skip to main content

Title: Improving decision support systems with machine learning: Identifying barriers to adoption

Precision agriculture (PA) has been defined as a “management strategy that gathers, processes and analyzes temporal, spatial and individual data and combines it with other information to support management decisions according to estimated variability for improved resource use efficiency, productivity, quality, profitability and sustainability of agricultural production.” This definition suggests that because PA should simultaneously increase food production and reduce the environmental footprint, the barriers to adoption of PA should be explored. These barriers include (1) the financial constraints associated with adopting decision support system (DSS); (2) the hesitancy of farmers to change from their trusted advisor to a computer program that often behaves as a black box; (3) questions about data ownership and privacy; and (4) the lack of a trained workforce to provide the necessary training to implement DSSs on individual farms. This paper also discusses the lessons learned from successful and unsuccessful efforts to implement DSSs, the importance of communication with end users during DSS development, and potential career opportunities that DSSs are creating in PA.

more » « less
Award ID(s):
Author(s) / Creator(s):
 ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  
Publisher / Repository:
Wiley Blackwell (John Wiley & Sons)
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Agronomy Journal
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Abstract

    The use of intelligent decision support systems (DSS) in precision farming provides an opportunity to improve agricultural recommendations and reduce the impacts of agriculture on the environment. Despite the benefits offered by DDS, many farmers remain skeptical of using these hardware and software tools, and their adoption rates have remained low. A survey of 312 South Dakota farmers examined the barriers and opportunities for their engagement with DSS. Exploratory factor analysis was used to analyze 13 Likert scale survey items that probed farmers’ concerns about DSS. Factor loadings indicated that farmers’ concerns are related to high cost, insufficient knowledge, lack of confidence, and cyber security and privacy. A latent profile analysis (LPA) method was used to classify respondents into profiles or groups based on their dimensions of concerns (cost, knowledge, confidence, and security). Results of the LPA revealed that the sample of farmers could be grouped into four distinct profiles that ranged from low to high confidence in the use of DSS for agronomic decision‐making. Giving attention to farmer comfort/concern profiles allows for a more inclusive and better targeted engagement with farmers and potentially increase the adoption of PA. This knowledge can be vital for technology developers, policymakers, and extension services who are keen to promote PA usage among large‐, medium‐, and small‐scale farmers in the United States.

    more » « less
  2. Broadening participation in engineering is critical given the gap between the nation’s need for engineering graduates and its production of them. Efforts to spark interest in engineering among PreK-12 students have increased substantially in recent years as a result. However, past research has demonstrated that interest is not always sufficient to help students pursue engineering majors, particularly for rural students. In many rural communities, influential adults (family, friends, teachers) are often the primary influence on career choice, while factors such as community values, lack of social and cultural capital, limited course availability, and inadequate financial resources act as potential barriers. To account for these contextual factors, this project shifts the focus from individual students to the communities to understand how key stakeholders and organizations support engineering as a major choice and addresses the following questions: RQ1. What do current undergraduate engineering students who graduated from rural high schools describe as influences on their choice to attend college and pursue engineering as a post-secondary major? RQ2. How does the college choice process differ for rural students who enrolled in a 4-year university immediately after graduating from high school and those who transferred from a 2-year institution? RQ3. How do community members describe the resources that serve as key supports as well as the barriers that hinder support in their community? RQ4. What strategies do community members perceive their community should implement to enhance their ability to support engineering as a potential career choice? RQ5. How are these supports transferable or adaptable by other schools? What community-level factors support or inhibit transfer and adaptation? To answer the research questions, we employed a three-phase qualitative study. Phase 1 focused on understanding the experiences and perceptions of current [University Name] students from higher-producing rural schools. Analysis of focus group and interview data with 52 students highlighted the importance of interest and support from influential adults in students’ decision to major in engineering. One key finding from this phase was the importance of community college for many of our participants. Transfer students who attended community college before enrolling at [University Name] discussed the financial influences on their decision and the benefits of higher education much more frequently than their peers. In Phase 2, we used the findings from Phase 1 to conduct interviews within the participants’ home communities. This phase helped triangulate students’ perceptions with the perceptions and practices of others, and, equally importantly, allowed us to understand the goals, attitudes, and experiences of school personnel and local community members as they work with students. Participants from the students’ home communities indicated that there were few opportunities for students to learn more about engineering careers and provided suggestions for how colleges and universities could be more involved with students from their community. Phase 3, scheduled for Spring 2020, will bring the findings from Phases 1 and 2 back to rural communities via two participatory design workshops. These workshops, designed to share our findings and foster collaborative dialogue among the participants, will enable us to explore factors that support or hinder transfer of findings and to identify policies and strategies that would enhance each community’s ability to support engineering as a potential career choice. 
    more » « less
  3. Urban residents are often unevenly vulnerable to extreme weather and climate events due to socio-economic factors and insufficient greenspace. This can be amplified if citizens are not meaningfully consulted in the planning and design decisions, with changes to greenspace having detrimental impacts on local communities, e.g., through green gentrification. These deficiencies can be addressed through inclusive landscape-level collaborative planning and design processes, where residents are fully engaged in the co-creation of urban greenspaces. A promising way to support co-creation efforts is gamifying technology-based interactive decision support systems (DSSs). Gamification, the incorporation of video game elements or play into non-game contexts, has previously been used for DSSs in urban planning and to inform the public about the impacts of climate change. However, this has yet to combine informational goals with design-play functionality in the redesign of urban greenspaces. We conducted a review of state-of-the-art video game DSSs used for urban planning engagement and climate education. Here, we propose that gamified DSSs should incorporate educational elements about climate change alongside the interactive and engaging elements of urban planning games, particularly for real-world scenarios. This cross-disciplinary approach can facilitate improved community engagement in greenspace planning, informing design and management strategies to ensure multiple benefits for people and the environment in climate-vulnerable cities. 
    more » « less
  4. Abstract Background

    There has been a growing interest in characterizing factors influencing teaching decisions of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) instructors in order to address the slow uptake of evidence-based instructional practices (EBIPs). This growing body of research has identified contextual factors (e.g., classroom layout, departmental norms) as primary influencers of STEM instructors’ decision to implement EBIPs in their courses. However, models of influences on instructional practices indicate that context is only one type of factor to consider. Other factors fall at the individual level such as instructors’ past teaching experience and their views on learning. Few studies have been able to explore in depth the role of these individual factors on the adoption of EBIPs since it is challenging to control for contextual features when studying current instructors. Moreover, most studies exploring adoption of EBIPs do not take into account the distinctive features of each EBIP and the influence these features may have on the decision to adopt the EBIP. Rather, studies typically explore barriers and drivers to the implementation of EBIPs in general. In this study, we address these gaps in the literature by conducting an in-depth exploration of individual factors and EBIPs’ features that influence nine future STEM instructors’ decisions to incorporate a selected set of EBIPs in their teaching.


    We had hypothesized that the future instructors would have different reasoning to support their decisions to adopt or not Peer Instruction and the 5E Model as the two EBIPs have distinctive features. However, our results demonstrate that instructors based their decisions on similar factors. In particular, we found that the main drivers of their decisions were (1) the compatibility of the EBIP with their past experiences as students and instructors as well as teaching values and (2) experiences provided in the pedagogical course they were enrolled in.


    This study demonstrates that when considering the adoption of EBIPs, there is a need to look beyond solely contextual influences on instructor’s decisions to innovate in their courses and explore individual factors. Moreover, professional development programs should leverage their participants past experiences as students and instructors and provide an opportunity for instructors to experience new EBIPs as learners and instructors.

    more » « less
  5. There is strong agreement across the sciences that replicable workflows are needed for computational modeling. Open and replicable workflows not only strengthen public confidence in the sciences, but also result in more efficient community science. However, the massive size and complexity of geoscience simulation outputs, as well as the large cost to produce and preserve these outputs, present problems related to data storage, preservation, duplication, and replication. The simulation workflows themselves present additional challenges related to usability, understandability, documentation, and citation. These challenges make it difficult for researchers to meet the bewildering variety of data management requirements and recommendations across research funders and scientific journals. This paper introduces initial outcomes and emerging themes from the EarthCube Research Coordination Network project titled “What About Model Data? - Best Practices for Preservation and Replicability,” which is working to develop tools to assist researchers in determining what elements of geoscience modeling research should be preserved and shared to meet evolving community open science expectations. Specifically, the paper offers approaches to address the following key questions: • How should preservation of model software and outputs differ for projects that are oriented toward knowledge production vs. projects oriented toward data production? • What components of dynamical geoscience modeling research should be preserved and shared? • What curation support is needed to enable sharing and preservation for geoscience simulation models and their output? • What cultural barriers impede geoscience modelers from making progress on these topics? 
    more » « less