Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Catherine E Sanders
 + 1847 word(s) 1847 2021-11-07 10:35:31 |
2 Format correct
Vicky Zhou
 Meta information modification 1847 2021-11-18 06:42:23 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Sanders, C. Artificial Intelligence and Agricultural Sustainability. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/16111 (accessed on 24 April 2024).
Sanders C. Artificial Intelligence and Agricultural Sustainability. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/16111. Accessed April 24, 2024.
Sanders, Catherine. "Artificial Intelligence and Agricultural Sustainability" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/16111 (accessed April 24, 2024).
Sanders, C. (2021, November 17). Artificial Intelligence and Agricultural Sustainability. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/16111
Sanders, Catherine. "Artificial Intelligence and Agricultural Sustainability." Encyclopedia. Web. 17 November, 2021.
Artificial Intelligence and Agricultural Sustainability
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su132112033

Artificial intelligence (AI) is one innovation emerging from the digitalization trend, often being used for precision agriculture and to enhance smart farming techniques. The digitalization of agricultural systems is aimed at the technological optimization of production, value chains, and food systems, as well as minimizing the environmental impacts of agriculture. 

artificial intelligence systems thinking Twitter social media discourse sustainable innovations

1. Introduction

The global agricultural sector faces major challenges, such as a rapid, growing global population, climate change, resource depletion, soil degradation, water pollution, and biodiversity loss [1][2]. There are increasing calls for sustainable agricultural intensification to increase productivity [1], minimize environmental impacts, and provide social benefits [3]. Finding solutions that are economically, politically, environmentally, socially, and culturally sustainable is a seemingly insurmountable challenge; yet, digital technologies are often positioned as the transformational solution for solving global agricultural challenges [4]. The use of digital technologies to transform agri-food systems is often referred to as the fourth agricultural revolution and is characterized by “high-tech, radical, and potentially game-changing technologies” [2]. 
AI refers to the development and implementation of intelligent machines or softwares that act by recognizing and responding to their environments, thereby allowing for the analysis of large amounts of data [5][6]. Advancements in AI have already been applied to agricultural production contexts, with predictors expecting they will assist in ensuring global food security [6], ushering in a wave of AI innovation in the agricultural sector [7][8]. The benefits of integrating AI into agricultural production abound, ranging from improving the traceability of food-related outbreaks, improving hygiene on production sites, integrating supply chains, reducing waste related to production, reducing the agricultural sector’s carbon and ecological footprint, and increasing economic profitability [7]. The motivation underlying AI adoption in agriculture is the idea of using innovation to optimize production systems to feed an increasing global population while simultaneously conserving per capita agricultural land area and preserving soil health and environmental quality [9][10].
The role of AI in developing a sustainable agri-food system has been recognized [7]; yet, the holistic social and political sustainability of technology adoption, specifically related to digital technologies, remains a relatively unexplored subject area [3]. According to O’Connor [11], there are four spheres of sustainability: the environmental, economic, political, and social spheres, each interacting and acting upon the others in a reciprocal manner. Research related to AI in agriculture has widely integrated the environmental [12] and economic realm [13], with research emerging targeting the political and social realms [14]. Research to date has primarily focused on the technical aspects of applying technologies to improve agricultural practices or identifying the barriers to AI adoption [14][15][16]. Less frequently mentioned in the discourse surrounding the digital agricultural revolution are the potential negative impacts, or unintended consequences, of digital transformation on economic, environmental, social, and institutional systems that comprise the agri-food sector and beyond [4]. Research into the social sustainability of AI in agri-food systems [3][14][17] foreshadows a need to avoid the consequences of the agricultural innovations of the past, such as those experienced with the introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) [18]. In addition, anticipating unintended public and policy-related challenges emerging from the disruptions ushered in by agricultural innovations [19], especially those that reduce the labor market (which AI does), must be studied [5]. The current research on AI, outside of the agricultural sector, delimits many of the potential pitfalls of AI, including impacts on the labor market, the political landscape, and the medical field [20][21][22]. Limited research, however, examines the communication and outreach of AI as an emerging technology. Without examining the mechanisms of communication surrounding AI across sectors, scientists risk the efficacy and sustainability of an innovation within the global population. Effective communication and scientific outreach efforts should incorporate two-way communication between scientists and the public to not only improve the reputation of specific innovations but also to improve the development of innovations through listening to audiences and tailoring innovations to their needs [23].

2. Exploring Twitter Discourse around the Use of Artificial Intelligence to Advance Agricultural Sustainability

The findings supported previous research that described the discourse around agricultural innovations as overwhelmingly positive [2][3]. The general discourse within precision agriculture, and the AI conversation specifically, is operating under a pro-innovation bias [24], supported by the findings presented in the current study. Maintaining a techno-optimistic stance in outreach alone does not ensure widespread adoption in the public sphere, which will ultimately impact policy for a specific innovation if it trends negatively, as evidenced by the pitfalls experienced related to GMOs [18][25].
Using systems thinking to consider the consequences of an innovation within social, political, cultural, economic, and environmental contexts (Figure 1) may be an effective tool in making improvements to the innovation itself prior to widespread dissemination [26]. With the predominately positive outlook on AI in agriculture, few themes specifically addressed the potential drawbacks of the innovation, revealing a lack of systems thinking practice within innovation development and dissemination. Taking all aspects of a system adopting AI into account can also be used to improve outreach and science communication efforts related to AI as the industry considers widespread adoption as a solution to broad agricultural issues [24]. Considering the results, the environmental implications of AI in agriculture are already embedded within Twitter discourse, specifically as identified in the themes and subthemes of climate change, higher yields and productivity, and AI and sustainability. The use of AI in agriculture was positioned as a necessary solution for combating climate change, enhancing the environmental sustainability of production agriculture, and reducing land use through higher yields. The sustainability frame of AI in agriculture may be an effective messaging strategy when attempting to influence policy among more environmentally focused decision-makers, as well as environmentally focused potential adopters of the innovations.
Sustainability 13 12033 g001
Figure 1. Elements of systems thinking.
The economic context was also present within Twitter discourse, depicted through the increasing profits and reducing production costs theme. The economic frames, however, were predominantly production-oriented, limiting the messaging effects for policy related to increasing the use of AI and precision agriculture techniques. Economic arguments, both on the producer and the national/global scale related to market value, can increase buy-in for policymakers intending to promote more environmentally sustainable agricultural practices. Combining the environmental and economic contexts in the messaging can broaden the potential scope and efficacy of the innovation as these messaging strategies can demonstrate an environmentally focused solution with potential economic benefits. An additional gap in the economic discourse on Twitter was accounting for the potential of job loss within the agricultural sector due to AI and the associated anxiety of this loss in the labor market [17]. Without these discussions taking place within the public sphere (in this case, on social media), scientific innovations risk significant backlash and suspicion in the economic, social, and political contexts of the innovation both on the national and global scale [17].
The frames oriented toward the social context of AI in agriculture primarily focused on social challenges, such as feeding a growing population and food security. The social frames were primarily discussed in a global context, relating to complex challenges at the nexus of climate change and pressures on the food system. However, AI has the potential to disrupt the social patterns in farming communities, relating not only to the social context but the political and cultural contexts as well. For example, the need for digital literacy and access could create unequal power structures within social systems where AI is implemented, especially in a global setting [27][28][29], so strategies for outreach should be attuned to minimizing this risk considering these contexts simultaneously.
Within the behavioral context, communications surrounding the diffusion of AI in agriculture remain centered around prioritizing adoption, aligned with Rogers [24] diffusion of innovation theory. However, limited messaging strategies incorporated other aspects of behavior change related to AI aside from the general benefits of adoption. In order to promote the social sustainability of AI in agriculture among not only producers, the messages should target policymakers and others with decision-making power to outline the needed actions for the sustainable integration of AI in agriculture across the diverse agri-food system. The contexts in which innovations exist continually overlap at the interstices of social, cultural, political, economic, environmental, and behavioral systems; thus, the potential unintended consequences of an innovation should not be discussed within an isolated context. Through the systems thinking approach, stakeholders are encouraged to anticipate the ripple effects of an innovation across these six contexts, increasing the sustainability of the innovation across the system.
Relative to the higher-level AI conversation, the discourse around the agricultural applications of AI is a small subset of the general AI discourse on Twitter. Remaining secluded from the broader AI communication spectrum, while potentially positive now due to the ability to avoid broader controversies attributed to AI, the agricultural sector is extremely susceptible to any backlash should a crisis occur or public opinion quickly turn. As evidenced in the results, the agricultural industry sits at a precipice of choosing to be proactive in obtaining public support for the use of AI to increase the sustainability of agriculture or remaining dependent upon blind techno-optimism that could limit the innovation’s resilience [25].
The findings indicate that the practitioners working at the intersection of precision agriculture and sustainability have a unique opportunity to be proactive communicators and strive to build a relationship and connection to the public around AI’s use in agriculture. Connecting sustainability and precision agriculture in outreach efforts, by placing an emphasis on environmental sustainability, the public trust in production agriculture can be improved, especially with AI exhibiting the potential to have a massive global impact on the labor and food market [2]. Specifically, social media communication campaigns should be developed that highlight the benefits of AI use in agriculture using visual imagery and video that the public can associate with solving environmental issues (e.g., reduced leaching into lakes and rivers, reduction in algae blooms in popular recreational areas, increased yields with less fertilizer and pesticide application). The communication campaigns could be collaborative, where scientists and agricultural companies and/or farmers are showcased working together to identify and evaluate the benefits of AI use. Once in place, the impact of the campaign should be measured, and compared to the baseline shared here, to determine if the public discourse is altered by the communication effort. Logically conducting public discourse analysis over time will ultimately help to predict backlash against any innovation that may be introduced, and, when combined with the systems thinking approach, improve the system-level sustainability of innovations prior to dissemination.

3. Conclusions

The overall discourse around AI and precision agriculture was generally positive, without widespread consideration of the potential drawbacks of the innovation, which supported previous research [2][3]. The implications include emphasizing a systems thinking approach for both innovation development and dissemination to improve the system-level of an innovation. The framework depicted in Figure 1 may assist as a reference point to ensure practitioners and scientists consider the various contexts in which the innovation will interact, emphasizing the need for considering the social, cultural, political, environmental, economic, and behavioral aspects of an innovation. With many livelihoods depending on the agricultural sector, combined with a broader need for increased sustainable practices, a systems thinking approach to innovation development and dissemination will combine critical thinking with evidence-based science to enhance sustainability across sectors.

References

  1. Firbank, L.G.; Attwood, S.; Eory, V.; Gadanakis, Y.; Lynch, J.M.; Sonnino, R.; Takahashi, T. Grand Challenges in Sustainable Intensification and Ecosystem Services. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2018, 2, 7.
  2. Klerkx, L.; Rose, D. Dealing with the Game-Changing Technologies of Agriculture 4.0: How Do We Manage Diversity and Responsibility in Food System Transition Pathways? Glob. Food Secur. 2020, 24, 100347.
  3. Barrett, H.; Rose, D.C. Perceptions of the Fourth Agricultural Revolution: What’s In, What’s Out, and What Consequences Are Anticipated? Sociol. Rural. 2020.
  4. Rijswijk, K.; Klerkx, L.; Bacco, M.; Bartolini, F.; Bulten, E.; Debruyne, L.; Dessein, J.; Scotti, I.; Brunori, G. Digital Transformation of Agriculture and Rural Areas: A Socio-Cyber-Physical System Framework to Support Responsibilisation. J. Rural Stud. 2021, 85, 79–90.
  5. Acemoglu, D.; Restrepo, P. The Wrong Kind of AI? Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Labour Demand. Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 2020, 13, 25–35.
  6. Patrício, D.I.; Rieder, R. Computer Vision and Artificial Intelligence in Precision Agriculture for Grain Crops: A Systematic Review. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2018, 153, 69–81.
  7. Di Vaio, A.; Boccia, F.; Landriani, L.; Palladino, R. Artificial Intelligence in the Agri-Food System: Rethinking Sustainable Business Models in the COVID-19 Scenario. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4851.
  8. Jha, K.; Doshi, A.; Patel, P.; Shah, M. A Comprehensive Review on Automation in Agriculture Using Artificial Intelligence. Artif. Intell. Agric. 2019, 2, 1–12.
  9. Zhang, P.; Guo, Z.; Ullah, S.; Melagraki, G.; Afantitis, A.; Lynch, I. Nanotechnology and Artificial Intelligence to Enable Sustainable and Precision Agriculture. Nat. Plants 2021, 7, 864–876.
  10. Klein Goldewijk, K.; Dekker, S.C.; van Zanden, J.L. Per-Capita Estimations of Long-Term Historical Land Use and the Consequences for Global Change Research. J. Land Use Sci. 2017, 12, 313–337.
  11. O’Connor, M. The “Four Spheres” Framework for Sustainability. Ecol. Complex. 2006, 3, 285–292.
  12. Nishant, R.; Kennedy, M.; Corbett, J. Artificial Intelligence for Sustainability: Challenges, Opportunities, and a Research Agenda. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020, 53, 102104.
  13. Ruiz-Real, J.L.; Uribe-Toril, J.; Torres Arriaza, J.A.; de Pablo Valenciano, J. A Look at the Past, Present and Future Research Trends of Artificial Intelligence in Agriculture. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1839.
  14. Klerkx, L.; Jakku, E.; Labarthe, P. A Review of Social Science on Digital Agriculture, Smart Farming and Agriculture 4.0: New Contributions and a Future Research Agenda. NJAS—Wagening. J. Life Sci. 2019, 90–91, 100315.
  15. Devitt, S.K. Cognitive Factors That Affect the Adoption of Autonomous Agriculture. Farm Policy J. 2018, 15, 49–60.
  16. Tzachor, A. Barriers to AI Adoption in Indian Agriculture: An Initial Inquiry. Int. J. Innov. Digit. Econ. 2021, 12, 30–44.
  17. Sparrow, R.; Howard, M. Robots in Agriculture: Prospects, Impacts, Ethics, and Policy. Precis. Agric. 2021, 22, 818–833.
  18. Mohorčich, J.; Reese, J. Cell-Cultured Meat: Lessons from GMO Adoption and Resistance. Appetite 2019, 143, 104408.
  19. Sadras, V.O. Agricultural Technology Is Unavoidable, Directional, Combinatory, Disruptive, Unpredictable and Has Unintended Consequences. Outlook Agric. 2020, 49, 293–297.
  20. Desai, A.N. Artificial Intelligence: Promise, Pitfalls, and Perspective. JAMA 2020, 323, 2448–2449.
  21. Helbing, D.; Frey, B.S.; Gigerenzer, G.; Hafen, E.; Hagner, M.; Hofstetter, Y.; van den Hoven, J.; Zicari, R.V.; Zwitter, A. Will Democracy Survive Big Data and Artificial Intelligence? In Towards Digital Enlightenment: Essays on the Dark and Light Sides of the Digital Revolution; Helbing, D., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 73–98. ISBN 978-3-319-90869-4.
  22. Jensen, B.M.; Whyte, C.; Cuomo, S. Algorithms at War: The Promise, Peril, and Limits of Artificial Intelligence. Int. Stud. Rev. 2020, 22, 526–550.
  23. Yuan, S.; Oshita, T.; AbiGhannam, N.; Dudo, A.; Besley, J.C.; Koh, H.E. Two-Way Communication between Scientists and the Public: A View from Science Communication Trainers in North America. Int. J. Sci. Educ. Part B 2017, 7, 341–355.
  24. Rogers, E. Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed.; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 2003.
  25. Chivers, C.-A.; Rose, D. Viewpoint: Genetics and AI Have Launched an Agricultural Revolution. But “blind Techno-Optimism” Could Have Harmful Consequences. Available online: https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2020/12/04/who-will-benefit-from-the-fourth-agricultural-revolution/ (accessed on 27 September 2021).
  26. de Boon, A.; Sandström, C.; Rose, D.C. Governing Agricultural Innovation: A Comprehensive Framework to Underpin Sustainable Transitions. J. Rural Stud. 2021, in press.
  27. Carolan, M. “Urban Farming Is Going High Tech” Digital Urban Agriculture’s Links to Gentrification and Land Use. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2020, 86, 47–59.
  28. Rotz, S.; Gravely, E.; Mosby, I.; Duncan, E.; Finnis, E.; Horgan, M.; LeBlanc, J.; Martin, R.; Neufeld, H.T.; Nixon, A.; et al. Automated Pastures and the Digital Divide: How Agricultural Technologies Are Shaping Labour and Rural Communities. J. Rural Stud. 2019, 68, 112–122.
  29. Smith, M.J. Getting Value from Artificial Intelligence in Agriculture. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2018, 60, 46–54.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Environmental Studies; Communication; Green & Sustainable Science & Technology
Contributor MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Catherine Sanders
View Times: 1.6K
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 18 Nov 2021
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Feedback