be made
available for agricultural-industrial activities through a new category of agricultural-

3
industrial category of farmland (Government of BC, 2020). The creation of a new zone
will have planning implications as it would potentially lead to the development of built
infrastructures on prime agricultural farmland. Some have argued that such an initiative
will lead to an improvement of internet infrastructure to support an increasing range of
agricultural activities and countless benefits in rural areas (Édson Luis Bolfe et al.,
2020). However, there have also been concerns raised about the recommendation to
push agri-tech in the province as a solution to increase food security. The building of
agri-tech industries on prime farmland may potentially undermine the ALR, damage
agricultural soils, and increase the cost of land even further (Hansen et al., 2020).
Another key recommendation by the task force members emphasized the creation of
agritech institutions that would facilitate the development of digital agricultural
technologies and the training of farmers and students in using these tools (Government
of BC, 2020).

With the development of more advanced technologies such as wireless

communication, big-data analytics, cloud-based storage, and data-driven genome, this
data-driven farming requires specific skills and training. At the same time, the application
of DAT must consider potential harm, farmers’ concerns, as well as ensure equity
considerations and the sharing of benefits (Wiseman et al., 2019; Wield et al., 2010).
With the growing interest in DAT and balancing both the positive claims and the
concerns around DAT, the overarching objective of this study is to provide insights into
the current trend and the future of digitization within BC’s agriculture education/ training
sector. The study seeks to address the following research objectives:

1. To investigate if training and education in digital agriculture are being

offered in universities and training centers.
2. To explore educators’ perspectives, strategies, and approaches to digital
agricultural technologies in their education and training.
3. To assess whether training and or pedagogy includes/consider outcomes
such as social equity, and food sovereignty

This study spanned over 6 months and consisted of semi-structured key

informant interviews with 12 participants from academia(n=4), the BC Ministry of
Agriculture(n=4) and the private consulting sector(n=4) to assess their approaches and
perspectives around DA. This study also serves to better understand whether or not

4
educators in universities are engaging students/farmers on digital agricultural
technologies to better prepare them to face emerging trends in digital agriculture.

In chapter 2, the literature review will highlight the role of educational institutions
in food system planning, the benefits and concerns of digital agriculture, and provide a
brief overview of the status of agriculture and agricultural policy as it relates to DA in
British Columbia. I then elaborate on the methodology used in this research in Chapter
3. In Chapter 4, I share the findings and analyze the themes and issues identified around
the training and use of digital agriculture in BC. Finally, in chapter 5, I end with
conclusions and recommendations for the realm of DA training in BC’s agriculture
education and training sector. The findings from this study will contribute to better
prepare farmers, educators, and students to manage emerging trends in digital
agriculture.

5
Chapter 2. Literature Review

2.1. Food System Planning

Beginning in the 20th century, planners Pothukuchi and Kaufman (2000)

concluded that the food system was not being taken seriously by planners. Food was not
one of the focal points in the planning field and was not given as much importance as
other areas of planning such as housing or transportation (APA, 2007). Planners were
not encouraged or incentivized to conduct food planning work (Raja,2015). However,
food was not always a stranger in the planning field as Pothukuchi and Kaufman argue
(2000). In the colonial era, agricultural consideration was a central preoccupation in the
planning of settlements (Vitiello & Brinkley, 2014). Although planners of that era were
more concerned about managing and regulating the food system rather than making it
sustainable. Despite its indispensable importance, agriculture was not characterized as
food system planning. From a food planning perspective, agriculture emphasizes only
land use, environmental and regional planning in terms of food production while ignoring
other aspects of food distribution, food processing and food access (Vitiello & Brinkley,
2014).

The nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in planning were marked by

industrialization and urbanization which disrupted the connection between food and
human settlements. The influx of people into urban centers led to the conversion of land
from agricultural uses to urban uses (Berry, 1978). Agriculture and its associated
industries were no longer an active part of central cities as many small and medium-
scale farms were forced to migrate elsewhere (Vitiello & Brinkley, 2014). Cities
experienced a ballooning population while rural areas faced shrinking populations and a
declining number of farms, which favoured an agrifood system controlled by the very few
(Spaargaren et al., 2012). The food system now consisted of food processors and
supermarket chains which also reinforced the influence of the private sector in cities
(Camagni, 2011). Although city-based grassroots organizations involved in economic
development advocated for sustainable food planning in terms of its environmental and
socio-economic implications, city planning departments did the bare minimum in terms of
zoning for retail, wholesale, and warehouse districts (Vitiello & Brinkley, 2014). The
result of this disinvestment and the growth of a global industrial food supply chain is

6
clear. As the population of city centers expanded due to mass migration of workers from
rural areas, more farmers abandoned farming in rural regions to earn higher wages in
the city resulting in a small decrease in the number of medium-sized farms. The
economy of many rural communities became fragile and land practices were no longer
tied to agriculture (Kirschenmann et al., 2005). Many farms and the food sector in rural
areas are characterized by harsh working conditions, high rates of occupational hazards,
and rapid turnover (APA, 2007). Migrant farmworkers work under precarious
circumstances, while many small family-owned farms are left without any succession
plan (APA, 2007). Food system planning should consider food policies which address
land use, transportation, rural economic resilience, infrastructure, and work conditions to
upgrade the standard of living in rural areas (APA, 2007).

Food systems, food security and climate change are each multi-faceted topic,
and their complex interactions are affected by environmental and socio-economic factors
(Brown et al., 2015). The challenges to food and agriculture systems such as decreasing
availability of land and access to food, are being felt at a local and national scale due to
climate change and increasing urban population (Brown et al., 2015; Cole et al.,2018).
Food systems have been identified as the central entry point for action in numerous
accredited reports on nutrition and food security such as the International Panel of
Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES, 2016) and the Global Panel on Agriculture
and Food Systems for Nutrition (Global Panel, 2016, Bene et al., 2019). As per the Food
and Agricultural Organization, food security exists when “all people, at all times, have
physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary
needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life” (Brown et al., 2015). While the
stability and security of the food system are underpinned by a finite amount of natural
resources, the rate at which these resources are being used is unsustainable (Garnett &
Godfray, 2012). Therefore, there are many recommendations to mobilize agricultural
innovations to double food production while reducing environmental impacts, in a world
of shifting diets (Foley et al.,2011).

In the past decade, the field of food system planning has become more
established since “the planning community is now beginning to play an important role in
trying to fashion a new and more sustainable food system, one that is better aligned with
societal goals of public health, ecological integrity and social justice” (Morgan, 2013, pp.
1). Planners began to acknowledge that even though food systems represented a flow of

7
products within the built environment, its activities spanned over significant amounts of
urban and regional land. The continuous loss of farmland, the pollution of water sources
due to agricultural inputs and the inaccessibility of healthy food in poor neighbourhoods
of the city prompted planners to fix a broken and unsustainable food system (Pothukuchi
& Kaufman, 2000; APA, 2007; Vitiello & Brinkley, 2013). The realization that regional
and community food planning would help build stronger, sustainable, and self-sufficient
communities led to a white paper called the APA policy guide on Community and
Regional Food Planning (APA, 2007). This policy guide was the stepping stone to a
comprehensive food system planning that would strengthen the regional economy,
improve the health and nutrition of inhabitants, and boost regional food security through
the use of ecologically sustainable practices. While food system planning has developed
at a slower rate in Canada compared to the United States. Food systems planning came
into the spotlight after special sessions held at the Canadian Institute of Planners (CIP)
annual conferences of both 2008 and 2009 (Wegener et al., 2013). In its Healthy
community practice guide, the CIP states that food systems play a major role in
community health. Traditional or non-traditional ways in which food is produced,
processed, transported distributed and disposed of affects the health of the community
(CIP, 2012).

After an edition of the CIP’s journal covered food security in the planning field,
many provinces and local municipalities started to realize the importance of food
systems planning Wegener et al., 2013). In 2010, the Ontario Professional Planners
Institute (OPPI) invited planners to attend a two-day symposium to discuss the future of
food systems planning in rural and urban areas. A survey of over 900 Canadian planners
revealed that there is a growing interest in food system planning, but involvement is
barred by political will, limited funding, a lack of limited dialogue with stakeholders on
food issues and trained staff (OPPI, 2011). A study by Soma and Wakefield (2011)
noted that although food system planning was not at the top of planning departments’
agenda due to structural constraints, many American and Canadian planners believed
food issues such as farmland preservation and rapid population growth are driving the
emerging role of a food system planner. With huge investment in DAT, food systems are
currently being digitized, and planners should be conversant with this new aspect of food
system planning which will affect other food system elements and impact agricultural
stakeholders.

8
 Just as food systems planners work with citizen groups to address food system
gaps by incorporating food access considerations in community plans (Clancy,2004;
Hammer,2004), so should planners engage with farmers as they navigate new
technologies and a rapidly transforming food system. Food systems planners may
possess diverse technical knowledge and skills, such as agriculture, planning, data
analysis, GIS mapping, and can understand the mechanism of the food systems so that
they can approach food planning issues in a holistic manner (Soma et al., Wakefield,
2011). Such skill development and knowledge do not happen haphazardly at work and
require planning education that includes food system planning as a formal part of the
curriculum of academic planning programs. With the growing trend in the digitization of
the food system, food systems planners will need to work with diverse stakeholders
including but not limited to, farming communities, academia, policymakers, and
agricultural technicians to address DAT-related issues in such a way that equitably
benefits agricultural stakeholders, particularly those who are marginalized.

9
2.2. The Role of Academic Institutions in Training Future
Food Systems Professionals

Outside of agricultural focused schools, since the establishment of universities as

educational institutions, there were very limited avenues for the study of food systems
(Hilimire et al., 2014). In recent years, however, the number of university major programs
and food systems related courses increased as agricultural, environmental and food
systems related issues became more prevalent in urban and rural settings (Hilimire et
al., 2014; Matson et al., 1997). Degrading soil and water qualities, environmental
pollution, food insecurity and accessibility, worsening labour conditions and a changing
climate began to draw the attention of academia and the civil society in the socio-
economic and environmental impacts of food systems (Hilimire et al., 2014; Matson et
al., 1997; Francis et al., 2003). Therefore, future food systems professionals are
expected to understand global and local food systems as a whole and recognize the
complexity which originates from the interconnectedness between its different
components of coupled human and natural systems (Liu et al., 2015). Food literacy
education should also go beyond nutrition and food preparation skills to increase
students’ awareness about food production methods and the socio-economic and
political factors shaping the food system. It should provide a platform for different food
system actors such as teachers, the civil society and food professionals to form the
future generations of food professionals and make wiser decisions about food system
issues (Nanayakkara et al., 2017).

Universities and other agricultural training institutes will need to take the lead in
preparing future food professionals such as agronomists, nutritionists, planners,
growers, and civil servants to address the challenges of a modern food system (Valley et
al., 2017). Academic institutions have the potential to enable students to have the
opportunity and facility to develop relevant skills and knowledge to better manage food
systems sustainably. These aspiring food professionals will need to develop the skills to
deal with the dynamics, complexity, and uncertainty of the different processes in the food
value chain (Valley et al., 2017; Shulman, 2005). Such knowledge and skill development
will help students understand the big picture of food systems and work collectively with
other food actors to advance integrated actions for a sustainable food system. As the
rise of DA requires professionals who can analyze agricultural on-farm data and operate
these new emerging technologies, it is clear that universities will play an important role in

10
preparing students for a world where digitization in food systems become more
prominent.

Developing a food system that will be environmentally, socially, politically,

culturally, and economically sustainable will require a holistic approach, interdisciplinary
knowledge, and specific skills from future food professionals (Migliorini, 2020).
Institutions remain the backbone in the development and training of new professionals
whose competencies should enable them to apply systems approaches to address
issues to healthy and just food systems (Valley et al., 2017). In 2004, 41 out of 68
American Associate of Collegiate Schools of Planning accredited programs stated that
they do not offer any food system-related courses while only 9 programs were identified
to have offered a course that addressed community food system (Hammer, 2004). In the
mid-2000, the APA recognized the importance of food systems planning and many
universities in North America such as York University and the University of Michigan,
designed courses that would focus on food systems (Mendes et al., 2011). The expertise
of faculty members having a food systems background were now needed to explain the
relationship between food systems, globalization, and sustainability in these planning
and environmental faculties (Mendes et al., 2011). While historically there has been
limited emphasis on food systems education, emerging undergraduate programs that
focus on complex food-system issues such as food sustainability, security, quality, and
justice are being established in several North American universities in the past decade
(Jordan et al., 2014).

As the number of food systems-related courses and majors are being more
included in the tertiary education system, innovative curricula are required to design
learning opportunities for the upcoming generations of leaders so that they can make
connections between the different components and forces driving the food system
(Hilimire et al., 2014). Through food courses, students have demonstrated a better
understanding of major forces shaping the food system such as land-tenure changes,
stewardship issues, government policies and programs, consumer pressures.
globalization of food and environmental issues (Hammer et al., 2004). Digital Agriculture
will be another issue that planners should understand. Such acquired knowledge of the
food system is more meaningful after completing practicum on farms and internships in
food-systems organizations where students have the opportunity for experiential learning
and apply their knowledge in practice (Jordan et al., 2014).

11
 While the literature review on education and training in Food System Planning
demonstrates that most educational institutions focus on current food issues and raising
awareness of aspiring food professionals on the interconnection and complexity of the
food system, there is very little emphasis on a future food system which includes digital
agriculture and its implication in the field of food system planning. Food system
practitioners, educators and students need to start thinking seriously about digital
technology as it is becoming a major component of the food system and as noted above,
there are implications in how digital agriculture may impact land use (e.g land grabs,
increased agricultural data). Educators should recognize that with the growth of digital
agriculture there is a need for more understanding on what digital agriculture is and its
social, environmental, and economic impacts on the whole agricultural chain and food
systems. An understanding of digital agriculture is key to prepare future food planners
and food system professionals to better deal with its impact including its potential
unintended consequences.

12
2.3. Digital Agriculture Revolution

There has been an increasing call for the sustainable intensification of agriculture
to reduce the carbon footprint of agricultural activities, increase food production, and
improve the economic conditions of the farming community (Firbank et al., 2018; Lowder
et al., 2016). Framing this “fourth agricultural revolution” as “smart agriculture” and
“digital agriculture”, public discourse and the media have promoted it as the
technological fix of future agricultural and food system challenges (Van der Burg et al.,
2019). Digital agriculture may take place in the adoption and use of new technologies,
the use of advanced sensor capability, improved data connectivity, and computer-based
artificial or augmented intelligence (AI) decision support and self-learning systems
(Shepherd et al., 2018). While it is a fact that these digital technologies will change the
farming culture of communities and agricultural actors, it is still very early to determine
how these are perceived by stakeholders and assess its impacts on the society (Barett &
Rose, 2020).

While precision agriculture focuses on the data generation process which

involves the in-field collection of data through mobile devices, field sensors and
satellites, digital agriculture goes many steps further by connecting farm equipment to
software platforms (Mehrabi et al. 2021; Clapp & Ruder, 2020). The on-farm data is
processed using deep learning algorithms and big stack data to enable the farmers to
view all production parameters of real-time operations and provide advice regarding
seed choice or application of fertilizer and pesticides (Ozdogan et al, 2017; Clapp &
Ruder, 2020). These types of tools and information were once exclusively the domain of
agricultural extension services but can technically complement or support extension-
related work. While the agricultural extension program was dismantled in BC due to a
lack of funding from the provincial government (Hansen et al., 2016), statistics from the
2016 Census of Agriculture show that the uptake of DAT is gradually happening among
the BC farming community.

Proponents of digital agriculture argue that the use of technology simplifies the
complexity of agricultural activities as more detailed and precise data is available to
support complex decision-making on-farm; enabling the move “from precision to
decision” (Shepherd et al., 2018, pp. 5083). It is claimed that such precise agricultural
data pave the way for farmers to be in line with environmental standards and regulations

13
that are becoming more stringent worldwide (Saunders et al., 2017). Furthermore, at a
global scale, scholars argue that these digital technologies will provide greater market
access for agricultural products as more information about the farm producing the food
will create more transparency and traceability through the use of verifiable records and
labelling in complex food supply chains (Shepherd et al, 2018; Opara, 2003). These
technologies have the potential to be implemented at a local level to also improve the
efficiency of the local food system. As it pertains to environmental impact, novel DAT
such as agricultural genome can precisely edit a plant’s genetic code to adapt them to
the needs of farmers and boost crop performance (Clapp and Ruder, 2020; Weersink,
2018). For example, the genes of herbicide-resistant weeds can be reverted to
herbicide-sensitive weeds; thus, enabling farmers to better control weeds (Storkey et al.,
2018).

Lastly but most importantly, one of the largest potentials around the rise of digital
agriculture is the use of modern genetic and information technologies to increase the
sustainability of agriculture (Basso & Antle, 2020). Some scholars note that the
digitization of agriculture would lead to increased production for less inputs and a
reduction in toxins from agrochemical use due to more precise chemical applications
(Shepherd et al., 2018; Basso & Antle, 2020). Such DAT practices may reduce pressure
on our finite natural resources and more products with better environmental credentials
are available to satisfy the needs of changing consumer desires (Clapp et Ruder, 2020;
Shepherd et al., 2018). This sustainable intensification phenomenon in which more food
is produced on less land and input is claimed to result in fewer environmental impacts
but also increase farm receipt (Garnett et al., 2013). Greater efficiency and productivity
are the main arguments of proponents of digital agriculture as it balances the socio-
economic and environmental aspects of sustainable agriculture and the food system
(Basso & Antle, 2020; Clapp et Ruder, 2020).

However, there are also barriers identified by scholars about digital agriculture.
For example, internet access in both urban and rural communities is critical to the uptake
of DAT and the use of Big Data analytics platforms (Weersink, 2018). Even in 2021,
many rural areas of North America and Europe experience a lack of broadband and
internet access because internet service providers do not generate the same profit
margin as in large cities where they have millions of customers (Pant & Hambly Odame,
2017). Moreover, the average age of farmers in Western countries could pose a problem

14
for the adoption of Digital Agriculture practices as increasing age has a negative
correlation with the adoption of technological tools such as computers and online
platforms (Tey et al., 2012). Older farmers aged over 55 years old form around 54% of
the Canadian farmer’s population and they have short-term planning horizons, less
exposure to precision agriculture technologies and thus a lack of interest to go digital
(Tey et al., 2012; Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 2017).

There also larger concerns. Often, farmers are captured by a good sales pitch
about a specific precision or digital agricultural system which makes them believe that
acquiring that technology will help them increase crop yield or better manage farm
issues. However, the ways in which digital tools are marketed combined with other
powerful social forces trap many farmers in technological lock-in via debt (McKinnon,
2018). Debt is a key mechanism that farmers engage in to acquire an agricultural
technology of a specific brand and system (McMichael, 2013; Rotz et al., 2019).
Unfortunately, these agricultural systems are sometimes unable to process agricultural
data that come from digital tools of other brands and this not only reinforces the societal
dominance of certain technological systems over others but also leaves the farmer with
much financial debt and limited data processing capabilities (Rotz et al., 2019;
McKinnon, 2018; McMichael, 2013). Additionally, the dependence of farmers on digital
software to guide their farming practices reinforces the technological lock-in as farmers
lose their traditional way of evaluating trade-offs and may be unable to fix their
machinery or perform agriculture without digital support (Carolan, 2017; Rotz et al.,
2019).

While agricultural genome editing can improve crop performance and enhance
the growing qualities of crops, this technology can also be a double-edged sword if
regulations around gene editing are not clear (Clapp & Ruder, 2020). If the genes of
invasive plant species are modified to be more resistant to herbicides and released in
the wild, these genetically modified species may spread like wildfire and jeopardize
biodiversity (ETC Group and Heinrich Boll Foundation, 2018). While digital agriculture
promises environmental sustainability, negative environmental consequences can also
happen if the technology is not utilized in the safest way due to a lack of strict
regulations.

15
 The issue of data ownership also remains the main concern for most farmers and
users of DAT. Land grab in the twenty-first century depends on digital knowledge and
needs agricultural data. This is an issue that should be of particular concerns to planners
too. From a digital agricultural technology provider’s standpoint, land represents a block
of data and DAT acts as facilitator to capture information about micro-scale qualities of
land and lives which are inputted into data analytics infrastructure operated by multi-
national corporations (Fraser, 2018). This is why large companies such as Monsanto
and John Deere keep investing and showing much interest in the development of
agricultural technology (Clapp & Ruder, 2020). Such large vertically integrated and
multinational enterprises are the ones who have data analytic platforms where farmers
input their on-farm data (Clapp & Ruder, 2020; Weersink et al., 2018). Even though
farmers agree to the terms and conditions of using digital agriculture platforms, they
have little influence in determining consent rights to their data as agricultural companies
remain unclear of who owns the data and if it is being used for other purposes (Custers
et al., 2016; Wiseman et al., 2019). The collection of agricultural data and gene editing
by these large agricultural companies make farmers more hesitant to share their data as
they fear an agricultural research agenda that will cause economic and environmental
consequences (Clapp & Ruder, 2020). Corporate-controlled data analytics platforms are
indeed not the most appropriate medium to restore equity among the different
agricultural stakeholders and safeguard the privacy and livelihood of small farmers who
feel excluded from the value chain (Weersink et al., 2018). Sadly, such digital
technologies made available and accessible to farmers with profit and data breach
intentions will continue to widen the profitability gap between marginalized small farmers
and multi-national companies while increasing the chances of land grabbing. The
government should realize its role as a key player in enhancing dialogue with farmers,
universities, and the industry in shaping suitable regulatory policies concerning data
privacy and equity concerns with the use of Big Data analytics platforms (Rotz et al.,
2019).

When it comes to Digital Agriculture, the Federal Government of Canada is

actively engaging the different provinces, education and research institutions, large
agribusiness companies and small enterprises throughout the country. With a view to
becoming a global leader in digital technologies for food and agriculture, the federal
government has launched the Canadian Agri-Food Automation and Intelligence Network

16
(CAAIN) to regroup 61 technology and agri-food companies including eight core partners
such as Alberta Innovates, the Vineland Research and Innovation Centre, Olds College,
MDA Systems Ltd., Linamar Corp., Lakeland College, DOT Technology Corporation,
and TrustBIX share in the $49.5 million contributions from the Strategic Innovation Fund
(Brunner, 2019). Additional funding of $ 15 million will be allocated to other small and
medium food enterprise partners to be able to work on an automation and digital
technology project to highlight the economic benefits and impacts of digitization of the
Agri-Food sector (Morin, 2020). Moreover, the Canadian Agricultural Partnership is cost-
shared between the federal and provincial/territorial governments with the federal
government contributing 60% of the costs of the program and the provincial/territorial
government contributing 40% (Government of Canada, 2020). This is good news for
some 166 startup agrifood tech companies involved in a wide range of digital agriculture
activities such as genetic and breeding, farm management platforms, the Internet of
Things and novel farming techniques (Schmaltz, 2019).

The Government of Canada is setting the path for the gradual digitization of the
agriculture and agri-food sector by providing financial incentives and promoting
collaboration between agricultural and technology stakeholders. The increasing number
of startup agrifood tech companies demonstrates Canada’s interest in growing the agri-
tech sector (Government of Canada, 2018). The fact that businesses (including small
and medium-sized enterprises), post-secondary institutions, research institutes, and
non-profit organizations from multiple sectors across Canada are working in the
development of digital agricultural platforms outlines the importance of educators and
future food system professionals to be prepared.

17
Chapter 3. Methodology

3.1. Case Study: Context of Agriculture in British Columbia

Most of British Columbia’s fertile soils are found in sinuous river valleys such as the
Fraser River Valley, deltas, and the plains of the northeast. As per the Canadian Land
Inventory, only 5% of the province 92,250,929-hectare land area is suitable for
agriculture, 2.7% is capable of growing a reasonable range of crops and 1.1% is prime
agricultural land (Smith, 2012). B.C. producers led the nation in farm sales of
blueberries, sweet berries, prunes, raspberries, apricots, and pears while ranking
second in farm sales of floriculture products, mushrooms and watermelons and apples
(AgriService BC, 2018). The decreasing national trend in the number of farms and an
increasing average of farm operators are also reflected in the agricultural landscape of
British Columbia (Statistics Canada, 2021). A rise in the adoption of precision and digital
agriculture tools has also been observed among British Columbia’s farming population to
modernize and boost farming operations while the number of people employed in the
province’s agriculture and agri-food sector is on the decline (Statistics Canada, 2021).
British Columbia is also geographically large and requires a reliable transportation
system for food to travel from rural farming communities to major urban centers where
the population is more concentrated. Moreover, the escalating real estate prices have
rendered farming on the best quality agricultural land a very expensive option for most
farmers (BC Assessment, 2016).

In British Columbia, food and agriculture have always been affected by national
and provincial legislations but impacts of decision-making are felt at the local
government level. Over the years, the impacts of poor or absent food system planning
have resulted in increasing food insecurity for residents, local pollution, waste
management, the economic marginalization of farmers and loss of agricultural land
(MacRae & Donahue, 2013). Hence, policies tackling food access issue and
encouraging urban agriculture remain the focal points of British Columbia’s food system.
Official Community Plans (OCPs) have been set by local governments to guide planning
and land use management decisions such as urban design, economic development, and
the environment. The interconnectedness of the impacts of community planning and
food system planning makes OCPS an appropriate vehicle for food system planning

18
(Robert & Mullinix, 2018). While planners in BC are becoming more interested in food
systems planning, they advance that there are very little direction and support from both
the provincial and federal governments to guide food systems planning (Robert &
Mullinix, 2018).

While around $ 17 billion is annually spent on food, much of this huge sum barely
goes to local producers and farmers due to the reliance on imported food (Robert &
Mullinix, 2018). Food security experts are also of the opinion that strong community-
based food systems can help improve food self-reliance by increasing local produce and
cutting fossil fuel-heavy imports (Ostry et al., 2011). One way of strengthening a
community-based food system is shortening the food supply chain to establish closer
ties with local communities and farmers and reducing the distance that food travels to
the consumer’s plate (Drolet, 2012). Such a local food system is what local
municipalities in British Columbia need to emphasize on mitigating issues of climate
change, food security, energy, and sustainable local economic development.

British Columbia remains the most diverse agricultural province in Canada since
it produces over 300 agricultural products ranging from fruits and vegetables, dairy,
livestock, poultry, eggs, fish, and seafood (BC Food Security Task Force, 2020). In
2016, around 50% of farms were using computers for farm management purposes and
1,432 out of 17,528 farms, which represents around 8% of all farms make use of
Geospatial technology such as GPS technology and GIS Mapping (AgriService BC,
2018). When it comes to automation technology, 12.8% of B.C.’s farms have already
started using automation technology and the most common ones being automated
animal feeding and automated environmental controls for animal housing with 650 and
588 users of these technologies (AgriService BC, 2018). All these facts highlight the
trend of digitization in BC’s agricultural sector, and an equitable outcome in the realm of
DA will require coordination among the provincial agricultural industry, academia,
government and other food and farming stakeholders.

3.2. Research Design

To evaluate the status of food system education at the tertiary and higher
secondary levels with a particular focus on digital agriculture, a preliminary internet
research found that only 8 out of 25 universities and post-secondary schools have an

19
agriculture or food department in British Columbia. This represents a percentage of 32%
of universities and post-secondary colleges addressing food and agriculture issues of
the province. Some major university faculties that tackle food and agricultural issues in
BC include the faculty of land and food systems at the University of British Columbia, the
Institute for Sustainable Food Systems at Kwantlen Polytechnic University (KPU), Simon
Fraser University, and the Food and Agriculture Institute at the Fraser Valley Institute.
These institutions had been involved in sharing their perspectives with the BC Food
Security Task Force, with KPU developing a response document highlighting concerns
with some of the Task Force’s findings (Hansen et al., 2020).

This research project was conducted amid the COVID-19 pandemic and all in-
person research activities had been suspended by the SFU Research Ethics Board
(REB). To meet the objectives of this study, a qualitative research method was adopted
which would not require in-person research activity. While 31 relevant individuals in the
BC agriculture, food and education sectors were identified and contacted, due to
COVID-19, many of the interviewees noted challenges around scheduling, as such, the
final tally included a total of 12 participants from academia (n=4), government (n=4), and
private consultants (n=4). A gift card of $ 25 was offered to all interviewees as a token of
appreciation and several declined. In addition to literature review, semi-structured key
informant interviews were conducted with educators, policy makers, and private training
consultants involved in agriculture and food system education in BC both in the public
and private sector from July 2020 to November 2020. The interviews lasted between 25
to 55 minutes. Although all of the interviewees are experts in teaching and training on
food and agriculture, some interviewees had only cursory knowledge of digital
agricultural technology. Nevertheless, as educators in food and agriculture, their
perspectives are valuable as they train students and future food system professionals.

All of the interviews were conducted by phone or zoom, and then transcribed
verbatim. The contents of the interviews have been anonymized and interviewees are
identified by sector (e.g academic, government, consultants).

3.3. Data Analysis

NVivo Data Analysis Software was used to analyze the codes from the
interviews. The interview transcripts were uploaded, and a thematic coding approach

20
was used to code the interviews by assigning a “node” for each main theme related to
each interview question. The interview transcripts and the responses to each interview
question were reviewed to highlight important quotes and emerging ideas from the
answer and assign them to its specific main theme node.

3.4. Limitations

There were many limitations faced throughout the duration of this study. First,
this is an exploratory study and digital agriculture is a new interdisciplinary field which
involves agriculture, planning, mathematics, engineering, computing science, and more.
While many professors and experts are specialized in one of these disciplines, it was
very difficult to find someone knowledgeable in all of the aspects of digital agriculture.
The research project also happened during the COVID-19 pandemic and since there
was a ban on social gatherings, the recruitment of potential participants via emails was
not as fruitful, particularly as the COVID pandemic increased the workload of many
educators. While the Canadian governments and the private sector may have invested
millions of Canadian dollars in the agritech industry, Digital Agriculture is a relatively new
concept, and most of the universities are not currently focusing on this topic. Although
the original scope was focused on educators, other stakeholders with knowledge of the
topic and a focus on training in the sector, such as government officials and private
consultants were also interviewed.

21
Chapter 4. Results and Discussion

This section outlines the findings from the qualitative analysis of the 12
interviews. Based on the research objectives, this study explores educators’
perspectives, strategies, and approaches digital agricultural technologies in their
education and training. The themes are categorized as follows: 1) Definition of Digital
Agriculture; 2) Benefits and Concerns around the use of Digital Agriculture; 3) Barriers to
digital agriculture adoption in BC; 4) Training and Education in Digital Agriculture; 5)
Youth and Digital Agriculture and 6) Policies for Digital Agriculture Adoption.

4.1 Definition of Digital Agriculture

As noted in the literature, there are multiple definitions of digital agriculture (Shen
et al., 2010; Kooistra et al, 2015; Ozdogan et al., 2017). The first question asked to the
participants was about the definition of digital agriculture. Out of the twelve interviewees,
eleven participants gave general comments about how agriculture and technology are
currently more intertwined due to the increased use of computers, sensors, drones,
cellphones, and decision support systems which contribute to gathering and analyzing
on-farm information by farmers. Six participants elaborated on the relationship between
data collection and the use of algorithms and big data to analyze on-farm data. On the
other hand, another five participants defined digital agriculture as the same as precision
agriculture. While precision agriculture is indeed part of the suite of DA, DA is much
broader since precision agriculture involves only the use of digital agriculture tools to
collect data for better farming decisions. This shows that some of the participants are
conflating precision agriculture as the same as digital agriculture, when precision
agriculture is mostly concerned with using tools and equipment to collect granular on-
farm data so that farmers can monitor farming activities. DA is more about advanced
analysis on digital platforms to create value out of the data. Although 11 of the
participants defined digital agriculture in more neutral terms, one academic had negative
perspectives about digital agriculture and defined it as:

High technology, high-cost, and technologically dependent agriculture that only

those with the most money can benefit. Although I know technology is part of our
sustainable future, what immediately comes to my mind [when thinking about
digital agriculture] is an unsustainable future. (Academic 1)

22
 This statement demonstrates that within the realm of food and agricultural
training, there are significant concerns around the future of the digitization of agriculture
and DA is viewed as the anti-thesis of sustainability. It is clear that there are concerns
and opportunities identified around digital agriculture as noted in the literature (Rose and
Chilvers,2018; Weersink, 2018; Rotz et al., 2019; Edwards et al.,2020). As the people
interviewed are involved in the training of future students and farmers, it is important to
understand their views on such digital agricultural innovations.

4.2 Benefits of Digital Agriculture

There was a wide range of responses concerning the benefits of digital

agriculture use; the main ones being the potential emergence of open-source data
platforms, more precise agricultural practices, and the labour-saving aspect of farming.
Five participants identified open-access platforms and data as an important benefit of
digitizing the agricultural sector and as an opportunity to equitably distribute the benefits
of digital agriculture. Two educators stated that digital agriculture would act as an
equalizer in terms of information access. One stated that “there is this whole world of
open access/open-source technology and communities surrounding these that can
promote equity” (Academic 2) and the one along the same line stated:

Hence, if we can do that [i.e. create open access] with Digital Agriculture and
open the gate of information to farmers everywhere, then it could be a great
equalizer (Academic 3).

The promise that digital agriculture could lead to more precise agricultural
practices was shared by five participants. One educator explained how such a benefit
would happen:

Digital Agriculture presents the possibility of ...instead of reducing the complexity,

we take all the complexity, and we learn from that. But to do that, we need to
have a large enough data set. So, the only way to deal with complexity and all
these interacting components is to have enough data. Hence, Digital Agriculture
provides the opportunity to have these large data sets to analyze the complexity
so that we pull out some lessons to enable us to more precisely manage
agriculture. (Academic 3)

Another educator from the private sector emphasized the potential to improve
resource use by making agricultural practices more precise and targeted:

23
 Digital Agriculture would allow for more efficient use of resources. Whether it is
water and fertilizer, it would be used in a more precise way. Timesaving for the
farmers. (Consultant 1)

As identified by most of the interviewees, precise agricultural practices can be

achieved due to less complexity in decision-making by gathering large sets of on-farm
data and analyzing these data sets so that a farmer knows how much agricultural inputs
to put in different sites of his farms. While this may be more relevant in the context of
large, monoculture farms, the idea raised is that the more data, better information can be
obtained and influence farmers’ decisions in terms of yield, production, income, and
energy use. Thus, the benefits outlined by the interviewees is that digital agriculture may
provide information that can help reduce water use and reduce fertilizer application in a
more precise and efficient way.

4.3 Concerns around the use of Digital Agriculture

During the interviews, seven out of the twelve interviewees identified data
ownership as the main concern of farmers and users of digital agriculture. The control
and use of data by multi-national companies of farmers’ data is an ongoing practice,
particularly as more digital platforms are offering solutions and analysis to farming
challenges. One professor commented on how multi-national companies misuse
agricultural data from small farmers to grab their fertile agricultural land:

There are several studies on land grabbing that has access to information about
land productivity potential that has become more available to multi-national
corporations or ability to take land. Is this because of Digital Agriculture and
access to different kinds of data? There are bundle of studies coming out about
data colonialism. (Academic 4)

The same professor argued that the older generation of farmers which
constitutes the majority of the farming community faces difficulty in understanding what
is happening to their data and where it is kept. Surprisingly, farmers are not only afraid of
their data being used by multinational companies, but they are also concerned about
data being used by the government. She stated:

People are concerned about multi-national corporations and the government

having their data. Older farmers who had less experience with living a digital life
and feel that the government will have data about nutrient management and
indigenous species on their land. (Academic 4)

24
 When one government official was asked about why there is a lack of trust in
governmental institutions, she explained the issue has to do with the fear of potential
surveillance:

That is a huge issue in the agriculture sector in general. There are concerns
about government oversight and regulatory issue that farmers face. The farmers
must deal with so many ministries and regulations. It is overwhelming for most
small farmers. They are concerned about privacy issues…If you are a very small
farmer and not making a lot of money, you may not be fully paying all of the
required taxes. There may be some loopholes that people are using, and they
are concerned if we have their information and premises identification, we will be
giving these to the CRA or even water licensing people. There is a lot of
concerns over sending information into the government “Blackbox.” We see a lot
of things such as we send them an email and on the same day, they get an email
from other ministries such as water licensing, they automatically assume that we
have been given that information. (Government 1)

Agricultural data plays a major role in the proper functioning of farms and if
farmers are the sole proprietor of their data, they recognize the strength and
weaknesses of their activities. If other external forces such as the government and multi-
national companies are at the receiving end of such digital platforms and data, farmers
are concerned as their weakness and strength will be in the public domain. In a nutshell,
digital agriculture may be more of a liability than a benefit for them.

Three of the participants believed that investing in digital agriculture would result
in an increasing debt load for small-scale farms. One academic interviewed is
particularly concerned by the livelihood of small-scale farmers and advanced that
farmers should think twice before investing in new technologies as their return on
investment may not always be economically viable. He explained:

Technology is invested and wasted. We have these supply managed

commodities here in BC. The dairy industry is one of them and dairy people have
the most debts of any of the farmers and yet they are guaranteed income. Their
debt is all about technology because they keep innovating. This is the concept of
the technological treadmill. What it has done to farming and the economics of
farming. You adopt these technologies to increase your production (early
adopters), and everybody adopts it and then it becomes a fixed cost to
production. Everybody is producing more and therefore the value of production is
less…And you are left holding the bag and therefore farms are going broke left
and right. (Academic 1)

As identified in the literature review, many farmers are faced with a “locked-in” to
certain agricultural technologies (McKinnon, 2018; Rotz et al., 2019). Farmers tend to

25
acquire these genetically modified seeds or agricultural technologies by engaging in
debt, but the outcomes tend to be deceiving as these digital technologies have limited
data processing capabilities. Moreover, the cost of these genetically modified agricultural
inputs and digital technologies increases yearly and farmers undertake more debt to
keep their farming production line economically viable (Rotz et al., 2019; McKinnon,
2018; Mcmichael, 2013). This fact is supported by one private consultant:

Farmers need to understand what they are doing because of the debt that
farmers are undertaking; once you [referring to companies] have a monopoly
over fertilizers, you can increase the price. And the price increases yearly, and
farmers are hooked into it and they cannot pay that increasing amount and they
do not have an alternative supplier to get to. And the same goes for the seed, if
you are hooked into genetically modified seeds, you got nowhere else to go to.
Now, you are paying for seeds while farmers over the millennia collected their
own seeds. (Consultant 2)

The same participant added that if farmers wanted to adopt digital agriculture
tools, they should learn how to develop a sustainable business plan which would require
them to be trained in using spreadsheets and analyzing financial data to assess their
returns versus their debt from investing in all of the digital agriculture tools. He
explained:

You got to bring the financial equation in and do a study... how much they are
paying in debts per year vs the increased returns compared to that debt
compared to the interest rate at the time. Right now, the interest rate is very low
(down to 0%) and farmers might think that it is a good time to get into the market
for buying equipment and they gamble on the fact that the world economy will
recover in three to four years. In this case, the interest rate will go up to 5% and
they will be hooked. I think this question needs to be asked parallel to the
financial dimension of the investment of all that equipment. Anyone teaching
farmers about these kinds of stuffs should be ready to open the spreadsheet and
be honest around the numbers (Consultant 2)

Interestingly, one professor pointed out that farmers who will adopt digital agriculture
could be too reliant on digital data and would lose that ability to make decisions based
on their observations or intuition. He stated,

If we build agriculture in an engineering system, rather than a biological system,

we lose this connection to what is intuitive on the land. I guarantee you that the
people who are good at digital agriculture and analyze these big datasets are not
the people who will make decisions on the ground to keep plants and animals
alive. (Academic 3)

26
 In his book, No One Eats Alone: Food as Social Enterprise, Carolan (2017)
mentions that the Green Revolution has accelerated the loss of ancient knowledge about
crop management practices which allowed our ancestors to grow food not only under
adverse weather conditions, but also without the need of agrochemicals and expensive
non-renewable resources. Similarly, digital agriculture could lead to the erosion of tacit
skills that farmers gain from their farming experience due to an excessive reliance on the
use of digital agriculture for the operation of their farms. Farmers should valorize tacit
skills to be able to feel, practice and perform farming activities before switching to the
adoption of other agricultural innovations (Carolan, 2017). Technology tends to
experience breakdown but if farmers have the necessary tacit farming skills, the
argument is that farmers will be able to be continue their farming activities (Carolan,
2017).

One consultant pointed out that digital agriculture adoption could alter the food
system landscape in rural areas and many family-owned farms would be financially
affected if they do not sell out. He stated,

DA is adopted more easily by larger operation farms and more commercialized

farms and is less likely to happen on family-owned farms. In the context of
generational change, it will continue and there will be a trend towards larger
corporation and more digitally integrated and it will lead to a reduction in the
number of family-run operations that will have an impact in the agricultural
landscape in the [Name of region]. Opportunity for higher value smaller crops.
For the large-scale low contribution margin profit crop that we grow in the [Name
of region] will be pushed towards larger operations for digital agriculture to be
more effective and have more resilient operations. Family-owned farms will be
selling out/leasing their lands to big operations. (Consultant 3)

27
4.4 Barriers to Digital Agriculture Adoption in BC

British Columbia’s agricultural context varies region by region. Due to varying

physical and economic conditions in various parts of BC, there are barriers to the
adoption of Digital Agriculture in the farming community. The table below (Table 1)
shows the frequency of the barriers to Digital Agriculture adoption identified by the
twelve participants.

Barrier Number of participants

Internet Access 7

Debt 5

Not enough training and education 5

Lack of support system which respond to 4

technical issues

Elder farmers not willing to respond to 3

adopt new technologies

The adoption of other types of organic 3

regenerative farming

COVID Pandemic 1

Table 1: Frequency of the different barriers mentioned by the 12 participants

Internet access was mentioned by seven participants as many rural parts of

British Columbia are still excluded from internet access because internet service
providers are not investing in the infrastructure due to smaller populations and more
physical constraints. One professor stated that prior to focusing on digital agriculture,
this gap needs to be addressed. As he stated:

28
 The digital divide needs to be addressed. We tend to see the poorest access to
internet in rural areas and so lot of the tools [referring to DA] are the least useful
in these rural areas where they are most needed. And we see dramatic
disparities in terms of access to bandwidth and internet in different parts of the
world. (Academic 2)

Another professor clearly pointed out the role of government in addressing the
issue of internet access:

The places where most marginalized framers are the places with the worst
internet access. You can have all the digital technologies in the world but if
people cannot afford a data plan, they are left out. Government must provide the
conditions by providing equal access to infrastructure. There are always going to
be people left out in rural areas who are not accessing the resources. (Academic
4)

Hence, as most participants noted, what is the use of digitizing the agricultural
sector when at the foundation (i.e. farmers) do not have the access to the medium that
would connect them to the online world.

Digital Agriculture also comes with a cost and while many farmers are already in
debt, going digital is not the need of the hour for these small-sized farms. One private
consultant expressed:

With the farmers that we want to get on board, it is sort of pointless to do a lot of
education unless there is funding support and other types of support to help them
make that digital transition. (Consultant 1)

Another participant emphasized that digital agriculture adoption was very much
related to the size of farms and stated,

The willingness to adopt DA is based on the size of your farm. Depends on the
kind of crops you are growing. None of the young farmers I know are excited
about growing canola or soybeans, but they do it because it gets them out of
debts.” (Consultant 2)

Five participants mentioned that a lack of training and skills deter many farmers
to adopt digital agriculture since they are unsure of how to use these devices. One
private consultant (Consultant 3) expressed the importance of “having a support system
where there is a full-time technician who responds to the technical issues of producers
would help make digital agriculture a more viable option.” The need for more training and
education in digital technologies is crucial to eliminate the barrier between the
agricultural and digital worlds. Finally, the COVID-19 pandemic is also hindering the

29
training in digital agriculture tools as the same private consultant point out that “the
[name of school] was severely impacted by the COVID pandemic and had to be moved
online for the most part but enabled people to get their flying certificate for small remote
flying aircraft system (Consultant 3).

4.5 Training in Digital Agriculture

The question of training and education in Digital Agriculture was mostly targeted
for the four professors while the other participants from the government and private
sector shared how they were contributing to digital agriculture advancement. Out of the
four professors, three were involved in assisting students with digital agriculture projects.
These projects were more about using digital software to analyze research data on
agriculture rather than the technical use of agricultural digital devices on the farm. One
professor explained:

I require everyone to complete a research project which includes a statistical

analysis and students must take a statistics course as a prerequisite for the
research project. I also teach experimental design and analysis and we use R-
based analysis techniques. Honestly, there are some students that are excited
about the open-source and open-access capacity of R as an easily powerful
modifiable tool while some students are absolutely intimidated by it… I would say
maybe about a third of students are excited about using digital technologies and
wanting to embrace that. I would say that two-third of my students would rather
not have to worry about DA. (Academic 2)

Another professor was part of the development of a new farming app which is a
free and open-source farm management tool for aspiring farmers. She stated,

We have been developing this tool called [Name of app] and we have students
involved intensively in building it and testing it in the field. There are five to ten
students involved in that project and young farmers. We have data scientists who
help students use the data coming from the Digital Agriculture and we train
people and farmers. (Academic 4)

Machine learning and big data analysis are the focus of digital agriculture training
at the tertiary level. Much emphasis is put on the statistical analysis of environmental
data to enhance the technical skills of students for the world of work. This is explained
by one professor:

I purchased a drone to be able to use in my undergraduate courses. The

machine learning that we use in our lab is a combination of regression analysis.

30
 Random Forest is an approach to use a bunch of regression techniques all in
one package. The graduate students are the ones using machine learning and
doing the regression models. So, they need to be literate in the concepts and our
graduate students need to have the skills because this is what is cutting edge. It
is a place where you could create a niche where students are able to engage
with agricultural systems or agricultural management that otherwise would not. I
would say around twenty percent of the students who contacted me would be
interested in digital agriculture. (Academic 3)

One BC Agriculture government official who has been involved in the

development of digital platforms for agriculture stated that a significant amount of funds
for training has been invested in DA training and education:

One example of regional support, we provide funding to an organization called

[Name of organization] and where possible they develop educational and training
tools... They help educate farmers on how a changing climate will impact farming
and sharing tools and resources that will help them adapt. So, for example, they
will often go out and go to a workshop in a region on irrigating in a changing
climate and that story will also be promoting the water calculator and soil nutrient
management tools. Their approach is physically going out and communicating in
regions and while they are doing it, they are introducing farmers to online and
digital tools which they can use. (Government 2)

The BC Ministry of Agriculture is working on creating web-based tools for the

farming community but there is more work to be done in the promotion and training of
these digital platforms. This study found that the Ministry usually provides the
educational task of training and promotion of digital tools to third parties or organizations.

Another government official identified co-ops as important training programs for

digital agriculture. He noted that co-op students from universities are also hired and work
on agricultural projects. While students gain basic technical skills during work on school
projects, a co-op placement in the provincial government or even private sector helps
them to apply their technical know-how and get the experience of working in their field.
He stated, “Sometimes we have coop students and sometimes we do not. They are
hired for specific project and one of them would have been the development of the
nutrient management platform...” (Government 3)

Two of the private consultants interviewed were directly involved in assisting

farmers with digital technologies. One of them stated,

We have also been involved in some work with drones and infra-red to get better
information about soil mapping and the field to help farmers to plan, how they
fertilize and how they manage crop nutrition based on the information of different

31
 types of fields/soil type. We were also involved in work using sonar technology
related to field drainage (different sorts of soil drainage of the field). In BC, there
are a lot of field drainage activities going on and our work was more on the
research side and learning on how to use the tool. (Consultant 1)

Another consultant explained how a farmer-to-farmer training approach to train

for digital agriculture can be done through workshops:

Farmers come to show other farmers how to use these tools. We try to bring
people together and people with those skills will share those skills at the event. I
think indirectly there has probably been some knowledge of digital agriculture
that has been transferred. We do not go out and show people how to use these
tools. If there is a lot of people interested in the topic, we try to find someone with
that knowledge to connect with farmers. (Consultant 4)

Although digital agriculture is a relatively new concept, academic, government

officials and private consultants are using in-person and digital means to train students
and farmers in digital agriculture. Prior to the Covid Pandemic, private consultants and
professors were able to offer this one-to-one training in the use of statistical analysis
techniques, drones, and other technological systems. On the other hand, government
officials have been able to pursue with the training of farmers due to the use of user-
friendly web-based digital tools.

4.6 Youth and Digital Agriculture

Access to agricultural land remains the main obstacle for young people to be
involved in agriculture (White, 2012), but digital agriculture represents an opportunity to
attract young people to the field of agriculture by providing them with highly specialized
skills to understand the best land-use practices in an increasingly digitized agricultural
sector (Pandey, 2017). While proponents of Digital Agriculture (Basso & Antle, 2020;
Shepherd et al, 2018; Balafoutis et al. 2017; Rose & Chilvers, 2018) always refer to it as
the future of agriculture, it was very insightful to hear what the participants had to say
about young people and Digital Agriculture use. Nine out of twelve interviewees affirmed
that digital technology is not the critical factor that draws young people to the field of
agriculture. One consultant stated:

Digital Agriculture makes it easier for young people to understand what they are
doing and how their actions influence their outcome. If young people are not
interested in agriculture, Digital Agriculture would still not make them want to
farm. Young people who want to operate these self-driving tractors but who are

32
 not interested in grain farming will less likely get involved in agriculture.”
(Consultant 3)

Along the same lines, one professor believed digital agriculture could play a role
in attracting young people to the field of agriculture but will not encourage them to
become farmers. He commented:

I guess students would be more interested in participating in agriculture as an

industry, but I do not know if Digital Agriculture will encourage students to
become farmers. There is a difference. The respect that society gives to farmers
and the amount of money that you can make as a farmer. Those are the factors
that are preventing students from becoming farmers. What captures students’
interest is not necessarily that technocracy around farming (Academic 3).

Three participants including one professor and two consultants pointed out that
most young people who want to become farmers do not have the capital investment to
acquire this digital farming equipment such as self-driven tractors, computers, and
drones. Moreover, they argue that those young farmers are focused on community-scale
farming and will adopt a specific technology if it aligns with their vision of a sustainable
food system. One professor explained:

This new generation of farmers want a very different life. They are not very hyper
capitalistic. They do not see themselves first and foremost as businesspeople
like other modern agriculturalists. They feel connected to the land, to plants and
animals and to the process of producing wholesome food or the community they
feel connected to. They will embrace technology that will help them to achieve
this goal and not antithetical to that. This is what I think. (Academic 1)

One of the two consultants added that digital agriculture will further reinforce
industrial farming while small-scale farmers will continue with their traditional and
regenerative organic farming. He commented:

I hypothesize that there would be two categories of would-be farmers. Those who
go to [Name of University] (financed by corporations to do that) who get trained in
all these DA stuffs and who then dream of getting a bank loan and investing in all
these digital technologies and become corporate industrial farmers. On the other
hand, you have those farmers who do not go to [Name of University], who learn
by trial and error by jumping right in and that digital agriculture freaks them out.
(Consultant 2)

One government official had a more positive outlook on how digital agriculture
could help new farmers enter the field of agriculture. Her main argument was that
innovations keep happening in all sectors and technology is useful for reducing farmers’
workload. She stated:

33
 In terms of encouraging young farmers, I think of innovative technology, new
tools, innovations on how you farm that is your precision agriculture and pest
management systems. New farmers will be looking out there for what is available
and adopting new tools. The technology side could attract more farmers to some
extent. Because farming was thought of initially as weeding and feeding and
technology changes how it is being done. It is appealing and could be attracting
more people than it would in the past. (Government 2)

4.7 Policies for Digital Agriculture Adoption

This question on policies around the adoption of Digital Agriculture was mainly
tailored for the government officials and the consultants but the professors also had
some interesting insights. All participants highlighted the responsibility and role of the
federal and provincial government in designing policies that would address the concerns
and barriers around the adoption of digital agriculture.

Three of the participants (all professors) emphasized the need to regulate

agricultural data that corporations are controlling and misusing at the expense of small
farmers. They believed that the government should decommodify the food system and
the food production industry by engaging more agricultural stakeholders and
safeguarding the livelihood and data privacy of small farmers. This perspective is
echoed by other scholars (Weersink et al., 2018). For digital agriculture to be considered
as an equalizer, one professor stated:

Right now, big companies see Digital Agriculture as a money-making venture to

consolidate power at the expense of the society. There is an important need for
not only ethics but for serious regulations and I think this is a very important
place for government to step in with a heavy hand and make sure that what
happens in this wild west starts to benefit small agricultural stakeholders also. I
do not trust the companies at all, and if the government steps in and starts to
realize the value of this data, digital agriculture could be a great equalizer.
(Academia 3)

The Government of BC has taken the lead in developing open-access digital

agricultural platforms and offering cost-shared programs for farmers to buy traceability
systems. The three government officials from the BC Ministry of Agriculture elaborated
on the different web-based digital tools such as the soil nutrient management calculator
that the ministry has developed to help farmers adhere to regulations and improve their
farming practices. One government officer stated:

34
 As for the environmental and nutrient management calculator ones, I think there
is a real demand for farmers for that. The irrigation calculator, they download it to
their cell phone, and they can know from the numbers what they should be doing
for the next few days. There is a demand and with the recent policy changes
around nutrient management which the ministry of Environment brought, they are
working very hard to develop new technologies to help farmers manage the
nutrient load on their land. (Government 2)

The consultants were more in favour of the government supporting small farmers
by providing them with the necessary financial aid and infrastructure for the adoption of
digital agriculture. One consultant commented:

An independent third party such as the BC Ministry of Agriculture could provide

support in terms of financial and human resources. (Consultant 3).

Finally, farmers in British Columbia face numerous problems such as a lack of

distribution and transportation infrastructure. Access to land and a good support system
is what new farmers need to be able to continue farming.

35
Chapter 5. Recommendations and Conclusion

While some provinces and local municipalities have adopted a systemic and
participatory approach to food governance by engaging with civil society and food
stakeholders to address local food needs and gaps, the discussion about the use of
digital agriculture should be on the table for educators. The series of interviews have
concluded that the three main agricultural stakeholders (Government, private sector and
academic) are not on the same wavelengths when it comes to the benefits and concerns
of an agritech sector in British Columbia. While government officials are for the
digitization of B.C.’s agricultural sector and affirm that the data collected from farmers on
government web-based platforms is safeguarded, the private training consultants and
professors expressed apprehension about agricultural data being owned by multi-
national companies to increase their profit margins. The majority of the participants
acknowledged that the adoption of DAT would better suit larger farms due to the
complexity of their operations and affordability. Professors stressed on the lack of
education and training in DAT at the tertiary level while the private consultants who are
directly involved with farmers, believe that a proper food supply infrastructure is the need
of the hour before making the transition to the digitization of the agriculture sector. With
the way DAT is being adopted by large-scale farms, there is a risk that medium-size
family-owned farms are wiped out from the agricultural landscape of rural parts of British
Columbia without government assistance and agricultural extension. An improvement of
the internet infrastructure across B.C. could make DAT an equalizer as it would help
small farmers connect to digital platforms and consumers. While such connection to the
open access technologies could open the gateway of information to farmers, lead to
more precise farming activities, and strengthen local food system network by increasing
food accessibility, internet access and lack of training in the use of DAT remain the most
significant barriers to the adoption of Digital Agriculture throughout British Columbia.

36
5.1. Recommendations

5.1.1 Investment in internet infrastructure in rural

communities

Based on the literature review and expert interviews, internet access was
identified as one of the major barriers to digital agriculture in British Columbia. With a
view to addressing this connectivity issue, the Government of British Columbia funded
the Connecting BC Program for providing broadband access to rural communities. The
first phase of this $ 100 million program has already been completed and involved
investing into the last-mile infrastructure to enable the populations in rural and remote
areas of BC to have high-internet access (Government of BC, 2021). The second and
third phases of Connecting BC Program focus on financially assisting internet service
providers and regional and local governments to reduce the digital divide between rural
and urban communities in BC. Hopefully, by the end of the three phases, most rural and
indigenous communities will have the necessary internet infrastructure should they
choose to make the transition to digital agriculture.

5.1.2 Create more awareness and outreach of free and open

access farmer-led digital agricultural tools and engage
agricultural extension workers.

The BC Ministry of Agriculture is already developing digital agriculture tools such

as the nutrient management calculator to accelerate training and education. These
digital tools are open source and are free for farmers to use at any time. Many of these
tools have been developed through farmers’ consultation or testing. However, there are
still many farmers who are unaware of such tools and have not even used these digital
agricultural platforms due to lack of training. More governmental outreach programs in
collaboration with the organizations such as the Climate and Agriculture Initiative (CAI)
and other third-party agencies should be organized to communicate and train farmers to
use these digital agricultural platforms but to also better understand farmers’ needs. The
BC Ministry of Agriculture also provides financial incentives such as the cost-shared
programs which allow small and medium farms to buy digital agriculture tools such as
traceability systems (Government of BC, 2021). A key focus would also be to support
farmer-led and farmer-tested DAT that is open sourced. To support better use of DAT,

37
there should be more outreach to farming communities and the reestablishment of
agricultural extension programs across British Columbia. Agricultural extension workers
can help support farmers in implementation and improving awareness about the
availability of open access digital agriculture innovations and resources for
environmental sustainability.

5.1.3 Inclusion of the equity aspect of Digital Agricultural

Technologies in food systems education and decision-
making

While not all of the educators agree with the value of DAT, this technology is
growing, and it is important for future food system professionals to be prepared and
approach DAT from an equity and holistic framework. Training and education in DAT can
be achieved through regular agricultural and or food programs and or dedicated agritech
institutes. One of the recommendations of the BC Food Security task force is to provide
more government support to B.C. universities for the implementation of more digital
agriculture research and training programs. However, a focus on digital agriculture
programs may not necessarily increase food security, improve climate change mitigation
and adaptation, increased availability of locally produced food and more profitability for
farmers (Hansen et al., 2020). When it comes to food security and increasing availability
of locally produced food, Hansen et al. (2020) argue that agritech investment will not
help to solve the issue of food insecurity as poverty and economic inequity remain the
barriers to feeding Canadians despite already low food prices (Food Insecurity Policy
Research [PROOF], 2018). Moreover, the commodification of land in the Metro
Vancouver region has rendered land prices high and agriculture is no longer affordable
for many farmers since the land value is based on its residential purpose rather than
agricultural purpose (Eagle et al., 2015). Another report by the Institute for Sustainable
System (2017) highlights the lack of a reliable food supply chain infrastructure which will
distribute locally grown food to all remote region of British Columbia. There is still a lot of
uncertainty on whether or not DAT would result in more affordable foods and whether
these foods would benefit low-income communities in British Columbia. When it comes
to lowering GHG emissions from B.C. agriculture sector, climate adaptation technologies
such as indoor growing system may increase energy demand to compensate the need
for artificial lighting (Hansen et al., 2020; Gray, 2016). Lastly, it is important to consider

38
equity in DAT investment as it may lead to greater production cost while the prices of
commodity and farmers’ profit will decrease. All these concerns about a future
digitization of B.C.’s agriculture sector should be studied in depth and stakeholders
should be cautious about the rapid digital transition unless it is done in a sustainable,
equitable and collective way.

5.1.4 Collaboration and engagement with Canada’s Food

Policy Council and small farming stakeholders

At a national level, the Food Policy for Canada aims to achieve a healthier and
sustainable food system which empowers farmers, producers, and food businesses in
Canada. Through the implementation and coordination of food-related policies and
programs costing around $ 134.4 million, the Food Policy for Canada seeks to create of
a long-term national and community-based food system which will be more resilient for
the benefit of Canadian communities (The Food Policy for Canada, 2020). According to
the Canadian Food Policy Advisory Council, this national food policy is one which is
guided by principles such as inclusion, collaboration, innovation, sustainability, and
accountability. Through the inclusion of rural, indigenous and small farming communities
in the dialogue about food-related issues and innovations such as digital agriculture, the
interests and concerns of these marginalized agricultural stakeholders are also given
weight in the decision-making process. This increased collaboration between the
government, all agricultural stakeholders, and the society can facilitate consensus and
the implementation of policies and regulations which address concerns around data
privacy and accountability, infrastructure, and equity.

5.1.5 Raising awareness about the role of food systems

planners (planners in general) in community
engagement around Digital Agricultural Technologies

Planning departments should continue to solidify food systems planning as sub-

discipline and understand that local food planning is not only about farmland
preservation (Brinkley, 2013). With a more digitized food system in British Columbia,
food systems planners should work with small farming communities to assess the status

39
of agricultural land, farmers’ capacity, needs and aspirations in the different regional
districts as it pertains to digital agriculture. Agricultural extension support and
improvements of agricultural infrastructure are the need of the hour for the economic
survival of small farmers. Food systems planners should act as an intermediary and
work with other key sectors/ stakeholders such as agriculturalists, agricultural
consultants/strategists, farmers, and policymakers to support agriculture in the province
while enabling farming communities to learn more about DAT.

Moreover, by collaborating with Young Agrarians, food systems planners can

also highlight the role of DAT to promote the British Columbia Land Matching Program
and increase access to land among young people who wish to become farmers (Young
Agrarians, 2021). Although the primary focus of DAT has been on increasing food
production, an unexplored potential of farm-led digital platforms is to connect farmers to
consumers who want to buy fresh produce within their neighborhood. As more small
farmers have access to the internet and can market their produce via digital platforms,
this can lead to an improvement of the local food distribution logistics as food grown
locally would be prioritized and thus, shorten the food supply chain. Hence, food system
planner needs to work with this plurality of agricultural stakeholders for marginalized
farmers to benefit from a digitized food system.

40
5. 2. Concluding Remarks

As a technological innovation, digital agriculture will play an important role and

influence the future of agriculture for farmers and how farms will operate in B.C. As such,
it must be practiced in a way that does not only promote benefits to large farmers and
agri-food corporations and takes into account the framework of equity. It is therefore
important for academic institutions to involve farmers of all scales, as well as students in
the development and testing of agricultural innovations to ensure that these technologies
will result in positive social benefits to farmers (particularly small farmers and new
farmers) many of whom are currently at a disadvantage in terms of capital, land and
resources. An academic sector that recognizes the trend in digital agricultural tools
across the province is what B.C. needs to ensure preparedness in this domain.

The digitization of B.C.’s agriculture sector is happening and is receiving

extensive financial support from the provincial and federal government. However, as
noted in the study, there is not one consensus about its benefits and as such, the
development of digital agricultural training and education should be done in such a way
that all agricultural stakeholders are part of this transition by taking into account diverse
perspectives. If the concerns of small farmers, the rural farming communities,
Indigenous communities, food practitioners, new farmers, and low-skilled agricultural
workers in British Columbia are addressed, the benefits of digital agriculture can
potentially be enhanced and be widely distributed, while the potential harms as noted in
this study can be prevented. While both the federal and provincial government view
agritech as a fast-growing industry and the use of DAT as a means of increasing food
production, food systems planners and other agricultural stakeholders should continue to
explore DAT from other approaches that will connect farmers to consumers and increase
food accessibility for British Columbians. Since agriculture is a shared federal-provincial
responsibility in Canada, both the federal government and the provincial government of
BC should work together with other public and private stakeholders to design policies
that would ensure that digital agriculture technologies contribute to a more resilient,
equitable, and sustainable food system.

41
References

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. (2017). An Overview of the Canadian Agriculture and
Agri-Food System 2017. Retrieved from:
https://ryancardwell.files.wordpress.com/2019/12 /overview-2017.pdf

AgriService BC. (2019). Fast Stats 2018- British Columbia’s AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND
SEAFOOD SECTOR. Retrieved from: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-
natural-resources-and-industry/agriculture-and-seafood/statistics/industry-and-
sector-profiles/fast-stats/fast_stats_2018.pdf

Akhtar, P., Frynas, J. G., Mellahi, K., & Ullah, S. (2019). Big Data‐Savvy Teams’ Skills, Big Data‐
Driven Actions and Business Performance. British Journal of Management, 30(2),
252–271. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12333

Ali, A., Qadir, J., Rasool, R., Sathiaseelan, A., Zwitter, A., & Crowcroft, J. (2016). Big data for
development: applications and techniques. Big Data Analytics, 1(1), 1.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41044-016-0002-4

American Planning Association (APA). 2007. Policy Guide on Community and Regional Food
Planning. Retrieved from:
https://www.planning.org/policy/guides/adopted/food.htm

B. C. Assessment. (2016). Requested B.C. Assessment Conveyance Price (2016). Full Report
forthcoming from the Institute for Sustainable Food Systems.

B.C. Food Security Task Force. (2020). The Future of B.C.’s Food System (Findings and
Recommendations). Retrieved from: https://engage.gov.bc.ca/app/upl
oads/sites/121/2020/01/FSTF-Report-2020-The-Future-of-Food.pdf

Balafoutis, A., Beck, B., Fountas, S., Vangeyte, J., Wal, T, Soto, I., Gomez-Barbero, M., Barnes, A,
& Eory, V. (2017). Precision agriculture technologies positively contributing to ghg
emissions mitigation, farm productivity and economics. Sustainability (Basel,
Switzerland), 9(8),1339. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9081339

Basso, B., Antle, J. Digital agriculture to design sustainable agricultural systems. Nat
Sustain 3, 254–256 (2020). https://doi-org/10.1038/s41893-020-0510-0

Béné, Christophe, Oosterveer, Peter, Lamotte, Lea, Brouwer, Inge D, de Haan, Stef, Prager,
Steve D, Talsma, Elise F, & Khoury, Colin K. (2019). When food systems meet
sustainability – Current narratives and implications for actions. World Development,
113, 116–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.08.011

Berry, David. (1978). Effects of Urbanization on Agricultural Activities. Growth and Change,
9(3), 2–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2257.1978.tb01024.x

Brinkley, C. (2013). Avenues into Food Planning: A Review of Scholarly Food System
Research. International Planning Studies, 18(2), 243–266.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13563475.2013.774150

42
Brown, M.E., Antle, J.M., Backlund, P., Carr, E.R., Easterling, W.E., Walsh, M.K., Ammann, C.,
Attavanich, W.,Barrett, C.B., Bellemare, M.F., Dancheck, V., Funk, C., Grace, K., Ingram,
J.S.I., Jiang, H., Maletta, H., Mata, T., Murray, A., Ngugi, M., Ojima, D., O’Neill, B., &
Tebaldi, C.(2015). Climate Change, Global Food Security, and the U.S. Food System.
146 pages. Retrieved from: http://www.usda.gov/oce/climate_c
hange/FoodSecurity2015Assessment/FullAssessment.pdf.

Brunner, D. (2019). Transforming farming through innovation. https://albertainnovate

s.ca/impact/newsroom/transforming-farming-through-innovation/

Camagni, R. (2011). Principi di economia urbana e territoriale. Roma: Carocci editore.

Canadian Institute of Planning. (2012). Healthy Communities Practice Guide. Retrieved

from: https://www.cip-icu.ca/Files/Healthy-Communities/CIP-Healthy-
Communities-Practice-Guide_FINAL_lowre.aspx

Carolan, M. (2017). Publicising Food: Big Data, Precision Agriculture, and Co‐Experimental
Techniques of Addition. Sociologia Ruralis, 57(2), 135–154.
https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12120

Chang, H., & Chen, T. (2015). “Exploring Spatial Patterns of Farmland Transactions and
Farmland Use Changes.” Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 187 (9): 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-015-4825-7

Chen, H., Weersink, A., Beaulieu, M., Lee, Y., & Nagelschmitz, K. (2019). A Historical Review
of Changes in Farm Size in Canada.

Clancy, K. (2004). Potential Contributions of Planning to Community Food Systems. Journal

of Planning Education and Research, 23(4), 435–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/0
739456X04264893

Clapp, J., & Ruder, S. (2020). Precision Technologies for Agriculture: Digital Farming, Gene-
Edited Crops, and the Politics of Sustainability. Global Environmental Politics, 20(3),
49–69. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00566

Cole, M. B., Augustin, M. A., Robertson, M. J., & Manners, J. M. (2018). The science of food
security. NPJ Science of Food, 2(1), 14–14. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41538-018-
0021-9

Custers, B. (2016). Click here to consent forever: Expiry dates for informed consent. Big
Data Video Edition, 3(1), 1–6.

Drolet, J. (2012). Climate change, food security, and sustainable development: a study on
community-based responses and adaptations in British Columbia, Canada.
Community Development (Columbus, Ohio), 43(5), 630–644.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2012.729412

Eagle, Alison J., Eagle, David E., Stobbe, Tracy E., and Kooten, G. Cornelis. (2015). “Farmland
Protection and Agricultural Land Values at the Urban‐Rural Fringe: British
Columbia's Agricultural Land Reserve.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics
97 (1): 282–98. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aau098

43
Édson Luis Bolfe, Lúcio André de Castro Jorge, Ieda Del’Arco Sanches, Ariovaldo Luchiari
Júnior, Cinthia Cabral da Costa, Daniel de Castro Victoria, Ricardo Yassushi Inamasu,
Célia Regina Grego, Victor Rodrigues Ferreira, and Andrea Restrepo Ramirez.
(2020). “Precision and Digital Agriculture: Adoption of Technologies and Perception
of Brazilian Farmers.” Agriculture (Basel) 10 (653): 653.
https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture10120653

Edwards, J.P, Kuhn-Sherlock, B, Dela Rue, B.T, & Eastwood, C.R. (2020). Short
communication: Technologies and milking practices that reduce hours of work and
increase flexibility through milking efficiency in pasture-based dairy farm
systems. Journal of Dairy Science, 103(8), 7172–7179.
https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2019-17941

ETC Group and Heinrich Boll Foundation. (2018). Forcing the Farm: How Gene Drive
Organisms Could Entrench Industrial Agriculture and Threaten Food Sovereignty.
http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/files/etc_hbf_ forcing_
the_farm_web.pdf.

Firbank, L. G., Attwood, S., Eory, V., Gadanakis, Y., Lynch, J. M., Sonnino, R., & Takahashi, T.
(2018). Grand Challenges in Sustainable Intensification and Ecosystem Services.
Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 2.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2018.00007

Foley, J. A, Ramankutty, N., Balzer, C., Bennett, E. M., Carpenter, S. R, Hill, J., Monfreda, C.,
Polasky, S., Rockstrom, J., Sheehan, J., Siebert, S., Tilman, D., Brauman, K. A, Zaks, D. P.
M, Cassidy, E. S., Gerber, J. S., Johnston, M., Mueller, N. D., O'CONNELL, C., … WEST, P.
C. (2011). Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature (London), 478(7369), 337–342.
https://doi.org/10. 1038/nature10452

Food Insecurity Policy Research [PROOF]. (2018). Household Food Security in Canada.
Retrieved from: https:// proof.utoronto.ca/food-insecurity/#1

Francis, C, Lieblein, G, Gliessman, S, Breland, T. A, Creamer, N, Harwood, R, Salomonsson, L,

Helenius, J, Rickerl, D, Salvador, R, Wiedenhoeft, M, Simmons, S, Allen, P, Altieri, M,
Flora, C, & Poincelot, R. (2003). Agroecology: The Ecology of Food Systems. Journal
of Sustainable Agriculture, 22(3), 99–118.https://doi.org/10.1300/J06 4v22n03_10

Fraser, A. (2019). Land grab/data grab: precision agriculture and its new horizons. The
Journal of Peasant Studies, 46(5), 893–912. https://doi.org/10.1080/0306
6150.2017.1415887

Fuglie, K., Gautam, M., Goyal, A., & Maloney, W. F. (2019). Harvesting Prosperity. World Bank
Publications. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1393-1

Garnett, T. & Godfray, C. (2012). Sustainable intensification in agriculture. Navigating a

course through competing food system priorities. Oxford, United Kingdom: Food
Climate Research Network and the Oxford Martin.

Garnett, T., Appleby, M.C., Balmford, A., Bateman, I.J., Benton, T.G., Bloomer, P., Burlingame,
B., Dawkins, M., Dolan, L., Fraser, D., Herrero, M., Hoffmann, I., Smith, P., Thornton,

44
 P.K., Toulmin, C., Vermeulen, S.J., & Godfrey, H. C. J. (2013). Sustainable
Intensification in Agriculture: Premises and Policies. Science (American Association
for the Advancement of Science), 341(6141), 33–34.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1234485

Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition. (2016). Food systems and
diets: Facing the challenges of the 21st century. London, UK, p. 133.

Government of British Columbia. (2020). Food Security Task Force-Results. Retrieved from:
https://engage.gov.bc.ca/govtogetherbc/impact/food-security-task-force-results/

Government of Canada (2018). Government of Canada to invest in national initiatives for

automation and digital technologies in the agriculture and agri-food sector.
Retrieved from: https://www.canada.ca/en/innovation-science-economic-
development/news/2018/ 12/government-of-canada-to-invest-in-national-
initiatives-for-automation-and-digital-technologies-in-the-agriculture-and-agri-
food-sector.html

Government of Canada. (2020). A Food Policy for Canada. Retrieved from: https://www.can
ada.ca/en/campaign/food-policy.html.

Government of Canada. (2020). Overview of the Canadian agriculture and agri-food sector
2018. https://agr.gc.ca/eng/canadas-agriculture-sectors/sector-overviews-data-
and-reports/overview-of-the-canadian-agriculture-and-agri-food-sector-
2018/?id=1605883547264&wbdisable=true#:~:text=The%20Canadian%20agricul
ture%20and%20agri%2Dfood%20system%20is%20a%20key,growth%20in%20th
e%20past%20decade.

Government of Canada. (2021). Canadian Agricultural Partnership. Retrieved from:

https://www. agr.gc.ca/eng/about-our-department/key-departmental-
initiatives/canadian-agricultural-partnership/?id=1461767369849

Gray, Alex. (2016). Which countries spend the most on food? World Economic Forum.
Retrieved from: https:// www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/12/this-map-shows-
how-much-each-country-spends-on-food/

Hammer, Janet. (2004). Community Food Systems and Planning Curricula. Journal of
Planning Education and Research, 23(4), 424–434.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X04264907

Hansen, E., Robert, N., Bomford, M., Harbut, R. & Mullinix, K. (2020). Response to the
Findings & Recommendations of the B.C. Food Security Task Force. Richmond,
British Columbia: Institute for Sustainable Food Systems, Kwantlen Polytechnic
University, 2020. Retrieved from:
https://www.kpu.ca/sites/default/files/ISFS%20Response_layoutFI NAL_0.pdf

Hickey, L. T., N Hafeez, A., Robinson, H., Jackson, S. A, Leal-Bertioli, S. C. M., Tester, M., Gao,
Ca., Godwin, I. D., Hayes, B. J., & Wulff, B. B. H. (2019). Breeding crops to feed 10
billion. Nature Biotechnology, 37(7), 744–754. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-
019-01529

45
Hilimire, K., Gillon, S., McLaughlin, B. C., Dowd-Uribe, B., & Monsen, K. L. (2014). Food for
Thought: Developing Curricula for Sustainable Food Systems Education Programs.
Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 38(6), 722–743.
https://doi.org/10.1080/2168 3565.2014.881456

Holt-Giménez, E., A. Shattuck, M. Altieri, H. Herren, & S. Gliessman. (2012). We already grow
enough food for 10 billion people ... and still can’t end hunger. Journal of Sustainable
Agriculture. 36 (6), 595–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/10440046.2012.695331

Ikred, J. (2002). The New Farm Crisis Calls for New Farm Policy. Presentation to the
Missouri Farmers’ Union Annual Conference. Jefferson City, MO. January 5, 2002.

Innovation News Network. (2020). Digital farming market to soar by 2025. Retrieved from:
https://www.inno vationnewsnetwork.com/digital-farming-market-to-soar-by-
2025/3444/

IPES. (2016). From uniformity to diversity: A paradigm shift from industrial agriculture to
diversified agroecological systems International Panel of Experts on Sustainable
Food systems, Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgium): IPES, 96.

Jordan, N., Grossman, J., Lawrence, P., Harmon, A., Dyer, W., Maxwell, B., Cadieux, K.V., Galt,
R., Rojas, A., Byker, C., Ahmed, S., Bass, T., Kebreab, E., Signh, V., Michaels, T., and
Tzenis, C. (2014). New Curricula for Undergraduate Food-Systems Education: A
Sustainable Agriculture Education Perspective. NACTA Journal, 58(4), 302–310.

Kern, M. (2015). Digital Agriculture. ISPSW. Retrieved from: https://www.zef.de/filea

dmin/user_upload/4saengenendt_download_331%20Digit%202015_Kern%5B1%5
D.pdf

Kirschenmann, F., Stevenson, G., Buttel, F., Lyson,T., Duffy, M.(2008). Why Worry About the
Agriculture of the Middle? www.agofthemiddle.org/papers/whitepaper2.pdf

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 Journal of Life Sciences, 90, 100315.

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? Global Food Security, 24, 100347.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2019.100347

Kooistra, L., Van der Wal, T.& Poppe, K. (2015). The role of new data sources in Greening
Growth – the case of Drones. Conference: Green Growth and Sustainable
Development Forum 2015.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286449965_T
he_role_of_new_data_sources_in_Greening_Growth_-_the_case_of_Drones

Lajoie-O’Malley, A., 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. Ecosystem Services, 45, 101183.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101183

46
Liu, J., Mooney, H., Hull, V., Davis, S.J., Gaskell, J., Hertel, T., Lubchenco, J., Seto, K.C., Gleick, P.,
Kremen, C., & Li, S. (2015). Systems integration for global sustainability. Science
(American Association for the Advancement of Science), 347(6225), 1258832.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1258832

Lokers, R., Knapen, R., Janssen, S., van Randen, Y., & Jansen, J. (2016). Analysis of Big Data
technologies for use in agro-environmental science. Environmental Modelling &
Software: with Environment Data News, 84, 494–504.https://doi.org/10.1
016/j.envsoft.2016.07.017

Lowder, S. K., Skoet, J., & Raney, T. (2016). The Number, Size, and Distribution of Farms,
Smallholder Farms, and Family Farms Worldwide. World Development, 87, 16–29.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.10.041

MacRae, R., & Donahue, K. (2013). Municipal food policy entrepreneurs: A preliminary
analysis of how Canadian cities and regional districts are involved in food system
change. https://foodsecurecanada.org/resources-news/resources-
research/municipal-food-policy-entrepreneurs

Matson, P.A., Parton, W.J, Power, A.G., & Swift, M.J. (1997). Agricultural intensification and
ecosystem properties. Science (American Association for the Advancement of
Science), 277(5325), 504–509. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.277.5325.504

McKinnon, C. (2019). Sleepwalking into lock-in? Avoiding wrongs to future people in the
governance of solar radiation management research. Environmental Politics, 28(3),
441–459. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2018.1450344

Mcmichael, P. (2013). Value-chain Agriculture and Debt Relations: contradictory

outcomes. Third World Quarterly, 34(4), 671–690.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2013.786290

Mehrabi, Z., McDowell, M.J., Ricciardi, V. et al. The global divide in data-driven
farming. Nature Sustainability 4, 154–160 (2021). https://doi-
org/10.1038/s41893-020-00631-0

Mendes, W., Nasr, J., Beatley, T., Born, B., Bouris, K., Caton Campbell, M., Kaufman, J., Lynch,
B., Pothukuchi, K., & Wekerle, G. (2011). Preparing Future Food System Planning
Professionals and Scholars: Reflections on Teaching Experiences. Journal of
Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 2(1), 15–28.
https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2011.021.022

Migliorini, P., Wezel, A., Veromann, E., Strassner, C., Średnicka-Tober, D., Kahl, J., Bügel, S.,
Briz, T., Kazimierczak, R., Brives, H., Ploeger, A., Gilles, U., Lüder, V, Schleicher-Deis,
O., Rastorgueva, N., Tuccillo, F., Talgre, L., Kaart, T., Ismael, D., & Rembiałkowska, E.
(2020). Students’ knowledge and expectations about sustainable food systems in
higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 21(6),
1087–1110. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-12-2019-0356

Morgan, K. (2013). The Rise of Urban Food Planning. International Planning Studies, 18(1),
1–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563475.2012.752189

47
Morin, E. (2020). CAAIN announces $15 million call for research projects to advance farm
technologies. Retrieved from: https://caain.ca/caain-announces-15-million-call-for-
research-projects-to-advance-farm-technologies/

Nanayakkara, J., Margerison, C., & Worsley, A. (2017). Importance of food literacy education
for senior secondary school students: food system professionals'
opinions. International Journal of Health Promotion and Education, 55(5-6), 284–
295. https://doi.org/10.1080/14635240.2 017.1372695

Newell, P., & Taylor, O. (2018). Contested landscapes: the global political economy of
climate-smart agriculture. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 45(1), 108–129.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2017.1324426

Ontario Professional Planners Institute (OPPI). (2011). Planning for food systems in
Ontario: A Call to Action. Retrieved from: http://www.
ontarioplanners.on.ca/pdf/a_call_to_action_f rom_oppi_june_24_2011.pdf.

Opara, L. U. (2003). Traceability in agriculture and food supply chain: a review of basic
concepts, technological implications, and future prospects. Journal of Food,
Agriculture and Environment, 1(1), 101-106. International Society for Food,
Agriculture, and Environment.

Ostry, A.S., Miewald, C.,and Beveridge, R.(2011). Climate Change and Food Security in British
Columbia, Pacific Solution for Climate Change. Retrieved form:
http://pics.uvic.ca/sites/ default/files/uploads/publications/
Food%20Security_2011.pdf.

Ozdogan. B., Gacar, A. and Aktas,H. (2017). Digital agriculture practices in the context of
agriculture 4.0. Journal of Economics, Finance and Accounting,4(2), 184-191.

Pandey. (2017). Digital Farming: Fostering Young People in Agricultural Landscape.

Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dinesh-Panday/publication
/320188634_Digital_Farming_Fostering_Young_People_in_Agricultural_Landscape/l
inks/59d3b1b60f7e9b4fd7ffbc43/Digital-Farming-Fostering-Young-People-in-
Agricultural-Landscape.pdf

Pant, L. P., & Hambly Odame, H. (2017). Broadband for a sustainable digital future of rural
communities: A reflexive interactive assessment. Journal of Rural Studies, 54, 435–
450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.09.003

Parcerisas, L., & Dupras, J. (2018). From mixed farming to intensive agriculture: energy
profiles of agriculture in Quebec, Canada, 1871–2011. Regional Environmental
Change, 18(4), 1047–1057. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-018-1305

Pigford, A. E., Hickey, G. M., & Klerkx, L. (2018). Beyond agricultural innovation systems?
Exploring an agricultural innovation ecosystems approach for niche design and
development in sustainability transitions. Agricultural Systems, 164, 116–121.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.04.007

Pothukuchi, K., & Kaufman, J. L. (2000). The Food System. Journal of the American Planning
Association, 66(2), 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360008976093

48
Qualman, D. (2017). Agribusiness takes all: 90 years of Canadian net farm income. Retrieved
from: https://www.darrinqualman.com/canadian-net-farm-income/

Research And Market. (2020). COVID-19 Impact on Digital Agriculture Market by Smart
Farming Systems (Livestock Monitoring, Yield Monitoring, Crop Scouting, Field
Mapping, Real-Time Safety Testing, and Climate Smart), and Region - Global
Forecast to 2021. Retrieved from:
https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/5116159/covid-19-impact-on-
digital-agriculture-market-by

Robert, N., & Mullinix, K. (2018). Municipal Policy Enabling Regional Food Systems in British
Columbia, Canada: Assessing Focal Areas and Gaps. Journal of Agriculture, Food
Systems, and Community Development, 8(B), 115-132.
https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2018.08B.003

Rose, D. C., & Chilvers, J. (2018). Agriculture 4.0: Broadening Responsible Innovation in an
Era of Smart Farming. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 2.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2018.00087

Rotz, S., Gravely, E., Mosby, I., Duncan, E, Finnis, E., Horgan, M., LeBlanc, J., Martin, R.,
Neufeld, H. T., Nixon, A., Pant, L., Shalla, V., & Fraser, E.. (2019). Automated pastures
and the digital divide: How agricultural technologies are shaping labour and rural
communities. Journal of Rural Studies, 68, 112–122.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.01.023

Sandström, V., Lehikoinen, E., & Peltonen-Sainio, P. (2018). Replacing Imports of Crop Based
Commodities by Domestic Production in Finland: Potential to Reduce Virtual Water
Imports. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 2.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2018.00067

Saunders, C., Driver, T., Mowat, A., Kaye-Blake, W., Payn, T., Bayne, K., Saunders, J.,
Whitehead, J., Miller, S., Tang, A., Guenther, M., Tait, P. (2016). Driving Better
Programme Investment and Accelerating Challenge Impact Through a Prioritisation
Matrix of International and National Perspectives. Retrieved from:
https://ourlandandwater.nz/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/ Matrix_report-B-
2016-09-30-002-FINAL-OLW.pdf

Schmaltz, R. (2019). Canada AgriFood Tech Market Map: 166 Startups Growing Canada’s
Agricultural Sector. Retrieved from: https://agfundernews.com/canada-agrifood-
tech-market-map-166-startups-grow-canadas-agricultural-sector.html

Shen, S., Basist, A., & Howard, A.. (2010). Structure of a digital agriculture system and
agricultural risks due to climate changes. Agriculture and Agricultural Science
Procedia, 1, 42–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aaspro.2010.09.006

Shepherd, M., Turner, J. A., Small, B., & Wheeler, D. (2020). Priorities for science to overcome
hurdles thwarting the full promise of the ‘digital agriculture’ revolution. Journal of
the Science of Food and Agriculture, 100(14), 5083–5092.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.9346

49
Shulman, L.S. (2005). Signature Pedagogies in the Professions. Daedalus (Cambridge,
Mass.), 134(3), 52–59. https://doi.org/10.1162/0011526054622015

Smith, B. E. (2012). A work in progress - The British Columbia farmland preservation

program. Retrieved from: https://www.alc.gov.bc.ca/alc/ content/library/archived-
publications/alr-history

Soma, T., & Wakefield, S. (2011). The emerging role of a food system planner: Integrating
food considerations into planning. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and
Community Development, 2(1), 53–64.
https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2011.021.006

Spaargaren, G. (2011). Theories of practices: Agency, technology, and culture. Exploring the
relevance of practice theories for the governance of sustainable consumption
practices in the new world-order. Global Environmental Change, 21(3), 813–822.

Statistics Canada. (2021). Farms reporting technologies used on the operation in the year
prior to the census. Retrieved from: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.a
ction?pid=3210044601&pickMembers%5B0%5D=1.2010

Statistics Canada. (2017). Highlights from the 2016 Census of Agriculture. Retrieved from:
https://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/news-from-agriculture-and-agri-food-canada/agri-
info/highlights-from-the-2016-census-of-agriculture/?id=1566407907174

Statistics Canada. (2018). Snapshot of Canadian Agriculture. Retrieved from:

https://www150.statcan. gc.ca/n1/pub/95-640-x/2011001/p1/p1-02-eng.htm#VI

Statistics Canada. (2021). Total number of farms and farm operators. Retrieved from:
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3210044001&pickMembe
rs%5B0%5D=1.2010&cubeTimeFrame.startYear=2011&cubeTimeFrame.endYear=
2016&referencePeriods=20110101%2C20160101

Storkey, J., Neve, P., & Liebman, M. (2018). What good is weed diversity? Weed Research,
58(4), 239–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/wre.12310

Tey, Y. S., Li, E., Bruwer, J., Abdullah, A. M., Brindal, M., Radan, A., Ismael, M. M., & Darham, S.
(2017). Factors influencing the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices in
developing countries: A review. Environmental Engineering and Management
Journal, 16(2), 337–349. https://doi.org/10.30638/eemj.2017.034

Valley, W., Wittman, H., Jordan, N., Ahmed, S. & Galt, R. (2018). An emerging signature
pedagogy for sustainable food systems education. Renewable Agriculture and Food
Systems, 33(5), 467–480. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170517000199

van der Burg, S., Bogaardt, M., & Wolfert, S. (2019). Ethics of smart farming: Current
questions and directions for responsible innovation towards the future. NJAS -
Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 90-91, 100289.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2019.01.001

Vitiello, D., & Brinkley, C. (2014). The Hidden History of Food System Planning. Journal of
Planning History, 13(2), 91–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/153 8513213507541

50
Waga, D. & Rabah, K. (2014). Environmental Conditions’ Big Data Management and Cloud
Computing Analytics for Sustainable Agriculture, World Journal of Computer
Application and Technology, 2(3), 73-81. Retrieved from:
https://silo.tips/download/environmental-conditions-big-data-management-and-
cloud-computing-analytics-for-s

Weersink, A., 2018. The growing heterogeneity in the farm sector and its implications.
Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66(1), pp.27-41.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cjag.12163

Weersink, A., Fraser, E., Pannell, D., Duncan, E., & Rotz, S. (2018). Opportunities and
Challenges for Big Data in Agricultural and Environmental Analysis. Annual Review
of Resource Economics, 10(1), 19–37. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-
100516-053654

Wegener, J., Seasons, M., & Raine, K. D. (2013). Shifting from Vision to Reality. Canadian
Journal of Urban Research, 22(1), 93–112.

White, B. (2012). Agriculture and the Generation Problem: Rural Youth, Employment and
the Future of Farming. IDS Bulletin (Brighton. 1984), 43(6), 9–19.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.2012.00375.x

Wield, D., Chataway, J., & Bolo, M. (2010). Issues in the Political Economy of Agricultural
Biotechnology. Journal of Agrarian Change, 10(3), 342–366.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0366.2010.00274.x

Wiseman, L., Sanderson, J., Zhang, A., & Jakku, E. (2019). Farmers and their data: An
examination of farmers’ reluctance to share their data through the lens of the laws
impacting smart farming. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 90-91,
100301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2019.04.007

Young Agrarians. (2021). B.C. Land Matching Program. Retrieved from: https://young
agrarian s.org/tools/land/bc-land-matching-program/

51
 Appendix A. Interview Questions

Interview Questions

1. Can you tell me about your role and how it relates to agriculture
training/education?

2. What is your general idea of digital agriculture?

3. Within your institution, do you engage with the topic of Digital Agriculture?
Do you cover some aspects of Digital Agriculture and talk about Digital
Agricultural tools in your classes?

4. Are students demanding training in Digital Agricultural technologies? Do

you think your institution should offer on the ground co-op training so that
students know how to use these digital agriculture tools?

5. Are the societal impacts of digital agriculture currently being studied in

agricultural education/curriculum?

6. The average age of Canadian Farmers is 55 years old. Studies have

shown that the children of farmers do not always farm, and it is a very
difficult field to enter due to cost and labour. Do you think that Digital
Agriculture would make students more interested in the field of
agriculture?

7. Can you elaborate on the benefits and concerns around the use of Digital
Agriculture? Does Digital Agriculture facilitate or hinder equity?

52
 Appendix B. NVivo Coding

NVIVO CODING

53
54
55