Technological progress can disrupt domains and change the way we work and collaborate. This paper presents a qualitative study with 52 German farmers that investigates the impact of the ongoing digitalization process in agriculture and discusses the implications for privacy research. As in other domains, the introduction of digital tools and services leads to the data itself becoming a resource. Sharing this data with products along the supply chain is favored by retailers and consumers, who benefit from traceability through transparency. However, transparency can pose a privacy risk. Having insight into the business data of others along the supply chain provides an advantage in terms of market position. This is particularly true in agriculture, where there is already a significant imbalance of power between actors. A multitude of small and medium-sized farming businesses are opposed by large upstream and downstream players that drive technological innovation. Further weakening the market position of farmers could lead to severe consequences for the entire sector. We found that on the one hand, privacy behaviors are affected by adoption of digitalization, and on the other hand, privacy itself influences adoption of digital tools. Our study sheds light on the emerging challenges for farmers and the role of privacy in the process of digitalization in agriculture.

No abstract

No abstract

Agriculture is subject to high demands regarding resilience as it is an essential component of the food production chain. In the agricultural sector, there is an increasing usage of digital tools that rely on communication and energy infrastructures. Should disruption occur, such strengthened dependencies on other infrastructures increase the probability of ripple effects. Thus, there is a need to analyze the resilience of the agricultural sector with a specific focus on the effects of digitalization. This study works out resilience capacities of the interconnected technologies used in farm systems based on the experiences and opinions of farmers. Information was gathered through focus group interviews with farmers (N = 52) and a survey with participants from the agricultural sector (N = 118). In particular, the focus is put on the digital tools and other information and communication technologies they use. Based on a definition of resilience capacities, we evaluate resilience regarding energy and communication demands in various types of farm systems. Especially important are the resilience aspects of modern systems’ digital communication as well as the poorly developed and nonresilient network infrastructure in rural areas that contrast with the claim for a resilient agriculture. The result is a low robustness capacity, as our analysis concludes with the risk of food production losses.

No abstract