The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension

Competence for Rural Innovation and Transformation

ISSN: 1389-224X (Print) 1750-8622 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/raee20

A user-centred future for agricultural digital

innovation: demonstrating the value of design
thinking in an animal health context

Karen McGrath, Áine Regan & Tomás Russell

To cite this article: Karen McGrath, Áine Regan & Tomás Russell (2025) A user-centred future
for agricultural digital innovation: demonstrating the value of design thinking in an animal
health context, The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 31:3, 417-435, DOI:
10.1080/1389224X.2024.2397968

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2024.2397968

© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa View supplementary material

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group

Published online: 11 Sep 2024. Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1124 View related articles

View Crossmark data Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=raee20
THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION
2025, VOL. 31, NO. 3, 417–435
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2024.2397968

A user-centred future for agricultural digital innovation:

demonstrating the value of design thinking in an animal
health context
a
Karen McGrath , Áine Reganb and Tomás Russell a

a
UCD School of Agriculture & Food Science, University College Dublin, Belfield, Ireland; bDepartment of Agri-
food Business & Spatial Analysis, REDP, Athenry, Ireland

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Purpose: Much of the literature investigating farmer engagement Received 19 December 2023
with digital technology has focused on farmer-centred adoption Accepted 20 July 2024
factors. However, more recent research has called for new user-
KEYWORDS
centred approaches to technology design to promote more Design thinking; digital
responsive development and ultimately more successful uptake. agriculture; stakeholder
Methodology: Responding to these calls, this study draws on engagement; participation;
Stanford’s design thinking framework and principles to design a digital innovation; user-
digital innovation for use in an animal health context. centred design
Findings: The study details how a co-design workshop was used to
incorporate end-user needs, values, and requirements for a digital
animal health innovation. Additionally, it outlines how co-design
approaches can be useful to identify and address innovation
design issues early on in the design process.
Practical implications: This study highlights the importance of
end-user engagement for the design, development, and
implementation of digital innovations for the agricultural sector
and the importance this has for successful technology
development and user uptake.
Theoretical implications: This study contributes to the literature
on innovation development for agriculture and to the theory on
farmer engagement.
Originality/value: This study is one of few that applies co-design
and design thinking methodologies to the creation of a digital
animal health diagnostic tool.

1. Introduction
Participatory design approaches represent a shift in attitude from designing for users to one
of designing with users (Sanders 2002) and characterises a move away from ‘top-down’ to
‘bottom-up’ processes of innovation development. Various methods and approaches to
achieve more inclusive innovation design are beginning to be used in the digital agriculture
literature including participatory design methods, reflexive interactive design, co-design,

CONTACT Karen McGrath [email protected]

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2024.2397968.
© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly
cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s)
or with their consent.
418 K. MCGRATH ET AL.

responsibility by design, and design thinking (Eastwood et al. 2022; Kenny et al. 2021; Prost
2021; Steinke et al. 2022). These approaches apply different methods and techniques to
engage with farmers to build understanding and identify their needs and preferences, as
well as prototyping and testing solutions to address those needs and to ensure inclusive
design (Prost 2021). These types of approaches allow for co-creation and co-innovation
where future end users become equal co-designers of their own solutions; actively identify­
ing problems and creating solutions, and not just involved to participate in the design
process or to test solutions that have been designed ‘for’ them (Eastwood et al. 2022).
These types of approaches can help to develop technologies more effectively and efficiently
and can therefore be useful to address some of the complex issues of agricultural digitalisa­
tion including insufficient and inadequate technology design and low technology adoption
rates.
Up until relatively recently, the development of digital agricultural innovations has
largely been based on a linear model with research organisations producing the scientific
and technical knowledge needed, with little to no input from innovation end users such
as farmers (Berthet et al. 2018). The Human–Computer Interaction (HCI) literature has
indicated that these linear methods of technology design are no longer sufficient owing
to changes in how people now use and interact with digital technologies. Therefore, new
processes and approaches to innovation are required, and the HCI literature emphasises
that user needs, values, social contexts, and social questions become the drivers of technol­
ogy research, design, and development (Van Den Hoven 2007). However, despite growing
recognition of this, such considerations have been rare investments in the development and
dissemination of technologies themselves (Fleming et al. 2018).
Technology developers have an important role in reducing innovation uncertainty (East­
wood et al. 2016) and the decisions designers make, and the methods of design they use can
impact future adoption rates. However, a disconnect currently exists with how technologies
are being developed for on-farm use. Many technology providers come from industries
outside of agriculture (Wiseman et al. 2019) with research and development often conducted
away from the farm. This means that researchers are sometimes too far away to understand
what is going on at farm level, and as a result, the tools that they develop neglect many ‘day-
to-day’ realities faced by farmers and do not match the ‘on-the-ground’ reality of farming
(Long et al 2016). There is a growing recognised need to try to bridge this gap between
research and the farm with Bronson (2019) suggesting that more academic work could be
done to engage designers and engineers with end users in innovation development. Includ­
ing future users in more participatory and co-design processes will help designers to account
for user needs and reflect on the purposes of digital technologies as they are taking shape
(Prost 2021; Rose et al. 2018). To date, with respect to the large number of digital innovations
coming into the sector, there are comparatively few examples of co-designed technologies
(Ingram and Maye 2020); however, it is an area of research that has been growing in
recent years (Eastwood et al. 2022; Hearne et al. 2023; Kenny and Regan 2021; Kenny
et al. 2021; Rose et al. 2021; Rose et al. 2021a; Steinke et al. 2022).

1.1. Design thinking

Design thinking is one type of participatory and co-design approach often referred to as a
‘mindset’ to solving complex or ill-defined problems (Steinke et al. 2022). During the
 THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 419

design thinking process, researchers, technology developers, and end users collaborate,
bringing together the ‘scientific knowledge’ of technology developers and researchers,
with the ‘experiential knowledge’ of farmers (Moretti et al. 2021). These approaches
place the user at the core of the design and development process, ensuring that a solution
is built around their needs, helping to ensure that agricultural technologies are user-
centred and context-specific.
The design thinking methodology has five key phases; empathise, define, ideate, pro­
totype, and test (Figure 1). The empathise phase focuses on gaining an understanding of
users’ needs and challenges through end-user and stakeholder engagement. The second
stage (Define) uses findings from stage one to define user problems, with the third
(Ideate) focusing on generating creative and innovative solutions to these problems.
These user-centred solutions inform the design and development of a prototype (Proto­
type), which is tested in a real-life context (Test). User feedback gathered during this test
phase will inform iterations of prototypes which are then re-tested, and these steps will be
repeated until a service or product addresses key user values and needs (Hasso Plattner
Institute of Design at Stanford 2010). Design thinking, although presented as a sequential
model, is a reflexive, flexible, and iterative process. Design thinking has long been used in
academic fields such as healthcare and education (Beaird et al. 2018; Lin et al. 2020) and
is a relatively new but growing application of design in the agricultural sector; recently
used to design a geo-tagged photo app (Kenny et al. 2021) and to develop precision

Figure 1. Design thinking framework (image taken from: Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at
Stanford).
420 K. MCGRATH ET AL.

livestock farming strategies for arid grazing regions (Hurst and Spiegal 2023). The
current study extends the use of design thinking into an animal health context.

1.2. Study context

Owing to the growing threat of antimicrobial resistance and newly introduced veterinary
medicine regulations (Regulation 2019/6), there is increasing pressure on Irish farmers
and veterinarians to reduce antimicrobial usage on farms. However, current issues
with animal health testing such as time delays in illness identification (Kennedy et al.
2022) are potentially leading to an increased or unnecessary use of antibiotics on
farms. Digital technologies have the potential to address these animal health issues.
Whilst several digital innovations have already been developed for use in an animal
health context, these innovations tend to focus on the area of animal health monitoring
with fewer developed for animal health testing. Research has indicated that rapid diag­
nostic tools would be useful in tackling antimicrobial resistance issues on animal
farms (Bruce et al. 2022; Buller et al. 2020; Farrell et al. 2023); however, despite many
attempts, few have been successfully developed for commercial use (Bruce et al. 2022).
Research exploring the potential of these types of technologies has identified that little
qualitative and participatory work has yet been done to explore key actors’ engagement
with such diagnostic tools (Bard et al. 2023) and has called for the development of these
tools to be carried out in a co-design and user-centred way (Farrell et al. 2023). Whilst co-
design approaches have been used to develop some precision livestock technologies
(Doidge et al. 2024; Hurst and Spiegal 2023), they have not yet been used to design
and develop digital animal health diagnostic technologies.
Responding to these calls, the current study follows the co-design of an animal health
diagnostic tool which is being developed in Ireland in a collaborative project between
VistaMilk Research Centre1 and Tyndall National Institute.2 It is anticipated that the
developed tool will be a handheld device, which uses biological sensors to perform on
the spot sample testing, which traditionally would need to take place in a Regional Veter­
inary Laboratory. These sensors can determine whether a sample is positive or negative
for an animal illness or disease through its ability to identify and detect antibodies in that
sample. The desired sensor (which is correlated to what you wish to test for) is inserted
into the device, and the sample you wish to test (e.g. blood/milk/mucus) is also placed
into the device for testing. The device is linked to an app on the users’ phone, which
will be used to ‘tell’ the device to start testing. When the device is finished testing the
sample (approx. 10–15 min), results for that sample are sent back to the app, indicating
to the user whether the sample is positive or negative for a given disease or illness. This
rapid detection would allow farmers and veterinarians to identify illnesses early and to
determine the correct treatment plan for that animal. The successful development and
integration of this tool could have positive effects for the Irish agricultural industry as
it eliminates wait times for blood results returning from labs and assists farmers and
veterinarians in diagnosing and treating sick animals quickly and correctly. It would
aid veterinarians in determining the correct (if any) antibiotics to be administered, elim­
inating unnecessary use of antimicrobials.
Initial exploratory work investigating the potential development of this diagnostic tool
has been conducted by McGrath et al. (2024). In this study, focus groups were held with
 THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 421

key end users (farmers and veterinary practitioners) to explore the potential value of such
a tool, outlining initial user needs and requirements for its successful development. This
research highlighted possible negative impacts a diagnostic tool could have if it is not cor­
rectly developed including misdiagnosis, misuse or misinterpretation of information
leading to increased antimicrobial use, and challenges to farmer and veterinarian
relationships. The aims of the current study are to address the needs and issues of
these end users, as identified in previous research (McGrath et al. 2024), through a
co-design process that will engage end users themselves to generate innovative solutions
to these pre-identified and pre-defined user problems related to animal health testing.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Design
A co-design workshop was employed in the current study to actively engage a range of
end users in the generation of innovative digital solutions in the context of animal health
testing. The co-design workshop aimed to use a range of participatory exercises from the
design thinking approach, including ‘user personas’ and ‘How might we … ?’ questions
to brainstorm innovative solutions to user concerns and needs identified in previous
research (McGrath et al. 2024) (Figure 2).

2.1.1. ‘How might we … ?’ Questions

Similar to the approach used by Kenny et al. (2021), a number of ‘How might we … ?’
questions were formulated for this study. These questions were informed by previous
research conducted by McGrath et al. (2024), which identified key themes of user
values, needs, and preferences for an animal health diagnostic tool. These themes
include reliability concerns, practical use of a diagnostic tool, data use, and device
design issues. A number of problem statements were developed to succinctly articulate
the most valuable findings that emerged from this preceding research. These insight/
problem statements were then reframed into ‘How might we … ?’ questions in order
to focus the problem in a solution-orientated way and to give shape and form to sub­
sequent brainstorming activities. The most important ‘How might we … ?’ questions rel­
evant to the design of the diagnostic tool (Appendix A) were identified to be used in the
co-design workshop.

2.1.2. User personas

User personas, another frequently used design thinking technique (Bull et al. 2022), were
developed. User personas reflect hypothetical representations of real people and usually
describe user goals, challenges, and needs. A total of four personas were created based on
a synthesis of what was learned from previous research about future end users of this
diagnostic tool, and common themes or characteristics (McGrath et al. 2024). To ‘huma­
nise’ the personas, fictional demographic and background details were added to the data,
including a stock image photo (Appendix B).
422 K. MCGRATH ET AL.

2.2. Co-design workshop

A multi-stakeholder workshop was held in the South of Ireland in July 2023. A stake­
holder mapping exercise was carried out to identify key stakeholders who may be
impacted by the development of a diagnostic tool, and purposive sampling techniques
were used to recruit participants for the workshop. A total of 13 participants (6 dairy
farmers, 2 farm veterinary practitioners, 2 technology developers, 2 agricultural advisors,
and 1 animal health expert) attended the workshop.
In the workshop, participants were divided into four heterogeneous groups with each
group assigned one user persona. Each group began with one ‘How might we … ?’ ques­
tion (written on top of a flipchart sheet) and, considering that question in the context of
who their persona was, had 15 minutes to list as many solutions to that question as poss­
ible. Attaching the ‘How might we … ?’ question to the persona helped to contextualise
and make more realistic each problem, allowing the group to imagine the question or
problem from the personas point of view. When the 15 minutes were up, each group
passed their flipchart sheet to the group to their right. Each group now had a new
‘How might we … ?’ question and had the opportunity to view the previous groups sol­
utions. The 15-minute timer restarted, and each group now had to come up with as many
solutions to the new ‘How might we … ?’ question relative to their persona, discussing
whether their solutions contrasted or complimented the solutions already listed. This
process was repeated until all groups had addressed all questions. Thereafter, all partici­
pants were brought back into the larger group, and one by one, each of the questions were
reviewed and openly discussed by the group. This workshop discussion was audio
recorded, transcribed verbatim, and anonymized by the first author. This transcription,
along with written workshop materials, was imported to NVIVO 12 and thematically
analysed using an inductive thematic approach (Braun and Clarke 2006).

3. Results
The following section outlines the key findings from the co-design workshop. Key themes
identified included user-generated solutions related to the design and functionality of the
device, the social supports that would be required to support the use of this technology
on-farm, as well as the training requirements future users would need to learn how to use
this device correctly on-farm.

3.1. Design and functionality

The first theme relates to the physical and visual design and functionality of the tool itself.
Participants in the co-design workshop discussed how this tool should be designed and
developed for on-farm use, details of which are outlined below.

3.1.1. Context-specific design features

How this tool is designed and developed for on farm use is important to farmers and
veterinarians. Both sets of participants express that they want something that is straight­
forward and easy to use, with one veterinarian indicating that the design of the tool
should be such that its use is almost self-explanatory.
 THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 423

Veterinarian 2: I felt really that if it’s designed right it should be like taking your iPhone out of
your pocket and turning it on, you know what to do instinctively’

During discussions, participants identified practical and context-specific design features

that this technology should have for it to successfully work on farm. For example, users
identified that the tool should be hard-wearing, robust, resistant to dirt and dust, and
easy to clean.
Farmer 1: we also said that like if it was coming in a case, the case would be borderline bullet­
proof and a bright colour that if it was left somewhere which it could very well be, you’ll be able
to find it.

Other suggested features included having an attached case or compartment to store

sensors and having a neck strap or hook to hang the device off a gate if working with
it outside; both for convenience but also to keep the device free of harsh underfoot con­
ditions. Additionally, it was identified that if the device has a touchscreen, it should be
operational by users whilst wearing latex or plastic gloves which are recommended to
be worn when working with animals for hygiene and biosecurity reasons. Other key
design features for this tool as identified by participants are characterised in Figure 2.

3.1.2. Generating solutions to identified design issues

A practical solution to concerns over cross-contamination of sensors was mentioned by
one veterinarian in his suggestion of how he thinks the device should work.
Veterinarian 1: I would think you’re probably better off putting the sensors in at the bottom [of
the device] and putting your sample out here [see Figure 3] rather than having the sensor going
into the device, having dirt and contamination going (…) into the device let’s say. That’s the
way the blood test works with diabetes you just shove it into the bottom and drop your blood
on it so you’re not dirtying anything, then you just pull out your sensor and throw it away.

Other key design concerns identified included reliability of results and confidence in
testing (Figure 2). In the co-design workshop, participants worked together to suggest
solutions to these concerns identifying measures such as having the device regularly cali­
brated and having control samples with known outcomes to enable farmers and veteri­
narians to self-test the device to ensure that it is working correctly. Solutions to other
identified design and use concerns are listed in Figure 2.
Veterinarian 2: (…) let’s say with your lab machines in the clinic (…) If you’re running blood
samples on dogs or whatever, you will have reagents or you’d have a slide to put into the
machine that it’ll warn against known parameters to kind of recalibrate the machine. And
it takes half an hour to do so (…) you have a set of sensors, which is part of your testing
pack, that you put them in once a week, it recalibrates the machine and it’s done in
minutes I suppose. So you can now trust the results (…) you’ve put in this quality control
slide and [now] your machine is good to go

3.1.3. Iterative design

During the workshop, participants made suggestions regards the future development
of this tool for successful on-farm use. Users indicate that when the tool is initially
developed, an effective method to ensure that it is fit for purpose would be to offer
farmers a free trial of the device. Users would be granted a trial period to use and
424 K. MCGRATH ET AL.

Figure 2. Responding to key user needs and concerns in the development of animal health diagnostic
technologies through a design thinking process.

test the device on the farm, whereafter an interactive workshop would be held with
users to garner feedback which can be used to inform iterations to the tools
development.
Farmer 4: say that you had come up with a prototype or whatever and if you gave it to a group
of farmers for a month, and then you had them back in, like, let’s say, we’re in here today, and
you know, you could put up on the screen and go (…) such and such person tested for this and
they were all able to discuss it then after having used it for free for a month or something like
that. It might be …
 THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 425

Figure 3. Basic design requirements and needs as identified by participants.5

Farmer 2: and how to improve it.

Farmer 4: Yeah, exactly. You know you might (…) get insight into it then.

3.2. Social support

The role of social support for successful technology dissemination, uptake, and use was
highlighted by participants in this workshop. The most valued types of social supports
include the role of peers and independent organisations to influence uptake, and the
importance of human interaction and farmer–veterinarian relationships for successful
implementation and use of the device.

3.2.1. Dissemination and uptake

The value of peer-to-peer networks for successful dissemination and uptake of the tool
was highlighted by participants in this study. Farmers place value on the opinion and
experience of their peers and this will influence their decision to adopt this tool or
not. Participants indicated that having a leader or representative farmer or veterinarian
to first use the technology and then promote its use would be effective in helping other
farmers and veterinarians to have a positive view of, and trust in the device.
Farmer 2: So like, if a farmer has a good experience with it, like this could be a bad experience
as well, but if they have a good experience, that [they] will tell other farmers at discussion
426 K. MCGRATH ET AL.

groups or when they meet the neighbours, and eventually that will kind of promote that it’s
reliable and if they like it then you might want to take it up as well.

As well as influence from peers, participants identified the important role that independent
organisations including farm advisors will have in positively promoting the reliability of the
tool and in garnering farmers’ and veterinarians’ trust in it. One veterinarian indicated that
if such independent organisations were trialling this device and publishing their experience
with it, that that would hold more weight on their decision to adopt rather than relying on
what the manufacturing company is saying about the device.
Veterinarian 2: you’re trusting the organisation or the developers there more so (…). You know
say if [researcher name] or [researcher name] are saying ‘this is the job you can trust this’, I’ll say
‘perfect I put my trust in them, and ‘tis on their heads’ do you know, that it’s not some Mickey
Mouse company kind of designing this thing and you don’t know who they are you know (…).
So, you’re trusting the science and the developers as opposed to the actual device or the gimmick.

3.2.2. Implementation and use

As well as needing support in the decision to adopt, users highlight that they will require
support post-adoption to successfully implement and use the tool. Participants cite that
creating a network between those using the device e.g. a WhatsApp group, would allow
users to talk to and support each other in implementing and using the tool. Future users
indicate that they would require an element of customer care and user support from
developers of the device and suggest measures such as a ChatGPT support feature in
the app. However, participants indicated that a telephone support line with someone
to talk to would be most beneficial; ‘you’d rather have someone you can just ring up basi­
cally’. Participants indicate that owing to variance in users’ technical ability, and their dis­
position towards digital technology, providing that human interaction would offer a
better service of support to farmers and veterinarians, highlighting their preference for
face-to-face interaction over face-to-interface interaction.
Farmer 1: Like even farmers are hesitant to go to the bank now because they’re afraid they’ve
to deal with a machine you know they can’t use a teller centre (…), that’s kind of the interface
he wants, someone on the phone to actually talk it through.

Veterinarian 2: Like [the veterinarian persona is] busy, not used to tech, definitely the tele­
phone support line would be a good one. Like it doesn’t have to be 24/7 obviously but, yea
I think he’s 43 (…) he’s of an age where he didn’t (pause) like he probably had a PC when
he was maybe in his teens. So, he’d much rather pick up the phone and talk to a fella.

The importance of the farmer–veterinarian support system was also highlighted by both
farmers and veterinarians in this study. This technology has the potential to offer more
detailed information and insight to farmers regards animal health on their farm;
however, farmers indicate that they ‘don’t want [the device] to be a vet’, and despite
receiving this information, they will still seek out the opinion and support of their veter­
inarian to act on this information.
Farmer 1: yea it’s got to be a tool, but you know, if it told me to give the cows whatever, I’d
probably ring the vet anyway [and say] ‘this machine is after telling me to do [whatever]’

Veterinarians echo a similar sentiment. To ensure the tools successful and responsible
use, in some cases, farmers would require the intervention and input of veterinarians
 THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 427

to interpret the results and to provide more contextual information (possible wider
health issues on farm) or information on what to do next.
Veterinarian 1: (…) across the board, you do need collaboration with vets for farmers to use
it (…) say there’s a problem with calves with respiratory disease, and if [the farmer] tests
them and says when it does come back (…) ‘I’m going to go away and vaccinate for
them’. But his overall problem might be with his housing, or it might be his hygiene. The
app isn’t going to tell him that, he needs help for the overall picture as to what the best
thing is for him to do.

3.3. Training and communication

During the co-design workshop, participants brainstormed possible methods and sol­
utions to satisfy user needs related to education and training in how to use the device
and understand output from the device.

3.3.1. Education and training requirements

When brainstorming methods that would aid the use of this device, participants ident­
ified the value of having written, graphical, and digital aids, with users’ preferencing
graphical and digital means. Additionally, users identified that basic step-by-step instruc­
tions, and ‘how-to’ diagrams printed on packaging would be valuable, as well as these
being printed on a separate laminated sheet for on-farm use. Participants also indicate
the usefulness of a basic SOP or FAQ sheet to help users troubleshoot operational
issues as well as having access to basic step-by-step instructional videos on YouTube.

3.3.2. Information needs

Future users highlight that results from this device will need to be easy to understand and
straightforward for users to act upon appropriately; ‘simple language that you can make
decisions based on [the] simplicity of it’. Similar to the need for visual training aids, users
preference results to be in a basic visual format, such as a simple ‘yes/no’ answer (yes for
positive, no for negative) or having results colour coded akin to a traffic light system;
green for positive, red for negative, or orange for inconclusive. Regardless of how test
results are sent back to the user, participants suggest that a laminated results key accom­
panies the device to inform users what each result means. Users can use this key as a
reference point to correctly interpret the results, eliminating any room for misinterpreta­
tion or uncertainty.
Whilst users want simple and straightforward information, it was highlighted that the
device may need to provide different layers of information for different users’ needs. For
example, a more basic level of information is indicated on the interface for farmers (e.g.
traffic light system), and more detailed information and figures behind these results for
veterinarians. Veterinarians indicate that this additional information would be appropri­
ate for some diseases and that having sensitivity specificity would be useful to have in the
background as a reference point.
Advisor 2: you probably need different layers of information for different users. Like, it might
give one reading to the farmer, if the farmer was to ring the vet that they can scroll down or
share it with the vet that there [on the] app there’s more detail (…) in terms of the actual
figures behind that, you know. If you’ve the traffic light [system], if it’s red, but if there’s
428 K. MCGRATH ET AL.

actual figures in behind that that a vet can say, ‘oh, that’s really serious, or that’s only just
barely in the serious zone’. So, they might have different treatments based on the more accu­
rate figures.

3.3.3. Co-sharing results

Participants express that farmers may want to share test results from the device with
other people (i.e. veterinarians or advisors) and other platforms like ICBF.3 To facilitate
this, it was suggested that after use, a report is sent to the users’ phone which could be
easily shared or forwarded to others. Additionally, it was highlighted by advisors that
similar to other software and systems, it would be beneficial if veterinarians could log
in to a farmers’ system and view their results; methods of data sharing which are routi­
nely practiced by advisors and their client farmers. Veterinarians echo the importance of
this, stating that an important consideration for data sharing is that data for both parties
is presented the same, to facilitate and support clear communication.
Veterinarian 2: I think the farmer and the vet interface (…) the two screens should be the
same. If my clients are telling me these results, I should be seeing the exact same as them so
as there’s kind of no confusion, that we’re speaking the same language as such. It’s like you
know, if I’m logging into a fellas SenseHub4 or ICBF, [the] farmer is seeing what I’m seeing
and I’m seeing what he’s seeing and there’s no confusion between the two.

4. Discussion
Employing a design thinking approach in this study facilitated engagement with future
end users to situate the concept of an on-farm testing tool in context. This approach pro­
vided an opportunity for intended users to imagine how this tool might be used on farms,
identifying key design needs and requirements, and highlighting potential design issues
and subsequent solutions to the device before it has been developed. Additionally, the
approach opened up wider discussions on other important considerations for innovation
development such as what is needed for successful deployment and use of the tool. Using
a co-design workshop was useful in working closely with future end users to detail prac­
tical and specific design features that should be used to guide the successful design and
development of this animal health diagnostic tool. The insights generated because of this
approach could prove useful for technology designers, advisory and extension agents,
and other researchers wanting to promote digital agricultural development.

4.1. Value of using a design thinking approach

Using a design thinking approach can enable us to adhere to requirements of the new
paradigm of technology design (Harrison et al. 2011). The true value of using design
thinking is that it enables a ‘bottom- up’ approach to technology design, facilitating
engagement with future end users to identify their needs, values, and preferences for
this tool, as well as allowing users to consider how this technology will be used in
context; all of which have been identified as important requirements for successful inter­
face design (Resende et al. 2017; Steinke et al. 2022; Van Den Hoven 2007). Providing a
space for users to consider how this tool might be used on farms, allowed them to identify
potential design issues with the tool before it has been developed (McGrath et al. 2024).
 THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 429

This provides technology designers with a valuable type of foresight to technology design,
and a unique opportunity to build solutions into technology early on, helping to avoid
potentially failed innovations. Identifying wider social implications and potentially nega­
tive impacts of the tool (McGrath et al. 2024) have helped to bring up previously uncon­
sidered impacts of the device. These types of insights challenge initial design concepts
and force designers and engineers to remove potential biases towards technology,
helping them to realise the wider and real-life impacts a technology can have. Addition­
ally, this approach has been useful in identifying other important considerations for
innovation development such as what is needed for successful deployment and use of
the tool.
The insights outlined in this research will be useful for technology designers, advisory
and extension agents, and other researchers wanting to promote digital agricultural
development. However, whilst this approach has been successful in gathering this valu­
able information, it is important that these actors are cognisant of and responsive to the
findings of this study.

4.2. Implications for technology developers

Research has critiqued the position of technology designers in past methods of technol­
ogy design in that they were too far away to understand the realities and the needs of
farmers (Long et al. 2016), impacting the relevance of developed technologies for
farmers. This study has been beneficial in addressing this critique and in bridging the
gap between designers and the farm. The co-design workshop employed in this study
was useful as it allowed technology developers to work with and hear from those for
whom they are building this technology for. Providing this type of environment allows
technology developers to ‘step into the shoes’ of their target end users, helping them
to see a phenomenon or problem from the end users’ perspective. It also aids them in
understanding how end users will use and interact with an interface, how an innovation
will and could be used in context, and the ethical and moral implications technologies
can and will have on future users (Resende et al. 2017; Van Den Hoven 2007). This
will help developers to realise key end-user needs and wants as well as identify previously
unconsidered weaknesses or risks regarding the use of a technology. This provides valu­
able user information for agricultural technology developers, which they can use to guide
and shape the design of digital agri-tech; ensuring that the tools they develop address
farmer needs and farm-specific challenges, leading to ‘better-made’ technologies,
improving their chances of adoption (Hearne et al. 2023; Rose and Chilvers 2018).
The co-design workshop provides specific design information that technology devel­
opers can use to guide the design and development of this technology for farmers and
veterinarians to use. Therefore, the use of this workshop offers technology developers
a unique opportunity to integrate solutions into technology early on, helping to avoid
potentially failed innovations. The omission of this type of approach was a downfall of
the past methods of technology design within the HCI literature, where innovations
were created without the consideration of end users, leading to several failed products
and a waste of resources (Van Den Hoven 2007). Therefore, by involving end users
from the outset, participatory design mitigates these risks and increases the likelihood
of successful and impactful technology implementation in the agricultural sector.
430 K. MCGRATH ET AL.

Whilst developing and getting users to adopt an innovation is important for agricultural
digitalisation, means to support users post-adoption should be developed; a provision
which is often omitted. Previous research has found a lack of focus in this area reporting
a gap between industry support and user ability to operate technologies (Barnes et al. 2019);
highlighting a lack of technical assistance and training (Abeni et al. 2019), a lack of support
on aspects of implementation (Contillo and Tiongco 2019), and missing provider and
contact persons for users (Michels et al. 2020). The absence of these services negatively
affects user ability to use technologies. Participants in this research address this important
aspect of adoption highlighting that they will require support post-adoption to learn how to
implement and use this tool correctly, as well as detailing what this support should look
like. Designers and manufacturers should use findings from this study to inform the devel­
opment of post-adoption services and support for farmers i.e. offering human-run custo­
mer services and providing user instructions in basic visual, digital, and non-digital
formats. Implementing and being responsive to these user requirements would ensure
that users will be adequately supported in using this innovation on -farm, promoting
the overall success of the tool.

4.3. Implications for advisory and education

The importance of advisory and extension services for agricultural digitalisation has been
highlighted in this study. Farmers can be wary of new technologies (György et al. 2018),
and these feelings of mistrust can hinder technology adoption. It will therefore be important
to identify strategies and measures to encourage farmer trust in innovations. Past research
has found that technology adoption is positively impacted by knowledge of and trust in the
designer of a technology (Caplan et al. 2014), and that farmers will often seek support from
experts to negate feelings of scepticism towards technology and its subsequent adoption
(Barnes et al. 2019). Similar findings have been identified in this study, with participants
highlighting the important role that research and independent organisations have as a
reliable source of information and advice. Interestingly, these findings challenge those in
Barnes et al. (2019) that farmers can be hesitant to trust experimental farm studies given
the heterogeneity of individual farms. Trust therefore is a complex dimension to innovation
adoption, and whilst there may be no one solution to the problem, findings from this study
indicate that there is scope for research and independent organisations to play a significant
role in promoting trust towards and uptake of digital agricultural innovations.
The uptake of a technology can be determined by whether the technology is prevalent
among a farmers peers (Chuang et al. 2020). Participants in this study emphasised the
value of peer-to-peer learning and the influence of others for the successful dissemination
and implementation of the tool. Participants highlight that designating ‘opinion leaders’
to first use the device can be effective in convincing others that the tool works well, pro­
moting adoption and dissemination of that tool into the industry. This presents an
opportunity for advisory and extension bodies to become important players in support­
ing innovation adoption at farm level, for example, by using demonstration farms to trial
the device and facilitate peer-to-peer discussion and learning (Ingram et al. 2018). Using
already established networks and strategies like this within advisory and extension ser­
vices could position such organisations as a key supporter of innovation dissemination
in the Irish agricultural sector.
 THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 431

4.4. Study limitations

User-centered design by its nature focuses primarily on the needs, values, and con­
siderations of the individual; the end user(s). There is a risk that focusing too nar­
rowly on user-centric solutions may come at the expense of broader systemic or
organisational considerations, leading to solutions that are optimised for user
experience but may not be scalable or sustainable. It is however acknowledged
that for systemic and sustainable behaviour change to occur, there is a need to
account for the complex interplay between individual, interpersonal, organisational,
community, and policy factors (Léger et al. 2021). User-centered design should take
place within a broader systems thinking approach. For example, in the future, user-
centered design workshops could be supplemented with business and policy-oriented
workshops which consider the broader systems factors, and how best to account for
the complex interplay between individual users needs and organisational consider­
ations. This study has tried to address this limitation by including other key stake­
holders in the co-design process, which may provide a wider organisational view,
e.g. technology developers.

5. Conclusion
Promoting the adoption of digital technologies by farmers is a priority in the agricultural
sector. Changing the manner in which agricultural technologies are developed for use on
farms and shifting from ‘top-down’ to ‘bottom-up’ approaches to design are two steps
that can be taken to accomplish this. This study has demonstrated the value of using
these types of approaches by using participatory approaches (design thinking and co-
design) to design an on-farm animal health diagnostic tool. This study has outlined
the benefits of using these approaches in identifying user needs and requirements for
this type of technology, as well as potential negative impacts of the tool. It also empha­
sises the value of using co-design approaches to work with future end users to identify
solutions to identified design problems, and key requirements for successful deployment
and dissemination of this tool into the industry. Findings from this study can be applied
to innovation development for agriculture more broadly, and the information in this
study will be useful for agricultural actors wanting to promote successful digitalisation
in the agricultural sector.

Notes
1. A Science Foundation Ireland and Department of Agriculture Food and the Marine
(DAFM) funded research centre.
2. A leading European Research Centre in integrated ICT hardware and systems.
3. ICBF (Irish Cattle Breeders Federation) is an Irish non-profit organisation which provides
cattle breeding services to the Irish dairy and beef industries.
4. SenseHub is a suite of cow health and reproductive monitoring technologies (neck collars
and/or ear tags).
5. Example of a basic visual representation of design features as identified by future users
(authors interpretation).
432 K. MCGRATH ET AL.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge and thank all the farmers, veterinarians, experts, and agri­
cultural advisors who participated in the study.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes on contributors
Karen McGrath is a PhD student at the UCD School of Agriculture and Food Science, University
College Dublin. Her main research interests are in exploring agricultural digitalisation from a
social science perspective and in using participatory approaches for agricultural technology design.
Áine Regan works as a research officer (Behavioural & Social Science) with Teagasc, the Agricul­
ture and Food Development Authority of Ireland. She uses social science methodologies, behav­
iour change models, and science and risk governance frameworks to develop evidence-based and
societally acceptable strategies for supporting innovation in food and agriculture.
Tomás Russell is an assistant professor in Agricultural Extension and Innovation at UCD’s School
of Agriculture and Food Science. His research interests are in the area of farmer mental health and
behaviour change, advisory strategies, digital agriculture and farm succession and inheritance.

ORCID
Karen McGrath http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3827-7892
Tomás Russell http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0799-360X

References
Abeni, F., F. Petrera, and A. Galli. 2019. “A Survey of Italian Dairy Farmers’ Propensity for
Precision Livestock Farming Tools.” Animals 9 (5): 202. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9050202.
Bard, A. M., S. Hinchliffe, K. W. Chan, H. Buller, and K. K. Reyher. 2023. “I Believe What I’m
Saying More than the Test’: The Complicated Place of Rapid, Point-of-Care Tests in
Veterinary Diagnostic Practice.” Antibiotics (Basel) 12 (5): 804. https://doi.org/10.3390/
antibiotics12050804.
Barnes, A. P., I. Soto, V. Eory, B. Beck, A. Balafoutis, B. Sánchez, J. Vangeyte, S. Fountas, T. Van
Der Wal, and M. Gómez-Barbero. 2019. “Exploring the Adoption of Precision Agricultural
Technologies: A Cross Regional Study of EU Farmers.” Land Use Policy 80 (2019): 163–
174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.142287.
Beaird, G., M. Geist, and E. J. Lewis. 2018. “Design Thinking: Opportunities for Application in
Nursing Education.” Nurse Education Today 64 (2018): 115–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
nedt.2018.02.007.
Berthet, E. T., G. M. Hickey, and L. Klerkx. 2018. “Opening Design and Innovation Processes in
Agriculture: Insights from Design and Management Sciences and Future Directions.”
Agricultural Systems 165: 111–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.06.004.
Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in
Psychology 3 (2): 77–101.
Bronson, K. 2019. “Looking Through a Responsible Innovation Lens at Uneven Engagements with
Digital Farming.” NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 90–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
njas.2019.03.001.
 THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 433

Bruce, A., K. E. Adam, H. Buller, KW(Ray) Chan, and J. Tait. 2022. “Creating an Innovation
Ecosystem for Rapid Diagnostic Tests for Livestock to Support Sustainable Antibiotic Use.”
Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 34 (11): 1249–1262. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09537325.2021.1950678.
Bull, E. M., L. Van Der Cruyssen, S. Vágó, G. Király, T. Arbour, and L. Van Dijk. 2022. “Designing
for Agricultural Digital Knowledge Exchange: Applying a User-Centred Design Approach to
Understand the Needs of Users.” The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 30 (1):
43–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2022.2150663.
Buller, H., K. Adam, A. Bard, A. Bruce, K. W. (Ray) Chan, S. Hinchliffe, L. Morgans, G. Rees, and
K. K. Reyher. 2020. “Veterinary Diagnostic Practice and the Use of Rapid Tests in Antimicrobial
Stewardship on UK Livestock Farms.” Frontiers in Veterinary Science 7: 569545. https://doi.org/
10.3389/fvets.2020.569545.
Caplan, S., B. Tilt, G. Hoheisel, and T. A. Baugher. 2014. “Specialty Crop Growers’ Perspectives on
Adopting New Technologies.” HortTechnology 24 (1): 81–87.https://doi.org/10.21273/horttech.
24.1.81.
Chuang, J. H., J. H. Wang, and C. Y. Liang. 2020. “Implementation of Internet of Things Depends
on Intention: Young Farmers’ Willingness to Accept Innovative Technology.” International
Food and Agribusiness Management Review 23 (2): 253–266.
Contillo, G., and M. Tiongco. 2019. “Determinants of Adoption of the Rice Crop Manager System
among Farmers in Pangasinan, Philippines.” 2019 IEEE 11th International Conference on
Humanoid, Nanotechnology, Information Technology, Communication and Control,
Environment, and Management, HNICEM 2019.
Doidge, C., L. M. Ånestad, A. Burrell, J. Frössling, L. Palczynski, B. Pardon, A. Veldhuis, et al.
2024. “A Living Lab Approach to Understanding Dairy Farmers’ Needs of Technologies and
Data to Improve Herd Health: Focus Groups From 6 European Countries.” Journal of Dairy
Science 107 (8): 5754–5778. [In Press, Journal Pre-Proof]. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2024-
24155
Eastwood, C. R., J. G. Jago, J. P. Edwards, and J. K. Burke. 2016. “Getting the Most Out of
Advanced Farm Management Technologies: Roles of Technology Suppliers and Dairy
Industry Organisations in Supporting Precision Dairy Farmers.” Animal Production Science
56 (10): 1752–1760.
Eastwood, C., F. J. Turner, and A. J. Romera. 2022. “Farmer-Centred Design: An Affordances-
Based Framework for Identifying Processes that Facilitate Farmers as Co-Designers in
Addressing Complex Agricultural Challenges.” Agricultural Systems 195: 103314.
Farrell, S., T. Benson, C. Mckernan, Á Regan, A. M. G. Burrell, and M. Dean. 2023. “Exploring
Veterinarians’ Behaviour Relating to Antibiotic Use Stewardship on Irish Dairy Farms Using
the Com-B Model of Behaviour Change.” Research in Veterinary Science 156: 45–53.https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2023.01.019.
Fleming, A., E. Jakku, L. Lim-Camacho, B. Taylor, and P. Thorburn. 2018. “Is Big Data for Big
Farming or for Everyone? Perceptions in the Australian Grains Industry.” Agronomy for
Sustainable Development 38 (2018): 24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-018-0501-y.
György, K. T., I. Lámfalusi, A. Molnár, D. Sulyok, M. Gaál, Z. K. Horváth, C. Domán, et al. 2018.
“Precision Agriculture in Hungary: Assessment of Perceptions and Accounting Records of Fadn
Arable Farms.” Studies in Agricultural Economics 120 (1): 47–54.
Harrison, S., P. Sengers, and D. Tatar. 2011. “Making Epistemological Trouble: Third-Paradigm
HCI as Successor Science.” Interacting with Computers 23 (5): 385–392.
Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford. 2010. An Introduction to Design Thinking: Process
Guide. Online at. Accessed December 12, 2023. https://web.stanford.edu/~mshanks/
MichaelShanks/files/509554.pdf.
Hearne, D., D. Wolferts, and G. Dilleen. 2023. “Designing with Farmers: A multi-actor framework
to include Human Centred Design in the digitization of farming services and collaboration.”
26th European Seminar on Extension & Education - Book of Abstracts, 164–167. Toulouse:
UMR, AGIR, INRAE, INP - University of Toulouse.
434 K. MCGRATH ET AL.

Hurst, Z. M., and S. Spiegal. 2023. “Design Thinking for Responsible Agriculture 4.0 Innovations
in Rangelands.” Rangelands 45 (4): 68–78.
Ingram, J., H. Chiswell, J. Mills, L. Debruyne, H. Cooreman, A. Koutsouris, E. Pappa, and F.
Marchand. 2018. “Enabling Learning in Demonstration Farms: A Literature Review.”
International Journal of Agricultural Extension 6 (3): 29–42.
Ingram, J., and D. Maye. 2020. “What are the Implications of Digitalisation for Agricultural
Knowledge?” Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 4: 66. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.
00066.
Kennedy, A., I. Hogan, R. Froehlich, S. Mcgettrick, C. Sánchez-Miguel, M. Casey, and M. Sheehan.
2022. “Irish Farmers’ Interactions with Regional Veterinary Laboratories-Reasons, Results,
Reactions: A Survey.” Irish Veterinary Journal 75 (2022): 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13620-
022-00225-6.
Kenny, U., and Á Regan. 2021. “Co-designing a Smartphone App for and with Farmers:
Empathising with End-Users’ Values And Needs.” Journal of Rural Studies 82 (2021): 148–
160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.12.009.
Kenny, U, Á Regan, D Hearne, and C O’Meara. 2021. “Empathising, Defining and Ideating with
the Farming Community to Develop a Geotagged Photo App for Smart Devices: A Design
Thinking Approach.” Agricultural Systems 194 (2021): 103248.
Léger, A., I. Lambraki, T. Graells, M. Cousins, P. J. G. Henriksson, S. Harbarth, C. Carson, et al.
2021. “AMR-Intervene: a Social–Ecological Framework to Capture the Diversity of Actions to
Tackle Antimicrobial Resistance from a One Health Perspective.” Journal of Antimicrobial
Chemotherapy 76 (1): 1–21.
Lin, L., R. Shadiev, W. Y. Hwang, and S. Shen. 2020. “From Knowledge and Skills to Digital Works:
An Application of Design Thinking IN The Information Technology Course.” Thinking Skills
and Creativity 36: 100646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100646.
Long, T. B., V. Blok, and I. Coninx. 2016. “Barriers to the Adoption and Diffusion of Technological
Innovations For Climate-Smart Agriculture in Europe: Evidence from the Netherlands, France,
Switzerland and Italy.” Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (Part 1): 9–21. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.044.
McGrath, K., Á Regan, and T. Russell. 2024. “Development of an Animal Health Testing Tool to
Reduce Antimicrobial Use on Farms: Perceptions, Implications, and Needs of Irish Dairy
Farmers and Farm Veterinarians.” Irish Veterinary Journal 77 (1): 12. https://doi.org/10.
1186/s13620-024-00268-x.
Michels, M., C.-F. Von Hobe, and O. Musshoff. 2020. “A Trans-Theoretical Model for the
Adoption of Drones by Large-Scale German Farmers.” Journal of Rural Studies 75 (1): 80–88.
Moretti, D., C. Baum, M. Wustmans, and S. Bröring. 2021. “Application of Journey Maps to the
Development of Emergent Sustainability-Oriented Technologies: Lessons for User Involvement
in Agriculture.” Business Strategy & Development 5 (3): 209–221. In press. https://doi.org/10.
1002/bsd2.192
Prost, L. 2021. “Revitalizing Agricultural Sciences with Design Sciences.” Agricultural Systems 193
(2021): 103225.
Regulation 2019/6 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on
Veterinary Medicinal Products and Repealing Directive 2001/82/EC. Official Journal L4, 43–
167. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2019/6/oj.
Resende, M. S., W. P. Busch, and R. Pereira. 2017. The Three Waves of HCI: A Perspective from
Social Sciences.
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: 87. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.
2018.00087.
Rose, D. C., K. Despot-Belmonte, J. A. Pollard, O. Shears, and R. J. Robertson. 2021. “Making an
Impact: How to Design Relevant and Usable Decision Support Systems for Conservation.” In
Closing the Knowledge-Implementation Gap in Conservation Science. Wildlife Research
Monographs, edited by C. C. Ferreira and C. F. C. Klütsch, 199–226. Cham: Springer. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81085-6_8.
 THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 435

Rose, D. C., J. Lyon, A. De Boon, M. Hanheide, and S. Pearson. 2021a. “Responsible Development
of Autonomous Robotics in Agriculture.” Nature Food 2 (2021): 306–309. https://doi.org/10.
1038/s43016-021-00287-9.
Rose, D. C., C. Parker, J. Fodery, C. Park, W. J. Sutherland, and L. V. Dicks. 2018. “Involving
Stakeholders in Agricultural Decision Support Systems: Improving User-Centred Design.”
International Journal of Agricultural Management 6 (3/4): 80–89.
Sanders, E. 2002. From User-Centered to Participatory Design Approaches.
Steinke, J., B. Ortiz-Crespo, J. Van Etten, and A. Müller. 2022. “Participatory Design of Digital
Innovation in Agricultural Research-for-Development: Insights from Practice.” Agricultural
Systems 195 (1): 103313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103313.
Van Den Hoven, J. 2007. “ICT and Value Sensitive Design.” In The Information Society:
Innovation, Legitimacy, Ethics and Democracy in Honor of Professor Jacques Berleur SJ: IFIP
International Federation of Information Processing, Vol. 233, 67–72. Springer, Boston, MA.
Wiseman, L., J. Sanderson, A. Zhang, and E. Jakku. 2019. “Farmers and their Data: An
Examination of Farmers’ Reluctance to Share Their Data Through the Lens of the Laws
Impacting Smart Farming.” NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences (1): 90–91.