Search

Smart farming increasingly operates through digital platforms that connect farm machinery, sensors, remote-sensing services, advisory systems, agricultural inputs, data analytics, and decision-support applications. Although these arrangements may improve coordination and service integration, their governance implications cannot be evaluated through technological functionality or productivity expectations alone. This article develops an original conceptual model for examining platform governance in smart farming as a socio-technical problem involving data power, platform dependency, value creation, value capture, farmer autonomy, and accountability. The model begins with platform ecosystem mapping, actor identification, and agricultural data-flow analysis. It then assesses how data access, control, portability, interoperability, asymmetry, algorithmic influence, switching costs, and service bundling may shape dependency relationships. A parallel value pathway distinguishes ecosystem value creation from value capture and distribution among farmers, platform operators, technology providers, advisers, suppliers, complementors, cooperatives, and public institutions. Farmer autonomy is examined through decision rights, informed participation, practical agency, human oversight, trust, digital inclusion, and access to contestation and remedy. The model further links identified risks to governance mechanisms such as data stewardship, transparency, auditability, interoperability requirements, participatory governance, farmer representation, accountability structures, and dispute resolution. Its main contribution is a structured framework for evaluating smart farming platforms through power, dependency, distribution, and agency rather than platform performance alone. The model supports conceptual analysis and research design but requires contextual implementation and empirical validation.

Precision agriculture is increasingly shaped by sensors, remote sensing, artificial intelligence, automated machinery, digital platforms, and data-driven decision support. However, technical capability alone does not establish whether a smart farming system is usable, locally appropriate, socially responsible, environmentally beneficial, resilient under disruption, or worthy of farmer reliance. This conceptual article proposes a human-centered precision agriculture framework that places farmers, farm workers, agricultural advisors, local knowledge, farm conditions, usability, accessibility, explainability, decision confidence, human oversight, and responsible governance at the center of system design. The framework integrates sustainability and resilience assessment with user-centered artificial intelligence, participatory design, transparent data practices, uncertainty communication, accountable decision support, and iterative learning. It distinguishes decision confidence from decision quality, explainability from guaranteed trust, participation from assured adoption, and technological potential from demonstrated sustainability or resilience. The proposed structure organizes human-centered smart farming into interconnected stages covering problem definition, stakeholder mapping, farmer-needs assessment, data and system context, sustainability and resilience requirements, explainability design, participation, oversight, governance, evaluation, and feedback. Its main contribution is a socio-technical framework for structuring research and design priorities while maintaining explicit boundaries around empirical validation, farmer autonomy, responsible implementation, and claims of system readiness.

Smart farming technologies are frequently associated with improved efficiency, environmental performance, and adaptive agricultural management, yet digital capability alone does not establish sustainability. This article proposes a sustainability-by-design framework that embeds environmental, economic, social, resilience, and governance considerations into the design and evaluation of smart farming technologies. The framework connects digital agriculture capabilities with resource-use baselines, water- and nutrient-use assessment, conditional pesticide and energy considerations, soil and biodiversity relevance, waste and emissions evaluation, and human oversight. It further integrates climate-risk assessment, scenario planning, adaptive farm-system design, operational resilience, learning feedback, and explicit boundaries against treating monitoring or prediction as proof of climate resilience. Social value is addressed through farmer participation, autonomy, digital inclusion, accessibility, usability, affordability, local relevance, knowledge integration, trust, transparency, data governance, and accountability. Cross-cutting sustainability design principles include context sensitivity, life-cycle thinking, interoperability, trade-off assessment, uncertainty communication, evaluation planning, controlled updating, and clearly defined decision boundaries. The proposed framework is intended to organize design choices, evidence requirements, governance safeguards, and future evaluation rather than prescribe farm-management actions or certify sustainable outcomes. Its main contribution is a structured socio-technical model for examining when, how, for whom, and under what conditions smart farming technologies may support sustainability-oriented agricultural transformation.

Smart farming increasingly operates through interconnected socio-technical ecosystems rather than through isolated technologies deployed at farm level. These ecosystems involve farmers, advisors, technology and platform providers, data intermediaries, equipment and input suppliers, cooperatives, public institutions, research and extension organizations, and agri-food supply-chain actors. This article develops a conceptual ecosystem model for examining how these stakeholders contribute to data-driven agricultural innovation and how value may be created, captured, and distributed through their interactions. The model-building approach integrates stakeholder roles, multidirectional data and knowledge flows, analytics and advisory services, platform coordination, institutional support, co-production, and co-innovation. It distinguishes farmer value, platform value, supply-chain value, public value, knowledge value, and sustainability value while treating value capture and distribution as separate analytical questions. Governance dimensions include data access, control, sharing, interoperability, portability, stewardship, transparency, accountability, trust, participation, digital inclusion, dependency, and power imbalance. The principal contribution is a structured framework that connects innovation processes with governance and distributional boundaries rather than assuming that technological deployment automatically produces shared value or farmer benefit. The model is intended to support conceptual analysis, stakeholder dialogue, and future empirical research. It does not establish the effectiveness, fairness, policy suitability, commercial viability, or implementation readiness of any particular smart farming ecosystem.

Artificial intelligence is increasingly embedded in smart farming systems, yet explanation requirements are often treated as a single technical attribute rather than as stakeholder-dependent needs. This article develops a conceptual taxonomy of explainability requirements across agricultural decision contexts. The taxonomy approach distinguishes stakeholders by their roles, decision consequences, explanation purposes, required explanation objects, usability expectations, accountability needs, trust risks, and implementation boundaries. Farmers may require accessible, locally relevant, actionable, and uncertainty-aware explanations that preserve autonomy. Agronomists and advisors may require model logic, input relevance, data-quality information, output rationale, limitations, and evidence supporting professional validation. Regulatory stakeholders may require traceability, documentation, auditability, risk justification, and clear responsibility allocation. Platform providers, technology providers, data intermediaries, system operators, and data stewards may require lifecycle transparency, monitoring information, provenance records, version histories, and incident reconstruction. Supply-chain and sustainability actors may require interpretable provenance and decision boundaries without treating explanation as proof of quality, sustainability, or compliance. The taxonomy also identifies failures including under-explanation, over-explanation, misleading explanations, uncertainty omission, explanation overload, false confidence, provenance opacity, accountability gaps, and trust miscalibration. Its main contribution is a structured account of how explanation requirements change across stakeholders and decision settings. The taxonomy is conceptual and requires stakeholder validation, usability testing, governance assessment, and domain-specific evaluation before operational application.

Smart farming platforms are frequently conceived around persistent connectivity, modern devices, scalable cloud services, specialized technical support, and the financial capacity to adopt integrated digital systems. These assumptions may not hold in smallholder and connectivity-constrained agricultural settings, where infrastructure gaps, uneven digital skills, limited advisory access, maintenance difficulties, data costs, language diversity, and uncertain platform governance shape whether digital services are usable or sustainable. This article develops a conceptual design science framework for low-resource smart farming platforms. The framework links problem relevance, contextual requirement definition, design principles, platform artifact logic, implementation conditions, evaluation needs, feedback, and framework updating. It focuses on affordability, transparent costs, incremental adoption, modular architecture, interoperability, offline-first operation, low-bandwidth communication, local usability, accessible interaction, advisory integration, maintenance capacity, farmer data control, and trust. The proposed approach treats smallholders as heterogeneous users operating within diverse production systems, infrastructures, institutions, and knowledge networks. Platform functions are therefore organized as configurable responses to identified conditions rather than as a universal technology package. The principal contribution is a structured design science logic for translating low-resource agricultural problems into bounded platform requirements and evaluable conceptual artifacts. The framework can guide platform design and research planning, but it does not independently demonstrate affordability, inclusion, adoption, scalability, sustainability, operational safety, or deployment readiness. These outcomes require local usability assessment, affordability analysis, governance review, maintenance evaluation, implementation research, and field validation involving intended users and supporting institutions.

Agricultural artificial intelligence increasingly combines sensor measurements, remote sensing, farm records, predictive modelling, and digital decision support. Yet agricultural context cannot be adequately represented through machine-readable data or model performance alone. Farming decisions are also shaped by tacit knowledge, farmer expertise, local ecological understanding, seasonal experience, farm history, cultural relationships, and institutional power. This article proposes a conceptual framework for integrating these dimensions into context-aware agricultural AI without treating local or Indigenous knowledge as extractable technical inputs. The framework begins with context-aware use-case definition and farm, agroecological, cultural, and historical context mapping. It then distinguishes tacit, experiential, situated, local, Indigenous, traditional ecological, scientific, and model-based knowledge while preserving differences in authority, representation, and validation. Participatory design, farmer-centered design, knowledge co-production, human oversight, local validation, knowledge sovereignty, Indigenous data sovereignty, access control, and ethical review are positioned as interconnected requirements rather than optional additions. The framework also addresses knowledge extraction, misappropriation, decontextualization, translation loss, contextual bias, algorithmic opacity, consent ambiguity, unequal benefit distribution, and trust overclaiming. Its principal contribution is a staged architecture that links knowledge plurality with contextual interpretation, governance safeguards, uncertainty communication, feedback, and explicit decision boundaries. The framework is intended to guide conceptual development and research design. It does not authorize knowledge use, establish community or Indigenous approval, validate Indigenous knowledge through AI, guarantee cultural appropriateness or trust, or demonstrate operational or deployment readiness.