This document summarizes a study on the use of satellite technologies in UK agriculture. It conducted an online survey of 50 farmers to understand current usage, benefits experienced, and barriers to adoption. The survey found that farmers are aware of applications like precision farming and Earth observation, but still face issues with costs, mobile connectivity, and lack of standardization. Understanding factors influencing adoption can help increase awareness of benefits and overcome barriers to drive further use of these technologies in agriculture.
PwC global report on commercial applications of drone technology.
The drone revolution is disrupting industries ranging from agriculture to filmmaking.
Learn more > http://pwc.to/1V8IqYv
Infographic: Space - A data highway in progressPetr Nemec
Satellite communication has seen a sharp rise in recent years - here are some insights about the satellite industry, and an in-depth look at satellite interference, a potential threat to the integrity of SatCOM.
PwC global report on commercial applications of drone technology.
The drone revolution is disrupting industries ranging from agriculture to filmmaking.
Learn more > http://pwc.to/1V8IqYv
Infographic: Space - A data highway in progressPetr Nemec
Satellite communication has seen a sharp rise in recent years - here are some insights about the satellite industry, and an in-depth look at satellite interference, a potential threat to the integrity of SatCOM.
ISCF Future Flight Networking Event - Use casesKTN
This webcast covers the physical, virtual & technology operations already in existence or in planning that can support an integrated aviation system. Areas to consider will be flight corridors for experimentation/feasibility/demo flights, regional connectivity in island and remote communities, the demonstration of drones or air taxis, the demonstration of a partially integrated system and the use of drones to deliver vital health care services.
The aim of the this event is to:
- Convene interested parties to enable new collaborations to form
- Raise awareness of the successful applicants from Phase I (as they will lead the consortia for Phase II)
- Attract non-traditional aviation companies to Future Flight
- Inform on the capabilities and expertise on offer to support your Future Flight project
Future Flight is a £125m Industrial Strategy Challenge Programme seeking to demonstrate novel aviation systems to completely transform the way we move people and goods. The programme seeks to demonstration a fully integrated system in 2024 delivered by large consortia of mixed expertise.
Find out more: https://ktn-uk.co.uk/news/future-flight-workshops
Global eVTOL Aircraft Market Analysis 2020-2025NarayanSharma67
The global eVTOL Aircraft market is anticipated to grow at a CAGR of around 20.50% during 2020-2025, due to the increasing demand for alternative mode of transportation and growing need for operational efficiency.
For more info visit: https://www.marknteladvisors.com/research-library/global-evtol-aircraft-market-analysis.html
The Autonomous Revolution of Vehicles and TransportationMark Goldstein
This presentation to the Greater Phoenix Mensa Regional Gathering on November 29, 2019 is a detailed overview of the transformation of transportation through autonomous vehicles and the advent of Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) on the ground and in the air, including why Arizona is a hotbed for development and deployment, insight into the enabling sensor and communication technologies, and a forward-looking view of societal impact, markets and opportunities. Waves of change will roll through the transportation industry and practices as autonomy ramps up in personal and mass transportation, as well as in logistics/delivery segments. We examine how autonomous vehicles will be developed, deployed and monetized, creating new business models across the transportation sector. Explore autonomous vehicles roadblocks and operational challenges, emerging standards and protocols, connected services and their associated big data strategies and opportunities.
Flight trials for greener aviation set for take offTJR Global
Commercial flight trials that use satellite-enabled communications to reduce the environmental impact of flying are scheduled to commence once normal traffic levels resume.
As nations begin to recover from the coronavirus pandemic and airports start to reopen in Europe, satellite communications provider Inmarsat and consultancy firm CGI will be conducting real-world trials of the Iris air traffic modernisation programme developed with ESA.
Paul Goiak - Growth opportunities in the METS sectorMelanie Innes
Presentation by Paul Goiak, Director Industry Development, Mining Industry Participation Office. Paul talks about growth opportunities in the METS sector.
Lund moligopolists - presentation (09 11 15) n petitNicolas Petit
Presentation on the dynamics of competition between digital economy firms like Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft (“GAFAM”). It diagnoses a divorce between the discourse of the antitrust and trade regulation technocracy – ie specialist officials, lawyers and economists – which characterizes digital economy firms as lone monopolists active on narrow product markets sheltered from competition and the perception of other communities – ie technology pundits, business strategists and investors – who keep describing those firms as healthy oligopolists at war with each other. With this background, the presentation discusses the need for antitrust reform.
Global Expert Mission "Agri-Tech Innovation in New Zealand 2019"KTN
In March 2019, an Expert Mission travelled to Wellington, Palmerston North, Christchurch and Auckland. This Mission sought to inform the UK’s international Agri-Tech Innovation strategy by exploring the New Zealand agri-tech landscape and examining opportunities to collaborate with New Zealand organisations. The UK delegation held meetings with a number of New Zealand stakeholders from industry, academia and government.
Space for Smarter Government Programme (SSGP)techUK
Presented by Sara Huntingdon, Space for Smarter Government Programme Manager, UK Space Agency in the techUK Satellite Applications & Services Conference, 2nd Oct. 2015
£10m funding support for Zero Emission Vehicle innovation.
The webinar will allow attendees to hear about the new funding opportunity. The top-level details are as follows:
- Application period opens 17 June and closes 29 July
- Single or up to two partner collaborations
- Focus around feasibility studies and R&D projects
- Projects delivery in six months
- Focused on ZEV innovation including battery and charging technologies
It is vital that businesses of all sizes, academics, RTOs and local authority representatives join to hear about the scope and details of this funding.
This will be your chance to hear about the funding scope, eligibility criteria and application process and also the chance to take part in a live Q&A with Innovate UK.
Find out more: https://ktn-uk.co.uk/news/catalysing-green-innovation-strand-2
Horizon 2020 - Ruolo di APRE e risultati del primo cut-offRomagna Tech
"Ruolo di APRE e risultati del primo cut-off"
Ruolo del National Contact Point
Esiti del primo semestre di call e la partecipazione dell’Italia
Focus esiti bandi EeB e Strumento per PMI
Presentazione di Massimo Borriello - Punto di Contatto Nazionale ENERGIA 2020 APRE
Presentation of a case study of an air quality hot spot mapper - an overview of the satellite enabled solution and the prototype, as well as the costs and benefits. Presented by Paul Monks, Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry and Earth Observation at University of Leicester, at the Making Efficiencies using Satellites – ‘it’s not rocket science’ Discovery Day on 13 March 2015 in Oxfordshire.
The European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan)Leonardo ENERGY
The European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan) aims to accelerate the development and deployment of low-carbon technologies. It seeks to improve new technologies and bring down costs by coordinating research and helping to finance projects. The SET-Plan promotes research and innovation efforts across Europe by supporting technologies with the greatest impact on the EU's transformation to a low-carbon energy system. It promotes cooperation amongst EU countries, companies, research institutions, and the EU itself.
ISCF Future Flight Networking Event - Use casesKTN
This webcast covers the physical, virtual & technology operations already in existence or in planning that can support an integrated aviation system. Areas to consider will be flight corridors for experimentation/feasibility/demo flights, regional connectivity in island and remote communities, the demonstration of drones or air taxis, the demonstration of a partially integrated system and the use of drones to deliver vital health care services.
The aim of the this event is to:
- Convene interested parties to enable new collaborations to form
- Raise awareness of the successful applicants from Phase I (as they will lead the consortia for Phase II)
- Attract non-traditional aviation companies to Future Flight
- Inform on the capabilities and expertise on offer to support your Future Flight project
Future Flight is a £125m Industrial Strategy Challenge Programme seeking to demonstrate novel aviation systems to completely transform the way we move people and goods. The programme seeks to demonstration a fully integrated system in 2024 delivered by large consortia of mixed expertise.
Find out more: https://ktn-uk.co.uk/news/future-flight-workshops
Global eVTOL Aircraft Market Analysis 2020-2025NarayanSharma67
The global eVTOL Aircraft market is anticipated to grow at a CAGR of around 20.50% during 2020-2025, due to the increasing demand for alternative mode of transportation and growing need for operational efficiency.
For more info visit: https://www.marknteladvisors.com/research-library/global-evtol-aircraft-market-analysis.html
The Autonomous Revolution of Vehicles and TransportationMark Goldstein
This presentation to the Greater Phoenix Mensa Regional Gathering on November 29, 2019 is a detailed overview of the transformation of transportation through autonomous vehicles and the advent of Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) on the ground and in the air, including why Arizona is a hotbed for development and deployment, insight into the enabling sensor and communication technologies, and a forward-looking view of societal impact, markets and opportunities. Waves of change will roll through the transportation industry and practices as autonomy ramps up in personal and mass transportation, as well as in logistics/delivery segments. We examine how autonomous vehicles will be developed, deployed and monetized, creating new business models across the transportation sector. Explore autonomous vehicles roadblocks and operational challenges, emerging standards and protocols, connected services and their associated big data strategies and opportunities.
Flight trials for greener aviation set for take offTJR Global
Commercial flight trials that use satellite-enabled communications to reduce the environmental impact of flying are scheduled to commence once normal traffic levels resume.
As nations begin to recover from the coronavirus pandemic and airports start to reopen in Europe, satellite communications provider Inmarsat and consultancy firm CGI will be conducting real-world trials of the Iris air traffic modernisation programme developed with ESA.
Paul Goiak - Growth opportunities in the METS sectorMelanie Innes
Presentation by Paul Goiak, Director Industry Development, Mining Industry Participation Office. Paul talks about growth opportunities in the METS sector.
Lund moligopolists - presentation (09 11 15) n petitNicolas Petit
Presentation on the dynamics of competition between digital economy firms like Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft (“GAFAM”). It diagnoses a divorce between the discourse of the antitrust and trade regulation technocracy – ie specialist officials, lawyers and economists – which characterizes digital economy firms as lone monopolists active on narrow product markets sheltered from competition and the perception of other communities – ie technology pundits, business strategists and investors – who keep describing those firms as healthy oligopolists at war with each other. With this background, the presentation discusses the need for antitrust reform.
Global Expert Mission "Agri-Tech Innovation in New Zealand 2019"KTN
In March 2019, an Expert Mission travelled to Wellington, Palmerston North, Christchurch and Auckland. This Mission sought to inform the UK’s international Agri-Tech Innovation strategy by exploring the New Zealand agri-tech landscape and examining opportunities to collaborate with New Zealand organisations. The UK delegation held meetings with a number of New Zealand stakeholders from industry, academia and government.
Space for Smarter Government Programme (SSGP)techUK
Presented by Sara Huntingdon, Space for Smarter Government Programme Manager, UK Space Agency in the techUK Satellite Applications & Services Conference, 2nd Oct. 2015
£10m funding support for Zero Emission Vehicle innovation.
The webinar will allow attendees to hear about the new funding opportunity. The top-level details are as follows:
- Application period opens 17 June and closes 29 July
- Single or up to two partner collaborations
- Focus around feasibility studies and R&D projects
- Projects delivery in six months
- Focused on ZEV innovation including battery and charging technologies
It is vital that businesses of all sizes, academics, RTOs and local authority representatives join to hear about the scope and details of this funding.
This will be your chance to hear about the funding scope, eligibility criteria and application process and also the chance to take part in a live Q&A with Innovate UK.
Find out more: https://ktn-uk.co.uk/news/catalysing-green-innovation-strand-2
Horizon 2020 - Ruolo di APRE e risultati del primo cut-offRomagna Tech
"Ruolo di APRE e risultati del primo cut-off"
Ruolo del National Contact Point
Esiti del primo semestre di call e la partecipazione dell’Italia
Focus esiti bandi EeB e Strumento per PMI
Presentazione di Massimo Borriello - Punto di Contatto Nazionale ENERGIA 2020 APRE
Presentation of a case study of an air quality hot spot mapper - an overview of the satellite enabled solution and the prototype, as well as the costs and benefits. Presented by Paul Monks, Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry and Earth Observation at University of Leicester, at the Making Efficiencies using Satellites – ‘it’s not rocket science’ Discovery Day on 13 March 2015 in Oxfordshire.
The European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan)Leonardo ENERGY
The European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan) aims to accelerate the development and deployment of low-carbon technologies. It seeks to improve new technologies and bring down costs by coordinating research and helping to finance projects. The SET-Plan promotes research and innovation efforts across Europe by supporting technologies with the greatest impact on the EU's transformation to a low-carbon energy system. It promotes cooperation amongst EU countries, companies, research institutions, and the EU itself.
UK space agency - The Space Economy and Role of the UK Space AgencyChris Atherton
Talk on the UK space economy and the role of the UK Space Agency by Elizabeth Seaman, Head of Major projects at the UK Space Agency. The talk was delivered on the 18th of March at the Cunard building in Liverpool as part of the inaugural Northern Space consortium 'A case for space as an economic driver' event.
Presentation by Matt Chapman, Knowledge Transfer Manager, Knowledge Transfer Network at the Health Sector Business Breakfast, 16 March at Northwich Memorial Court
Laboratorio "SMART PUGLIA: Verso la strategia di specializzazione intelligent...FormezPA - Capacity SUD
Il progetto Capacity SUD ha la finalità di migliorare la capacità istituzionale delle amministrazioni regionali aiutandole a programmare interventi che rispondano alle loro esigenze prioritarie e a dotarsi delle competenze, degli strumenti e delle tecnologie necessarie per la loro efficace attuazione. La capacità istituzionale, oltre a fornire un supporto strategico per una gestione maggiormente efficiente dei PO, assume un rilievo fondamentale in prospettiva della programmazione comunitaria nel quadro di Europa 2020.
Website: capacitaistituzionale.formez.it
Similar to Satellite technologies in UK agriculture 2015 (20)
MARINET – National Technology Initiative (NTI) is a key long-term program of the public-private partnership in the development of promising new markets based on high-tech solutions that will determine development of the global and Russian economy in the next 15-20 years.
MARINET was established in 2015 and involves a wide range of organizations providing advanced technologies for the maritime industry – from the leading corporations and universities to startup companies and research teams. Currently it joins several hundreds representatives from technology companies, leading universities, research and scientific centers, development institutions, business associations, ministries and government agencies.
UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series, part 3DianaGray10
Welcome to UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series part 3. In this session, we will cover desktop automation along with UI automation.
Topics covered:
UI automation Introduction,
UI automation Sample
Desktop automation flow
Pradeep Chinnala, Senior Consultant Automation Developer @WonderBotz and UiPath MVP
Deepak Rai, Automation Practice Lead, Boundaryless Group and UiPath MVP
Generating a custom Ruby SDK for your web service or Rails API using Smithyg2nightmarescribd
Have you ever wanted a Ruby client API to communicate with your web service? Smithy is a protocol-agnostic language for defining services and SDKs. Smithy Ruby is an implementation of Smithy that generates a Ruby SDK using a Smithy model. In this talk, we will explore Smithy and Smithy Ruby to learn how to generate custom feature-rich SDKs that can communicate with any web service, such as a Rails JSON API.
Neuro-symbolic is not enough, we need neuro-*semantic*Frank van Harmelen
Neuro-symbolic (NeSy) AI is on the rise. However, simply machine learning on just any symbolic structure is not sufficient to really harvest the gains of NeSy. These will only be gained when the symbolic structures have an actual semantics. I give an operational definition of semantics as “predictable inference”.
All of this illustrated with link prediction over knowledge graphs, but the argument is general.
Securing your Kubernetes cluster_ a step-by-step guide to success !KatiaHIMEUR1
Today, after several years of existence, an extremely active community and an ultra-dynamic ecosystem, Kubernetes has established itself as the de facto standard in container orchestration. Thanks to a wide range of managed services, it has never been so easy to set up a ready-to-use Kubernetes cluster.
However, this ease of use means that the subject of security in Kubernetes is often left for later, or even neglected. This exposes companies to significant risks.
In this talk, I'll show you step-by-step how to secure your Kubernetes cluster for greater peace of mind and reliability.
UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series, part 4DianaGray10
Welcome to UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series part 4. In this session, we will cover Test Manager overview along with SAP heatmap.
The UiPath Test Manager overview with SAP heatmap webinar offers a concise yet comprehensive exploration of the role of a Test Manager within SAP environments, coupled with the utilization of heatmaps for effective testing strategies.
Participants will gain insights into the responsibilities, challenges, and best practices associated with test management in SAP projects. Additionally, the webinar delves into the significance of heatmaps as a visual aid for identifying testing priorities, areas of risk, and resource allocation within SAP landscapes. Through this session, attendees can expect to enhance their understanding of test management principles while learning practical approaches to optimize testing processes in SAP environments using heatmap visualization techniques
What will you get from this session?
1. Insights into SAP testing best practices
2. Heatmap utilization for testing
3. Optimization of testing processes
4. Demo
Topics covered:
Execution from the test manager
Orchestrator execution result
Defect reporting
SAP heatmap example with demo
Speaker:
Deepak Rai, Automation Practice Lead, Boundaryless Group and UiPath MVP
Accelerate your Kubernetes clusters with Varnish CachingThijs Feryn
A presentation about the usage and availability of Varnish on Kubernetes. This talk explores the capabilities of Varnish caching and shows how to use the Varnish Helm chart to deploy it to Kubernetes.
This presentation was delivered at K8SUG Singapore. See https://feryn.eu/presentations/accelerate-your-kubernetes-clusters-with-varnish-caching-k8sug-singapore-28-2024 for more details.
Essentials of Automations: Optimizing FME Workflows with ParametersSafe Software
Are you looking to streamline your workflows and boost your projects’ efficiency? Do you find yourself searching for ways to add flexibility and control over your FME workflows? If so, you’re in the right place.
Join us for an insightful dive into the world of FME parameters, a critical element in optimizing workflow efficiency. This webinar marks the beginning of our three-part “Essentials of Automation” series. This first webinar is designed to equip you with the knowledge and skills to utilize parameters effectively: enhancing the flexibility, maintainability, and user control of your FME projects.
Here’s what you’ll gain:
- Essentials of FME Parameters: Understand the pivotal role of parameters, including Reader/Writer, Transformer, User, and FME Flow categories. Discover how they are the key to unlocking automation and optimization within your workflows.
- Practical Applications in FME Form: Delve into key user parameter types including choice, connections, and file URLs. Allow users to control how a workflow runs, making your workflows more reusable. Learn to import values and deliver the best user experience for your workflows while enhancing accuracy.
- Optimization Strategies in FME Flow: Explore the creation and strategic deployment of parameters in FME Flow, including the use of deployment and geometry parameters, to maximize workflow efficiency.
- Pro Tips for Success: Gain insights on parameterizing connections and leveraging new features like Conditional Visibility for clarity and simplicity.
We’ll wrap up with a glimpse into future webinars, followed by a Q&A session to address your specific questions surrounding this topic.
Don’t miss this opportunity to elevate your FME expertise and drive your projects to new heights of efficiency.
DevOps and Testing slides at DASA ConnectKari Kakkonen
My and Rik Marselis slides at 30.5.2024 DASA Connect conference. We discuss about what is testing, then what is agile testing and finally what is Testing in DevOps. Finally we had lovely workshop with the participants trying to find out different ways to think about quality and testing in different parts of the DevOps infinity loop.
Encryption in Microsoft 365 - ExpertsLive Netherlands 2024Albert Hoitingh
In this session I delve into the encryption technology used in Microsoft 365 and Microsoft Purview. Including the concepts of Customer Key and Double Key Encryption.
GraphRAG is All You need? LLM & Knowledge GraphGuy Korland
Guy Korland, CEO and Co-founder of FalkorDB, will review two articles on the integration of language models with knowledge graphs.
1. Unifying Large Language Models and Knowledge Graphs: A Roadmap.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.08302
2. Microsoft Research's GraphRAG paper and a review paper on various uses of knowledge graphs:
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/blog/graphrag-unlocking-llm-discovery-on-narrative-private-data/
1. FINAL
September 2015
Satellite technologies in UK agriculture
A Pathfinder study funded under the National Space
Technology Programme (NSTP)
RESEARCH REPORT
Prepared by:
September 2015
3. Table of Contents Page
London Economics
Satellite technologies in UK agriculture i
Executive Summary ii
1 Introduction 3
1.1 Policy context 3
1.2 Research objective 3
1.3 Report structure 3
1.4 Caveats and limitations 4
2 Review of relevant literature and previous studies 4
3 Research methodology and sample 6
3.1 Survey design 6
3.2 Survey administration 6
3.3 Achieved sample 7
4 Usage 10
4.1 Awareness and usage 10
4.2 Applications of the technologies 11
5 Benefits 12
5.1 Experienced benefits and their importance 12
5.2 Attitudes 13
6 Difficulties 13
6.1 Experienced difficulties and their importance 13
6.2 Improvements farmers would like to see 15
7 Barriers to take-up 15
7.1 Farmers with no plans for the technology 16
7.2 Farmers planning to use the technology 16
8 Conclusions 16
8.1 Summary and conclusions 16
8.2 Recommendations for future research 17
Index of Tables, Figures and Boxes 18
ANNEXES 19
Annex 1 Bibliography 20
4. Executive Summary
ii
London Economics
Satellite technologies in UK agriculture
Executive Summary
The need for sustainable, efficient and cost-effective methods of farming has never been more
pressing. As the global population continues to rise, the challenge to meet global food demands in
a sustainable manner is becoming increasingly important. At the same time, farmers are being put
under increasing pressure by prevailing market conditions.
Agricultural science and technology, known as ‘agri-tech’ – in particular that enhanced by satellite-
enabled services – is an important facilitator towards a solution. For this reason, satellite-enabled
agri-tech is one of the world’s fastest growing sectors and, along with satellites, has been
strategically identified by the government as one of the Eight Great Technologies in which the UK
is set to be a global leader.
However, the take-up of such technologies in agriculture has been slower than expected and,
despite its importance, there has been limited study of adoption and the constraints on its growth.
London Economics, in collaboration with Satellite Applications Catapult, set out to fill this evidence
gap by conducting a market study on the current nature and extent of satellite technology
application usage, the underlying drivers of demand, and adoption barriers in the UK’s agricultural
sector.
This research report outlines the findings of an online survey to farmers, which shows from a small
sample of 50 respondents that farmers are aware of satellite-enabled agri-tech and use a wide
variety of its applications.
Users gain from reduced input costs, increased quantity and quality of output, and environmental
benefits, but still experience cost, mobile signal reliability, and equipment compatibility and
standardisation problems.
There are also barriers to take-up present, including costs, reliability of mobile internet signal on
the farmland, insufficient technical knowledge, and the benefits of the technology being unclear.
Almost all current users sampled would like to see better standardisation of the equipment,
software, and data across vendors and systems.
Understanding the circumstances and factors that influence the adoption of satellite technologies
is crucial for developing targeted strategies to increase awareness of its benefits, overcome
adoption barriers, and drive adoption. The information in this report provides guidance to policy-
makers in the design of engagement and support programmes, and to the satellite industry to seek
out opportunities in the agricultural sector.
Although robust and user friendly, this survey research does have its limitations. The report
however provides a good starting point and provides UK-specific insights, and paves the way for
further iterations of research into this growing market.
5. London Economics
Satellite technologies in UK agriculture 3
1 | Introduction
1 Introduction
1.1 Policy context
The need for sustainable, efficient and cost-effective methods of farming has never been more
pressing. As the global population continues to rise, the challenge to meet global food demands in
a sustainable manner is becoming increasingly important. At the same time, farmers are being put
under increasing pressure by prevailing market conditions.
Agricultural science and technology, known as ‘agri-tech’ – in particular that enhanced by satellite-
enabled services (henceforth satellite-enabled agri-tech) – is an important facilitator towards a
solution. For this reason, satellite-enabled agri-tech is one of the world’s fastest growing sectors
and, along with satellites, has been strategically identified by the government as one of the Eight
Great Technologies in which the UK is set to be a global leader.
However, the take-up of such technologies in agriculture has been slower than expected and,
despite its importance, there has been limited study of adoption and the constraints on its growth.
1.2 Research objective
London Economics, in collaboration with Satellite Applications Catapult, set out to fill this evidence
gap by conducting a market study on the current nature and extent of satellite technology
application usage, underlying drivers of demand, and adoption barriers in the UK’s agricultural
sector. Understanding the circumstances and factors that influence the adoption of satellite
technologies is crucial for developing targeted strategies to increase awareness of its benefits,
overcome adoption barriers, and drive adoption. This information will also provide guidance to
policy-makers in the design of engagement and support programmes, and to the satellite industry
to seek out opportunities in the agricultural sector.
The study focused on the use of Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) in precision farming in
the UK, but also included Earth Observation applications and Satellite Communications. Our two-
pronged methodology involved desk research on the existing evidence on global adoption trends
of satellite technologies in agriculture, and an online survey of farmers in the UK to measure
actual adoption patterns, discover experiences of benefits and difficulties of usage, and barriers to
its take-up.
Ultimately, the research aims to inform policymakers on how to boost adoption of satellite-
enabled agri-tech in the UK, enabling farmers to reap the benefits of greater efficiency, higher
yields, increased sustainability, and reduced environmental impact.
1.3 Report structure
This section (Section 1) introduces the scope and objectives of the research, whilst noting the
limitations of the analysis. Section 2 presents a review of previous studies, providing a solid
foundation in the drivers and barriers for the adoption of satellite-enabled agri-tech, as well as
guidance of methodological issues in relation to the survey design and sampling. Section 3 outlines
the survey methodology and characteristics of the achieved sample. Sections 4 to 7 present the
new evidence from our survey of UK farmers on the current usage pattern of satellite-enabled
agri-tech, the benefits that users are experiencing, and the difficulties they presently face, as well
as the barriers to adoption for non-users. Section 8 concludes, with lessons for future research.
6. 4
London Economics
Satellite technologies in UK agriculture
2 | Review of relevant literature and previous studies
1.4 Caveats and limitations
Despite the research having been conducted using best practise and executed without any
technical difficulties, we list below a range of important limitations to the analysis, and associated
caveats attached to the results, that should be borne in mind throughout. These equally represent
improvements that could be made for future iterations of this research.
The response rate was low, with only 50 complete responses received.
Though this sample permits basic analysis to reveal some interesting insights on
patterns and messages from respondents, it is not large enough to extrapolate to
produce a nationally representative sample with representative findings. Thus the
observed patterns may be specific to the respondent sample.
The achieved sample is also almost certainly biased.
The sample is comprised of a high proportion of users of satellite-enabled agri-tech,
who tend (based on the observed responses) to be highly educated and
technologically literate. Therefore this cannot be taken as a broad adoption rate.
2 Review of relevant literature and previous studies
Farmers’ ex ante attitude towards precision agriculture can be understood using the Technology
Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, 1989), which is a theoretical model that is used to explain
adoption of new technologies. Farmers’ attitudes are most influenced by the Perceived Usefulness
(PU) such as potential increases in profitability and the Perceived Ease of Use (PEU), which can be
influenced by other factors such as education, previous experience, support availability, etc
(Pierpaoli et al., 2013). Some research suggests that PU and PEU could be equally important in
driving precision agriculture technology adoption (Folorunso and Ogunseye, 2008; Rezaei-
Moghaddam and Salehi, 2010; Aubert et al., 2012). This means that both the potential benefits of
precision agriculture and ease of using the technology should be concurrently addressed to drive
adoption.
Some studies also find that a positive attitude to adopt precision agriculture technologies is
positively correlated to the quality of soil and farm size (Hudson and Hite, 2003; Adrian et al.,
2005; Marra et al., 2010).
Turning to the ex post reasons why farmers who adopted precision agriculture did so, the most
important drivers of adoption identified in the literature were farm size, net benefits, total farm
income, land tenure, farmers’ education and familiarity with computers, and location of the
farm (Pierpaoli et al., 2013). Of these factors, farm size was most frequently cited and the farmer’s
confidence with computers is cited as the second most important driver of adoption.
The other side of the same coin are the barriers to adoption of precision agriculture. High
machinery costs, time requirements and lack of compatibility between different products were
identified as key barriers for German farmers (Reichardt and Jurgens, 2009). These reasons, along
with a lack of technical knowledge were also cited by farmers in the UK, USA and Denmark
(Fountas et al., 2005; Pedersen et al., 2004).
Our desk research also revealed three recent surveys on adoption of space technologies in
agriculture in Europe, which are summarised overleaf. The questionnaires from these surveys
were the starting point for our survey design.
7. London Economics
Satellite technologies in UK agriculture 5
2 | Review of relevant literature and previous studies
Table 1 Summary of recent surveys on adoption of precision agriculture in Europe
Title and Author Key findings Methodology
“Farm Practices
Survey Autumn 2012
– England” by the
Department for
Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs
(DEFRA)
1
Proportion of farms surveyed using the following
precision farming techniques: GPS (22%), soil
mapping (20%), variable rate application (16%), yield
mapping (11%), telemetry (2%).
The proportion of farms using precision farming
increased in 2012 compared to 2009, which GPS
technology seeing the largest increase.
The two most common reasons for using precision
farming were to improve accuracy (76%) and reduce
input costs (63%).
Of those who did not use precision farming, 47% said
they did not because it was not cost effective and/or
initial setup costs were too high.
Sample size of 2,731 farms in
2012
DEFRA regularly conducts its
Farm Practices Survey (FPS) to
collect information on a
diverse range of topics. In
autumn 2012, the FPS
contained a section on
precision farming (3
questions).
The FPS is a voluntary postal
survey, and stratified random
sampling is used to invite a
representative sample of
farms to do the survey.
“Uptake of GNSS
technology amongst
Danish farmers” by
Jens Peter Hansen,
Knowledge Centre
of Agriculture
(2013)
2
18% of farmers use some form of GNSS technology
on their machines.
Of those who use GNSS technology, the largest
group (41%) use RTK, followed by EGNOS (29%)
Of those who do not use GNSS technology, 51% said
their “farm was too small”, and 38% said they “don’t
think it will pay off”.
Sample size of more than
6,000 farms
As part of a survey about
mobile phones (4 questions on
space technologies in
agriculture)
E-mail with link sent to 14,000
Danish farmers; all
respondents were registered
users of main portal for Danish
farmers.
“Identified user
requirements for
precision farming in
Germany, Finland
and Denmark” by
Jens Bligaard,
Knowledge Centre
of Agriculture
(2012)
3
36% of farmers surveyed had previous experience in
using precision farming techniques and 27% said
they planned to invest in precision farming in the
next 1-2 years
55% of farmers surveyed were using a desktop farm
management system
In terms of possible barriers, only 59% of farmers
surveyed often or always had reliable mobile
Internet access in the field. 27% often or always
experienced difficulties due to ‘language problems’
between different farm equipment or between their
farm equipment and a software program.
In terms of needs, no more than 18% of farmers
surveyed would be willing to wait 3 or more minutes
extra per field task (e.g. for typing in information or
waiting for a GPS signal).
Sample size of 194 farmers
(from Germany, Finland and
Denmark), out of a total of 257
respondents
Online survey of 21 questions
Publicised via agricultural
portals in each country
Source: Various, see corresponding footnotes
1
Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/181719/defra-stats-foodfarm-environ-
fps-statsrelease-autumn2012edition-130328.pdf
2
Available at: http://www.project-unifarm.eu/News/Newsarticle/tabid/225/ArticleId/81/18-of-Danish-farmers-use-GNSS.aspx
3
Available at: https://www.landbrugsinfo.dk/Planteavl/Praecisionsjordbrug-og-GIS/Sider/identified-user-requirements-for-precision-
farming_pl_13_1369.aspx
8. 6
London Economics
Satellite technologies in UK agriculture
3 | Research methodology and sample
3 Research methodology and sample
This section contains a technical description of the work performed. An overview of the survey
design is provided, followed by a description of the survey sampling.
3.1 Survey design
The survey was designed such that respondents were asked questions relevant to their current
awareness and use of satellite technologies in agriculture. Based on his/her answers, a respondent
would be classified into the following groups (based on Gumpertsberger and Jürgens, 2003;
Reichardt and Jürgens, 2009):
Uninformed farmers: farmers who were unaware of satellite-enabled agri-tech and
currently do not use any of these technologies.
Informed farmers: farmers who are aware of satellite-enabled agri-tech .
Informed users: famers who are aware of and currently use satellite technologies at
their farms.
Informed non-users: farmers who are aware of but do not currently use satellite
technologies at their farms.
Informed potential users: farmers who plan to use satellite technologies at their
farms within the next 3 years.
Informed long-term non-users: farmers who are not intending to use satellite
technologies within the next 3 years.
Informed abandoners: farmers who previously used satellite technologies but
stopped using them.
All respondents were also asked about their farm characteristics (e.g. hectares farmed, type of
crop/livestock), demographic variables (e.g. education level, computer literacy), and other
circumstances (e.g. availability of mobile Internet in the field). In order to inform education and
engagement policies, all respondents were also asked how they currently learn about new
technologies and farming practices.
3.2 Survey administration
We collected primary data about satellite-services adoption trends and preferences from the UK’s
agriculture sector via an online survey. We adopted a robust and user-friendly survey design
methodology as follows:
Content: The survey questions were modelled after the UNIFARM and Danish studies. As
examples, these included questions about current level of satellite technologies adopted
(e.g. soil condition mapping, variable rate application) and the benefits experienced, the
systems installed, ranking of importance of various satellite services, and the main
barriers to adoption. The survey also studied the extent of use of various Earth
Observation (EO) technologies (e.g. optical data, infrared images, Synthetic Aperture
Radar (SAR) maps) and identified the most frequently used products and services.
A copy of the survey questionnaire is available on request from London Economics.
Sampling: Adoption of and attitudes towards Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS)
technologies (commonly known as Sat Nav) tend to be correlated with farm size (early
9. London Economics
Satellite technologies in UK agriculture 7
3 | Research methodology and sample
adopters of GNSS technologies tend to be larger farms) and crop type. We hoped that our
survey sample would be representative of the national distribution along these
parameters (and others discovered during our desk research). Based on initial contact
with associations and bodies we were confident of achieving a survey sample that is large
enough for the required sample-wide and sub-group analysis. However, a noted
limitation of the research is a small sample size: the response rate to the survey was
considerably lower than anticipated at 50 responses – precluding representative analysis.
Administration: The survey was administered online, open from 10 June 2015 to 14
August 2015. Invitations to participate were distributed using a ‘push’ approach,
published via the following channels:
Organisations who piloted/reviewed the survey: Aerovision, SEGES (merger of
Knowledge Centre for Agriculture/Danish Pig Research Centre), Velcourt.
Organisations who promoted the survey to members: Agriculture and Horticulture
Development Board , Agri-tech East, AGspace, Duchy College, Home Grown Cereals
Association, National Farmers’ Union Scotland, National Sheep Association, Reed
Business Information (Farmers Weekly), Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society,
Scottish Association of Young Farmers Clubs, Tenant Farmers Association, The Plant
and Crops Sector of the Knowledge Transfer Network of Innovate UK, UKTI Agri-Tech
Precision Agriculture Specialist, Yorkshire Agricultural Society.
Strategy: To encourage participation, we ensured that the survey was short
(approximately 10 minutes) and user-friendly. Wherever possible, we adopted
terminology commonly used in the agriculture business so that respondents could quickly
relate to the survey. Our desk research and research objectives were key in designing the
content of the survey. We also developed a well-communicated invitation to the survey,
highlighting the importance of participation. In addition, our collaborator, Satellite
Applications Catapult, has strong relationships with a number of agricultural associations
and DEFRA, who were important stakeholders in helping us disseminate our survey.
Finally, a cash prize of £250 was offered for respondents completing the survey to
incentivise participation.
Cost-effectiveness: An online survey is the most cost-effective way to reach farms
throughout the UK. We are mindful that an online survey may have introduced a
selection bias against farms that do not have Internet access, but we believe this to be a
small percentage. Furthermore, the previous UNIFARM and Danish studies have shown
online surveys to be a viable research tool in the agriculture sector.
Analysis: Once the primary data was collected and cleaned, we conducted an Excel-based
analysis and charting of findings.
3.3 Achieved sample
In total, a disappointingly low total of 50 respondents completed the survey. Of these 50
respondents 48 were aware of applications of satellite-enabled agri-tech, and of these 48 aware
farmers, 42 were users of the technologies. Of the 50 farmer respondents, 31 were arable farmers,
and the remaining 19 were livestock farmers. In the subsequent paragraphs we summarise in
detail the key demographic characteristics of this small sample.
As noted in the ‘Caveats and limitations’ (Section 1.4), all findings should be interpreted with the
small size of the sample in mind.
10. 8
London Economics
Satellite technologies in UK agriculture
3 | Research methodology and sample
3.3.1 Respondent demographics
Age
The demographics of all survey respondents are
representative of farmers in the UK; the overall
distribution closely matches census data from
DEFRA4
. A third of the farmers are aged between 40
and 54, another third between 55 and 64, and the
remainder are split above and below this range.
Looking just at users of satellite-enabled agri-tech,
the demographic profile is very similar to that of
the whole sample; showing that adoption occurs
across the age spectrum of farmers surveyed and is
not confined to a particular (e.g. younger)
generation.
Educational attainment
The farmers that completed the survey are highly educated: over half (54%) have at least A-levels
or equivalent, including 34% holding a degree or equivalent and 10% holding a higher
degree/postgraduate degree. A further 30% have received formal courses in agriculture. This is
above the average for the industry quoted in the agricultural census5
.
Again, there is little
difference in attainment
between users and non-
users, but there is a
difference between the
different farmer types.
Arable farmer
respondents, who make
up almost two thirds of
the sample, are more
highly educated (58%
holding at least A-levels
or equivalent) than
livestock farmers (47%).
4
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/430205/auk-chapter02-28may15.xls
5
ONS census data (2011) on industry by highest level of qualification shows that 50% of those employed in Agriculture, energy and
water have A-level or equivalent and above (level 3 qualifications in the table relate to A levels)
http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/census/2011/wp6503ew
Figure 1 Age profile of respondents
N=50
Figure 2 Educational attainment of farmers in the sample
N=50
Under 30
8% 30 - 39
years
10%
40 - 54
years
36%
55 - 64
years
34%
65 years
or over
12%
8%
8%
24%
6%
10%
34%
10%
6%
3%
26%
6%
6%
39%
13%
11%
16%
21%
5%
16%
26%
5%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Practical experience only
GCSE level
Formal course(s) in agriculture,
lasting less than 2 years
Formal course(s) in agriculture
lasting more than 2 years
A level / Scottish Higher / Trade
Apprenticeship
Degree or degree equivalent
Higher degree / postgraduate level
Livestock
Arable
All
11. London Economics
Satellite technologies in UK agriculture 9
3 | Research methodology and sample
Farm characteristics
We asked farmers about their farms and about their role in the relation to the technologies used
on their farms. The majority (82%) of respondents’ farms are full-time commercial holdings, with
16% being part-time commercial holdings, and the remaining 2% are a hobby/lifestyle choice.
Eight out of ten of these farms are owner-operated.
94% (47) of the respondents in the survey help decide which technology is being used on their
farms, ensuring that responses come from people with direct experience using the technology.
There are two types of farmers in the sample: arable farmers and livestock farmers. The farmers
in the survey cultivate a range of crops/livestock, with the most popular categories being wheat
(36%), cattle and calves (30%), and cereals (18%). The livestock farmers in the sample
predominantly rear cattle and calves – perhaps unsurprising, as the more valuable livestock, given
the investment costs associated with certain satellite-enabled agri-tech.
The distributions of farm sizes (arable: hectares; livestock: number of livestock) are as follows:
Figure 3 Farm sizes of respondents Figure 4 Number of livestock
N=31 N=19
Geographical distribution
The survey respondents are dispersed widely across the
UK, highlighting that the survey was pushed out across
all of the country by the organisations involved.
31 - 50
hectares
4%
51 - 100
hectares
7%
101 - 500
hectares
43%
501 - 1000
hectares
14%
1001 - 1500
hectares
14%
Over 1500
hectares
18%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
20-29 30-49 50-99 100-149 500-999 1,000 -
10,000
Over
10,000 -
below
100,000
Figure 5 Mapping of respondents
12. 10
London Economics
Satellite technologies in UK agriculture
4 | Usage
4 Usage
4.1 Awareness and usage
Respondents were asked whether they were aware of satellite technologies used in agriculture,
giving examples of technologies such as satellite navigation and applications such as machinery
guidance within the question. 96% (48) of farmers were aware of the technologies, and 84% (42)
currently use the technologies.
Of those who are aware but not currently using satellite technology (6 out of 8 non-users in the 50
respondent sample), 3 have plans to use it in the next 3 years, and the remaining 3 have no plans
for use of satellite technology in that same period. 5 of the 6 nonusers of the technology are
livestock farmers.
4.1.1 Technological awareness dissemination channels
The channels through which farmers find out about new technologies and techniques being used
in agriculture are varied. Vendors, distributors, suppliers, and agronomists are the most popular
suppliers of new information to farmers, as are farming media and newsletters such as Farmers
Weekly, and conferences and exhibitions. Information from formal sources such as training and
education, and government agencies such as DEFRA is more limited. Word of mouth is also an
uncommon way of receiving new information among the sample.
The information channels used for both users and non-users is very similar, with the vendor and
farming media categories remaining the most popular for both groups.
There is higher use of government channels and word of mouth amongst the non-users in the
sample.
Figure 6 Sources of information about new technologies
N=31
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Word of mouth
Government (e.g. DEFRA)
Training and education
General Internet search
Websites of farming organisations
Conferences and exhibitions
Farming media and newsletters
Vendors, distributors, suppliers, agronomists
13. London Economics
Satellite technologies in UK agriculture 11
4 | Usage
4.2 Applications of the technologies
There is a broad range of applications of satellite
technologies used by farmers in the sample. The most
popular use of the technology is machinery guidance,
used by 80% of the sample. Approximately 5 in 10 farms
use the technology for weather information, variable
rate application, and land parcel measurement.
Applications with very limited take up include
automated agriculture (e.g. weed control robots), geo-
traceability, livestock tracking, and virtual fencing.
Across farmer groups, arable land farmers use a wider variety of applications due to more
monitoring of the ground conditions for crops. Machinery guidance remains the most popular
application across both groups, though the use of satellite technology for weather information is
more prevalent amongst livestock farmers.
Figure 8 Applications of the technologies
N=42
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Geo-traceability
Livestock tracking
Virtual fencing
Surveillance
Automatic data capture and documentation
Biomass mapping/monitoring
Machinery monitoring & asset management
Yield mapping/monitoring
Soil condition mapping/monitoring
Automatic steering
Weather information
Land parcel measurement
Variable rate application
Machinery guidance
All
Livestock
Crop
Figure 7 Sources of information about new technologies in agriculture by farmer type
N=50
“We are contractors as well as
farmers and find that field
mapping is particularly useful
because it helps us to accurately
quantify what our charges should
be for any given job”.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Word of mouth
Government (e.g. DEFRA)
Training and education
General Internet search
Websites of farming organisations
Conferences and exhibitions
Farming media and newsletters
Vendors, distributors, suppliers, agronomists
Livestock Arable
14. 12
London Economics
Satellite technologies in UK agriculture
5 | Benefits
5 Benefits
The farmers surveyed are on the whole very positive about the use of satellite-enabled agri-tech.
The primary benefits relate to increased productivity on their farms, in the form of reduced input
costs, and higher yield and better quality output. Environmental benefits are frequently noted,
but our analysis suggests that the importance of these benefits relative to productivity benefits is
low.
5.1 Experienced benefits and their importance
The most commonly reported benefit is
reduced input costs (e.g. fertiliser, seeds,
fuel, water, fuel), which has been
experienced by 8 out of 10 farmers
surveyed. There are also output benefits
from using satellite-enabled agri-tech; 5 in
10 report increased output, as well as
better quality output.
Environmental benefits (e.g. less agri-
chemical run-off; lower greenhouse gas
emissions) have been reported by 6 in 10
farmers, but a follow up question in the
survey which asked respondents to rank in
order of importance their top 3 benefits
shows that its importance is very low when
compared to the other benefits.
A ranking system was designed to produce a
weighted ‘importance’ scale6
. The most
important benefits to farmers from using
satellite-enabled agri-tech are productivity-
related – these are all factors which are
quantifiable and monetisable, providing an
avenue for further research. It is interesting
that despite environmental benefits being
the second most popular reported benefit,
their ranking relative to the other benefits is
low.
Although the whole range of benefits are
experienced by both farmer groups, for
livestock farmers the reduced input cost
benefits are more prevalent than the
6
A ranking methodology has been established, whereby a benefit ranked most important receives a 3, a benefit ranked second a 2,
down to a reported benefit which is not ranked in the top 3 being given a score of 0. The scores for each benefit are then averaged.
Figure 9 Benefits from using space
technologies in agriculture
N=42
Figure 10 Relative importance of the benefits
N=42
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Other
Reduced insurance premiums
Helps monitor compliance
Saves time
Better working conditions &
safety
Increased output
Better quality output
Environmental benefits
Reduced input costs
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
Helps monitor compliance
Environmental benefits
Better working conditions &
safety
Saves time
Better quality output
Increased output
Reduced input costs
Weighted importance scale
15. London Economics
Satellite technologies in UK agriculture 13
6 | Difficulties
output benefits; 8 in 10 have experienced input cost reductions which compares to 3 in 10 and 4 in
10 for increased output and better quality output respectively.
5.1.1 Perceived benefits from non-users
These productivity benefits are also clearly understood by farmers who plan to use satellite-
enabled agri-tech in the next 3 years – all 3 farmers in this category indicated that they expected
to experience reduced input costs, and 2 of the 3 also expected increased output.
5.2 Attitudes
Attitudes towards the technology by farmers have on the whole been very positive, with 5 in 10
users rating their experience as very positive, and 83% rating it positive or very positive. There
are no farmers in the sample who have had a very negative experience. The average satisfaction
rating is very similar between the different types of farmers (4.4 for arable farmers, and 4.0 for
livestock farmers).
Figure 11 Attitudes towards using space
technology in agriculture
N=42
6 Difficulties
Despite consistently positive attitudes to the technology
in general, there are some key difficulties for users.
Cost, reliability of mobile signals and compatibility
were the biggest issues. Almost all users surveyed would
like to see the cost of the systems reduced, more
reliable mobile connectivity and better standardisation
of the technology in the future.
6.1 Experienced difficulties and their importance
Although reduced input costs are the main benefits experienced by farmers, the cost in terms of
investment and operation is the most prevalent problem that farmers were found to have with
satellite-enabled agri-tech, affecting 6 in 10 farmers. The second most common difficulty is
reliable mobile internet signal on the farmland, a finding which will interest mobile satellite
communication service providers. Compatibility of equipment, software and data, and the
accuracy of location services are also notable drawbacks, although 10% of crop farmers, and 25%
of livestock farmers report no difficulties when using satellite-enabled technology on their farms.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
1 Very negative
2
3
4
5 Very positive
“It is the best way forward, young
people understand it, it is greener,
more efficient and could be cost
effective on all farms if costs came
down.”
“They are an amazingly positive
addition to the machinery. I hope
the cost of any new innovations do
not mean the small farmer can not
benefit from them also.”
16. 14
London Economics
Satellite technologies in UK agriculture
6 | Difficulties
Figure 12 Difficulties faced when using space technologies in agriculture
N=42
In a similar vein to the section on the
benefits, we have created a weighted
importance scale for the difficulties
encountered7
. The cost and reliability of
mobile internet on farmland are the most
significant difficulties faced by farmers taking
part in the survey, with their importance
being almost double that of the next two
factors: compatibility and accuracy of
location services.
Between farmer groups, arable
farmers experience a wider range
of problems when using satellite
technologies. As well as
encountering a smaller range of
problems, livestock farmers also
report each problem in a smaller
proportion than arable farmers.
7
A ranking methodology has been established, whereby a difficulty ranked most important receives a 3, a difficulty ranked second a 2,
down to a reported difficulty which is not ranked in the top 3 being given a score of 0. The scores for each difficulty are then averaged.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Benefits are unclear
Other:
Resolution/ refresh rate of imagery data
Not accurate or reliable enough
No difficulties
Insufficient technical knowledge among farm staff
Data processing and usability
Time-consuming to program and calibrate devices
Technical support
GPS positioning accuracy
Reliability/ continuity of satellite link
Equipment, software and data compatibility
Reliable mobile Internet signal
Cost (investment and operation)
Figure 13 Relative importance of difficulties
Figure 14 Difficulties by farmer type
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Resolution/ refresh rate
Insufficient tehnical knowledge
Technical support
Data processing and usability
Time-consuming to program/calibrate
Reliability/ continuity of satellite link
GPS positioning accuracy
Equipment, software & data compatibility
Reliable mobile Internet signal
Cost
Weighted importance scale
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Benefits are unclear
Resolution/ refresh rate of imagery data
Not accurate or reliable enough for my needs
No difficulties
Insufficient technical knowledge among farm staff
Data processing and usability
Time-consuming to program and calibrate devices
Technical support
GPS positioning accuracy
Reliability/ continuity of satellite link
Equipment, software and data compatibility
Reliable mobile Internet signal
Cost (investment and operation)
Arable
Livestock
N=42
N=42
17. London Economics
Satellite technologies in UK agriculture 15
7 | Barriers to take-up
6.2 Improvements farmers would like to see
When asked about the improvements that farmers
using satellite-enabled agri-tech would like to see in
the future, almost all respondents (93%) stated
standardisation of the equipment, software, and data
across vendors and systems. Better accuracy of the
location services was the second most frequently
selected improvement in the survey.
Corroborating the earlier finding that
there is a larger proportion of livestock
farmers than crop farmers who have
experienced no difficulties using the
technology, 17% of livestock farmers
using satellite technologies on their
farms did not report any improvements
that they would like to see with the
technology. There were no such reports
in the arable farmers group of
respondents.
7 Barriers to take-up
As well as asking current users about the difficulties they
currently encounter, an important aspect when
assessing the current environment for satellite-enabled
technology in agriculture are the barriers which are
preventing further take up of the technology.
“So much technology nowadays is
just so easy to work with for example
you just take an iPhone out the box
turn it on and everything is ready to
go. With a lot of the agricultural
technology it is a very different story.
Compatibility and ease of set up are
real issues and prevent the easy
uptake of the technology.”
Figure 15 Improvements farmers would like to see
N=42
“I can see the advantages of the
technology, but its cost on a small
area is not justifiable, plus the
thought of incompatibility/lack of
agreed standards between
different manufacturers of
equipment would give me pause
for thought even if I could easily
afford it “
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Other
More real-time and regular
updates
Additional training
Better accuracy of the location
services
Standardisation of equipment,
software & data across vendors
& systems
18. 16
London Economics
Satellite technologies in UK agriculture
8 | Conclusions
7.1 Farmers with no plans for the technology
We asked those who do not use the technology currently, and had no plans for using it in the next
3 years about their reasons for this. Despite the sample being too small to draw inference from (3
farmers), it is nonetheless informative data.
In line with the difficulties faced by current users, costs,
and reliable mobile internet signal on the farmland
were the reasons given for not planning to, or having
stopped using technology. Insufficient technical
knowledge amongst staff was also stated. Lastly, and
valuable from an information stand point, one farmer
said that the benefits of the technology are unclear,
and that he also needed to increase his knowledge of
what was available.
This point on information continued into a follow up question on the most important factor which
may make farmers consider using applications of satellite technologies. Two of the farmers said
that they might consider using it if the technology definitely resulted in net benefits, which may
partly be explained by the fact that the three respondents are relatively small livestock farmers.
When asked about the benefits that farmers perceived they would enjoy if they employed
applications of satellite technology, the responses were consistent with the benefits enjoyed by
current users, and non-users planning on using the technology in the next 3 years. This shows that
farmers have an understanding of the technologies even if they are not currently using them.
7.2 Farmers planning to use the technology
For those not presently using applications of satellite-enabled agri-tech but planning on their use
in the next 3 years, we asked about the reasons behind not using them sooner. The resounding
reason has been the cost of the technology. Farmers have not been sure whether the technology
was worth the investment, and been waiting for the technology to become cheaper. When asked
about the difficulties they believe they will face, the farmers in this group gave very similar
responses to the other groups discussed earlier.
8 Conclusions
8.1 Summary and conclusions
The research process of this study was implemented successfully: relevant previous survey-based
studies were reviewed and insights employed in the research design; a robust survey
questionnaire was prepared, piloted and coded online; participating respondents were able to
complete the survey without impediment; and the questions and answers yielded relevant and
meaningful findings.
Unfortunately the coverage of the achieved sample was very limited – precluding more detailed
analysis and statistical inference based on a representative sample, as had been hoped, and
restricting the significance of the results.
Nonetheless, this research has added to the evidence base on the current nature and extent of
satellite technology application usage, underlying drivers of demand, and adoption barriers in the
“Cost is still a big barrier as is the
availability of software to view edit
and export data”
19. London Economics
Satellite technologies in UK agriculture 17
UK’s agricultural sector. Despite the disappointingly small sample size, the responses that have
been received were completed thoroughly and thoughtfully by respondents – for which we are
immensely grateful – and thus provide quality UK-specific insights to the key issues that
policymakers need to understand in order to boost adoption of these important technologies
amongst farmers in the UK.
8.2 Recommendations for future research
Though this research has returned a disappointingly small sample size, the overall research
objective, the design and relevance of the questionnaire, the operation of the online survey, and
the insights that even a limited sample can provide to key policy-relevant questions have been
proven to be effective, and the process has proved to be educational – with many lessons learned.
There have been two core issues that would need to be solved:
1. Season: One of the limitations of the study which could be improved in another version of
this study is the timing of the survey. The online survey ran from mid-June until mid-
August, but expert input which was offered when the project was already underway was
that October would have been a more suitable point in the year to survey farmers.
2. Survey distribution: Related to the above point is the achieved response rate. To improve
participation in any future iteration, it would be recommended to adopt a different
method to distribute the survey: for example, by incorporating the survey questions within
the annual sample survey and decennial Census run by the Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), which would yield a larger sample and enable the sample
dataset to be linked to official farming statistics, balanced to be representative and scaled
up to the national level – allowing for more complex analysis and tracking of users of
satellite-enabled agri-tech over time.
20. 18
London Economics
Satellite technologies in UK agriculture
Index of Tables, Figures and Boxes
Index of Tables, Figures and Boxes
Tables
Table 1 Summary of recent surveys on adoption of precision agriculture in Europe 5
Figures
Figure 1 Age profile of respondents 8
Figure 2 Educational attainment of farmers in the sample 8
Figure 3 Farm sizes of respondents 9
Figure 4 Number of livestock 9
Figure 5 Mapping of respondents 9
Figure 6 Sources of information about new technologies 10
Figure 7 Sources of information about new technologies in agriculture by farmer type 11
Figure 8 Applications of the technologies 11
Figure 9 Benefits from using space technologies in agriculture 12
Figure 10 Relative importance of the benefits 12
Figure 11 Attitudes towards using space technology in agriculture 13
Figure 12 Difficulties faced when using space technologies in agriculture 14
Figure 13 Relative importance of difficulties 14
Figure 14 Difficulties by farmer type 14
Figure 15 Improvements farmers would like to see 15
22. 20
London Economics
Satellite technologies in UK agriculture
Annex 1 | <Bibliography
Annex 1 Bibliography
Adrian, A. M., Norwood, S. H., & Mask, P. L. (2005). Producers’ perceptions and attitudes toward
precision agriculture technologies. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 48(3) , 256–271.
Auberta, B. A., Schroederb, A., & Grimaudo, J. (2012). IT as enabler of sustainable farming: An
empirical analysis of farmers' adoption decision of precision agriculture technology. Decision
Support Systems, 54(1) , 510–520.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology. MIS Quarterly 13 (3) , 319-340.
Folorunso, O., & Ogunseye, S. O. (2008). Applying an Enhanced Technology Acceptance Model to
Knowledge Management in Agricultural Extension Services. Data Science Journal, Vol. 7 , 31-45.
Fountas, S., Blackmore, S., Ess, D., Hawkins, S., Blumhoff, G., Lowenberg-Deboer, J., et al. (2005).
Farmer experience with precision agriculture in Denmark and the US Eastern Corn Belt. Precision
Agriculture, 6(2) , 121–141.
Gumpertsberger, E., & Jürgens, C. (2003). Acceptance of precision agriculture in Germany—results
of a survey in 2001. In J. Stafford & A. Werner (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th European conference
on precision agriculture (pp. 259–264). The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Press.
Hudson, D., & Hite, D. (2003). Producer Willingness to Pay for Precision Application Technology:
Implications for Government and the Technology. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics,
51(1) , 39–53.
Marra, M. C., Rejesus, R. M., Roberts, R. K., English, B. C., Larson, J. A., Larkin, S. L., et al. (2010).
Estimating the demand and willingness-to-pay for cotton yield monitors. Precision Agriculture,
11(3) , 215-238.
Pedersen, S. M., Fountas, S., Blackmore, B. S., Gylling, M., & Pedersen, J. L. (2004). Adoption and
perspective of precision farming in Denmark. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B—Soil and
Plant Science, 54(1) , 2-8.
Pierpaoli, E., Carli, G., Pignatti, E., & Canavari, M. (2013). Drivers of Precision Agriculture
Technologies Adoption: A Literature Review. Procedia Tehnology, Vol. 8, 6th International
Conference on Information and Communication Technologies in Agriculture, Food and Environment
(HAICTA 2013), (pp. 61–69).
Reichardt, M., & Jürgens, C. (2009). Adoption and future perspective of precision farming in
Germany: results of several surveys among different agricultural target groups. Precision
Agriculture, 10(1) , 73–94.
Rezaei-Moghaddam, K., & Salehi, S. (2010). Agricultural specialists’ intention toward precision
agriculture technologies: integrating innovation characteristics to technology acceptance model.
frican Journal of Agricultural Research, 5(11) , 1191-1199.
23. Somerset House, New Wing, Strand,
London, WC2R 1LA, United Kingdom
info@londoneconomics.co.uk
londoneconomics.co.uk
@LondonEconomics
+44 (0)20 3701 7700