# Research Trends, Theories and Concepts on the Utilization of Digital Platforms in Agriculture: A Scoping Review

Abraham Kuuku Sam, Sara Saartjie Grobbelaar

► To cite this version:

Abraham Kuuku Sam, Sara Saartjie Grobbelaar. Research Trends, Theories and Concepts on the Utilization of Digital Platforms in Agriculture: A Scoping Review. 20th Conference on e-Business, e-Services and e-Society (I3E), Sep 2021, Galway, Ireland. pp.342-355, 10.1007/978-3-030-85447-8_30 hal-03648165

HAL Id: hal-03648165

https://inria.hal.science/hal-03648165

Submitted on 21 Apr 2022

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

ifip

International Federation for Information Processing

This document is the original author manuscript of a paper submitted to an IFIP
conference proceedings or other IFIP publication by Springer Nature. As such, there
may be some differences in the official published version of the paper. Such
differences, if any, are usually due to reformatting during preparation for publication or
minor corrections made by the author(s) during final proofreading of the publication
manuscript.
Research trends, theories and concepts on the utilization
of digital platforms in agriculture: A scoping review

Abraham Kuuku Sam¹ and Sara Saartjie Grobbelaar²[0000-0002-2793-9689]

¹ Department of Industrial Engineering, Stellenbosch University, South Africa.
kuukusam@gmail.com

² Department of Industrial Engineering, Stellenbosch University, South Africa AND DST-NRF CoE in Scientometrics and Science, Technology and Innovation Policy, Stellenbosch University, South Africa

**Abstract.** Globally, the agriculture sector is faced with multiple challenges especially in developing countries where smallholder farmers face barriers such as lack of access to financial services, information, formal and/or economic identity. The utilization of digital platforms in agriculture can offer solutions such as information services, financial inclusion and access to credit, digital identities, track and traceability systems, farm management systems and access to markets. This paper explores the research trends, theories and concepts associated with the utilization of digital platforms in agriculture. Using a scoping review and a directed content analysis approach, 52 papers were studied. It was found that studies have so far focused mainly on the policy, economics, knowledge and innovation systems, impact and adoption of digital agriculture platforms. The findings of this scoping review will aid in the understanding of the state of research on the utilization of digital platforms in agriculture and contribute to future research by helping to identify gaps in the relevant literature.

**Keywords:** Digital platform, Agriculture, Scoping review.

# 1 Introduction

The utilization of digital platforms in agriculture can provide solutions to challenges such as lack of information, credit, insurance and identity for farmers, especially in developing countries. It can also provide full and real-time visibility, assist in capturing and analyzing data for the management of value chain activities [1]. Digital Agriculture Platforms (DAPs) provide information services on agricultural extension, education, certification standards and skills for farmers. They also boost the ability of farmers to share knowledge and experiences [2]. They promote financial inclusion by granting smallholder farmers access to digital financial services which include credit, insurance [1, 3] and farm inputs [4, 5]. In addition, DAPs can serve as track and traceability [6], farm management and data management systems for value chain stakeholders [1, 2].

The aim of this study is to explore the utilisation of digital platforms in agriculture by conducting a scoping review of peer-review articles by (1) identifying the focus areas where studies on DAPs have concentrated, (2) theories and concepts that have been utilised in DAP studies and (3) trend of DAP research. The research questions
follow directly from the aim of this study. The research questions are: (1) What focus areas have research on the DAP concentrated on? (2) What theories and concepts have been utilized in DAP research? (3) What has been the trend of DAP research based on focus areas and the number of studies?

# 2 Methodology

This scoping review is based on the steps suggested by [7] in their seminal paper. These are 1. identifying the research question, 2. identifying relevant studies, 3. study selection and 4. charting the data and 5. collating, summarizing and reporting the results. Having identified the research questions in the previous section, steps 2 and 3 will be applied in this section and then steps 4 and 5 will be utilized when presenting the results of this study.

## 2.1 Identifying relevant studies

The search for **relevant** articles was done on 6 July 2020 using **Scopus**. The following search string was used to search for literature on the use of digital platforms in agriculture: ("agriculture" OR "farming" OR "horticulture") AND ("digital" OR "ICT" OR "mobile") AND ("Platform").

## 2.2 Study selection

There exists the engineering or technological view and the economic or transactional view in the discussion of platforms [8, 9]. There is also the information systems view with a socio-technical perspective [10]. Papers that *solely* discussed the design and development of platform architecture exclusively usually concentrated on the design of software and hardware systems. These were excluded. To meet the inclusion criteria, the paper must be a peer-reviewed journal article and must be published in English.

For the results of this scoping review to be useful, the study selection must be transparent, reproducible and adequately documented [11]. For this reason, the **Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)** was used as the guide for the selection of relevant literature [12]. Figure 1 shows the selection process based on PRISMA and adopted from [12]. The first screening involved examining the titles and abstracts and the second screening involved analyzing full-text.

## 2.3 Data Extraction and Charting of Included Studies

Using a directed content analysis approach which allows the researcher to validate or extend conceptually a theoretical framework [13], various categories of data pertinent to answering the research questions were identified and recorded. Using the thematic clusters identified by [14] in their review on digital agriculture, smart farming and agriculture 4.0 as the starting point, key concepts were identified as initial coding categories. The selected articles were then analysed, and the data extracted and categorized.
The following information was recorded in an Excel spreadsheet: Author(s), title, year, number of citations, country, geographical location, Methodology (eg. Literature review, case study, etc.), Methodology Classification (Empirical research, theoretical research or design and development), Theoretical or Analytical lens and target of observation (eg. Smallholders, value chain actors, etc.). Following the fourth step recommended in the methodology proposed by [7], the data were analysed and classified in a manner that allowed for charts to be produced to represent the information.

## 3 Results

This section presents the results from the study selection, the coding, analysis and categorisation of the identified studies included in the scoping review.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1: PRISMA flow diagram showing study selection</figcaption></figure>

### 3.1 Identification of Included Articles

As represented in figure 1 above, the search from Scopus produced 442 results. Seven additional articles were added. This means a total of 449 articles were screened as part of the study. Of the 449 articles, 359 articles were excluded based on examination of
titles and abstracts. Thereafter 90 articles were studied, and the full texts were assessed for their relevance to DAPs. 38 were excluded during the full-text assessment because 33 were found to have focused on the design and development of software and/or hardware used in Smart Farming, Precision Agriculture and Agriculture 4.0 while five articles were inaccessible. After the study selection, 52 articles were identified as relevant.

**3.2 Collating, Summarizing and Reporting the Results**

In this section, the results from the coding, analysis and categorization of the selected articles are discussed to answer the research questions specified in Section 1 above.

**Characteristics of Included Articles.** The percentage distribution of the articles per geographical location is as shown in Figure 2. None of the selected papers focused explicitly on Central Asia and the Middle East and North Africa. ‘Global’ represents studies that are not localised to any geographical location.

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2: Geographical Location of the Included Articles</figcaption></figure>

**Categorizing Included Articles into Themes.** Using the thematic clusters identified by [14] as the starting point, the articles included in the study were categorized into five thematic areas as shown in Table 1. They are:

* Thematic Area 1: Economics and management of DAPs in agriculture.

* Thematic Area 2: Agricultural knowledge Systems, Innovation Systems and Innovation Ecosystems.

* Thematic Area 3: Impact of DAP.

* Thematic Area 4: Adoption, use and adaption of DAPs.

* Thematic Area 5: DAPs from the Policy/Politics/Governance/Perspective.

It must, however, be stated that some studies covered more than one thematic area.
<table><caption>Table 1: Categorization of included articles based on thematic areas</caption><tbody><tr><td rowspan="10">Economics and management of DAPs in agriculture value chains</td><td>Business Models</td><td>Access based business model /Sharing economy</td><td>[15]</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Production Management</td><td>Cost Analysis and Management</td><td>[16], [17]</td></tr><tr><td>Farm Management System</td><td>[18]</td></tr><tr><td>Track and traceability systems</td><td>[6]</td></tr><tr><td>Financial Sustainability</td><td>Profitability of providing digital platforms with infrastructure.</td><td>[19]</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">E-Business</td><td>Effect of digital platforms on commodity prices</td><td>[20]</td></tr><tr><td>Connection of value chain actors</td><td>[3], [18], [21], [22], [23], [24]</td></tr><tr><td>Market Structure</td><td>Creation of an alternative market structure</td><td>[19], [47]</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="7">Digital Platforms and agricultural knowledge and innovation (Eco)systems</td><td rowspan="4">Knowledge Systems</td><td>Technology Transfer pathways</td><td>[25]</td></tr><tr><td>Agriculture Extension Services</td><td>[26], [60]</td></tr><tr><td>Knowledge sharing, co-creation and management</td><td>[27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]</td></tr><tr><td>Decision Support Systems</td><td>[36], [37]</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Ecosystems</td><td>Knowledge Services</td><td>[38]</td></tr><tr><td>Urban Food Ecosystem</td><td>[39]</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Innovation Systems</td><td>Innovation Intermediation</td><td>[40]</td></tr><tr><td>Digitalisation of Agriculture Innovation Systems</td><td>[41]</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="10">Impact of DAP</td><td colspan="2">Farmers' Work Routine</td><td>[42]</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Lock-in tendencies</td><td>[43]</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Enabling efficiencies through information sharing</td><td>[16], [19]</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Collective and Individual learning and training</td><td>[27], [44], [45]</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Early warning system for flood management</td><td>[46]</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Access to farm mechanization by smallholder farmers</td><td>[15]</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Trust mediation for Value Chain Financing</td><td>[5]</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Uses and Opportunities</td><td>[47], [48]</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Benefits</td><td>[2], [32], [33], [47], [49], [50]</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Land Use and Gentrification</td><td>[51], [52]</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Effect on Foodscapes</td><td>[53]</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Productivity</td><td>[4], [50], [54]</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td rowspan="8">Adoption, use and adaptation of Digital Agriculture Platforms</td><td>How Digital Agriculture Platforms encountered</td><td>[53]</td></tr><tr><td>Inclusive Value Chain Partnerships</td><td>[55]</td></tr><tr><td>Information sharing and education</td><td>[30], [36], [61]</td></tr><tr><td>Challenges and Limitations</td><td>[2], [3], [18], [44], [47], [48], [56]</td></tr><tr><td>Determinants and moderating factors influencing value</td><td>[35]</td></tr><tr><td>Necessity and Feasibility</td><td>[56]</td></tr><tr><td>Adoption of digital platforms among smallholders</td><td>[57]</td></tr><tr><td>Monitoring Carbon stocks on smallholder farms</td><td>[58]</td></tr><tr><td>Determinants and moderating factors of user acceptance and usage behavior</td><td>[16]</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">DAP from the Policy/Policies/Governance/Performance/Perpective</td><td rowspan="3">Power, ownership, privacy, ethics and politics of Digital Agriculture Platforms</td><td>Distributive politics of Digital Agriculture Platforms</td><td>[42]</td></tr><tr><td>Effect of ownership structure and governance</td><td>[43], [53]</td></tr><tr><td>Data privacy and ownership</td><td>[41]</td></tr><tr><td>Public Administration</td><td>Food Safety and Regulation</td><td>[6]</td></tr></table>

The impact of DAP on agriculture has been studied the most. The studies concentrated mainly on the benefits and opportunities offered by DAP especially to smallholder farmers. The least studied area has been the policy perspective of DAP. The few studies reviewed focused on ownership structure, data privacy and regulation, especially in developed countries. No research in this thematic area focused on Sub-Saharan Africa.

**Methodology, Theoretical and Conceptual Perspectives of the Included Articles.**

Three of the selected articles dedicated their methodology section to a discussion of the design and development of DAPs. Of the remaining 49 articles, 43 (88%) were empirical research and six (12%) were theoretical research. The six theoretical research articles were made up of four papers focused on reviews and two dedicated to models on DAPs.

The theoretical and conceptual perspectives of the articles were also identified as shown in Table 2. While some studies focused on one theoretical perspective, others looked at the studies using multiple lenses. Value Chain theory was applied the most.

<table><caption>Table 2: Theoretical and Conceptual Perspective of Reviewed Articles</caption><thead><tr><td>Theoretical and Conceptual Perspective</td><td>Articles Reviewed</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Business Model: Access-based business model</td><td>[15]</td></tr><tr><td>Diffusion of Innovation Theory</td><td>[26], [61]</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td>Assemblage Theory</td><td>[52], [53]</td></tr><tr><td>Competence Model</td><td>[45]</td></tr><tr><td>Contingent Effectiveness Model of Technology Transfer</td><td>[25]</td></tr><tr><td>Critical Theory (Critical Data Studies)</td><td>[52]</td></tr><tr><td>Cross-platform Mobile Development Framework</td><td>[48]</td></tr><tr><td>Decision Support Systems</td><td>[46], [51]</td></tr><tr><td>Design Patterns and Storytelling</td><td>[31]</td></tr><tr><td>Digital Native, Digital Immigrants concept</td><td>[32]</td></tr><tr><td>Economic Theory: Bargaining power, Information Asymmetry and Structural Differences</td><td>[20]</td></tr><tr><td>Productivity</td><td>[50]</td></tr><tr><td>Two-sided Market</td><td>[23]</td></tr><tr><td>Econometric Analysis</td><td>[59]</td></tr><tr><td>Ecosystem: Innovation Ecosystem</td><td>[38], [39], [41]</td></tr><tr><td>Innovation</td><td>[2], [58], [60]</td></tr><tr><td>Information Systems Concept: Information Chain</td><td>[29]</td></tr><tr><td>Technology Acceptance Model</td><td>[26]</td></tr><tr><td>Innovation Systems</td><td>[40]</td></tr><tr><td>Interconnected Systems</td><td>[33]</td></tr><tr><td>Knowledge Systems</td><td>[36]</td></tr><tr><td>Marketing Concept</td><td>[18]</td></tr><tr><td>Multi-criteria Decision Analysis</td><td>[37]</td></tr><tr><td>Multi-criteria Evaluation</td><td>[30]</td></tr><tr><td>Networked Community</td><td>[54]</td></tr><tr><td>Operational Model</td><td>[24]</td></tr><tr><td>Pedagogical Model</td><td>[44]</td></tr><tr><td>Propensity Score Matching (PSM) Approach</td><td>[4]</td></tr><tr><td>Requirements Analysis</td><td>[56]</td></tr><tr><td>Responsible Research and Innovation</td><td>[27], [41]</td></tr><tr><td>Skills, Community Development, and Structural Inequalities perspective</td><td>[42]</td></tr><tr><td>Sociomaterial Perspective</td><td>[3]</td></tr><tr><td>Sustainability</td><td>[19]</td></tr><tr><td>Sociological underpinnings of ‘the’ future, political ontology and Foucault’s Concept of Dispositif</td><td>[43]</td></tr><tr><td>Total Quality Management: Quality Function Deployment</td><td>[17]</td></tr><tr><td>Transition Theory: Multi-level Perspective (MLP)</td><td>[41]</td></tr><tr><td>Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology Model</td><td>[16]</td></tr><tr><td>Use Case Model</td><td>[28]</td></tr><tr><td>User-centred Design</td><td>[49]</td></tr><tr><td>Value Chain</td><td>[5], [6], [21], [22], [55], [57]</td></tr><tr><td>Vibrant materialism, Geographies of care, enactive politics</td><td>[53]</td></tr></table>

**Trend of Digital Agriculture Platform Studies.** Figure 3 presents the number of articles in the five thematic areas published over time. Research on the utilization of
digital platforms in Agriculture has been published since 2004. However, it was in 2017
that the number of articles for all thematic areas started increasing. Over the year, the
most consistent thematic area that has been researched is the impact of DAP. Until
2016, not all thematic areas were researched every year but since 2017, every thematic
area has seen an increase in the number of studies.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3: Number of articles per thematic area published over time</figcaption></figure>

4 Discussion

No article focused explicitly on Central Asia and the Middle East and North Africa.
This indicates a gap in DAP literature for these parts of the world. Most of the articles
on Sub-Saharan Africa, South and East Asia also focused mainly on smallholder and
rural farmers. Conversely, most of the articles that concentrated on developed countries
concentrated on the entire value chain.

Articles on the “Economics and Management of DAPs in agriculture” discussed the benefits of DAPs from the economic or farm management perspective. The benefits include creating a digital marketplace [3, 9, 21 - 24], new business models such as access-based business models or sharing economy [15] and the creation of alternative market structures [19, 47]. DAPs can also assist with farm operations [18], cost management [16, 17] and quality assurance [6].

Most of the articles reviewed on “Agricultural knowledge Systems, Innovation Sys-
tems and Ecosystems” discussed the use of DAPs to share knowledge and information
[27-35]. Specifically, [26] and [60] explored the use of mobile telephony to support
agricultural extension services for rural farmers. [25] focused on technology transfer
after donor projects have been completed.

A significant number of the articles reviewed discussed the impact of DAP on farm-
ing, farmers and value chain actors. These articles studied the use of DAPs for enabling
efficiencies through information sharing, collective and individual learning and train-
ing, early warning systems for flood management, access to farm mechanization by
smallholder farmers, trust mediation for Value Chain Financing and improved land
management and productivity.
Only five of the 52 articles discussed DAPs from the policy or governance perspective. This is the least number of articles selected from any thematic area. The articles surveyed are dominated by empirical research. Of the six theoretical papers, four were reviews and two focused on models related to DAPs. There was no scoping review among the selected articles. DAPs are been studied using a wide range of theoretical and conceptual lenses. The value chain concept has been used in a significant number of studies from Sub-Saharan Africa [5, 6, 21, 22, 55, 57].

From the scoping review, research on DAPs is started quite recently. The first articles from the included studies were published in 2004. These early articles studied the impact, adoption, use and adaption of DAPs and the Economics and management of DAPs. However, in 2017 research on DAPs almost doubled and has been increasing in recent times with articles covering agricultural knowledge systems, innovation systems and innovation ecosystems and policy in addition to the thematic areas mentioned above. In recent times, more articles have also targeted developing countries.

## 4.1 Strengths and Limitations of this Scoping Review

PRISMA guided the selection of relevant literature so that the study selection will be transparent, reproducible and adequately documented. However, some relevant studies may have been omitted. This scoping review identified and selected English articles from the Scopus Database. While the articles in Scopus are usually peer-reviewed and the journals are generally of high academic and intellectual value, knowledge of DAPs is not limited to Scopus. Also, reviewing only peer-reviewed journal articles means that knowledge in grey literature may have been overlooked.

# 5 Conclusions, Implications and Directions for Future Research

Research on DAPs is quite recent. They started in 2004. Since 2017, the number of studies on DAPs has increased significantly.

This study reveals the need for studies that address the systemic challenges confronting the development of DAPs and the corresponding systemic policy frameworks required to tackle them. Also, the lack of research from the policy and innovation systems perspective in Sub-Saharan Africa context must be addressed. Specifically, rigorous studies are required to address topics such as data privacy and protection, data governance and the regulation of DAPs. By mapping and categorising the literature on DAPs, researchers and policymakers will be able to address the issues related specifically to each theme that was identified.

It also provides different routes for future research on DAPs by categorising the included studies into themes and highlighting the research that has already been conducted under each theme. The lack of literature from Central Asia and the Middle East and North Africa is proof that studies on DAPs published in English are needed from these geographical areas. Finally, it is suggested that since this scoping review used only literature from SCOPUS, a similar review is conducted that covers several
recognised databases. This, it is believed, will assist in providing a more holistic picture
of the research about DAPs.

6 References

1. Loukos, P. and Javed, A.: Opportunities in agricultural value chain digitization. (2018), https://www.gsma.com/mobilefordevelopment/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Opportunities-in-agricultural-value-chain-digitisation-Learnings-from-Ghana.pdf, last accessed 2020/03/02.

2. Eitzinger, A., Cock, J., Atzmanstorfer, K., Binder, C. R., Läderach, P., Bonilla-Findji, O. et al.: GeoFarmer: A monitoring and feedback system for agricultural development projects, Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. 158, 109–121(2019).

3. Hoppen, N., Klein, A. D. C. Z., Rigoni, E. H.: Sociomaterial practices: Challenges in developing a virtual business community platform in agriculture. Brazilian Administration Review 14(2), 1–22 (2017).

4. Ogutu, S. O., Okello, J. J., Otieno, D. J.: Impact of information and communication technology-based market information services on smallholder farm input use and productivity: The case of Kenya. World Development 64, 311–321(2014).

5. Agyekumhene, C., De Vries, J. R., van Paassen, A., Macnaghten, P., Schut, M., Bregt, A.: Digital platforms for smallholder credit access: The mediation of trust for cooperation in maize value chain financing. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 86–87, 77–88 (2018).

6. Xiong, B., Fu, R., Lin. Z., Luo, Q., Yang, L., Pan, J.: A Solution on Pork Quality Traceability from Farm to Dinner Table in Tianjin City, China. Agricultural Sciences in China 9(1), 147–156 (2010).

7. Arksey, H., O'Malley, L.: Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory and Practice 8(1), 19–32 (2005).

8. Baldwin, C. Y., Woodard, C. J.: The architecture of platforms: A unified view. In Gawer, A., (eds) Platforms, Markets and Innovation. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenhampp. 19–44 (2009).

9. Gawer, A.: Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an integrative framework. Research Policy 43(7), 1239–1249 (2014).

10. de Reuver, M., Sørensen, C., Basole, R.: The digital platform: a research agenda. Journal of Information Technology 33, 124-135 (2018).

11. Armstrong, R., Hall, B. J., Doyle, J., Waters, E.: ‘Scoping the scope’ of a cochrane review. Journal of Public Health 33(1), 147-150 (2011).

12. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., The PRISMA Group: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine 6(7), e1000097 (2009).

13. Hsieh, H. F., Shannon, S. E.: Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research 15(9), 1277–1288 (2005).

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 - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 90–91, 100315 (2019).
15. Sengupta, T., Narayanamurthy, G., Moser, R., Hota, P. K.: Sharing app for farm mechanization: Gold Farm's digitized access based solution for financially constrained farmers, Computers in Industry 109, 195-203 (2019).

16. Aribe, S. G., Turtosa, J. M. H., Yamba, J. M. B., Jamisola, A. B.: Ma-ease: An android-based technology for corn production and management. Pertanika Journal of Science and Technology 27(1), 49-68 (2019).

17. Sopegno, A., Calvo, A., Berruto, R., Busato, P., Bothis, D.: A web mobile application for agricultural machinery cost analysis, Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 130, 158-168 (2016).

18. Singh, R., Kumar, J., Nayak, A.: AGROY: creating value through smart farming. Emerald Emerging Markets Case Studies 9(3), 1-31(2019).

19. Kumar, R.: ‘eChoupals: A Study on the Financial Sustainability of Village Internet Centers in Rural Madhya Pradesh. Information Technologies and International Development 2(1), 45-73 (2004).

20. Banker, R., Mitra, S., Sambamurthy, V.: The Effects of Digital Trading Platform on Commodity Prices on Agricultural Supply Chains. MIS Quarterly 35(3), 599-611(2011).

21. Weddagala, W. M. T. B., Basnayake, B. M. R. L., Wijesekara, H. M. L., Dharmathilaka, N. R. D. S., Kiriveldeniya, K. K. A., Karunaratne, A. S. et al.: Crowd sourcing for value chain management: A case of market decision support system in Sri Lankan agriculture market. Acta Horticulturae 1278, 173-178 (2020).

22. Ndour, M. and Gueye, B.: Mlouma: to connect the agricultural products market players. Emerald Emerging Markets Case Studies 6(3), 1-18 (2016).

23. Vincent, R., Sanjaykumar, K., Rajesh, M., Verma, S. K.: Agricart: An innovative methodology for enhancing farmers livelihood. Journal of Computational and Theoretical Nanoscience 17(1), 373-377 (2020).

24. Barmpounakis, S., Kaloxylos, A., Groumas, A., Katsikas, L., Sarris, V., Dimtsa, K. et al.: Management and control applications in Agriculture domain via a Future Internet Business-to-Business platform, Information Processing in Agriculture 2(1), 51-63 (2015).

25. Bugayong, I. D., Hayashi, K., Querijero, N. J. V. B., Orden, M. E. M., Agustiani, N., Hadiawati, L. et al.: Technology transfer pathways of information and communication technologies for development (ICT4D): The case of the weather-rice-nutrient integrated decision support system (WeRise) in Indonesia. Journal of the International Society for Southeast Asian Agricultural Sciences 25(2), 104-117 (2019).

26. Mugabi, N., State, A. E., Omona, J., Jansson, B.: Revolutionary agriculture extension delivery through mobile telephony: The experience of village enterprise agent model in Greater Masaka area, Uganda. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment 217, 963-974 (2019).

27. Witteveen, L., Lie, R., Goris, M. and Ingram, V.: Design and development of a digital farmer field school. Experiences with a digital learning environment for cocoa production and certification in Sierra Leone. Telematics and Informatics 34(8), 1673-1684 (2017).

28. Kliment, T., Bordogna, G., Frigerio, L., Stroppiana, D., Crema, A., Boschetti, M. et al.: Agris on-line Papers in Economics and Informatics Supporting a Regional Agricultural Sector with Geo & Mainstream ICT. The Case Study of Space4Agri Project 6(4), 69-81 (2015).

29. Glendenning, C. J., Ficarelli, P. P.: Content development and management processes of ICT initiatives in Indian agriculture. Information Development 27(4), 301-314 (2011).

30. Karetsos, S., Costopoulou, C., Sideridis, A., Patrikakis, C., Koukouli, M.: Bio@gro - An online multilingual organic agriculture e-services platform. Information Services and Use 27(3), 123-132 (2007).
31. Lyle, P., Choi, J. H. J. and Foth, M.: Designing to the pattern: A storytelling prototype for food growers. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction 2(4) (2018).

32. Roy, M., Ghosh, C. K.: The benefits of the e-learning agricultural project kissankerala to digital immigrants and digital natives. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education 14(2), 150-164 (2013).

33. Mylonas, P., Voutos, Y., Sofou, A.: A collaborative pilot platform for data annotation and enrichment in viticulture. Information 10(4), 1-27 (2019).

34. Flak, J.: Technologies for sustainable biomass supply-overview of market offering. Agronomy 10(6) (2020).

35. Evans, K. J., Terhorst, A., Kang, B. H.: From Data to Decisions: Helping Crop Producers Build Their Actionable Knowledge. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 36(2), 71-88 (2017).

36. Ogunti, E. O., Akingbade, F.A., Segun, A., Oladimeji, O.: Decision support system using mobile applications in the provision of day to day information about farm status to improve crop yield. Periodicals of Engineering and Natural Sciences 6(2), 89-99 (2018).

37. Lian, J. W., Ke, C. K.: Using a modified ELECTRE method for an agricultural product recommendation service on a mobile device. Computers and Electrical Engineering 56, 277-288 (2016).

38. Kawtrakul, A.: Ontology Engineering and Knowledge Services for Agriculture Domain. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 11(5), 741-751 (2012).

39. Davies, F. T., Garrett, B.: Technology for Sustainable Urban Food Ecosystems in the Developing World: Strengthening the Nexus of Food-Water-Energy-Nutrition. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 2(84), 1-11(2018).

40. Munthali, N., Leeuwis, C., Van Paassen, A., Lie, R., Asare, R., Van Lammeren, R. et al.: Innovation intermediation in a digital age: Comparing public and private new-ICT platforms for agricultural extension in Ghana. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 86-87, 64-76 (2018).

41. Fielke, S. J., Garrard, R., Jakku, E., Fleming, A., Wiseman, L., Taylor, B. M.: Conceptualising the DAIS: Implications of the “Digitalisation of Agricultural Innovation Systems” on technology and policy at multiple levels. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 90-91, 100296 (2019).

42. Carolan, M.: Automated agrifood futures: robotics, labor and the distributive politics of digital agriculture. Journal of Peasant Studies 47(1), 184-207 (2020).

43. Carolan, M.: Acting like an algorithm: digital farming platforms and the trajectories they (need not) lock-in. Agriculture and Human Values (2020).

44. Muniafu, M., Wambalaba, F., Wanyama, W., Nduati, G., Ndirangu, D.: Using oer as a tool for agribusiness management training for hard-to-reach rural farmer populations. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network 17(2), 21-30 (2013).

45. Thanopoulos, C., Protonotarios, V. and Stoitsis, G.: Online web portal of competence-based training opportunities for organic agriculture. Agris On-line Papers in Economics and Informatics 4(1), 49-63 (2012).

46. Amarnath, G., Simons, G. W. H., Alahacoon, N., Smakhtin, V., Sharma, B., Gismalla, Y. et al.: Using smart ICT to provide weather and water information to smallholders in Africa: The case of the Gash River Basin, Sudan. Climate Risk Management. 52-66 (2018).

47. Schiefer, G.: New technologies and their impact on the agri-food sector: An economists view. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 43(2), 163-172 (2004).

48. Xin, J., Zazueta, F. S., Vergot III, P., Mao, X., Kooram, N., Yang, Y.: Delivering knowledge and solutions at your fingertips: Strategy for mobile app development in agriculture. Agricultural Engineering International: CIGR Journal, 2015, 317-325 (2015).
49. Singh, P. P., Pandey, P., Singh, D., Singh, S., Khan, M. S., Semwal, M.: "Mentha Mitra"— An android app based advisory digital tool for menthol mint farmers. Industrial Crops and Products 144, 112047 (2020).

50. Talwar, V., Mastakar, N., Bowonder, B. ICT platforms for enhancing agricultural productivity: The case study of Tata Kisan Kendra. International Journal of Services, Technology and Management 6(3–5), 437–448 (2005).

51. Jordan, R., Euxodie, G., Maharaj, K., Belfon, R., Bernard, M.: AgriMaps: Improving site-specific land management through mobile maps. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 123, 292–296 (2016).

52. Carolan, M.: "Urban Farming Is Going High Tech": Digital Urban Agriculture's Links to Gentrification and Land Use. Journal of the American Planning Association 86(1), pp. 47–59 (2020).

53. Carolan, M.: Agro-Digital Governance and Life Itself: Food Politics at the Intersection of Code and Affect. Sociologia Ruralis, 57(11), 816–835 (2017).

54. Bowonder, B., Yadav, Y.: Developing an ICT platform for enhancing agricultural productivity: The case study of EID Parry. International Journal of Services, Technology and Management 6(3–5), 322–341 (2005).

55. Agyekumhene, C., De Vries, J. R., van Paassen, A., Schut, M. and MacNaghten, P.: Making Smallholder Value Chain Partnerships Inclusive: Exploring Digital Farm Monitoring through Farmer Friendly Smartphone Platforms. Sustainability, 12(11), 4580 (2020).

56. Li, Z., Luo, C., Zhang, J: Research on the Development and Preliminary Application of 12396 New Rural Sci-Tech Service Hotline We Chat Public Platform. In: 2015 International Conference on Network and Information Systems for Computers, pp. 453–456.

57. Hartmann, G., Nduru, G. and Dannenberg, P.: Digital connectivity at the upstream end of value chains: A dynamic perspective on smartphone adoption amongst horticultural small-holders in Kenya. Competition and Change (2020).

58. Mbile, P., Makansi, A., Ajayi, O., Ferguson, C., Manzinga, A., Ebokely, M.: Monitoring carbon stocks on smallholder farms using information and communications technologies: Evaluating the potential for central Africa. Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 71(1), 1–17 (2015).

59. Oyinbo, O., Chamberlin, J., Maertens, M.: Design of Digital Agricultural Extension Tools: Perspectives from Extension Agents in Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Economics (2020).

60. Omulo, G., Kumeh, E. M.: Farmer-to-farmer digital network as a strategy to strengthen agricultural performance in Kenya: A research note on “Wefarm” platform. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 158, 120120 (2020).

61. Bentley, J. W., Van Mele, P., Barres, N. F., Okry, F., Wanvoeke, J.: Smallholders download and share videos from the Internet to learn about sustainable agriculture. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 17(1), 92–107(2019).