Responsible development of digital livestock technologies for agricultural challenges
Purpose, practicality and effects are key considerations
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 4446232 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Hugh F Williamson (0000-0002-6381-7638, Department of Management Faculty of Environment, Science and Economics University of Exeter Exeter UK, corresponding author), Sarah Hartley (0000-0002-4849-5685, Department of Management Faculty of Environment, Science and Economics University of Exeter Exeter UK) |
| Year | 2024 |
| Volume | 64 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 662-684 |
| Publication date | 2024-10-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Sociologia Ruralis (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0038-0199 • E-ISSN: 1467-9523 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/soru.12492 |
| OpenAlex | W4402019171 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 59 |
Digital livestock technologies (DLTs) are presented as solutions to grand challenges in post-Brexit British agricultural policy, such as climate change and food security. Evidence suggests technological solutions to agricultural challenges will be more effective with stakeholder and public engagement, yet there is little known about stakeholder views on these emerging technologies. We drew on responsible research and innovation, to analyse stakeholder perspectives on three case studies of DLT development through anticipatory focus groups with expert stakeholders in British animal agriculture. We found that stakeholders from broadly agroecological approaches to farming are at risk of exclusion from DLT development and policy, with negative implications for the ability of DLTs to resolve grand challenges in animal agriculture. We propose a heuristic framework of purpose, practicality and effects as key considerations for inclusive and responsible DLT development that contributes to ensuring effective solutions to grand challenges while avoiding wasted investments
Agriculture · Agroecology · Business · Emerging technologies · Food security · Geography · Key (lock) · Livestock · Political science · Public relations · Responsible Research and Innovation · Stakeholder · Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact · Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies · Computer Science · Human-Animal Interaction Studies
Reconfiguring the Senses
How agricultural research systems shape a technological regime that develops genetic engineering but locks out agroecological innovations
Agriculture 4.0
Dealing with the game-changing technologies of Agriculture 4.0
What’s wrong with global challenges
Challenge-driven innovation and responsible innovation
Six modes of co-production for sustainability
Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research
Four approaches to anticipatory climate governance
Automating Agroecology
Precision Livestock Farming and Farmers’ Duties to Livestock
The anticipatory governance of sustainability transformations
Transdisciplinary research for wicked problems
Exploring inclusion in UK agricultural robotics development
Diversity in agricultural technology adoption
Imprecision farming? Examining the (in)accuracy and risks of digital agriculture
Understanding 'anticipatory governance
New but for whom? Discourses of innovation in precision agriculture
A call to expand disciplinary boundaries so that social scientific imagination and practice are central to quests for 'responsible' digital agri-food innovation
Reflecting on opportunities and challenges regarding implementation of responsible digital agri-technology innovation
Responsible digital agri-food innovation in Australian and New Zealand public research organisations
Automation Systems for Farm Animals
Towards an anticipatory public engagement methodology
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |