User-Technological Index of PrecisionAgriculture: Data Collectionand Visualization

Jan Masner, Jan Jarolímek, Michal Stočes, Pavel Šimek, Jiří Vaněk,and Vladimír Očenášek

Abstract User-Technological Index of Precision Agriculture (UTIPA) is a compre-hensive system based on mutual sharing of opinions and experience within commu-nity of people related to precision agriculture – farmers, technology suppliers, andresearchers. The main goal of UTIPA is to present the calculated index level for aparticular technology (method) for precision agriculture and compare it to theindexes of other technologies. The index is based on evaluation of technologicaladvancement and applicability for agricultural practice. The paper discussesmethods for collecting data from questionnaires in general and elaborates on thetechnical solution developed specifically for data collection for UTIPA. The systemalso allows all participants who filled in the entry questionnaire to access the results.There are various visualizations and data views available.

Keywords Precision farming · Survey · Questionnaire · Farmers · Web ·Technologies

1 Introduction

Besides precision agriculture, several terms are used for the same concept among theprofessional society nowadays. It includes precision farming, smart agriculture,smart farming, and agriculture 4.0. The concept of precision agriculture has been inthe interest of the professional public since the 1990s. It generalizes the effort toidentify solutions, tools, and processes that can improve productivity and profitabil-ity while protecting the environment (Cambouris et al. 2014). Precision agricultureplays a vital role in increasing production and is seen as part of the agricultural

J. Masner (*) · J. Jarolímek · M. Stočes · P. Šimek · J. Vaněk · V. OčenášekDepartment of Information Technologies, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague,Czech Republice-mail: masner@pef.czu.cz

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019A. Theodoridis et al. (eds.), Innovative Approaches and Applications for SustainableRural Development, Springer Earth System Sciences,https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02312-6_10

169

process efficiency and environment-friendliness. The adoption of GPS guidancesystems for tractors has been part of precision agriculture since its conception.Currently, precision agriculture encompasses many advanced modern technologiesand approaches such as high-precision positioning systems (like GPS), automatedsteering systems, geomapping, sensors and remote sensing, integrated electroniccommunications, and variable rate technology (CEMA 2018). ICT technologies ingeneral are one of the most important enablers (Kai and Perumal 2010).

The precision agriculture approaches are spreading through all areas of agricul-tural production (Morota et al. 2018), and crop production is no longer the onlydomain. The current efforts are trying to manage the resources of the whole farmsfrom crops to the final product. On the other side, the utilization of precisionagriculture and its operations and technologies in terms of widespread implementa-tion is still under development (Paustian and Theuvsen 2017).

In summary, the concept of precision agriculture is based on observations andmeasurements followed by the appropriate responses – for example, through theintroduction of new technology or by changing manufacturing processes. Precisionagriculture technologies allow farmers to identify problems and opportunities andapply solutions with far greater accuracy (Lindblom et al. 2016).

A key factor in deciding whether a particular technology should be incorporatedto practice is the understanding of agricultural production processes as well as thetechnology itself. Workers in agriculture management must choose among variousoptions for applied research and technology, and in this decision-making process,there is a necessity to merge previous experience of the staff and the introduction ofnew technologies and procedures (Kumhala et al. 2003).

The question of implementation of the particular technology is partly an eco-nomic decision. The most important factors are profitability and investment rate ofreturn. Therefore, it is important to inform farmers about economic benefits ofprecision agriculture technologies (Katalin et al. 2014).

Another factor that affects the decision process is usability. Technologies evolvevery fast nowadays. More and more nontechnical users use them. Therefore, preci-sion agriculture technology development needs to also focus on the field of human-computer interaction (Lindblom et al. 2016). Usability in association with precisionagriculture is an area that is neglected within scientific literature. The usability ispartly subjective attribute and needs evaluation from the user’s perspective (Bendaet al. 2015).

It is vital to establish effective decision models and support resources for theprocess of decision-making between particular technologies. The basic premise forappropriate decision-making is quick availability of quality data (Schimmelpfennigand Ebel 2016). To sum up, there are many factors that affect the decision-makingprocess, i.e., economic profitability, investment rate of return, technologicaladvancement, reliability, functionality, and usability. Farmers need information,whether particular technologies or methods are worth exploring.

This paper presents a User-Technological Index of Precision Agriculture. It is acomplex system for evaluation of technologies and methods. Its objective is toprovide users (farmers, suppliers, and researchers) with knowledge on the use of

170 J. Masner et al.

modern technologies in agriculture. Primarily, it is based on a point assessment ofselected technologies (methods) of precision agriculture from the viewpoints oftechnological sophistication and usability for agricultural practice. It evaluates theprinciples of a given technology and not specific products and manufacturers.

The data for evaluation is collected from farmers, technology suppliers,researchers, and general public. The optimal way to get the data is to run a survey.Therefore, there is a need to spread questionnaires and get them back. Question-naires can be disseminated in two major forms – printed on paper or electronicallyvia the Internet. As Gordon and McNew (2008) suggest, it is important to makeinformed decisions as to which technology is the best one to implement. Manyauthors and studies suggest the Internet as the best carrying medium (Andrews et al.2003; Lumsden 2005; Van Selm and Jankowski 2006). On the other side, web-basedsurveys generally exhibit a lower response rate (Fan and Yan 2010; Hamilton 2009).

2 Materials and Methods

The questionnaire for UTIPA is compiled from three general questions (email,country, and background) and ratings for several technologies. The rating is basedon individual knowledge and experience. Each technology is evaluated in twoindividual criteria: technological advancement and applicability in practice. Bothcriteria consist of five-point scales where higher mark means the technology is betterfor a given criterion. The general principles of technologies are evaluated. Specificproducts, brands, or manufacturers are not reflected (Jarolímek et al. 2017).

The technological advancement criterion represents mainly a level of develop-ment and sophistication. It is evaluated whether the technology is in an experimentalphase or in active use by farmers, whether it is mass produced by several manufac-tures or it is a technology of one individual producer. The criterion of applicability inpractice includes evaluation of economic efficiency, quality, quantity of production,and ease of use. The technology needs to have well-proven economic benefits. Theusability is evaluated based on experiences of the respondents.

The example for the evaluation can be the “Use of UAVs (drones) for cropimaging.” The technology is well developed and proven to work (Pavlíček et al.2018). So, it is very likely to score high in the technological advancement criterion.On the other side, the batteries do not last for a long period of time and need frequentrecharging. Besides, drones are not cheap and need expertise to be operated.Therefore, the score in the applicability in practice is expected to be lower.

An important characteristic of the evaluated technology is also its unfamiliarityamong the respondents. The survey provides also an option called “cannot judge.”

The survey is disseminated in both major ways. The printed version is spreadduring conferences and seminars and periodically sent to Czech farmers. Theweb-based version of the questionnaire is shown in Fig. 1.

The Department of Information Technologies runs in cooperation with the Min-istry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic a survey among Czech farmers about their

User-Technological Index of Precision Agriculture: Data Collection. . . 171

ICT equipment every 1 or 2 years since 2008. Questionnaires are primarily spreadover the Internet via emails. Aside from that, some of the questionnaires are sent inprinted form via classic post. The UTIPA questionnaire was included within lastyear’s dissemination. The return rate of the printed questionnaires is still on asignificantly higher level. In addition, the level of ICT equipment among Czechfarmers is lower than a national average. The level of knowledge is significantly lowin long term as well (Šimek et al. 2014). As mentioned above, the return rate of theprinted form of questionnaire is higher than the electronic form. Therefore, thequestionnaire for UTIPA is spread in printed form besides the electronic as well.The data gathered this way is inserted into the system manually later.

The process of survey dissemination is monitored, and various data are gathered.The online version of questionnaire as well as the whole application uses GoogleAnalytics. It allows to analyze users’ behavior on a website. All links that are used in

Fig. 1 The online version of the questionnaire – general questions and example of a technologyevaluation

172 J. Masner et al.

promoting the questionnaire have a special URL attribute. This attribute helps toprecisely identify the source of a user’s visit. We can monitor various sources andcampaigns such as emailing, QR codes, articles, etc. The monitoring of userscontinues during filling in the questionnaire and whole usage of the application.

One of the objectives of the UTIPA system is to form a community of peoplerelated to precision agriculture. Data are not collected via the entry questionnaireexclusively. There are too many technologies to be included in it. Respondents needto be motivated to sign in and evaluate more technologies. Another goal of theUTIPA is to track a development of the technologies over time. Therefore, theusers should be motivated to come back to the application in the future and ratethem again.

3 Results

The User-Technological Index of Precision Agriculture is a complex system thatincludes a methodology for collection, processing, and presentation of data andsoftware which is available via a web interface. The software is also optimized formobile devices. The user interface is designed using responsive web technologies,which allows the use of the website on different devices (mobile, tablet, desktop) viaa web browser. It is also available as a native application for Android operatingsystem. The data collection system for the questionnaire was maximally simplified.

3.1 Data Collection and the Entry Questionnaire

The system of data collection for UTIPA works on a simple principle. Eachparticipant fills the email address, the basic information, and the ratings for selectedtechnologies (approximately 10, based on the current occasion). To validate thecontribution, an email with a confirmation link is sent to the given address. Oncethe provided link is clicked, the data and user are verified; and the participant cancreate a password. The user is automatically signed in and can immediately accessthe collected data in a given format. The whole process from the users’ point ofview, including the collection from the printed version of the questionnaire, isshown in Fig. 2.

Many surveys usually only spread a questionnaire and collect data. Results aredelivered to the participants only occasionally. On the contrary, UTIPA works on theprinciple of “what data I provide is the type of data I gain access to.” Therefore, eachparticipant who filled the questionnaire has access to the results and can benefitfrom them.

We have observed that many questionnaires are left unfinished. Therefore, whilethe user is filling the form, all data are continuously saved on background via AJAX.This approach allows us to monitor the user’s behavior and investigate the reasons

User-Technological Index of Precision Agriculture: Data Collection. . . 173

Fig. 2 The process offilling questionnaire andaccess to the data

174 J. Masner et al.

behind incompletion. Furthermore, we have the data even though the participants didnot finish the questionnaire for whatever reason. Moreover, users can continue fillingit in later. We save a special hash using browser cookies. The same hash is saved inthe application’s database on a server side. So, when a user comes back using thesame computer (and a same browser), they can continue to fill in the same ques-tionnaire. The data they have already filled are automatically loaded. On top of that,the user can come back to the questionnaire using a different computer or browser.After the email is filled, the system recognizes that it is already known. The user isthen offered with a possibility to receive a special activation link to continue fillingthe previously saved questionnaire. The whole process is shown in Fig. 3.

3.2 The UTIPA Index

The main contribution of the whole system is a calculation of the UTIPA index.Primarily, it is calculated for each technology and serves for various comparisons.The index consists of two parts, the numeric value and an additional character. Thenumeric part of the index has values between 0 and 5 and reflects the degree ofusefulness and sophistication of the technology. The numeric value can besupplemented with the character which can be either “u” or “t” and expresses betterranking in favor of applicability in practice or technological advancement – thelocation of the point in the chart compared to the diagonal line (see Fig. 5). Themethodology for calculation of the index was published by (Jarolímek et al. 2017).There is also a supplementary G-UTIPA index. It is calculated across a certain groupof respondents including all technologies.

3.3 Data Visualizations

After successful email confirmation, all participants have access to the results andvarious data visualizations. There are currently six possible views on the data: basicstatistics, technology comparison, country comparison, comparison according torespondent characteristics, unfamiliarity of technologies, and particular technologyoverview. Each view can visualize the data in a different way and follows theprinciple of “what data I provide is the type of data I gain access to.” Therefore,users can only see results for the technologies that they have already rated.

Basic Statistics

The statistics view offers basic results in a form of table. The data can be filtered andordered. Each technology is linked to its separate page with the overview. The viewis shown in Fig. 4.

User-Technological Index of Precision Agriculture: Data Collection. . . 175

Technology Comparison

The technology comparison view shows comparison of technologies between eachother. As shown in the figure, the X-axis indicates applicability in agricultural

Fig. 3 The process of filling in the questionnaire with the return possibilities

176 J. Masner et al.

practice, and the Y-axis indicates technological advancement. Each point in thechart represents a certain technology. When the number is hovered over, additionalinformation is displayed. It contains name of the technology, exact values for bothevaluation criteria, and the computed UTIPA index. In addition, users can compareown evaluation with the calculated values. It is indicated by a red circle as shown inFig. 5. Users can additionally adjust the index calculation by setting specific filters.The view can be limited to certain countries (origin of respondents), characteristicsof respondents, and particular technologies. The technology on the chart can beincluded in one of the fundamental segments: potential, practice, vision, and need.This is indicated by the background of the chart with an appropriate coloring.

Country Comparison

The country comparison view is based on the technology comparison. The main goalof the view is to compare the technologies according to the respondents’ countries oforigin. Within the view, each numbered circle represents the technology, as in theoriginal view, and in addition, it is multiplied in the chart for each selected country.

Fig. 4 Basic statistics view

User-Technological Index of Precision Agriculture: Data Collection. . . 177

This view is illustrated in the figure. In the chart there is a circle labeled with the Gcharacter. It stands for the G-UTIPA index and represents all technologies rated byall respondents from the given country (Fig. 6).

Comparison According to Respondent Characteristics

Another view represents comparison according to respondent characteristics. Themain goal of this view is to compare the technologies according to the characteristic

Fig. 5 Technology comparison view

178 J. Masner et al.

of respondents. It is mostly identical to the country comparison mentioned in theprevious chapter. As shown in the figure, the difference is the primary viewpoint forthe comparison. The G-UTIPA index represents all technologies rated by a certaingroup of respondents (according to the characteristic) (Fig. 7).

Unfamiliarity of Technologies

Participants of the survey have also an option to indicate the unfamiliarity with acertain technology. It is an important characteristic for the results and represents thelack of knowledge about a certain technology. The output is then a comparison of

Fig. 6 Country comparison view

User-Technological Index of Precision Agriculture: Data Collection. . . 179

unfamiliarity of technologies as shown in Fig. 8. The red bars on the chart indicatethat the current user marked the “Cannot judge” option for the given technology.

List of Technologies and Technology Overview

The UTIPA web application has a section called Technologies. It displays a simplelist of all the technologies with selected results (calculated values) for each one. Itshows the UTIPA index, both criteria values, and technology annotation. If the userhas not evaluated the technology, the rating option is shown.

Fig. 7 Comparison according to respondent characteristics view

180 J. Masner et al.

Each technology has a detail page with the results’ overview. There are tables ofbasic statistics data, charts for country, characteristics’ comparison, and a heat map.The heat map chart, shown in Fig. 9, provides a graphical presentation for scatter ofall the ratings. Users have also the possibility to change their ratings when thetechnology evolves, their opinion changes, or their level of knowledge increases.

4 Conclusion

User-Technological Index of Precision Agriculture is a complex system for theinternational community of people related to precision agriculture; it is accessibleto anyone who respects the terms of use. The fundamental function and contributionof the system is a calculation of a special index called UTIPA. The index serves forvarious comparisons of precision agriculture technologies.

Fig. 8 Unfamiliarity of technologies view

User-Technological Index of Precision Agriculture: Data Collection. . . 181

The proposed system for collecting questionnaire data was designed primarilyas a web application gathering data online. It is also simultaneously spread in aprinted form. It is disseminated in batches at certain occasions. The printed formhas significantly higher return rate. On the other side, it requires financial input aswell as additional labor to process incoming paper questionnaires. The online formof the survey needs significantly less resources. On the other side, its return rate ison a very low level.

The whole process of the data collection is monitored. For example, data arecontinuously saved during the filling of the online form. Therefore, users cancontinue to fill unfinished questionnaires even from a different computer. All dataare continuously evaluated, and parts of the system are improved accordingly.

The system provides access to the visualizations of collected data for all partic-ipants. It works on the principle of “what data I provide is the type of data I gainaccess to.” There are several views of the results: basic statistics, technologycomparison, country comparison, comparison according to respondent characteris-tics, unfamiliarity of technologies, and particular technology overview.

The UTIPA index benefits all the stakeholders. Farmers can find out whether agiven technology is useful and has real importance. Suppliers need to know whattheir customers (farmers) want or expect but also how they perceive their products.

Fig. 9 Heat map visualization of the scatter of ratings by individual respondents

182 J. Masner et al.

For academia it can be a source of data for science and research. The importance andsignificance of the index grows with the number of respondents.

Future research and development is going to focus on several areas. The dataabout the collection process are going to be continuously monitored and evaluated.The visualization of the obtained data is going to be enhanced according to userneeds. New types of views and comparisons will be introduced. To attract newparticipants, there is an encyclopedia of precision agriculture technologies underactive development.

UTIPA system is freely available as a web application at https://www.utipa.info/.

Acknowledgments The results and knowledge included herein have been obtained owing tosupport from the following institutional grants: Internal Grant Agency of the Faculty of EconomicsandManagement, Czech University of Life Sciences in Prague, grant no. 20181005 –“Processing ofprecision agriculture and IoT data in regards to big data in agriculture.”

References

Andrews D, Nonnecke B, Preece J (2003) Conducting research on the internet: online surveydesign, development and implementation guidelines. Int J Hum Comput Interact 16:185–210.https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327590ijhc1602_04

Benda P, Smejkalova M, Ulman M (2015) Usability and accessibility analysis of Czech agrarianportals. In: Smutka L, Rezbova H (eds) Agrarian perspectives XXIV: global agribusiness andthe rural economy, Agrarian perspectives series, Czech University Life Sciences Prague, DeptSystems Eng, Kamycka 129, Prague 6 165 21, Czech Republic’s, pp 47–54

Cambouris AN, Zebarth BJ, Ziadi N, Perron I (2014) Precision agriculture in potato production.Potato Res 57:249–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11540-014-9266-0

CEMA (2018) Precision farming: key technologies & amp; concepts [WWW Document]. URLhttp://cema-agri.org/page/precision-farming-key-technologies-concepts (viděno 3.31.18)

Fan W, Yan Z (2010) Factors affecting response rates of the web survey: a systematic review.Comput Hum Behav 26:132–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.10.015

Gordon JS, McNew R (2008) Developing the online survey. Nurs Clin North Am 43:605–619, vii.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnur.2008.06.011

Hamilton MB (2009) Online survey response rates and times. Ipathia, Inc, N/A, pp 1–5Jarolímek J, Stočes M, Masner J, Vaněk J, Šimek P, Pavlík J, Rajtr J (2017) User-technological

index of precision agriculture. Agris On-line Pap Econ Informatics 9:69–75. https://doi.org/10.7160/aol.2017.090106

Kai CY, Perumal N (2010) Intelligent informatics platform for precision agriculture. In: WorkshopProceedings of the 6th International Conference on Intelligent Environments, pp 141–147.https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-60750-639-3-141

Katalin T-G, Rahoveanu T, Magdalena M, István T (2014) Sustainable new agricultural technology– economic aspects of precision crop protection. Procedia Econ Finance 8:729–736. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00151-8

Kumhala F, Kroulik M, Masek J, Prosek V (2003) Development and testing of two methods for themeasurement of the mowing machine feed rate. Plant Soil Environ 49:519–524

Lindblom J, Lundström C, Ljung M, Jonsson A (2016) Promoting sustainable intensification inprecision agriculture: review of decision support systems development and strategies. PrecisAgric 18:309–331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-016-9491-4

User-Technological Index of Precision Agriculture: Data Collection. . . 183

Lumsden J (2005) Guidelines for the design of online-questionnaire. National Research CouncilCanada NRC/ERB 11, pp 44–64

Morota G, Ventura RV, Silva FF, Koyama M, Fernando SC (2018) Big Data Analytics andPrecision Animal Agriculture Symposium: Machine learning and data mining advance predic-tive big data analysis in precision animal agriculture. J Anim Sci 96:1540–1550. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/sky014

Paustian M, Theuvsen L (2017) Adoption of precision agriculture technologies by German cropfarmers. Precis Agric 18:701–716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-016-9482-5

Pavlíček J, Jarolímek J, Jarolímek J, Pavlíčková P, Dvořák S, Pavlík J, Hanzlík P (2018) Automatedwildlife recognition. Agris On-line Pap Econ Informatics 10:51–60. https://doi.org/10.7160/aol.2018.100105

Schimmelpfennig D, Ebel R (2016) Sequential adoption and cost savings from precision agricul-ture. J Agric Resour Econ 41:97–115

Šimek P, Stočes M, Vaněk J (2014) Mobile access to information in the agrarian sector. AgrisOn-line Pap Econ Informatics 6:89–96

Van Selm M, Jankowski NW (2006) Conducting online surveys. Qual Quant 40:435–456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-005-8081-8

184 J. Masner et al.