Send message to Authors

Short abstract:

We provide first insights into how farmers might integrate weeding robots into their farming practices and identify socio-cultural and material challenges going along with these decision-making processes. The paper puts a focus on changes in habits evoked by the novel weeding technology.

Long abstract:

This contribution zooms in on farmer´s practices and, in particular, their potential adoption of a weeding robot. The robot, called Uckerbot, is developed explicitly as a response to current challenges of weed control in (organic) sugar beet cultivation in north-eastern Germany (Steinherr et al., 2023). However, the question remains whether and in how far farmers will decide to use the robot.

We argue that the adoption of technological innovation always requires parallel social or organizational change, as actors may need new competencies and strategies to integrate the technology into their practices (Rammert, 1998). Specifically, studies of innovation in agriculture are criticized for neglecting how farmers respond to novel technologies, and apply them in practice, potentially forming new habits and adjusting the technology to their needs (Arora and Glover, 2017, p. 1; Higgins et al., 2017).

Accordingly, we focus on farmers’ practices in relation to the potential adoption of the Uckerbot. Drawing on transactional pragmatism, we examine farmers’ current habits and their processes of decision-making regarding the adoption of the weeding robot (privileging) (De Roeck and Van Poeck, 2023; Dewey, 1938; Van Poeck et al., 2020). These include not only the manageability of the new technology, but also the compatibility of new practices of monitoring the robot with other farming habits. For the latter, the business model (sale, rental and support of the robot) plays a crucial role. Our paper provides first insights into the use of robots beyond dairy agriculture that are currently still rare (Spykman et al., 2021).

Literature

Arora, S., Glover, D., 2017. Power in Practice: Insights from Technography and Actor-Network Theory for Agricultural Sustainability (STEPS Working Paper No. 100). STEPS, Brighton.

De Roeck, F., Van Poeck, K., 2023. Agency in action: Towards a transactional approach for analyzing agency in sustainability transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 48, 100757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2023.100757

Dewey, J., 1938. Experience and Education. Free Press, New York/ London/ Toronto / Sydney New Delhi.

Higgins, V., Bryant, M., Howell, A., Battersby, J., 2017. Ordering adoption: Materiality, knowledge and farmer engagement with precision agriculture technologies. Journal of Rural Studies 55, 193–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.08.011

Rammert, W., 1998. Technik und Sozialtheorie. Campus, Frankfurt a.M.

Spykman, O., Gabriel, A., Ptacek, M., Gandorfer, M., 2021. Farmers’ perspectives on field crop robots – Evidence from Bavaria, Germany. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 186, 106176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2021.106176

Steinherr, L., Birkmann, A., Bloch, R., 2023. Roboterschwärme auf dem Feld. Lumbrico 15, 14–18.

Van Poeck, K., Östman, L., Block, T., 2020. Opening up the black box of learning-by-doing in sustainability transitions. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 298–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2018.12.006