4.7 Article

Precision Agriculture Implementation Factors and Adoption Potential: The Case Study of Polish Agriculture

期刊

AGRONOMY-BASEL
卷 12, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/agronomy12092226

关键词

precision agriculture; adoption factors; ranking; Poland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper addresses the slow pace of Precision Agriculture (PA) introduction in developed, transitioning, and developing countries, focusing on PA adoption in Poland as a case study. By identifying PA adoption factors and ranking the adoption potential of Polish voivodships, this study contributes to the literature on transitioning economies.
Some of the current economic, social and environmental challenges could potentially be addressed by Precision Agriculture (PA) introduction. However, the pace of PA introduction is found to be slower than expected in developed, transitioning and developing countries, with the PA adoption literature is predominantly been focused on research on PA adoption in developed world. This paper addresses these shortcomings by identification and explanation of PA adoption factors and compilation of the regional ranking of PA adoption potential for 16 Polish voivodships. It contributes to the PA adoption factors' literature by filling the gap on under-researched transitioning economies using Poland as a case-study. The key PA adoption factors were identified by Systematic Literature Review (SLR) based on the final sample of 21 papers from journals indexed in Scopus or Web of Science databases and were organized in 5 groups (socio-economic, agro-technological, financial, technological, and informational factors). These factors formed the conceptual framework for the ranking of PA adoption potential of 16 Polish voivodships based on the application of Sturgess rule. The analysis of PA adoption potential of 16 Polish voivodships shows the clear core-periphery divergence: i.e., well-developed metropolitan areas got the highest ranking and less developed peripheral regions were ranked low.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据