Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Who and what gets recognized in digital agriculture: agriculture 4.0 at the intersectionality of (Dis)Ableism, labor, and recognition justice

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper builds on prior critical scholarship on Agriculture 4.0—an umbrella term to reference the utilization of robotics and automation, AI, remote sensing, big data, and the like in agriculture—especially the literature focusing on issues relating to equity and social sustainability. Critical agrifood scholarship has spent considerable energy interrogating who gets what, how decisions get made, and who counts as a “stakeholder” in the context of decision making, questions relating to distributive justice, procedural justice, and representative justice, respectively. Less attention, however, has been paid in this literature to the subject of recognition justice. Recognition justice asks the question, “Who are subjects of justice?” That query, however, is easily to oversimplify. As subjectivity is neither monolithic nor fixed, implied in these discussions are deeper questions having to do with the characteristics of one’s subjectivity that deserve moral recognition. This act of translation, from justice-in-theory to justice-in-practice, also complicates the evaluation of whether Agriculture 4.0 platforms are just, or not. These recognition justice tensions are explored by leveraging qualitative data collected through forty-two face-to-face interviews with individuals on farms located in the US states of Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming who utilize these platforms. The study design intentionally oversampled for persons with disabilities, which highlights another distinguishing characteristic of the paper relative to critical Agriculture 4.0 scholarship. In addition to exposing certain ableist assumptions in these discussions, the sampling technique proved invaluable for interrogating how we think about labor, work, and leisure in agriculture. The paper specifically discusses how Agriculture 4.0, for example, shapes conceptions of what it means to be “able to work,” “willing to work,” “hard working,” etc.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abdulai, A.R. 2022a. A new green revolution (GR) or neoliberal entrenchment in agri-food systems? Exploring narratives around digital agriculture (da), food systems, and development in Sub-Sahara Africa. The Journal of Development Studies 58 (8): 1588–1604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abdulai, A.R. 2022b. Toward digitalization futures in smallholder farming systems in Sub-Sahara Africa: A social practice proposal. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2022.866331.

  • Anwar, M.A., and M. Graham. 2020. Digital labour at economic margins: African workers and the global information economy. Review of African Political Economy 47 (163): 95–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Araújo, S.O., R.S. Peres, J. Barata, F. Lidon, and J.C. Ramalho. 2021. Characterising the agriculture 4.0 landscape—emerging trends, challenges and opportunities. Agronomy 11 (4): 667. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11040667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asscheman, E. 2023. Optimism about the growth of indoor farming. Future Farming. https://www.futurefarming.com/smart-farming/optimism-about-the-growth-of-indoor-farming/. Accessed 15 Mar 2024.

  • Badami, M.G., and N. Ramankutty. 2015. Urban agriculture and food security: A critique based on an assessment of urban land constraints. Global Food Security 4: 8–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bain, C., S. Lindberg, and T. Selfa. 2020. Emerging sociotechnical imaginaries for gene edited crops for foods in the United States: Implications for governance. Agriculture and Human Values 37: 265–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barad, K. 2003. Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs 28 (3): 801–831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baur, P., and A. Iles. 2023. Inserting machines, displacing people: how automation imaginaries for agriculture promise ‘liberation’ from the industrialized farm. Agriculture and Human Values 40(3): 815–833.

  • Biltekoff, C., and J. Guthman. 2023. Conscious, complacent, fearful: Agri-food tech’s market-making public imaginaries. Science as Culture 32 (1): 58–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bomford, M. 2023. More bytes per acre: Do vertical farming’s land sparing promises stand on solid ground? Agriculture and Human Values. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-023-10472-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradbury, R. 2023. VC investment in indoor farms plummets 91 percent. Pitchbook. https://pitchbook.com/news/articles/indoor-farms-agtech-vc-investment-down-difficulty. Accessed 15 Mar 2024.

  • Bradley, H. 2015. Fractured identities: Changing patterns of inequality. Hodonin, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Branca, G., A. Arslan, A. Paolantonio, U. Grewer, A. Cattaneo, R. Cavatassi, L. Lipper, J. Hillier, and S. Vetter. 2021. Assessing the economic and mitigation benefits of climate-smart agriculture and its implications for political economy: A case study in Southern Africa. Journal of Cleaner Production 285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125161.

  • Brandth, B., and M.S. Haugen. 2011. Farm diversification into tourism–implications for social identity? Journal of Rural Studies 27 (1): 35–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broad, Garrett M. 2020. Know your indoor farmer: square roots, techno-local food, and transparency as publicity. American Behavioral Scientist 64 (11): 1588–1606. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764220945349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bronson, K. 2019. Looking through a responsible innovation lens at uneven engagements with digital farming. NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2019.03.001.

  • Bronson, K. 2022. The immaculate conception of data: Agribusiness, activists, and their Shared Politics of the future. Toronto: McGill-Queen’s Press-MQUP.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bronson, K., and I. Knezevic. 2019. The digital divide and how it matters for Canadian food system equity. Canadian Journal of Communication 44 (2): 63–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bucak, S. 2023. The vertical farming boom is over (for now). What went wrong? Shifted. https://sifted.eu/articles/vertical-farming-boom-over-for-now-what-went-wrong. Accessed 15 Mar 2024.

  • Burton, R.J., J. Forney, P. Stock, and L.A. Sutherland. 2020. The good farmer: Culture and identity in food and agriculture. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Buys, D., J. Green, and M. Robertson. 2023. The average American farmer is so old they’re practically a boomer. Fortune. https://fortune.com/2023/10/12/how-old-american-farmer-average-age-boomer-gen-x/.

  • Bye, L.M. 2009. ‘How to be a rural man’: Young men’s performances and negotiations of rural masculinities. Journal of Rural Studies 25 (3): 278–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carolan, M. 2023a. Digital agriculture killjoy: Happy objects and cruel quests for the good life. Sociologia Ruralis 63: 37–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carolan, M. 2023b. Just-in-case transitions and the pursuit of resilient food systems: Enumerative politics and what it means to make care count. Agriculture and Human Values 40 (3): 1055–1066.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carolan, M. 2022a. It’s about time: Temporal and spatial fixes find vertical farms and local food in the shadow of COVID-19. The Journal of Peasant Studies 49 (7): 1446–1465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carolan, M. 2022b. Just-in-case transitions and the pursuit of resilient food systems: Enumerative politics and what it means to make care count. Agriculture and Human Values. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-022-10401-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carolan, M. 2022c. Digitization as politics: Smart farming through the lens of weak and strong data. Journal of Rural Studies 91: 208–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carolan, M. 2018. ‘Smart’farming techniques as political ontology: Access, sovereignty and the performance of neoliberal and not-so-neoliberal worlds. Sociologia Ruralis 58 (4): 745–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carolan, M. 2017a. Publicising food: Big data, precision agriculture, and co-experimental techniques of addition. Sociologia Ruralis 57 (2): 135–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carolan, M. 2017b. Agro-digital governance and life itself: Food politics at the intersection of code and affect. Sociologia Ruralis 57: 816–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caves, S., L. Phelan, and J. Cameron. 2020. Space to tinker: From faux resilience to productive novelty in agricultural policy. Journal of Rural Studies 78: 87–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clapp, J., and S.L. Ruder. 2020. Precision technologies for agriculture: Digital farming, gene-edited crops, and the politics of sustainability. Global Environmental Politics 20 (3): 49–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cloke, P. 2004. Rurality and racialised others: Out of place in the countryside? In Rural Racism, ed. Neil Chakraborti and Jon Garland, 17–35. London: Willan Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, S., Jackson, E.L., Fisher, M.J., Baker, D., and Diepeveen, D. 2022. Embedding digital agriculture into sustainable Australian food systems: pathways and pitfalls to value creation. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 20(3): 346–367. 

  • Connolly, A. 2022.10 digital technologies that are transforming agriculture. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2022/04/26/10-digital-technologies-that-are-transforming-agriculture/?sh=281da8bd7baf . Accessed 15 Mar 2024.

  • Dalecki, M.G., and C.M. Coughenour. 1992. Agrarianism in American society. Rural Sociology 57 (1): 48–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danermark, B., and L. Gellerstedt. 2004. Social justice: Redistribution and recognition—a non-reductionist perspective on disability. Disability & Society 19 (4): 339–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Bruin, A., I. de Boer, N. Faber, G. de Jong, K. Termeer, and E. de Olde. 2023. Easier said than defined? Conceptualising justice in food system transitions. Agriculture and Human Values 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-023-10482-y.

  • DeVault, M.L. 1994. Feeding the family: the social organization of caring as gendered work. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ditzler, L., and C. Driessen. 2022. Automating agroecology: How to design a farming robot without a monocultural mindset? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 35 (1): 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-021-09876-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, E., S. Rotz, A. Magnan, and K. Bronson. 2022. Disciplining land through data: The role of agricultural technologies in farmland assetisation. Sociologia Ruralis 62 (2): 231–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eastwood, C.R., B. Dela Rue, J.P. Edwards, and J. Jago. 2022. Responsible robotics design–A systems approach to developing design guides for robotics in pasture-grazed dairy farming. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2022.914850.

  • Ebrahimi, H.P., R.S. Schillo, and K. Bronson. 2021. Systematic stakeholder inclusion in digital agriculture: a framework and application to Canada. Sustainability 13 (12): 6879. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairbairn, M., and Z. Kish. 2023. Setting data free: The politics of open data for food and agriculture. New Media & Society 25 (8): 1935–1959.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairbairn, M., Z. Kish, and J. Guthman. 2022. Pitching agri-food tech: Performativity and non-disruptive disruption in Silicon Valley. Journal of Cultural Economy 15 (5): 652–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fielke, S., K. Bronson, M. Carolan, C. Eastwood, V. Higgins, E. Jakku, L. Klerkx, R. Nettle, Á. Regan, D.C. Rose, and L.C. Townsend. 2022. A call to expand disciplinary boundaries so that social scientific imagination and practice are central to quests for ‘responsible’ digital agri-food innovation. Sociologia Ruralis 62 (2): 151–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forney, J., and L. Epiney. 2022. Governing farmers through data? Digitization and the question of autonomy in agri-environmental governance. Journal of Rural Studies 95: 173–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forney, J., and A. Dwiartama. 2023. The project, the everyday, and reflexivity in sociotechnical agri-food assemblages: Proposing a conceptual model of digitalisation. Agriculture and Human Values 40 (2): 441–454.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. 1995. Discipline and punishment: the birth of the prison. Vintage Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, A. 2022. ‘You can’t eat data’?: Moving beyond the misconfigured innovations of smart farming. Journal of Rural Studies 91: 200–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, Nancy. 2005. Reframing justice in a globalizing world. New Left Review 36: 69–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, N. 2009. Scales of justice: Reimagining political space in a globalizing world. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedan, B. 1963. The Feminine Mystique. New York: W. W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardezi, M., D.T. Adereti, R. Stock, and A. Ogunyiola. 2022. In pursuit of responsible innovation for precision agriculture technologies. Journal of Responsible Innovation 9 (2): 224–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geertz, C. 2008. Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In The cultural geography reader, ed. T. Oakes and P. Price, 41–51. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. 1979. The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson-Graham, J.K. 2011. A feminist project of belonging for the Anthropocene. Gender, Place and Culture 18 (01): 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glover, D. 2022. Affordances and agricultural technology. Journal of Rural Studies 94: 73–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, D. 2023. Transforming agriculture and foodways. Bristol, UK: Bristol University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, W. and T. Harada. 2023. Mundane powered wheelchair journeys and embodied rural disability geographies of (not) belonging. Journal of Rural Studies 103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2023.103106.

  • Guest, G., E. Namey, and M. Chen. 2020. A simple method to assess and report thematic saturation in qualitative research. PLoS One 15(5). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232076.

  • Gugganig, M., K.A. Burch, J. Guthman, and K. Bronson., 2023. Contested agri-food futures: Introduction to the special issue. Agriculture and Human Values 1–12.

  • Hackfort, S. 2021. Patterns of inequalities in digital agriculture: a systematic literature review. Sustainability 13 (22): 12345. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackfort, S. 2023. Unlocking sustainability? The power of corporate lock-ins and how they shape digital agriculture in Germany. Journal of Rural Studies 101: 103065. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2023.103065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. 2016a. Staying with the trouble: Making kin in the Chthulucene. Chapel Hill, NC: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. 2016b. ‘Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective'. In Space, Gender, Knowledge: Feminist Readings, edited by L. McDowell and J. Sharp pp. 53–72, New York: Routledge.

  • Haraway, D. 2013. A manifesto for cyborgs: Science, technology, and socialist feminism in the 1980s. In Feminism/postmodernism, ed. Linda Nicholson, 190–233. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatanaka, M., J. Konefal, J. Strube, L. Glenna, and D. Conner. 2022. Data-driven sustainability: Metrics, digital technologies, and governance in food and agriculture. Rural Sociology 87 (1): 206–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heinemann, T., and T. Lemke. 2014. Biological citizenship reconsidered: The use of DNA analysis by immigration authorities in Germany. Science, Technology, & Human Values 39 (4): 488–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, V., and M. Bryant. 2020. Framing agri-digital governance: Industry stakeholders, technological frames and smart farming implementation. Sociologia Ruralis 60 (2): 438–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, V., D. van der Velden, N. Bechtet, M. Bryant, J. Battersby, M. Belle, and L. Klerkx. 2023. Deliberative assembling: Tinkering and farmer agency in precision agriculture implementation. Journal of Rural Studies 100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2023.103023.

  • Hoffelmeyer, M. 2021. “Out” on the farm: Queer farmers maneuvering heterosexism and visibility. Rural Sociology 86 (4): 752–776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holzer, H. 2022. Understanding the impact of automation on workers, jobs, and wages, Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/understanding-the-impact-of-automation-on-workers-jobs-and-wages/. Accessed 15 Mar 2024.

  • Ingram, J., D. Maye, C. Bailye, A. Barnes, C. Bear, M. Bell, D. Cutress, L. Davies, A. de Boon, L. Dinnie, and J. Gairdner. 2022. What are the priority research questions for digital agriculture? Land Use Policy 114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105962.

  • Jakku, E., A. Fleming, M. Espig, S. Fielke, S.C. Finlay-Smits, and J.A. Turner. 2023. Disruption disrupted? Reflecting on the relationship between responsible innovation and digital agriculture research and development at multiple levels in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand. Agricultural Systems 204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2022.103555.

  • Jammaers, E., P. Zanoni, and S. Hardonk. 2016. Constructing positive identities in ableist workplaces: Disabled employees’ discursive practices engaging with the discourse of lower productivity. Human Relations 69 (6): 1365–1386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khan, N., R.L. Ray, H.S. Kassem, S. Hussain, S. Zhang, M. Khayyam, M. Ihtisham, and S.A. Asongu. 2021. Potential role of technology innovation in transformation of sustainable food systems: A review. Agriculture 11 (10): 984. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11100984.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klerkx, L., E. Jakku, and P. Labarthe. 2019. A review of social science on digital agriculture, smart farming and agriculture 4.0: New contributions and a future research agenda. NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 90: 1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2019.100315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolodny, L. 2021. Covid and ‘peak cow’ created a boom for food and agriculture tech in 2020. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/30/food-and-agriculture-start-ups-raised-record-22point3-billion-in-2020.html. Accessed 15 Mar 2014.

  • Lajoie-O'Malley, A., K. Bronson, S. van der Burg, and L. Klerkx. 2020. The future (s) of digital agriculture and sustainable food systems: An analysis of high-level policy documents. Ecosystem Services 45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101183.

  • Laoire, C. 2002. Young farmers, masculinities and change in rural Ireland. Irish Geography 35 (1): 16–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, M. 2012. Big Bots in Little Agriculture: Will small-scale farmers use drones and other automated equipment? Slate. https://slate.com/technology/2012/06/automated-farm-equipment-and-small-scale-farmers.html. Accessed 15 Mar 2024.

  • Leslie, I.S., J. Wypler, and M.M. Bell. 2019. Relational agriculture: Gender, sexuality, and sustainability in US farming. Society & Natural Resources 32 (8): 853–874.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, J., and P. Sengers. 2021. Legibility and the legacy of racialized dispossession in digital agriculture. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5 (CSCW2): 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1145/3479867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyson, T., and G. Gillespie. 1995. Producing more milk on fewer farms: neoclassical and neostructural explanations of changes in dairy farming. Rural Sociology 60 (3): 493–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maffezzoli, F., M. Ardolino, A. Bacchetti, M. Perona, and F. Renga. 2022. Agriculture 4.0: A systematic literature review on the paradigm, technologies and benefits. Futures. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2022.102998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malik, S.A. 2022. Linking climate-smart agriculture to farming as a service: Mapping an emergent paradigm of datafied dispossession in India. The Journal of Peasant Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2022.2138751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mann, S.A., and Dickinson, J.M. 1978. Obstacles to the development of a capitalist agriculture. The Journal of Peasant Studies 5(4): 466–481.

  • Martin, A., B. Coolsaet, E. Corbera, N.M. Dawson, J.A. Fraser, I. Lehmann, and I. Rodriguez. 2016. Justice and conservation: The need to incorporate recognition. Biological Conservation 197: 254–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mattie, J., L. Aitken-Mundhenk, L. Bicknell, W.B. Mortenson, and J. Borisoff. 2019. Exploring the lived experience of people using ultralight wheelchairs with on-the-fly adjustable seating function. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2019.1626920. 

  • M’charek, A., K. Schramm, and D. Skinner. 2014. Technologies of belonging: The absent presence of race in Europe. Science, Technology, & Human Values 39 (4): 459–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, C.D., and R.A. Aherin. 2018. The prevalence of disabilities in the US farm population. Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health 24(4). https://doi.org/10.13031/jash.12934.

  • Montenegro de Wit, M., and M. Canfield. 2023. ‘Feeding the world, byte by byte’: Emergent imaginaries of data productivism. The Journal of Peasant Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2023.2232997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mühl, D.D., and L. de Oliveira. 2022. A bibliometric and thematic approach to agriculture 4.0. Heliyon 8(5). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09369.

  • Ngo, M., and M. Brklacich. 2014. New farmers’ efforts to create a sense of place in rural communities: Insights from southern Ontario, Canada. Agriculture and Human Values 31: 53–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nikol, L., and K. Jansen. 2021. Rethinking conventionalisation: A view from organic agriculture in the Global South. Journal of Rural Studies 86: 420–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oakley, A. 1974. Housewife. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD 2019. Digital Opportunities for Better Agricultural Policies. Paris: OECD. 

  • Probyn, E. 1996. Outside belongings. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pini, B. 2005. Farm women: Driving tractors and negotiating gender. The International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food 13 (1): 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pini, B., C. Philo, and V. Chouinard. 2017. On making disability in rural places more visible: Challenges and opportunities [Introduction to a special issue]. Journal of Rural Studies 51: 223–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollard, A. 2023. Funding Is Drying Up for AI-Run Vertical Farms. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2023-06-16/from-appharvest-to-aerofarms-funding-is-drying-up-for-ai-run-vertical-farms. Accessed 15 Mar 2024.

  • Prause, L. 2021. Digital agriculture and labor: A few challenges for social sustainability. Sustainability 13(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13115980.

  • Ravis, T., and B. Notkin. 2020. Urban bites and agrarian bytes: Digital agriculture and extended urbanization. Berkeley Planning Journal 31(1). https://doi.org/10.5070/BP331044067.

  • Rose, D.C. and J. Chilvers. 2018. Agriculture 4.0: Broadening responsible innovation in an era of smart farming. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 2. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2018.00087.

  • Rose, D.C., R. Wheeler, M. Winter, M. Lobley, and C.A. Chivers. 2021. Agriculture 4.0: Making it work for people, production, and the planet. Land Use Policy 100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104933.

  • Rosset, P.M., and M.A. Altieri. 1997. Agroecology versus input substitution: A fundamental contradiction of sustainable agriculture. Society & Natural Resources 10 (3): 283–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rotz, S., E. Gravely, I. Mosby, E. Duncan, E. Finnis, M. Horgan, J. LeBlanc, R. Martin, H.T. Neufeld, A. Nixon, and L. Pant. 2019. Automated pastures and the digital divide: How agricultural technologies are shaping labour and rural communities. Journal of Rural Studies 68: 112–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saldaña, J. 2013. The coding manual for qualitative researchers, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlosberg, D. 2007. Defining environmental justice: Theories, movements, and nature. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. 1999. Seeing like a State. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, J. 2021. Dividing paradise: Rural inequality and the diminishing American dream. Berkely, CA: University of California Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sippel, S.R. 2023. Tackling land’s ‘stubborn materiality’: The interplay of imaginaries, data and digital technologies within farmland assetization. Agriculture and Human Values. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-023-10453-3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Smaal, S.A., J. Dessein, B.J. Wind, and E. Rogge. 2021. Social justice-oriented narratives in European urban food strategies: Bringing forward redistribution, recognition and representation. Agriculture and Human Values 38 (3): 709–727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, H.E., S.M. Sallu, S. Whitfield, M.F. Gaworek-Michalczenia, J.W. Recha, G.J. Sayula, and S. Mziray. 2021. Innovation systems and affordances in climate smart agriculture. Journal of Rural Studies 87: 199–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, S.L., and D.T. Mitchell. 2010. Introduction: Ablenationalism and the geo-politics of disability. Journal of Literary & Cultural Disability Studies 4 (2): 113–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soma, T., and B. Nuckchady. 2021. Communicating the benefits and risks of digital agriculture technologies: Perspectives on the future of digital agricultural education and training. Frontiers in Communication 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.762201.

  • Stahl, B.C., S. Akintoye, L. Bitsch, B. Bringedal, D. Eke, M. Farisco, K. Grasenick, M. Guerrero, W. Knight, T. Leach, and S. Nyholm. 2021. From responsible research and innovation to responsibility by design. Journal of Responsible Innovation 8 (2): 175–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., and J.M. Corbin. 1997. Grounded theory in practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland, L.A. 2020. The ‘desk-chair countryside’: Affect, authenticity and the rural idyll in a farming computer game. Journal of Rural Studies 78: 350–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. 2003. Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law. Crime and Justice 30: 283–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Ploeg, J.D., D. Barjolle, J. Bruil, G. Brunori, L.M.C. Madureira, J. Dessein, Z. Drąg, A. Fink-Kessler, P. Gasselin, M.G. de Molina, and K. Gorlach. 2019. The economic potential of agroecology: Empirical evidence from Europe. Journal of Rural Studies 71: 46–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, G.A. 2001. From productivism to post-productivism… and back again? Exploring the (un) changed natural and mental landscapes of European agriculture. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 26 (1): 77–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, S., and F.H. Buttel. 1996. The political economy of precision farming. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78 (5): 1269–1274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, S., and S. Wood. 1997. Precision farming: Environmental legitimation, commodification of information, and industrial coordination. Rural Sociology 62 (2): 180–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yalina, N., A.P. Kartika, and A.T.R.C. Yudha. 2020. Impact analysis of digital divide on food security and poverty in Indonesiain 2015–2017. Jurnal Manajemen Teknologi 19 (2): 145–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Food Systems Institute, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA

    Michael Carolan

Authors
  1. Michael Carolan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Carolan.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Carolan, M. Who and what gets recognized in digital agriculture: agriculture 4.0 at the intersectionality of (Dis)Ableism, labor, and recognition justice. Agric Hum Values (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-024-10560-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-024-10560-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation