You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
Sensors
  • Review
  • Open Access

22 October 2020

Smart and Climate-Smart Agricultural Trends as Core Aspects of Smart Village Functions

,
,
,
,
,
and
1
Department of Soil Protection and Recultivation, Brandenburg University of Technology, Konrad-Wachsmann-Alle 6, 03046 Cottbus, Germany
2
Department of Geology, Faculty of Geography and Geoscience, University of Trier, Universitätsring 15, 54296 Trier, Germany
3
Center for Basic and Applied Research, Faculty of Informatics and Management, University of Hradec Kralove, Rokitanskeho 62, 50003 Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic
4
Malaysia Japan International Institute of Technology (MJIIT), Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Jalan Sultan Yahya Petra, Kuala Lumpur 54100, Malaysia
This article belongs to the Special Issue Implementation of Sensors and Artificial Intelligence for Environmental Hazards Assessment in Urban, Agriculture and Forestry Systems

Abstract

Attention has shifted to the development of villages in Europe and other parts of the world with the goal of combating rural–urban migration, and moving toward self-sufficiency in rural areas. This situation has birthed the smart village idea. Smart village initiatives such as those of the European Union is motivating global efforts aimed at improving the live and livelihood of rural dwellers. These initiatives are focused on improving agricultural productivity, among other things, since most of the food we eat are grown in rural areas around the world. Nevertheless, a major challenge faced by proponents of the smart village concept is how to provide a framework for the development of the term, so that this development is tailored towards sustainability. The current work examines the level of progress of climate smart agriculture, and tries to borrow from its ideals, to develop a framework for smart village development. Given the advances in technology, agricultural development that encompasses reduction of farming losses, optimization of agricultural processes for increased yield, as well as prevention, monitoring, and early detection of plant and animal diseases, has now embraced varieties of smart sensor technologies. The implication is that the studies and results generated around the concept of climate smart agriculture can be adopted in planning of villages, and transforming them into smart villages. Hence, we argue that for effective development of the smart village framework, smart agricultural techniques must be prioritized, viz-a-viz other developmental practicalities.

1. Introduction

The need to develop rural communities in terms of productivity and convenience, so as to curb urban migration has received much attention in the last decade. First, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), as part of its mission, commenced the installation of solar-powered bulbs in many rural communities worldwide [1]. This was followed in 2016 by the Cork Declaration, agreed amongst 340 representatives of European states towards ensuring that rural communities enjoy better lives. These efforts culminated into the coining of the word “smart village”, defined as a community that tries to develop current strength and resources, while making futuristic developmental plans on the basis of technology [2,3]. While there are several thematic areas of priority within the smart village development framework, agriculture is seen as the most important of them all [3]. Furthermore, the need to bridge the digitization gap between cities and villages, is also an important aspect, so that lives and livelihood can be improved. Since a smart village is one that seemingly accepts new technologies, precision agriculture uses ultra-modern techniques for animal and crop production, which saves time and reduces wastage, and meets the requirements of smart villages. This is crucial for the sustainability of smart villages [4]. This is because improved food production and efficient animal management systems must be at par with village development, and must be continually transformed to influence the different aspects of smart villages, in terms of policy and practice [5].
To effectively play its role in smart villages, precision agriculture covers smart and climate smart agriculture (CSA) techniques, and other aspects that are capable of ensuring higher agricultural production output in an environment-friendly manner, provides optimum income for the farmer, and is able to feed a growing population. Many studies showed that these processes can be realized through the adoption of ultra-modern agricultural techniques such as bio and nano technologies [6], IoT and blockchain-based methods [7], and drone technologies [8], among other climate smart ideas. On the basis of this argument, efforts that tend to reduce farming losses, increase yield, as well as monitor, detect, and potentially prevent plant and animal diseases are now being automated, finding growing applications, and offering optimal solutions. Based on the forgone explanations, the current study attempts to establish smart and CSA trends in smart village research, in order to see how much they are useful for smart village development.
The rest of this study is arranged as follows. Section 1.1 draws a foundation for this study, by focusing on the research question. Section 2 briefly builds a background for smart village research by listing existing projects, and describes a few state-of-the-art smart agricultural solutions. In Section 3, attention is drawn to climate-smart agriculture, with specific reference to what makes up the concept, a few challenges in its framework, as well as the latest progress in its development. Section 4 describes the challenges created by the interplay of adopting CSA in smart villages, and also tries to answer the research question. The section also conceptualizes climate-smartness, as it influences sustainable development of smart villages. Finally, Section 5 describes future research directions in smart-village and smart agricultural research, and draws relevant policy recommendations and conclusions

1.1. Research Question

Based on the vast importance of agriculture in smart village development, this study adapts its research question from the editorial note presented by the editors of MDPI’s special issue within the Sustainability journal published in August 2018. Within the report, Visvizi and Lytras [9] gave a revealing background of future directions for smart village research. The editors pointed to a few research questions that future smart village research should strive to answer. One of these is: “How will smart and CSA research give account of, and conceptualize transformation and change in the smart village context?”(p. 8) [9]. This question is what the current study modifies and seeks to answer.

3. Moving towards Climate-Smart Agriculture

Having established in Section 2.1 that agriculture is one of the most important factors to be considered in smart village development, it is crucial to stress that climate change is a major stressor for agricultural development of rural communities [68]. The implication is that developing an agriculturally-smart village entails accepting the concept of climate-smart agriculture. Agricultural risk posed by climate is a threat to food security. As a result, there is an urgent need to effectively manage agricultural production, while fighting climate change through adaptation, resilience and mitigation [69]. This is what climate-smart agriculture offers.
There is currently no unified definition for climate-smart agriculture (CSA). In fact, almost every new study within the framework of smart-agriculture, views CSA in a slightly unique way. Nevertheless, to build a strong foundation for climate-smart agricultural framework in smart village development, the current study adopts existing knowledge and definitions, to coin a new and more robust definition for the term. Table 2 presents some definitions put forward by climate change and agricultural scholars and research organizations. Keywords derived from the definitions show that each has one or more shortcomings. As a result, it might be difficult to build the concept of smart village on a definition that lacks one or more fundamental aspects.
Table 2. Definitions of CSA.
Given the definitions in Table 2, considerable aspects of climate-smart agriculture include; capacity building, sustainability, emission reduction, vulnerability reduction, profit, food security, transformation, new knowledge, new technology, and productivity. By linking the above keywords together, we define climate-smart agriculture as a “transformative and sustainable kind of agriculture that tries to increase efficiency (productivity) in food security and production systems, using a combination of the pillars of climate change (adaptation, resilience, and mitigation) as well as smart and new technological knowledge, that do not only build capacity of farmers’ in terms of farming techniques, but also increase profit, reduces vulnerability of the systems as well as their results (farm products/animals), through the reduction of GHG emissions.”
While it can be argued that the list of keywords suggested within the current study is not exhaustive, many other definitions tend to be built around at least one of these keywords. Figure 1 is a diagrammatical representation of the main aspects of climate-smart agriculture for which it stands as a significant part of a smart village. The implication of the above expository listing of the fundamental parts of climate-smart agriculture means that for a smart village to be so called, it must strive to maintain within its agricultural systems all different aspects of CSA. Furthermore, other aspects of the smart culture within the smart village setting; smart energy management, smart living and smart healthcare, etc., must tap from these fundamental attributes of CSA, in order to provide robust services in their smart village functions.
Figure 1. Key aspects of climate-smart agriculture (CSA).
In demonstrating whether CSA could increase rice yield in China, Xiong et al. [79] used crop simulation models; version 0810 of the Environmental Policy Integrated Climate (EPIC) model [80], and version 4.0 of the so-called DSSAT, an acronym for Decision Support System for Agro-technology Transfer [81], respectively. It was observed that these software simulations that gave ideas on cultivar improvement and optimization of management practices for rice due to climate change, led to increased rice production. The EPIC models specifically yielded over 2000 kgha−1 during the 30-year period under review [79].
Rural African farmers tend to suffer a lot from adverse weather conditions. This further creates a need for cheap and reliable weather forecast system. To attend to such needs in Nigeria [82], a cheap automatic weather station that functions on solar energy was designed. By linking meteorological sensors to microcontrollers, the farmer could gain access to processed information related to weather, through a television screen. A thermometer collects temperature information, while the anemometer and LDR measures wind speed and sunlight, respectively. Embedded temperature sensors within the microcontroller receives analog information gathered by the thermometer and converts it to digital signals [82]. In some cases, unprocessed data can also be sent to farmer’s mobile phones. The cheap rate of the unit shows that it can serve as a very good system for crop management and food security, in the least developed nations.
In a research carried out by Tenzin et al. [83], to ensure effective weather monitoring around a farm, the authors designed a very cheap cloud-based weather measurement unit, using an integration of different unique weather sensors. The system, which is made up of a base and a weather station, as well as a display unit, is capable of effectively gathering humidity, temperature, wind direction, wind speed, and many other weather data types. By experimenting its usage and statistically analyzing gathered data, it was observed that the unit provided similar results as the Davis Vantage Pro2 weather monitor, which was pre-installed on the same farm, thus, offering a cheaper option [83].
In a bid to design an integrated farm that efficiently manages water and reduces climate-demanding inputs, Doyle et al. [84] designed an aquaponics unit for vegetables and fish. The design consists of a 12V DC pump that delivers water from the fish tank to the flood tank, which then supplies the area where the crops are planted at a constant rate. As soon as water is removed from the fish pond, it is carried by gravity through the grow bed area, where it is stored until it is needed for watering the vegetable bed. The pump is powered using a solar panel of 150-Watt with a 120 Ah battery.
Having described some smart agricultural and climate-smart agricultural studies, it is important to note that while smart agriculture is mostly developed, research on CSA is relatively new and still at the level of policy and framework description [85]. In a systematic review study by Chandra et al. [85], the authors observed that research on CSA is mainly divided into three parts; global policy and plans around the world concerning further development of the concept, scientific research directions, and integration of pillars of the concept (which includes; adaptation, resilience, mitigation, and food security). With respect to CSA policy framework developed by the World Bank, Taylor [86] faulted the fundamental make-up of the concept on the following grounds.
There are no explicit conditions that can be referred to as success of CSA, which makes certain fundamental aspects like productivity, completely implicit.
Being an important part of sustainability, resilience as pointed out within World Bank’s CSA framework is not defined, thus, leaving the term implicit.
Given an absence of conceptual framework for CSA, literature relating to the topic are merely based on success stories of some normative research on agricultural improvement.
CSA tries not to be involved with how consumer sovereignty influences food production around the world, towards the consumption demands of the elite.
Given these fundamental shortcomings of CSA [86] ‘climate-wise food system’ is suggested as a more direct term that should be used to refer to sustainable food production systems, rather than CSA. Another criticism on the policy and framework of CSA comes with the injustice meted to smallholder farmers, as a result of the implementation of the concept [87]. By administering interview to some CSA experts, analysis based on a number of ethical positions showed that implementation of climate-smart agricultural approaches is not fair, especially with respect to allocation of income benefits and challenges of cost associated with emission reduction [87], among smallholders farmers and small agricultural processing industries. Budiman [87] further argued that based on how climate justice works, sharing of income benefits should depend on the financial capability of farmers.
In a comparative study of Philippines and Timor-Leste, five important features of climate-smart agricultural practices were observed by Chandra and McNamara [88]; strategies at country-specific institutional levels; delegated financial procedures; the state of the market; technology; and knowledge. In the two countries, CSA was used to resolve climate vulnerability challenges more than it was associated with emission reduction goals [88]. Overall, the researchers observed that advancing the course of CSA in these countries might involve multi-stakeholder approaches that cuts across different levels of participation, both within and outside the farm, rather than mere technical CSA developmental inputs [88]. From the above arguments for and against CSA, it is clear that while there are still fundamental challenges revolving round the CSA concept, the terms might likely continue to be utilized for agricultural problem solving, until it attains uniformity and intersection of ideologies, amongst researchers and policy makers.

What does Smart- and CSA Offer Smart Villages?

Having described in previous sections how the concept of CSA has evolved amidst the challenges faced within its developmental framework, an examination of the utility of climate- and technology-driven agriculture to smart villages is important. According to Azevedo [5], there is a big chance that CSA will empower and strengthen the conceptualization and execution of smart village in different ways. Safdar and Heap [89] noted that development of small grids to power certain climate-smart technologies has so far spurred a re-imagination of the possibility of home solar powering in many Indian villages. Items such as solar lanterns, and street solar lighting systems have become very popular. Nevertheless, a new concern is the way to enhance local productions and repairs of these materials, in order to cater for higher tariffs of importing them to interior villages, and shipping them back for repairs, when the items develop technical faults. The report also stressed how CSA has so far upheld gender equality, for instance, the CCAFS project in Kenya’s Nyando valley has mostly favored women whose incomes have improved due to new technology for growing their vegetables [13].
In documenting how CSA could provide smart village farmers with possible economic benefits, Khatri-Chhetri et al. [90] carried out a research using farmers of India’s Indo-Gangetic Plains. Major CSA practices by the farmers include diversifying crops, land levelling using laser, nutrient management in a site-specific mannerism, management of residue, and zero tillage, among others. The researchers started by calculating how much the farmers spent to adopt three most prominent CSA systems (variety of crops, land levelling using laser, and zero tillage). These values were estimated as +1402, +3037 and –1577 INR ha-1, respectively, for rice-wheat cultivation system. By improving their varieties in terms of crop production, the study results showed that the farmers of the Indo-Gangetic Plains can have their net return increase to up to INR 15,712 per-hectare, per-year. Similarly, when cultivating wheat and rice with no tillage, farmers could make up to INR 6951 per-hectare, per-year, and INR 8119 per-hectare, per-year with laser-based land levelling. Given the analyses of this results, it implies that integrating individual systems together would result in an even higher yield as well as income for the farmers. In econometric terms, adoption and execution of CSA practices for crop production in the north Indian River plain would significantly influence the cost of production, which decreased, but produced an increased yield of rice and wheat.
Scherr et al. [78] reported that CSA offers to rebrand villages by providing them with embrace ‘climate-smart landscapes’. This means that integrated landscape management principles that adopts the pillars of climate change must be in place prior to agricultural land allocation. The development of CSA objectives also requires strong institutional mechanism. When such systems are in place, its effects transcends to other parts of the village. Steenwerth [74] noted that while smart village residents might consider migrating to big cities, climate-smart agriculture could cause a rethink, as it gives room for entrepreneurial development in the agricultural sector, as seen in the case of youth training embarked upon in rural areas across Europe. Additionally, CSA also caters for increased demand for food due to the world’s growing population. This is achieved through methods that do not jeopardize environmental health [74]. With respect to animal husbandry, some zoonotic diseases can be detected early, so that treatment plans are set underway to prevent the farmer from infection. CSA also motivates the achievement of sustainable development goals through agricultural practices that use techniques that can drive food security, improve resilience, and effectively manage emissions [70]. CSA practices are also able to curb environmental challenges related to water pollution through the use of agrochemicals [91]. A notable aspect where smart agriculture surpasses expectations is the possibility of using it as a tool for enterprise resource planning, through which the safety of agricultural products/foods can be monitored [46].

4. Discussion

Revisiting the Research Question

How will smart- and climate-smart agricultural research give account of, and conceptualize transformation and change in the smart village context?
In responding to the modified research question above, it is important to draw important ideas from the definitions of smart- and CSA. Albeit, CSA bears all characteristics of smart agriculture, with a step further in lowering GHG emissions. Consequently, accounts of conceptualizing transformation and change in smart village context might tend towards the adoption of key aspects of climate-smart agriculture (see Figure 1), which are somewhat multi-disciplinary in nature [92]. What this implies is that for smart villages to reach desired level in terms of development through research and policy frameworks, ideas of climate-smartness must be fully embedded across the facets of smart village agenda. According to Katara et al. [93], continuous adoption of new technologies is the first way to conceptualize transformation of smart villages. Since technology is bound to continually change, it becomes easy to bring evolving and smarter changes to smart village progress. This means that rural population must fully embrace ICT, especially since smart village idea is based on the fact that technology is adopted to hasten the growth of sustainable development [93]. Secondly, efficiency and productivity are not completely new words in smart village research. Nevertheless, it might be useful for smart village policy analysts to learn from prevention of losses for which CSA is known [94]. Another important aspect through which transformation of smart villages can be conceptualized is through capacity building of rural dwellers. As in the case of climate-smart agriculture, building capacities would bring about self-sufficiency for persons within these communities, thus reducing urban migration [15,19]. This is part of the current efforts within the different smart village initiatives. Of all the initiatives that smart village research can draw from climate-smart agricultural practices, the idea of seeking and promoting “new knowledge” [95] might be technically referred to as the most significant. Given that the world has now embraced a knowledge-based economy for which smart village development has to be a part.
On the basis of towing a part of steady development in its processes, future smart village developmental projects need to adopt successful projects of the past as a yardstick for planning. For instance, tremendous success was recorded by the IEEE smart village initiative; the EU smart village-drive, as well as the CCACFS projects, to mention a few. By adopting the recipe for success within these projects, more smart-village projects would be actualized in many parts of the world. Furthermore, it is noteworthy to state that existing smart village projects also have unique challenges. Notable amongst the challenges faced by smart villages within the IEEE project is the issue of maintenance and repairs [96]. Although as part of the project framework, two individuals are often selected and trained within the villages to fix damaged smart inputs, when demands for these inputs become high, the number of technicians might no longer be sufficient to cater for repair and maintenance needs. This is one aspect where smart village development must learn from climate-smart ideas where capacity development is well-planned and readily available.
Another aspect for which smart village development can gain from climate-smart agriculture is in its sustainability approach. While CSA strives for the cheapest routes to progress in agriculture, smart village development mostly depends on donations and funding, which slows down the pace of making progress and achieving sustained growth. As a result, for any smart villages project to achieve lasting success, such a project would have to plan self-funding strategies [10], where inputs within the village is used to generate income that would fund new projects for growth, rather than unduly wait for funding before progress is made. In building its growth, smart village planners might need to prioritize new knowledge and link it to new technology for early warning measures against potential environmental disasters. Furthermore, proponents also need to ensure that pillars of climate change are largely considered in building infrastructures [13]. This is because the impact of climate change might continue to be felt for a long time.
While ideas drawn from smart and climate-smart agriculture might indeed be useful for smart village development, Hargreaves et al. [97] explained that specific policies grounded in the values of rural areas are needed to help them transform into smart villages. This transformation must, therefore, bring effective utilization and management of resources within smart villages. The idea of transformation within the context of smart villages mostly draws attention to digital transformation, which is very important [98]. Another result of technological change is the social changes it brings [99,100].
Given the forgone discussion on how smart village development can be spurred from ideas borrowed from smart- and climate-smart agriculture, we argued that the development of a smart village has to be a gradual process. This is because the development must systematically and strategically prioritize the most important aspects, such as clean energy management and agriculture, bearing in mind the sustainability of the process.

5. Current Lessons & Future Research Direction

Overall, this study revealed a number of lessons from smart-agriculture and climate-smart agriculture ideas, which, if adopted in smart villages, would achieve the following goals.
Improvement and optimization of existing smart village projects/processes in terms of precision and speed.
Increased efficiency and productivity, which can lead to increased income/profit on ventures embarked upon by smart-village dwellers.
Better planning brought about by efficient forecasting and prediction systems, which help to guide against potential dangers, and to take proactive steps in planning and preparation for such eventualities.
Offer of cheaper and equally effective data gathering avenues for easy detection of challenges and problems.
Reduced dependence on external funding, and a drive for self-sufficiency encouraged by innovation.
While the above lessons are specific to smart village development, there are specific shortcomings of climate-smart agriculture that must be noted [91,92], and which ought not to be adopted in smart village development.
  • Sain et al. [101] used cost-benefit analysis to analyze variability and uncertainty of some CSA parameters. It was observed that while CSA is generally promising, not all CSA parameters were indeed profitable in the long run [101].
  • With CSA comes IoT, Blockchain, and artificial intelligence in agricultural operations. As such, there is the challenge of helping rural farmers understand the operation of smart farm inputs, and interpretation of data gathered from the farms using CSA tools [102]. The situation might be worse in rural Africa, where farmers rarely have any level of formal education.
  • Interoperability is another serious challenge for adopting CSA. An example is described by Kalatzis et al. [103] in the use of gaiasense TM farming solution.
  • The cost of acquiring smart farming implements cannot be overlooked when listing some known challenges of CSA [104]. Smart sensors for instance are generally expensive [105]
As a result of some of the aforementioned challenges of CSA, future studies might look at the challenges posed by the adoption of “climate-smart” agriculture, prior to the full adoption of its fundamental aspects, as described in this study. This is because research by Taylor [86] pointed out certain foundation faults in the description of CSA by the World Bank group. There is also a fundamental problem in how CSA handles climate justice [87]. Another aspect opened to future research is the development of the climate-smart villages, as used in some studies [69]. While this has been achieved in some parts of the world today [13], it might be the case that smart-village research is yet to reach a maturity level as to warrant even more terms to be coined from it.

6. Conclusions

The uniqueness of smart village projects around the world means that approaches towards smart village development might also differ. This study showed that smart and CSA are key areas that must be considered in developing a smart village project, and offer several lessons to proponents of smart village ideas, given how these concepts have enjoyed steady conceptualization in the research literature. Another important consideration that must be carefully explored is the tendency of developing smart villages in line with the concepts upon which smart cities are built. Having clarified in Section 1 that smart villages are not extensions of smart cities [106], it is important to understand that the challenges of rural areas differ significantly from those of cities. Hence, smart village development must come with uniquely defined plans and strategies for its development [107].
A major driving force for “smarting up” rural areas is the mass exodus of persons to the cities, as well as inferior services offered in these villages [107]. Nevertheless, an introduction of the smart village concept comes with new opportunities brought about by technology, which is currently touted as the major economic driver of the 21st century. The current study, therefore, tries to adopt the technological ideas of CSA in creating a foundational path for smart village development. To do this, the study carefully analyzes the framework of CSA and proposes that the same be adopted for developing smart villages. It is observed that certain fundamental aspects of technological innovation; productivity, new knowledge, new technology, capacity building, vulnerability reduction, increased profits, etc., are fundamental to the building of smart villages. Nevertheless, these fundamental terms cannot be embedded immediately. Rather, it must follow gradual process that gives priority to the important aspects.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.A., O.F., O.K., A.S. and K.K.; methodology, K.K., P.M., O.K., O.F. and A.S.; software, A.A., M.A. and O.F.; validation, A.S., K.K., P.M. and O.K.; formal analysis, O.F., K.K. and O.K.; investigation, A.A., O.F., M.A.; resources, O.K., K.K. and A.S.; data curation, A.A., O.F. and O.K.; writing—original draft preparation, A.A., O.F., M.A., K.K., P.M., A.S. and O.K.; writing—review and editing, A.A., O.F., K.K. and O.K.; visualization, A.A., O.F. and M.A.; supervision, A.S., P.M., K.K. and O.K.; project administration, O.F., O.K., P.M. and K.K.; funding acquisition, O.K. and K.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was funded in part by the project (2020/2205), Grant Agency of Excellence, University of Hradec Kralove, Faculty of Informatics and Management, Czech Republic; project at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) under Research University Grant Vot-20H04, Malaysia Research University Network (MRUN) Vot 4L876 and the Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS) Vot5F073, supported under Ministry of Education Malaysia for the completion of the research.

Conflicts of Interest

Authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Mackenzie, D. IEEE Smart Village Sustainable Development Is a Global Mission. IEEE Syst. Man Cybern. Mag. 2019, 5, 39–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Jung, J.G. Smart Communities: Digitally-Inclined and Content-Rich. Available online: http://tfi.com/pubs/ntq/articles/view/98Q1_A3.pdf (accessed on 27 May 2020).
  3. European Commission EU Support for Smart Villages. European Commission-European Commission. 4 August 2019. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/eu-support-smart-villages (accessed on 3 June 2020).
  4. Maheswari, R.; Azath, H.; Sharmila, P.; Gnanamalar, S.S.R. Smart Village: Solar Based Smart Agriculture with IoT Enabled for Climatic Change and Fertilization of Soil. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE 5th International Conference on Mechatronics System and Robots (ICMSR), Singapore, 3–5 May 2019; pp. 102–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Azevedo, D. Precision Agriculture and the Smart Village Concept. In Smart Villages in the EU and Beyond; Visvizi, A., Lytras, M.D., Mudri, G., Eds.; Emerald Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2019; pp. 83–97. [Google Scholar]
  6. Antonacci, A.; Arduini, F.; Moscone, D.; Palleschi, G.; Scognamiglio, V. Nanostructured (Bio)sensors for smart agriculture. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2018, 98, 95–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Khoa, T.A.; Man, M.M.; Nguyen, T.-Y.; Nguyen, V.; Nam, N.H. Smart Agriculture Using IoT Multi-Sensors: A Novel Watering Management System. J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2019, 8, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Mogili, U.R.; Deepak, B.B.V.L. Review on Application of Drone Systems in Precision Agriculture. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2018, 133, 502–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Visvizi, A.; Lytras, M.D. It’s Not a Fad: Smart Cities and Smart Villages Research in European and Global Contexts. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zavratnik, V.; Kos, A.; Duh, E.S. Smart Villages: Comprehensive Review of Initiatives and Practices. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Larsen, R.S.; Estes, D. IEEE Smart Village Launches SunBlazer IV and Smart Portable Battery Kits Empowering Remote Communities. IEEE Syst. Man Cybern. Mag. 2019, 5, 49–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Larsen, R.S.; Welbourn, D.; Wessner, D.; Podmore, R.; Lacourciere, M.; Larsen, A.; Lee, P.; Moulton, R.; Myers, S.; Niboh, M.; et al. ‘Learning beyond the Light Bulb’ among Least Developed Countries based on a sustainable PV solar utility model. In Proceedings of the IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference (GHTC 2014), San Jose, CA, USA, 10–13 October 2014; pp. 106–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. CGIAR Climate-Smart Villages. 8 July 2013. Available online: https://ccafs.cgiar.org/climate-smart-villages (accessed on 3 June 2020).
  14. CGIAR Scaling-Out Climate-Smart Village Program in the Vulnerable Areas of Indo-Gangetic Plains of India. 25 July 2019. Available online: https://ccafs.cgiar.org/scaling-out-climate-smart-village-program-vulnerable-areas-indo-gangetic-plains-india (accessed on 3 June 2020).
  15. CGIAR Climate Services for Farmers. 2016. Available online: https://ccafs.cgiar.org/themes/climate-services-farmers (accessed on 3 June 2020).
  16. European Commission Rural Development. European Commission-European Commission. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/key-policies/common-agricultural-policy/rural-development_en (accessed on 3 June 2020).
  17. European Commission Bled Declaration: For a Smarter Future of the Rural Areas in EU; European Commission: Bled, Slovenia, 2018. Available online: https://www.scitecheuropa.eu/smart-villages-rural-development/95112/ (accessed on 17 November 2019).
  18. Rural Mountainous Remote Areas & Smart Villages’ Group Inaugural Meeting of the New Intergroup SMART Villages for Rural Communities. RUMRA & Smart Villages. 22 July 2019. Available online: https://www.smart-rural-intergroup.eu/inaugural-meeting-of-the-new-intergroup-smart-villages-for-rural-communities/ (accessed on 7 June 2020).
  19. European Network for Rural Development Digital and Social Innovation in Rural Services: Projects Brochure; The European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development: Luxembourg, 2018. Available online: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2762/58984 (accessed on 7 June 2020).
  20. Arduini, F.; Cinti, S.; Scognamiglio, V.; Moscone, D. Nanomaterials in electrochemical biosensors for pesticide detection: Advances and challenges in food analysis. Microchim. Acta 2016, 183, 2063–2083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Arduini, F.; Cinti, S.; Scognamiglio, V.; Moscone, D.; Palleschi, G. How cutting-edge technologies impact the design of electrochemical (bio)sensors for environmental analysis. A review. Anal. Chim. Acta 2017, 959, 15–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. De Oliveira, J.L.; Campos, E.V.R.; Bakshi, M.; Abhilash, P.C.; Fraceto, L.F. Application of nanotechnology for the encapsulation of botanical insecticides for sustainable agriculture: Prospects and promises. Biotechnol. Adv. 2014, 32, 1550–1561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Scognamiglio, V. Nanotechnology in glucose monitoring: Advances and challenges in the last 10 years. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2013, 47, 12–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Yu, Z.; Zhao, G.; Liu, M.; Lei, Y.; Li, M. Fabrication of a Novel Atrazine Biosensor and Its Subpart-per-Trillion Levels Sensitive Performance. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 7878–7883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Dong, J.; Fan, X.; Qiao, F.; Ai, S.; Xin, H. A novel protocol for ultra-trace detection of pesticides: Combined electrochemical reduction of Ellman’s reagent with acetylcholinesterase inhibition. Anal. Chim. Acta 2013, 761, 78–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Shi, H.; Zhao, G.; Liu, M.; Fan, L.; Cao, T. Aptamer-based colorimetric sensing of acetamiprid in soil samples: Sensitivity, selectivity and mechanism. J. Hazard. Mater. 2013, 260, 754–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Safarpour, H.; Safarnejad, M.R.; Tabatabaei, M.; Mohsenifar, A.; Rad, F.; Basirat, M.; Shahryari, F.; Hasanzadeh, F. Development of a quantum dots FRET-based biosensor for efficient detection of Polymyxa betae. Can. J. Plant Pathol. 2012, 34, 507–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bakhori, N.M.; Yusof, N.A.; Abdullah, A.H.; Hussein, M.Z. Development of a Fluorescence Resonance Energy Transfer (FRET)-Based DNA Biosensor for Detection of Synthetic Oligonucleotide of Ganoderma boninense. Biosensors 2013, 3, 419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Ali, M.A.; Jiang, H.; Mahal, N.K.; Weber, R.J.; Kumar, R.; Castellano, M.J.; Dong, L. Microfluidic impedimetric sensor for soil nitrate detection using graphene oxide and conductive nanofibers enabled sensing interface. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2017, 239, 1289–1299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Prasad, B.B.; Jauhari, D.; Tiwari, M.P. Doubly imprinted polymer nanofilm-modified electrochemical sensor for ultra-trace simultaneous analysis of glyphosate and glufosinate. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2014, 59, 81–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Siddiquee, S.; Rovina, K.; Yusof, N.A.; Rodrigues, K.F.; Suryani, S. Nanoparticle-enhanced electrochemical biosensor with DNA immobilization and hybridization of Trichoderma harzianum gene. Sens. Bio Sens. Res. 2014, 2, 16–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Pan, P.; Miao, Z.; Yanhua, L.; Linan, Z.; Haiyan, R.; Pan, K.; Linpei, P. Preparation and Evaluation of a Stable Solid State Ion Selective Electrode of Polypyrrole/Electrochemically Reduced Graphene/Glassy Carbon Substrate for Soil Nitrate Sensing. Int. J. Electrochem. Sci. 2016, 11, 4779–4793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Deng, H.-H.; Hong, G.-L.; Lin, F.-L.; Liu, A.-L.; Xia, X.-H.; Chen, W. Colorimetric detection of urea, urease, and urease inhibitor based on the peroxidase-like activity of gold nanoparticles. Anal. Chim. Acta 2016, 915, 74–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zhao, Y.; Liu, L.; Kong, D.; Kuang, H.; Wang, L.; Xu, C. Dual Amplified Electrochemical Immunosensor for Highly Sensitive Detection of Pantoea stewartii sbusp. stewartii. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2014, 6, 21178–21183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Lin, H.-Y.; Huang, C.-H.; Lu, S.-H.; Kuo, I.-T.; Chau, L.-K. Direct detection of orchid viruses using nanorod-based fiber optic particle plasmon resonance immunosensor. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2014, 51, 371–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Daponte, P.; De Vito, L.; Glielmo, L.; Iannelli, L.; Liuzza, D.; Picariello, F.; Silano, G. A review on the use of drones for precision agriculture. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 275, 012022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Primicerio, J.; Di Gennaro, S.F.; Fiorillo, E.; Genesio, L.; Lugato, E.; Matese, A.; Vaccari, F.P. A flexible unmanned aerial vehicle for precision agriculture. Precis. Agric. 2012, 13, 517–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Burgos, S.; Mota, M.; Noll, D.; Cannelle, B. Use of Very High-Resolution Airborne Images to Analyse 3d Canopy Architecture of a Vineyard. ISPAr 2015, XL3, 399–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Berni, J.A.J.; Zarco-Tejada, P.J.; Suarez, L.; Fereres, E. Thermal and Narrowband Multispectral Remote Sensing for Vegetation Monitoring From an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2009, 47, 722–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Nagpure, S.; Ingale, S.; Pahurkar, S.; Bobade, A.M.; Ghosal, M.; Dhope, T. Smart Agriculture Using IOT. HELIX 2019, 9, 5081–5083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Mat, I.; Kassim, M.R.M.; Harun, A.N.; Yusoff, I.M. Smart Agriculture Using Internet of Things. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Conference on Open Systems (ICOS), Langkawi Island, Malaysia, 21–22 November 2018; pp. 54–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Prathibha, S.R.; Hongal, A.; Jyothi, M.P. IOT Based Monitoring System in Smart Agriculture. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Recent Advances in Electronics and Communication Technology (ICRAECT), Bangalore, India, 16–17 March 2017; pp. 81–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Doshi, J.; Patel, T.; Bharti, S.K. Smart Farming using IoT, a solution for optimally monitoring farming conditions. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2019, 160, 746–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Pathak, A.; AmazUddin, M.; Abedin, M.J.; Andersson, K.; Mustafa, R.; Hossain, M.S. IoT based Smart System to Support Agricultural Parameters: A Case Study. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2019, 155, 648–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Patil, A.S.; Tama, B.A.; Park, Y.; Rhee, K.-H. A Framework for Blockchain Based Secure Smart Green House Farming. In Advances in Computer Science and Ubiquitous Computing; Springer: Singapore, 2018; pp. 1162–1167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Lin, J.; Shen, Z.; Zhang, A.; Chai, Y. Blockchain and IoT based Food Traceability for Smart Agriculture. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Crowd Science and Engineering, Singapore, 28–31 July 2018; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Fox, D.G.; van Amburgh, M.E.; Tylutki, T.P. Predicting Requirements for Growth, Maturity, and Body Reserves in Dairy Cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 1999, 82, 1968–1977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Halachmi, I.; Guarino, M.; Bewley, J.; Pastell, M. Smart Animal Agriculture: Application of Real-Time Sensors to Improve Animal Well-Being and Production. Annu. Rev. Anim. Biosci. 2019, 7, 403–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Wallace, M.A.; Stouffer, J.R.; Westervelt, R.G. Relationships of ultrasonic and carcass measurements with retail yield in beef cattle. Livest. Prod. Sci. 1977, 4, 153–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Mizrach, A.; Flitsanov, U.; Maltz, E.; Spahr, S.L.; Novakofski, J.E.; Murphy, M.R. Ultrasonic assessment of body condition changes of the dairy cow during lactation. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 1999, 42, 805–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bercovich, A.; Edan, Y.; Alchanatis, V.; Moallem, U.; Parmet, Y.; Honig, H.; Maltz, E.; Antler, A.; Halachmi, I. Development of an automatic cow body condition scoring using body shape signature and Fourier descriptors. J. Dairy Sci. 2013, 96, 8047–8059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Halachmi, I.; Polak, P.; Roberts, D.J.; Klopcic, M. Cow body shape and automation of condition scoring. J. Dairy Sci. 2008, 91, 4444–4451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Bewley, J.M.; Peacock, A.M.; Lewis, O.; Boyce, R.E.; Roberts, D.J.; Coffey, M.P.; Kenyon, S.J.; Schutz, M.M. Potential for Estimation of Body Condition Scores in Dairy Cattle from Digital Images. J. Dairy Sci. 2008, 91, 3439–3453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Halachmi, I.; Klopčič, M.; Polak, P.; Roberts, D.J.; Bewley, J.M. Automatic assessment of dairy cattle body condition score using thermal imaging. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2013, 99, 35–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Spoliansky, R.; Edan, Y.; Parmet, Y.; Halachmi, I. Development of automatic body condition scoring using a low-cost 3-dimensional Kinect camera. J. Dairy Sci. 2016, 99, 7714–7725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Yanmaz, L.; Okumus, Z.; Dogan, E. Instrumentation of thermography and its applications in horses. J. Anim. Vet. Adv. 2007, 6, 858–862. [Google Scholar]
  57. Hurnik, J.F.; Boer, S.D.; Webster, A.B. Detection of Health Disorders in Dairy Cattle Utilizing a Thermal Infrared Scanning Technique. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 1984, 64, 1071–1073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Steensels, M.; Maltz, E.; Bahr, C.; Berckmans, D.; Antler, A.; Halachmi, I. Towards practical application of sensors for monitoring animal health; design and validation of a model to detect ketosis. J. Dairy Res. 2017, 84, 139–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Steensels, M.; Antler, A.; Bahr, C.; Berckmans, D.; Maltz, E.; Halachmi, I. A decision-tree model to detect post-calving diseases based on rumination, activity, milk yield, BW and voluntary visits to the milking robot. Animal 2016, 10, 1493–1500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Cornou, C.; Lundbye-Christensen, S. Classifying sows’ activity types from acceleration patterns: An application of the Multi-Process Kalman Filter. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2008, 111, 262–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Halachmi, I.; Meir, Y.B.; Miron, J.; Maltz, E. Feeding behavior improves prediction of dairy cow voluntary feed intake but cannot serve as the sole indicator. Animal 2016, 10, 1501–1506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Broell, F.; Noda, T.; Wright, S.; Domenici, P.; Steffensen, J.F.; Auclair, J.P.; Taggart, C.T. Accelerometer tags: Detecting and identifying activities in fish and the effect of sampling frequency. J. Exp. Biol. 2013, 216, 1255–1264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Marchioro, G.F.; Cornou, C.; Kristensen, A.R.; Madsen, J. Sows’ activity classification device using acceleration data–A resource constrained approach. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2011, 77, 110–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Glennon, T.; O’Quigley, C.; McCaul, M.; Matzeu, G.; Beirne, S.; Wallace, G.G.; Stroiescu, F.; O’Mahoney, N.; White, P.; Diamond, D. ‘SWEATCH’: A Wearable Platform for Harvesting and Analysing Sweat Sodium Content. Electroanalysis 2016, 28, 1283–1289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Nograles, A.H.H.; Caluyo, F.S. Wireless system for pregnancy detection in cows by monitoring temperature changes in body. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE 9th International Colloquium on Signal Processing and its Applications, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 8–10 March 2013; pp. 11–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Zia, A.I.; Syaifudin, A.M.; Mukhopadhyay, S.C.; Yu, P.L.; Al-Bahadly, I.H.; Kosel, J.; Gooneratne, C. Sensor and instrumentation for progesterone detection. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE International Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference Proceedings, Graz, Austria, 13–16 May 2012; pp. 1220–1225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Ferrari, S.; Silva, M.; Guarino, M.; Aerts, J.M.; Breckmans, D. Cough sound analysis to identify respiratory infection in pigs. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2008, 64, 318–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Campbell, B.M.; Thornton, P.; Zougmoré, R.; van Asten, P.; Lipper, L. Sustainable intensification: What is its role in climate smart agriculture? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2014, 8, 39–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Aggarwal, P.K.; Jarvis, A.; Campbell, B.M.; Zougmoré, R.B.; Khatri-Chhetri, A.; Vermeulen, S.; Loboguerrero Rodriguez, A.M.; Sebastian, L.; Kinyangi, J.; Bonilla Findji, O.; et al. The climate-smart village approach: Framework of an integrative strategy for scaling up adaptation options in agriculture. Ecol. Soc. 2018, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Food and Agriculture Organization. Climate Smart Agriculture: Policies, Practices and Financing For Food Security, Adaptation and Mitigation; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  71. Food and Agriculture Organization. Climate-Smart Agriculture Sourcebook; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  72. Engel, S.; Muller, A. Payments for environmental services to promote ‘climate-smart agriculture’? Potential and challenges. Agric. Econ. 2016, 47, 173–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Rosenstock, T.S.; Lamanna, C.; Chesterman, S.; Bell, P.; Arslan, A.; Richards, M.; Rioux, J.; Akinleye, A.O.; Champalle, C.; Cheng, Z.; et al. The Scientific Basis of Climate-Smart Agriculture: A Systematic Review Protocol; CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change; CCAFS Working Paper; Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS): Copenhagen, Denmark, 2016; p. 138. Available online: https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/70967/http://CCAFSWP138.pdf (accessed on 17 November 2019).
  74. Steenwerth, K.L.; Hodson, A.K.; Bloom, A.J.; Carter, M.R.; Cattaneo, A.; Chartres, C.J.; Hatfield, J.L.; Henry, K.; Hopmans, J.W.; Horwath, W.R. Climate-smart agriculture global research agenda: Scientific basis for action. Agric. Food Secur. 2014, 3, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Hellin, J.; Fisher, E. Building pathways out of poverty through climate smart agriculture and effective targeting. Dev. Pract. 2018, 28, 974–979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Rao, N.H. Big Data and Climate Smart Agriculture-Status and Implications for Agricultural Research and Innovation in India. Proc. Indian Natl. Sci. Acad. 2018, 84, 625–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Alliance, R. What Is Climate-Smart Agriculture? Rainforest Alliance: 2020. Available online: https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/articles/what-is-climate-smart-agriculture (accessed on 5 June 2020).
  78. Scherr, S.J.; Shames, S.; Friedman, R. From climate-smart agriculture to climate-smart landscapes. Agric. Food Secur. 2012, 1, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Xiong, W.; van der Velde, M.; Holman, I.P.; Balkovic, J.; Lin, E.; Skalský, R.; Porter, C.; Jones, J.; Khabarov, N.; Obersteiner, M. Can climate-smart agriculture reverse the recent slowing of rice yield growth in China? Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2014, 196, 125–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. William, J.R. The EPIC model. In Computer Models in Watershed Hydrology; Singh, V.P., Ed.; Water Resources Publication, LLC: Highlands Ranch, CO, USA, 2012; pp. 90–100. [Google Scholar]
  81. Jones, J.W.; Hoogenboom, G.; Porter, C.H.; Boote, K.J.; Batchelor, W.D.; Hunt, L.A.; Wilkens, P.W.; Singh, U.; Gijsman, A.J.; Ritchie, J.T. The DSSAT cropping system model. Eur. J. Agron. 2003, 18, 235–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Adoghe, A.U.; Popoola, S.I.; Chukwuedo, O.M.; Airoboman, A.E.; Atayero, A.A. Smart Weather Station for Rural Agriculture using Meteorological Sensors and Solar Energy. In Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering, London, UK, 5–7 July 2017; Volume I; pp. 1–4. Available online: http://eprints.covenantuniversity.edu.ng/8584/#.Xt0880VKiM8 (accessed on 7 June 2020).
  83. Tenzin, S.; Siyang, S.; Pobkrut, T.; Kerdcharoen, T. Low cost weather station for climate-smart agriculture. In Proceedings of the 2017 9th International Conference on Knowledge and Smart Technology (KST), Chonburi, Thailand, 1–4 February 2017; pp. 172–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Doyle, L.; Oliver, L.; Whitworth, C. Design of a Climate Smart Farming System in East Africa. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference (GHTC), San Jose, CA, USA, 18–21 October 2018; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Chandra, A.; McNamara, K.E.; Dargusch, P. Climate-smart agriculture: Perspectives and framings. Clim. Policy 2018, 18, 526–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Taylor, M. Climate-smart agriculture: What is it good for? J. Peasant Stud. 2018, 45, 89–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Budiman, I. Climate-smart agriculture policy and (in)justice for smallholders in developing countries. Future Food J. Food Agric. Soc. 2019, 7, 31–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Chandra, A.; McNamara, K.E. Climate-Smart Agriculture in Southeast Asia: Lessons from Community-Based Adaptation Programs in the Philippines and Timor-Leste. In Resilience: The Science of Adaptation to Climate Change; Zommers, Z., Alverson, K., Eds.; Elsevier Science BV: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 165–179. [Google Scholar]
  89. Safdar, T.; Heap, B. Energy and Agriculture for Smart Villages in India; Technical Report 7; International Crop Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics: Telangana, India, 2016; Available online: https://e4sv.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Energy-and-Agriculture-for-Smart-Villages-in-India.compressed.pdf (accessed on 8 July 2020).
  90. Khatri-Chhetri, A.; Aryal, J.P.; Sapkota, T.B.; Khurana, R. Economic benefits of climate-smart agricultural practices to smallholder farmers in the Indo-Gangetic Plains of India. Curr. Sci. 2016, 110, 1251–1256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Bullard, W.E. Effects of Land Use on Water Resources. J. (Water Pollut. Control Fed.) 1996, 38, 645–659. [Google Scholar]
  92. Visvizi, A.; Lytras, M.D. Sustainable Smart Cities and Smart Villages Research: Rethinking Security, Safety, Well-being, and Happiness. Sustainability 2020, 12, 215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Katara, S.K. Envisioning Smart Villages through Information and Communication Technologies–A Framework for Implementation in India. In Digital Transformation and Global Society; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 463–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Hüseyin, Ş.; Aysun, Ş. Digital Farming and Productivity Effect: ‘The Smart Village’ In Turkey. Ann. Fac. Econ. 2019, 1, 371–379. [Google Scholar]
  95. Naldi, L.; Nilsson, P.; Westlund, H.; Wixe, S. What is smart rural development? J. Rural Stud. 2015, 40, 90–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Anderson, A.; Loomba, P.; Orajaka, I.; Numfor, J.; Saha, S.; Janko, S.; Johnson, N.; Podmore, R.; Larsen, R. Empowering Smart Communities Electrification, education, and sustainable entrepreneurship In IEEE Smart Village initiatives. IEEE Electrif. Mag. 2017, 5, 6–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Hargreaves, T.; Hielscher, S.; Seyfang, G.; Smith, A. Grassroots innovations in community energy: The role of intermediaries in niche development. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2013, 23, 868–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Plevák, O. Smart Village is a Remedy for Outflow of People from Rural Areas. Available online: https://www.euractiv.com/section/agriculture-food/news/smart-village-is-a-remedy-for-outflow-of-people-from-rural-areas/ (accessed on 9 June 2020).
  99. Del Sesto, S.L. Technology and social change: William Fielding Ogburn revisited. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 1983, 24, 183–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Fenni, M.Y.D.; Ezziyyani, M. The Influence of Technology and Social Networks on Social Change. In Advanced Intelligent Systems for Sustainable Development (AI2SD’2019); Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 431–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Sain, G.; Loboguerrero, A.M.; Corner-Dolloff, C.; Lizarazo, M.; Nowak, A.; Martínez-Barón, D.; Andrieu, N. Costs and benefits of climate-smart agriculture: The case of the Dry Corridor in Guatemala. Agric. Syst. 2017, 151, 163–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Villa-Henriksen, A.; Edwards, G.T.C.; Pesonen, L.A.; Green, O.; Sørensen, C.A.G. Internet of Things in arable farming: Implementation, applications, challenges and potential. Biosyst. Eng. 2020, 191, 60–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Kalatzis, N.; Marianos, N.; Chatzipapadopoulos, F. IoT and data interoperability in agriculture: A case study on the gaiasenseTM smart farming solution. In Proceedings of the 2019 Global IoT Summit (GIoTS), Aarhus, Denmark, 17–21 June 2019; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. McCarthy, N.; Lipper, L.; Zilberman, D. Economics of Climate Smart Agriculture: An Overview. In Climate Smart Agriculture: Building Resilience to Climate Change; Lipper, L., McCarthy, N., Zilberman, D., Asfaw, S., Branca, G., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 31–47. [Google Scholar]
  105. García, L.; Parra, L.; Jimenez, J.M.; Lloret, J.; Lorenz, P. IoT-Based Smart Irrigation Systems: An Overview on the Recent Trends on Sensors and IoT Systems for Irrigation in Precision Agriculture. Sensors 2020, 20, 1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Garner, C. Smart Villages: A New Concept for Rural Development; SciTech Europa: 17 May 2019. Available online: https://www.scitecheuropa.eu/smart-villages-rural-development/95112/ (accessed on 17 November 2019).
  107. Komorowski, Ł.; Stanny, M. Smart Villages: Where Can They Happen? Land 2020, 9, 151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.