1. Introduction

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Methodological Concept

In characterization of the impacts in the study Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) was applied. It allowed for direct incorporation of the preferences of different interest groups or stakeholders [21]. Categories and subcategories have been weighted by way of calculations made using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), a multi-criteria method developed by Saaty [22]. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was conducted with the involvement of relevant stakeholders in each area (workers, members of local communities, and members of society).

The first phase of the AHP is the development of a hierarchical structure through the decomposition of the problem into levels and sublevels. The second AHP phase consisted in pairwise comparison at each level: stakeholders, divided in 3 expert groups, were interviewed to compare each subcategory and category of impact. Each element of the AHP priority matrix had been normalized and a consistency ratio (CR) of the pairwise comparison matrix [23] had been calculated. A pairwise comparison allowed the attribution of a relative weight to each of them. The same comparison was made at 3 hierarchical levels: for categories, subcategories, and groups of stakeholders. The AHP allowed for the transformation of qualitative judgments into quantitative elements. The outline of the method used in the study is presented in figure below (Figure 1).

2.1.1. Goal and Scope Definition

The overall objective of the study was to determine the potential impact of WeLASER adoption taking into account a wide sustainability context of its implementation in Life Cycle Perspective. To determine the key elements of the S-LCA including its goal, scope and key categories and subcategories of assessment there was carried out literature study and interaction with stakeholders was performed in a participatory approach. A literature review constituted the basic information on which the specific method, tailored to the purpose of the study was developed. The review included peer-reviewed literature from scientific journals and official published literature analyzing the current statistics and the specific literature relevant to the contexts under study and face-to-face interviews with experts. The study was focused on well-being and quality of life in the domains of farmers, society and business. To combine the expert knowledge with stakeholders opinions focus groups has been structured. The purpose was to involve stakeholders from the three perspectives in the process of identification of key domains and fields of assessment that have to be taken into account.

Four workshops were held as part of the WeLASER project with wide participation of the stakeholders. The workshops were organized on-line on European level and in three regional contexts, in Poland, Belgium and Spain. In each of the groups participated 15 -25 stakeholders representing business, NGO, administration, farmers and farmers associations (D1.3 available at www.welaser.eu). The FGI workshops consisted of two parts: 1) structured discussion and 2) SWOT analysis. Results of SWOT analysis are reported by Tran et al. [26]. In the events Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats of WeLASER implementation related to particular actors, societal domains, barriers, opportunities and benefits were identified, characterized and valuated. Unpublished results from the structured discussion part of the workshops were also used in this study. Both sources were provided valuable information for structuring the assessment hierarchy. These were evaluated in the context of the results of literature analysis and formed the basis for preparing the methodological details of S-LCA approach.

A wide use of weeding technologies such as WeLASER (unmanned, autonomous, weeding using laser energy) in agricultural practice in Europe was assumed as the subject of assessment. Weeding was recognized as activity in the whole crop production cycle allowing for generating crop at the sufficient level according to current agricultural practice. The subject of assessment was related to all potential applications of WeLASER in crop systems in agriculture - according to the experts knowledge.

Scope of analysis targeted: social, environmental and economic issues related to three societal perspectives. According to [27], S-LCA regards the consideration of “human well-being” as an overall social dimension. Specific three dimensions (perspectives) were defined as related to agricultural machinery usage in crop production systems: societal quality of life, well-being in farmers’ perspective and business performance related to business responsibilities within the WeLASER life cycle. The perspectives were unique for a given group of stakeholders and the assessment was done separately for each perspective (Figure 1).

The assessment targeted in qualitative terms the two elements forming the system boundary:

• machine robot life cycle phases including production (need for critical materials, use and dismantling of the robot
• crop life cycle

Moreover, in developing of the categories (domains) and subcategories (fields) of assessment 5 stocks of capital, human, technical, financial, social, and institutional [27] were considering. Finally, taking into account all methodological aspects, S-LCA of WeLASER technology:

• o was based on overall LCA framework [28]
• o integrates participatory approach and multi-criterial tools of analysis
• o follows the recommendations published by The Life Cycle Initiative United Nations Environment Programme-Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (UNEP-SETAC) [17,18].

Figure 2. Stakeholders perspectives and impact categories/domains.

Figure 2. Stakeholders perspectives and impact categories/domains.

2.1.2. Inventory and Characterization Analysis

Three groups of experts were formed in this study as a qualitative technique to involve experts with experience in agricultural domains, rural economics, business and local development. Groups of experts were formed in line with the recommendations of UNEP-SETAC [18]. Taking into account the scope system boundaries of this study the following groups of experts were formed:

-

Farmers and farm workers: persons who cultivates crops of his own and someone else filed.

-

Society: local community as well as European society

-

Institutions supporting business sector in rural areas - institutions include business organizations and supporting entities improving the knowledge and skills of farmers

Structure of the expert groups is presented in the Table 1.

Direct measurements was developed to make assessment through questionnaires. Secondary sources were used in development of the questionnaire and as a structured background for the interviewer for the purpose of moderating discussion during interview. Questionnaires were developed as a basis for direct experts’ interviews.

The objective of the inventory was to collect relevant information according to the scope of the study. The interviews were structured in the following way: discussion based on the questionnaire and assessment of each of the fields representing societal relevant impact. Questionnaire and rationale for its structure is presented in Table 2.

Experts characterized the impacts in the particular categories/domains and subcategories/fields by providing their opinion on how WeLASER technology impact the societal aspects in particular fields and domains in comparison with the current situation. 5 scale of assessment was applied with the range of negative assessment, neutral to positive assessment

The results of the assessment were further discussed with the groups of experts representing each perspective during three workshops. During the workshop experts expressed their preferences according to Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) [23] .This method was applied as a tool in order to in the evaluation of the relative importance of each impact category and subcategory.

2.2. Approach to Impact Assessment and Interpretation of Results

Within the frames of the WeLASER project face-to-face surveys pertaining the introduction onto the market laser weed control system, i.e. antiweed system basing on application of laser technology, precise positioning, artificial intelligence and autonomously mobile platform. The goal of this study was to assess the impact of the launch of a new weed control tool on various fields and domains of life as assessed by experts representing three perspectives. In addition, the study aimed to determine the strength of experts' preferences between fields and domains, which was used in assessing the strength of the calculated impact. And using calculated weights, the effect of these preferences on the final impact assessment on fields and domains was carried out.

The perspectives included in the paper are: farmers (P1), business (P2) and society (P3). In the study participated 15 experts, 5 representing each perspective.

The first perspective P1 included farmers working at the farm.

The second perspective P2 included: sales representative of companies; innovation broker at Agricultural Advisory Centre; representative of fruit and vegetable processing sector; representative of the company dealing with advice, research and development activities, trainings, support for farmers; and representative of the consulting company providing best agricultural practices.

The third perspective included coordinator of the program dedicated to organic food systems and representative of research organization; representative of NGO (network) and research organization; representative of Chamber of Agriculture (Management Board); member of the Board of the European organization acting in the field of organic food and farming; and representative of NGO.

Experts from these perspectives were interviewed on relevant to them themes. The themes were organized into fields, which represented specific questions and into domains, which constituted set of questions. Thus we have 3 level structure of analysis.

The farmer perspective (P1) consists of 3 domains (D11, D12, D13).

Domain D11. Health and working conditions contains four following fields: F111. The farmer's working time; F112. Comfort of work; F113. Work safety and accidents; F114. Health conditions.

Domain D12. Economic consequences contains four following fields: F121. Good quality agricultural products that meet customers’ needs; F122. Farms’ productivity per hectare; F123. Demand on seasonal/temporary workers; F124. Production costs.

Domain D13. Risk for farms operations contains three following fields: F131. Risks related to unexpected functional limitations of the device; F132. Farmers’ liability for damage to third party property caused by the device; F133. Risk of theft or damaging the device.

The business perspective (P2) consist of 4 domains (D21, D22, D23, D24).

Domain D21. Profitability contains three following fields: F211. Profits of companies producing the machines; F212. Profits of agri-food and food processing industry; F213. Profits of agricultural producers/farmers/producers groups.

Domain D22. Business risks contains three following fields: F221. Manufacturer’s responsibility for product’s malfunctions (complaints, service); F222. Manufacturer’s responsibility for the damage to the user or third party property caused by the device; F223. Manufacturer’s risk for the supply chain interruption in manufacturing processes.

Domain D23. Environmental performance of companies contains three following fields: F231. Demand on critical resources; F232. Manufacturer’s responsibility for waste management of devices in its post-consumption phase; F233. Production’s pressure on the environment.

Domain D24. Perspectives of business development contains three following fields: F241. Creation of new jobs; F242. New prospects for the companies development; F243. Strengthening competences of organizations, companies and workers.

The society perspective (P2) consist of 3 domains (D31, D32, D33).

Domain D31. Quality of life and environment contains three following fields: F311. Quality and safety of agricultural products; F312. State of the environment; F313. Affordability of agricultural products for the society.

Domain D32. Demographic consequences contains three following fields: F321. Young people interest in running a farm; F322. Women's interest in working in agriculture; F323. The demand for low-skilled labor.

Domain D33. Just agriculture transformation contains three following fields: F331. The agrarian structure of agriculture; F332. Development of ecological (organic) farms; F333. Economic diversification of rural areas.

The experts were asked to assess the impact of the WeLASER technology on specific field and the impact was assessed in five-point ordinal scale. Starting from 1 point meaning very negative impact, 2 points meaning negative impact, 3 points meaning neutral impact, 4 points meaning positive impact; and ending with 5 points meaning very positive impact.

On the base of results of impact assessment from 5 experts, average impact on given field in a form of arithmetic mean $\overline{x}$ was calculated with formula:

$$\overline{x}=\frac{1}{n}\sum _{i=1}^n{x}_i$$

(1)

where n is the number of individual assessments (n equals 5), x_i - impact evaluation of one of five experts.

Based on the average impact on given field, the average impact on a domain and finally the average impact for analyzed perspectives were calculated.

In evaluation of average impacts following ranges were used to classify obtained results: 1.0 < $\overline{x}$ <1.5 means very negative impact; 1.5 <= $\overline{x}$ < 2.5 means negative impact; 2.5 <= $\overline{x}$ < 3.5 means neutral impact; 3.5 <= $\overline{x}$ < 4.5 means positive impact and 4.5 <= $\overline{x}$ < 5.0 means very positive impact.

In evaluation of experts preferences expressed in weights, general approach of the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) [22,23,24,25] was applied (Figure 3).

For two levels of hierarchy, domains and fields, weights were calculated by use of pairwise comparisons. Narrowed and more detailed scale was used because it was assumed that irrelevant domains and fields were excluded before the survey was conducted. The scale of preferences and corresponding scores are presented below (Table 1).

Table 3. The assignment of numerical rates to the scale of preferences.

Table 3. The assignment of numerical rates to the scale of preferences.

Numerical rate	Scale of preferences
1	Equal preference
1 1/2	Intermediate preferences
2	Equally to moderately preference
2 1/2	Intermediate preferences
3	Moderately preference
3 1/2	Intermediate preferences
4	Moderately to strong preference
4 1/2	Intermediate preferences
5	Strong preference

During the calculation of the weights, a consistency factor was also calculated to ensure the consistency of the resulting weights. Each expert had to express his or her preferences by comparing pairs of domains in a given perspective and fields in a given domain. The weights themselves were calculated automatically in Excel by a pre-prepared procedure. Thus importance of the field and domain for given expert was established. Calculated weights expressing importance of given field were averaged within domain while weights expressing importance of given domain were averaged within perspective. For averaging arithmetic mean was used (formula 1).

In evaluation of changes of weights, the calculated average weights were compared with values of initial weights $w_i$ which were calculated according to the following formula:

$$w_i=\frac{1}{n}$$

(2)

where n is the number of fields (F) in a domain (D) or the number of domains (D) in given perspective (P).

The results of the changes in weights (expressing experts' preferences) were used to assess the strength of the assessed impacts, in other words, the strength of the experts' conviction in evaluating the impacts. In evaluation this strength 3 grade scale was used: strong, normal and weak. In assigning the strength of the impacts R following formula was used

$$R=\frac{D_w}{SD}$$

(4)

where $D_w$ is percentage change in weight value in reference to initial weight value, $SD$ standard deviation for sample representing all calculated for given perspective changes of weights values including domains and fields. The assumption was such that: if $R$ > 1 and $D_w$ < 0 it means weak evaluation; if $R$ > 1 and $D_w$ > 0 it means strong evaluation, otherwise it means normal strength of evaluation.

The averaged weights were used to check whether the introduction of preferences influence the assessed impacts. The weighted means of impacts ($\overline{x}$) were calculated by formula:

$$\overline{x}=\sum _{i=1}^n{x}_i{w}_i$$

(5)

where $x_i$ score of assessed impact and $w_i$ is calculated average weight for given domain or field. In this case n denotes the number of fields in domain or domains in given perspective.

3. Results

4. Discussion and Conclusions

References

1. Communication EU A Farm to Fork Strategy (COM (2020) 381 final). Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:ea0f9f73-9ab2-11ea-9d2d-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_1&format=PDF (accessed on 9.12.2023).
2. European Commission, Communication From The Commission To The European Parliament, The European Council, The Council, The European Economic And Social Committee And The Committee Of The Regions The European Green Deal, COM/2019/640 final.
3. Communication EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 (COM (2020) 380 final). Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52020DC0380 (accessed on 9.12.2023).
4. Communication EU A long-term Vision for the EU's Rural Areas - Towards stronger, connected, resilient and prosperous rural areas by 2040 (COM(2021) 345 final). Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:6c924246-da52-11eb-895a-01aa75ed71a1.0003.02/DOC_1&format=PDF (accessed on 9.12.2023).
5. Blakeney M., Agricultural Innovation and Sustainable Development, Sustainability, 2022, 14(5), 2698. [CrossRef]
6. Gebbers, R.; Adamchuk, V. I.; Precision Agriculture and Food Security. Science 2010, 327, pp. 828-831. [CrossRef]
7. EU authorisation processes of plant protection products from a scientific point of view Group of Chief Scientific Advisors: scientific opinion 5 (supported by SAPEA evidence review report No. 3) : Brussels, 4 June 2018.
8. Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for Community action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides, OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, pp. 71-86.
9. Report from The Commission to The European Parliament and The Council On the experience gained by Member States on the implementation of national targets established in their National Action Plans and on progress in the implementation of Directive 2009/128/EC on the sustainable use of pesticides. COM(2020) 204 final. Available online: https://food.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2020-05/pesticides_sud_report-act_2020_en.pdf (accessed on 9.12.2023).
10. Rizzo G., · Migliore · G., Schifani G., · Vecchio R., Key factors influencing farmers’ adoption of sustainable innovations: a systematic literature review and research agenda, Org. Agr. [CrossRef]
11. Jørgensen A., Social LCA—a way ahead? 2012, Int J Life Cycle Assess (2013) 18:296–299. [CrossRef]
12. Macombe K., Leskinen P., Feschet P., Antikainen R., Social life cycle assessment of biodiesel production at three levels: a literature review and development needs, Journal of Cleaner Production, (2014) Volume 52, 1 August 2013, Pages 205-216. production at three levels. [CrossRef]
13. Spykman O., Gabriel A., Ptacek, Gandorfer M., Farmers’ perspectives on field crop robots – Evidence from Bavaria, Germany, Computers and Electronics in Agriculture (2021) 186, 106176. [CrossRef]
14. Coleman G.R.Y., Stead A, Bigter M.P., Xu Z, Johnson D, Broker G.M., Sukkarieh S., Walsh M.J. Using energy requirements to compare the suitability of alternative methods for broadcast and site-specific weed control. Weed Tech (2019) 33: 663–650. [CrossRef]
15. Iofrida, N., Strano A., Gulisano G. ; De Luca, A. I., Why social life cycle assessment is struggling in development?.  The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2018) 23, Nr 2, p.201-203. [CrossRef]
16. De Luca A. I., Iofrida N., Strano A., Falcone G., Gulisano G., Social life cycle assessment and participatory approaches: A methodological proposal applied to citrus farming in Southern Italy Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management Special Series: SETAC LCA (2014) Case Study Symposium 2013.
17. United Nations Environment Programme – UNEP, Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) Guidelines For Social Life Cycle Assessment Of Products, 2009.
18. United Nations Environment Programme – UNEP, Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) The Methodological Sheets for Subcategories in Social life cycle assessment (S-LCA), 2013.
19. Dong, Y.H., Ng, S.T. A social life cycle assessment model for building construction in Hong Kong. Int J Life Cycle Assess (2015) 20, 1166–1180. [CrossRef]
20. Mathé S., (2014), Integrating participatory approaches into social life cycle assessment: The SLCA participatory approach. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 19 (8) : pp. 1506-1514. [CrossRef]
21. Estévez R. A., Walshe T., Burgman M. A., Capturing social impacts for decision-making: a Multicriteria Decision Analysis perspective, Diversity and Distributions, (2013) 19, 608–616. [CrossRef]
22. Saaty, T. L. (1988). What is the analytic hierarchy process? (pp. 109-121). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. [CrossRef]
23. Saaty, T. L. (2003, August). Rank, normalization and idealization in the Analytic Hierarchy Process. In Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Analytic Hierarchy Process, Bali, Indonesia (pp. 57-63).
24. Malczewski, J. (1999). GIS and multicriteria decision analysis. New York, John Wiley & Sons.
25. Malczewski, J. (2018). Multicriteria analysis.
26. Tran D., ·Schouteten J. J., Degieter M., Krupanek J., Jarosz W., · Areta A., Emmi L., De Steur H. ·Gellynck X., European stakeholders’ perspectives on implementation potential of precision weed control: the case of autonomous vehicles with laser treatment, Precision Agriculture (2023) 24:2200–2222. [CrossRef]
27. Reitinger C., Dumke M., Barosevcic M., Hillerbrand R., A conceptual framework for impact assessment within SLCA, Int J Life Cycle Assess (2011) 16(4):380-388. [CrossRef]
28. ISO 14040:2006 Environmental management, Life cycle assessment, (2006) reviewed and confirmed in 2022.
29. von Veltheim, F. R., Theuvsen, L., & Heise, H. (2022). German farmers’ intention to use autonomous field robots: A PLS-analysis. Precision Agriculture, 23(2), 670–697. [CrossRef]
30. von Veltheim, F. R., & Heise, H. (2021). German farmers’ attitudes on adopting autonomous field robots: An empirical survey. Agriculture (Switzerland). [CrossRef]
31. Sparrow R., Howard M., Robots in agriculture: prospects, impacts, ethics, and policy Precision Agriculture (2020) 22:818–833. [CrossRef]
32. Cavallo E.; Ferrari ER.; Bollani L.; Coccia M. Attitudes and behaviour of adopters of technological innovations in agricultural tractors: A case study in Italian agricultural system. 2014 Agricultural Systems. 130. 44–54. [CrossRef]
33. Ait Sidhoum, A. Assessing the contribution of farmers’ working conditions to productive efficiency in the presence of uncertainty, a nonparametric approach, Environ Dev Sustain, 25, (2023), 8601–8622. [CrossRef]
34. Martin T., Gasselin P., Hostiou N., Feron G., Laurens L., Purseigle F., Ollivier G., Robots and transformations of work in farm: a systematic review of the literature and a research agenda, Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2022) 42: 66. [CrossRef]
35. Andreasen C., Scholle K. Saberi M., Laser Weeding With Small Autonomous Vehicles: Friends or Foes? Front. Agron., Sec. Weed Management, 2022, Volume 4 - 2022 |. [CrossRef]
36. Marinoudi V., Sørensen C. G., Pearson S., Bochtis D. (2019) Robotics and labour in agriculture. A context consideration, (2019) Biosystems Engineering 184(3):111-121. [CrossRef]
37. Shutske J. M. (2023) Agricultural Automation & Autonomy: Safety and Risk Assessment Must Be at the Forefront, Journal of Agromedicine, 28:1, 5-10. [CrossRef]
38. Aby, G.R.; Issa, S.F. Safety of Automated Agricultural Machineries: A Systematic Literature, Review. Safety, 2023, 9, 13. [CrossRef]
39. França DMZR, Lacerda ABM, Lobato D, Ribas A, Dias KZ, Leroux T, et al. Adverse effects of pesticides on central auditory functions in tobacco growers. Int J Audiol. 2017; 56(4):233–241. [CrossRef]
40. Benos L., Bechar A., Bochtis D., Safety and ergonomics in human-robot interactive agricultural operations, biosystems engineering 200 (2020) pp. 55-72. [CrossRef]
41. Hamsan H, Ho YB, Zaidon SZ, Hashim Z, Saari N, Karami A. Occurrence of commonly used pesticides in personal air samples and their associated health risk among paddy farmers, Sci Total Environ, 2017; 603-604:381–389. [CrossRef]
42. M. Treiber, F. Hillerbrand, J. Bauerdick, H. Bernhardt, On the current state of agricultural robotics in crop farming chances and risks, 47th Symposium "Actual Tasks on Agricultural Engineering", Opatija, Croatia, 2019.
43. Portela de-Assis M., Barcella R. C., Padilha J. C., Pohl H. H., Frantz Krug S. B., Health problems in agricultural workers occupationally exposed to pesticides, Rev Bras Med Trab. 2020; 18(3): 352–363. [CrossRef]
44. Brühl C. A. and. Zaller J. G. Biodiversity Decline as a Consequence of an Inappropriate Environmental Risk Assessment of Pesticides, (2019). Frontiers in Environmental Sciences, Opinion. [CrossRef]
45. Kingsley Nwosu O, John A. Chemical Pesticides and Food Safety [Internet]. Insecticides - Impact and Benefits of Its Use for Humanity. IntechOpen; 2022. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.102395.
46. Steingoltz, M; Picciola, M; Wilson, R. 2018. Consumer Health Claims 3.0: The Next Generation of Mindful Food Consumption. L.E.K. Consulting. Executive Insights 20(51).
47. Lowenberg-DeBoer J., Huang I. Y., Grigoriadis V., Blackmore S., Economics of robots and automation in field crop production, Precision Agriculture, (2020) 21:278–299. [CrossRef]
48. EPRS European Parlimentary Research Service, Scientific Foresight Unit (STOA) PE 581.892 Precision agriculture and the future of farming in Europe Scientific Foresight Study IP/G/STOA/FWC/2013-1/Lot 7/SC5, December 2016 https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2861/020809.
49. Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission; Monitoring Agriculture ResourceS (MARS) Unit H04; Pablo J. Zarco-Tejada, Neil Hubbard and Philippe Loudjan, Precision agriculture: an opportunity for EU farmers – potential support with the CAP 2014-2020 (2014), European Parliament.
50. Baio F. H. R., da Silva S. P., Camolese H. da S., Neves D. C. Financial analysis of the investment in precision agriculture techniques on cotton crop 2017 Engenharia Agrícola 37(4):838-847. [CrossRef]
51. Petrova Beluhova-Uzunova R.; Dunchev D.M. Precision farming – concepts and perspectives. Problems of Agricultural Economics 2019, 3(360), 142-155.
52. Troiano S., Carzedda M., Marangon F., Better richer than environmentally friendly? Describing preferences toward and factors affecting precision agriculture adoption in Italy, Agricultural and Food Economics (2023) volume 11: 16. [CrossRef]
53. Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission; Monitoring Agriculture Resource S (MARS), (2014) Directorate-General For Internal Policies Policy Department B: Structural And Cohesion Policies Agriculture And Rural Development Precision Agriculture: An Opportunity For Eu Farmers -Potential Support With The Cap 2014-2020.
54. Carbonell I. M. The ethics of big data in big agriculture, Internet policy review, 2016 Vol 5, issue 1. [CrossRef]
55. Firbank L. G., Towards the sustainable intensification of agriculture—a systems approach to policy formulation Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. (2020), 7(1): 81–89. [CrossRef]
56. Visser O., Sippel S. R., Thiemann L., Imprecision farming? Examining the (in)accuracy and risks of digital agriculture 2021 Journal of Rural Studies 86(21). [CrossRef]
57. European Parliament, Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services, Kritikos, M., Precision agriculture in Europe – Legal, social and ethical considerations, European Parliament, 2017, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2861/278.
58. He Q. Sun Y., Yi M., Huang H., How to promote agricultural enterprises to reduce the use of pesticides and fertilizers? An evolutionary game approach Agrochemicals in agricultural and non-agricultural settings: Fate, distribution, and potential human and environmental health hazards Front. Sustain. Food Syst., (2023) Sec. Agro-Food Safety Vol 7. [CrossRef]
59. Andreasen, C.; Vlassi, E.; Johannsen, K.S.; Jensen, S.M. Side-effects of laser weeding: quantifying off-target risks to earthworms (Enchytraeids) and insects (Tenebrio molitor and Adalia bipunctata). 2023, Front. Agron. 5:1198840. [CrossRef]
60. Global Network for the Right to Food and Nutrition, (2021) State of the Right To Food And Nutrition ReportSwiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) and Brot für die Welt.
61. Shoji N., Precision Agriculture Creates New Business Opportunities, Mitsui Global Strategic Studies Institute Monthly Report June 2017.
62. Baerdemaeker De J., Saey W. (2015) Good Agricultural Practices, Quality, Traceability, and Precision Agriculture [in :] Precision Agriculture Technology for Crop Farming (pp.279-298). [CrossRef]
63. Sánchez-Bayo and Wyckhuys, 2019, Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: A review of its drivers, Biological conservation 232 (2019) 8-27.
64. Pitla S., Bajwa S., Bhusal S., Brumm T., Brown-Brandl T. M., (2020) Ground and Aerial Robots for Agricultural Production: Opportunities and Challenges Biological Systems Engineering: Papers and Publications Biological Systems Engineering University of Nebraska – Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - LincolnDigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - L.
65. Wubale T., Marcus P. S., Hjorth L. K. M., Farm and operator characteristics affecting adoption of precision agriculture in Denmark and Germany (2018) Acta Agriculture Scandinavica, Section B — Soil & Plant Science. [CrossRef]
66. Capelli R., Montobbio F., Morrison A., Unemployment resistance across EU regions: the role of technological and human capital, 2020, Journal of Evolutionary Economics (2021) 31:147–178. [CrossRef]
67. Kołodziejczak W., Hidden unemployment in Polish Agriculture in 1995-2015, Journal of Agribusiness and Rural Development. [CrossRef]
68. Kleven, H., Landais, C., 2017. Gender inequality and economic development: fertility, education and norms. Economica 84 (334), 180–209. [CrossRef]
69. Matuszewska-Janica, A., 2018. Men and women wage differences in Spain and Poland. Montenegrin J. Econ. 14 (1), 45–52. [CrossRef]
70. Balezentis T., Morkunas M., Volkom A., Ribasauskiene E., Are women neglected in the EU agriculture? Evidence from Lithuanian young farmers Land Use Policy (2021) 101 105129.
71. Vecchia Y., De Rosa M., Adinolfi F., Bartoli L., Masi M., Adoption of precision farming tools: A context-related analysis, Land Use Policy Volume 94, May 2020, 104481.
72. Channarayappa C., Biradar D.P. Organic Farming and Precision Agriculture for Sustainable Farming (2018) chapter in Soil Basics, Management, and Rhizosphere Engineering for Sustainable Agriculture, pp.279-313. [CrossRef]
73. Fisher, M., Kandiwa, V., 2014. Can agricultural input subsidies reduce the gender gap in modern maize adoption? Evidence from Malawi. Food Policy 45, 101–111. [CrossRef]
74. Sparrow R., Howard M., Robots in agriculture: prospects, impacts, ethics, and policy Precision Agriculture (2021) 22:818–833. [CrossRef]
75. Vivarelli M. "Innovation, Employment and Skills in Advanced and Developing Countries: A Survey of Economic Literature", Journal of Economic Issues (2014), 48(1), 123–154. [CrossRef]
76. O’Kane G. What is the real cost of our food? Implications for the environment, society and public health nutrition. Public Health Nutrition. 2012;15(2):268-276. [CrossRef]
77. Hackfort S. Patterns of Inequalities in Digital Agriculture: A Systematic Literature Review Sustainability 2021, 13(22), 12345. [CrossRef]
78. Daberkow, S. G.; Mc Bride, W. D. Farm and Operator Characteristics Affecting the Awareness and Adoption of Precision Agriculture Technologies in the US. 2003, Precision Agriculture, 4, pp. 163-177. [CrossRef]
79. Duff, H.; Hegedus, P.B.; Loewen, S.; Bass, T.; Maxwell, B.D. Precision Agroecology. Sustainability, 2022, 14, 106. [CrossRef]
80. Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing. Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91. Official Journal of the European Union L 189/2, 20.07.2007.
81. Rotzc S., Gravely E., Mosby I., Duncan E., Finnis E., Horgan M., LeBlanca J., Ralph Martin R., Neufeld H., T., Nixon A., Pant L., Vivian Shalla, Evan Fraser, Automated pastures and the digital divide: How agricultural technologies are shaping labour and rural communities, (2019).
82. The Aspen Institure, Future work.2019 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Farmers, Ranchers, and Other Agricultural Managers.” Occupational Outlook Handbook. 2019. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/farmers-ranchers-and-other-agricultural-managers.htm).
83. Moller, B. , Voglhuber-Slavinsky A., Dönitz E., Three scenarios for Europe’s food sector in 2035 Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI, 2020.
84. Treiber, M. , Hillerbrand F., Bauerdick J., Bernhardt H., On the current state of agricultural robotics in crop farming chances and risks, 47th Symposium "Actual Tasks on Agricultural Engineering", Opatija, Croatia, 2019.
85. Pretty J., CTA Social capital and connectedness: Issues and implications for agriculture, rural development and natural resource management in ACP countries, CTA Working Document Number 8032, 2003.
86. Rodriguez, J.M.; Molnar, J.J.; Fazio, R.A.; Sydnor, E.; Lowe, M.J. Barriers to adoption of sustainable agriculture practices: Change agent perspectives. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2009, 24, 11–15. [CrossRef]
87. European Parliament, Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services, Schrijver, R., Kempenaar, C., Quinn, J. Precision agriculture and the future of farming in Europe – Annex 1 – Technical Horizon Scan, European Parliament, 2016, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2861/763030.
88. Liu W., Wei S., Wang S., Lim M. K., Wang Y., Problem identification model of agricultural precision management based on smart supply chains: An exploratory study from China, Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 352, 10 June 2022, 131622.
89. EU Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery, and amending Directive 95/16/EC (recast) (Text with EEA relevance)Text with EEA relevance.
90. COM(2023) 165 final Communication From The Commission To The European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic And Social Committee And The Committee Of The Regions, Brussels, 16.3.2023 A secure and sustainable supply of critical raw materials in support of the twin transition.
91. Yaqot M., Menezes B. C., Al-Ansari T., Roadmap to Precision Agriculture Under Circular Economy Constraints Journal of Information & Knowledge Management Vol. 22, No. 5 (2023) 2250092 (29 pages). [CrossRef]
92. EU Machinery Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2023/1230) was published on 29th June 2023.
93. COM/2020/98 final Communication from the Commission to The European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions A new Circular Economy Action Plan for a cleaner and more competitive Europe.
94. Roland Berger Strategy Consultants GmbHBusiness opportunities in Precision Farming: Will big data feed the world in the future? (2015).
95. Liu, Y. Impact of industrial robots on environmental pollution: evidence from China. Sci Rep 13, 20769 (2023). [CrossRef]
96. Luan F., Yang X., Chen Y., Regis P. J., Industrial robots and air environment: A moderated mediation model of population density and energy consumption, Sustainable Production and Consumption Volume 30, March 2022, Pages 870-888.
97. European Commission, Critical materials for strategic technologies and sectors in the EU - a foresight study, 2020.
98. Szczepański M. Future Shocks 2023: De-risking Europe’s global critical supply chains, EPRS Strategic Foresight and Capabilities Unit / August 18, 2023, electronic document https://epthinktank.eu/2023/08/18/future-shocks-2023-de-risking-europes-global-critical-supply-chains/ [accessed: 20.09.2023].
99. Attinasi M. G., Ioannou D., Lebastard L., Morris R. Global production and supply chain risks: insights from a survey of leading companies, European Central Bank, ECB Economic Bulletin, Issue 7/2023. electronic document https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/economic-bulletin/focus/2023/html/ecb.ebbox202307_01~2a0bcf0b48.en.html [accessed: 10.09.2023].
100. Shibusawa S. (2016) A Systems Approach to Community-Based Precision Agriculture in [Ed.] Qin Zhang Q. ,Precision Agriculture Technology For Crop Farming CRC press Francis Taylor Group, pp. 213- 230.