Diffusion of innovation in controlled environment agriculture: A mixed-methods study of digital decision support tool adoption
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Controlled environment agriculture (CEA) enables farmers to manage all aspects of crop growing environments. However, the complexity of operations necessitates decision-support tools (DSTs) that integrate and analyze large datasets for optimized management. Despite their benefits, the adoption of DSTs is influenced by factors beyond technical effectiveness, such as cost, usability, and perceived value. This study aimed to evaluate the experiences and perceptions of CEA operators regarding DSTs, identify barriers to adoption, and determine the characteristics necessary for widespread acceptance, using the Diffusion of Innovation Theory as a framework. A mixed-methods approach was employed, consisting of a survey of 44 CEA operators across the United States by in-depth interviews with 14 respondents. The survey and interviews explored DST experiences, concerns, and desired features, with data analyzed using thematic analysis. Farmers desired general farm management tools that could be easily customized to their specific needs and operations. Key preferences included seamless data integration across tools, automation, and Artificial Intelligence (AI) integration for predictive modeling and decision suggestions, while maintaining human oversight. Cost and trialability were major barriers, with farmers requiring financial benefits that outweigh costs. Complexity of use and incompatibility with existing workflows were significant deterrents to adoption. The findings underscore the importance of user-centered design, financial feasibility, and demonstrable tool performance. This study highlights critical factors influencing DST adoption in CEA and provides actionable insights for developers to design tools that are cost-effective, user-friendly, and customizable. Addressing these barriers can enhance adoption rates and optimize farm operations, ultimately advancing the CEA industry.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".