The Role of Collective Awareness Platforms in Promoting Sustainable Agricultural Practices Among a Sample of Greek Farmers

Abstract

The agricultural sector is under increasing pressure to adopt sustainable practices without compromising profitability. A sustainable farm focuses on natural processes and renewable resources rather than on synthetic inputs. Social and digital innovations create new opportunities to address these challenges. Collective Awareness Platforms (CAPs) provide a socio-technical tool designed to encourage collaboration, knowledge sharing, and the adoption of sustainable practices among farmers. This research analyzes the potential of CAPs in a part of Greek agriculture based on data gathered from 182 participants in Macedonia and Thessaly. Results indicate that although 97.8% of participants use digital devices, awareness of CAPs remains very limited. Despite that, 51.1% were open to adopting new methods, and CAPs scored impressively high for their potential in knowledge transmission (μ = 4.21). These findings uncover both the potential benefits and challenges we face in integrating CAPs into sustainable farming. Policy implications involve the necessity to improve digital literacy and provide training, supported by European agricultural policies.

1. Introduction

The term “sustainability” is often associated with the term “sustainable development”. According to recent perspectives [1], the term sustainable development has been widely used by various groups of stakeholders and for a wide range of purposes. It has been used by aid organizations, it has become the slogan of development policymakers, the focus of scientific research, and the main topic of conferences and scientific publications, and the slogan of development and environmental activists. There are also many definitions given for the term sustainable development. One of the most acceptable definitions though, comes from the Brundtland Report, where the following interpretation is given: “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” [2]. A crucial year for sustainable development is the year 1992. It was the year when the “Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit” was held in Brazil, in the city of Rio de Janeiro. The major outcome there was the agenda 21 agreed by the United Nations involving actions towards sustainable development [3].

Sustainability is inextricably linked to the agricultural sector, where it involves the production of sufficient, high-quality food while protecting natural resources and maintaining profitability [4]. A sustainable farm prioritizes natural processes and renewable resources over inputs from external sources, such as synthetic fertilizers and pesticides [5]. Consequently, sustainable agriculture has gained interest for its potential to foster resilience against environmental and economic pressures [6]. Agroecological practices are such an approach to sustainable farming, focusing on the integration of principles following a more ecological path into various agricultural systems [7]. These practices support biodiversity along with soil health, offering solutions that make agricultural systems more resilient [8].

Collective Awareness Platforms (CAPs), on the other hand, are the sum of all those connected applications, mainly based on network or mobile communication, which leverage social networking to create communities of people or groups, generate innovative knowledge from these communities, and use and promote collective intelligence and offer new services [9]. In essence, they are applications that unleash the enormous potential that comes from the communication, collaboration, interaction, and high connectivity of users who belong to an online community and exchange knowledge through such a community.

CAPs are technological tools that also represent social innovation, since they promote new ways of collaborating, knowledge-sharing, and solving problems collectively. In agriculture, social innovation is especially important because sustainability challenges require more than just technological solutions. They need community processes that enhance trust, participation, and collective responsibility. CAPs function as digital tools of social innovation, connecting technological opportunities with the social mechanisms necessary for sustainable agriculture.

There are many CAPs that we are not aware of, even though we may already be using them. Many CAPs have integrated into our lives, and we may use plenty of them daily without even knowing it. There are many mature and developed Collective Awareness Platforms, such as Google, Wikipedia, Facebook, but also many smaller-scale and accepted ones, such as the millions of free mobile applications that stakeholders use [10]. Although digital platforms like Google or Facebook enable broad communication and networking, they are not designed to focus on sustainability or agriculture. In contrast, CAPs are socio-technical systems created to engage communities with sustainability challenges. In recent years, many social innovations that have been born are nothing but CAPs, and the future has many more to show because of the rapid expansion of the Internet of Things (IoT). The so-called Web of Things or Internet of Things (IoT) is about the electronic tags embedded in every object we buy or wear or live in, supporting the commerce, conservation and operation of countless systems and ultimately providing the means to create a greater pervasive awareness of the world around us [11].

Therefore, collective awareness platforms exploit the potential of the internet (or collective intelligence) for the collection and utilization of open (accessible–open data) data, combining social networking, collaborative knowledge production, and the Web of Things. These platforms can significantly support environmental awareness, primary processes and practices for knowledge sharing, achieve changes in lifestyles, production and consumption patterns, and establish more participatory and democratic decision-making and problem-solving processes [12]. This approach has the potential to contribute to a more sustainable future, based on low consumption, and a resilient, cooperative and democratic society. Research into CAPs is very new, limited and considered to be in its early stages, both in Europe and globally. This is the reason it makes it a promising field for further exploration and development. Digital platforms offer a unique opportunity to connect agricultural communities and promote sustainable practices [13], allowing farmers to be more effective in promoting sustainable agricultural practices and fostering long-term collaboration [14].

The Common Agricultural Policy 2023–2027 reform at the European level explicitly promotes the digital transformation of agriculture, focusing on advisory services, digital skills, and knowledge-based farming [15]. In Greece, there is a lack of research on farmers’ awareness and knowledge of CAPs. Greek farmers face several specific challenges, including aging population, limited digital literacy, fragmented land ownership, restricted access to advisory services, and bureaucratic obstacles, which may slow down the adoption of sustainable practices and digital innovations like CAPs. Most current research focuses on farmers digital engagement or the challenges they face with technology, without examining their level of readiness to engage with CAPs as sustainable farming tools. This represents a gap in Greece’s efforts to modernize agriculture while also promoting environmental sustainability. This research fills the existing gap by providing empirical data on Greek farmers awareness, perceptions and their willingness to be involved with CAPs.

The question therefore arises whether it is realistic for the agricultural sector to achieve the transition from complex theory into practice, with the available methods and scientific knowledge that exists. To what extent is it possible to create such collective awareness platforms which will be purely oriented towards sustainable agriculture and development. In addition, how will such platforms be able to mobilize those employed in the agricultural sector to network in a community, communicate, exchange knowledge and form a collective consciousness around good farming practices and various issues that concern them [16]. Recent studies have shown that digital platforms in agriculture can serve as enablers of knowledge-sharing, potentially transforming the way agricultural professionals interact with each other and the environment [17]. However, challenges related to digital literacy, access to technology, and the integration of these platforms into traditional agricultural practices remain significant barriers [18].

This paper is structured as follows: The first part titled Collective Awareness Platforms in Agriculture, examines recent examples of such online platforms applied in agriculture. In Section 3, the methodology of this research is detailed, including the development and distribution of the questionnaire used to gather data from farmers and agricultural professionals. Section 4 analyses and interprets the survey findings, exploring participants’ attitudes towards sustainable agriculture and their willingness to adopt CAPs. Finally, the Conclusion summarizes the main findings, outlines limitations, and suggests potential areas for future research in promoting sustainable agriculture through digital and community-based platforms [19].

2. Collective Awareness Platforms in Agriculture

Collective Awareness Platforms (CAPs) have increasingly been applied in agriculture to promote sustainable practices, resource efficiency, and community-based knowledge sharing during the last years. Several notable CAPs that serve this purpose have been developed and are currently in use. A representative collection of some of the most important such CAPs would contain:

• Smart AKIS: This platform connects European farmers with innovations in Smart Farming Technology, making it easier to adopt sustainable practices by providing access to information on resource management and productivity improvement [20].
• AgriLink: AgriLink is a project aimed at bridging the knowledge gap between farmers and advisors. AgriLink fosters participatory learning networks to address challenges in sustainable agriculture, such as environmental impact reduction and crop yield improvement [21].
• Wikifarmer: Known as the “Wikipedia of farming,” Wikifarmer enables farmers to share practical knowledge and learn sustainable practices through open-access content on cultivation methods and crop management [22].
• OpenAgriHub: An open-access network, OpenAgriHub connects small farmers, researchers, and other agricultural stakeholders to collaborate on sustainable farming solutions, encouraging data-sharing and transparency [23].
• Climate FieldView: While this platform is more data-driven than community-focused, Climate FieldView supports farmers in making environmentally conscious decisions by providing tools for data collection and analysis based on real-time information [24].

These CAPs, even though they are a small but quite representative sample, illustrate the growing trend toward collective awareness and data-driven decision-making in agriculture, where farmers can connect, learn, and adopt best practices that drive the sector’s shift toward sustainability.

CAPs provide fast and interactive tools for knowledge sharing and collaboration. However, in Greece their adoption can be limited by factors such as digital literacy, internet access, and administrative complexities. In this context, digital literacy refers to the ability to effectively use digital technologies, including understanding, accessing, and evaluating online information, which is essential for interacting with CAPs. Compared to traditional methods like cooperative advisory services, CAPs offer more rapid and flexible information, but they need targeted support to unlock their full potential.

3. Materials and Methods

The primary objective of this research is to explore farmers’ current attitudes toward sustainable agriculture and sustainable farming in general. The following objective is then to study the motivations they acquire in order to raise more awareness about sustainable farming and consequently come to adopt new practices, behaviors and attitudes that comply with the basic principles of sustainable agriculture. By fostering an approach where agricultural practices are evaluated through a cost–benefit analysis and economic assessment, we aim to promote an environmental consciousness among farmers that leads to sustainable and profitable agricultural practices. This research effort aims to raise awareness and encourage them to implement practices that use as little as possible of locally available resources and as much as possible of natural processes, such as nutrient recycling, support for biodiversity, required water use, and limiting of the use of pesticides and nitrates. This will on the one hand help the farmers themselves, through the economic benefits and levels of well-being they will acquire, but also society itself, in the effort to create more widespread ecological consciousness.

To achieve this in practice, a questionnaire was developed, and was distributed exclusively online due to the COVID-19 pandemic, either via email (by sending a questionnaire link) or through interviews conducted with a tablet, while observing all prescribed safety measures (distance and masks). The questionnaire was addressed to people whose main occupation was farming and to students and scientists of the agricultural economy and the agricultural sector in general. A total of 182 questionnaires were completed, with the participants coming from the distribution of the questionnaire via either social networks, or specific groups of agricultural students who participated using their academic email and finally via interviews, enabled us to gain a better understanding of their opinion on the present issue, as a part of society. The questionnaire was initially tested with a small group of responders to verify the clarity and face validity of the questions. To verify the reliability of the questionnaire internal consistency was measured with Cronbach’s alpha, which was 0.78. This value is generally acceptable in social science research and indicates satisfactory reliability of the Likert-scale items included in the survey. We used Google Forms to compile all the answers, and the results were processed firstly in Microsoft Excel and afterwards in SPSS 26.0 to gain a more specific and detailed analysis. In addition to descriptive statistics, one-sample t-tests were used on the Likert-scale items to examine whether mean values significantly differed from the neutral midpoint (3), offering a more straightforward understanding of positive, negative or neutral attitudes. In this paper, we will present the most important questions of the questionnaire and try to visualize them through tables and diagrams so that it will be easier to read and understand the produced results.

As far as the origin of the sample group is concerned, we focused mainly on the regions of Macedonia and Thessaly, and this choice was far from accidental. These are areas with high agricultural activity and proximity to Thessaloniki. It is important to note that distributing the questionnaire online during the COVID-19 pandemic could have led to a selection bias, since farmers without digital access or low digital literacy may have been excluded. While the research focuses mainly on Macedonia and Thessaly, the results should be viewed as indicative rather than fully representative of all Greek farmers. These areas were selected due to their intensive agricultural activity and their proximity to Thessaloniki, making it easier to reach responders. The questionnaire was divided into four sections. The first section introduced the topic to the participants. In the second, which consisted of twelve questions, the demographics such as gender, age, marital status, education as well as occupation, origin of incomes, and other information about the participants were recorded. In the third section the questions were mostly focused on sustainable agriculture along with environmental challenges. Finally, in the fourth and final section the questions (thirty-two in total) were about technology, social innovation and Collective Awareness Platforms and the likelihood of participants using such platforms to advance sustainable agricultural practices into their farming methods.

The choice of using a questionnaire for data collection is based on its ability to capture the diversity of perspectives and perceptions that participants have in a quantifiable and readily analysable way. This method offers flexibility in gathering information and has proven especially useful in cases where it is necessary to explore the attitudes of large populations, such as farmers, on issues related to their views and practices in sustainable agriculture [25,26]. In a relevant study by Ingram [21], the use of questionnaires was deemed suitable for investigating farmers’ attitudes toward sustainable agriculture and the adoption of new technologies, as it provides access to information in an immediate way and enables comparison of responses across different demographic groups.

In addition, using an electronic questionnaire proved particularly practical during the COVID-19 pandemic, when real (face to face) contact was limited. Same digital approaches have been widely adopted in other studies during this period and they have been shown that they maintain data quality while ensuring researcher and participant safety [27]. A quite similar approach was also used by Knierim [28] in their study on European farmers’ attitudes towards innovative agricultural practices, confirming that online surveys can provide a reliable picture of the intentions and behavior of large groups of participants, while also ensuring ease of access and data processing.

4. Results and Discussion

One of the key questions participants were asked was the reasons and motivations that drove them into farming and agriculture professionally, that is, as their main occupation. The answers that the research participants gave to that question varied and are captured in the table below (

Table 1. What is the reason you went into farming professionally? (Multiple responses allowed).

Answers	Responses
	Percentage	Percentage of Cases
I am the only heir to the holding	7.2%	19.2%
We had a lot of land	3.7%	9.9%
I wasn’t a good student at school	2.9%	7.7%
I didn’t want to leave my place	11.5%	30.8%
I liked dealing with nature	14.4%	38.5%
I studied Agriculture	6.5%	17.6%
Family reasons (e.g., death of a parent. marriage)	16.4%	44.0%
There was no other professional recourse	9.9%	26.4%
I wasn’t taught any alternative art	7.6%	20.3%
Financial reasons	19.9%	53.3%
Total	100.0%	267.5%

), whose caption points out the multiple answers that could be given. Out of the total of all respondents, there were a variety of 487 choices, making an average of 2.68 responses per person. The most dominant choice was the answer “Financial reasons” with a percentage of 53.3%, the second choice was the answer “Family reasons (e.g., death of a parent, marriage)” with a percentage of 44% and the third choice was the answer “I liked dealing with nature” with a percentage of 38.5%, followed by the remaining options with smaller percentages. These findings highlight that in most cases choosing agriculture as a profession is rather a combination of both financial and personal reasons and factors, without establishing the role of nature in engaging in farming as well.

Regarding the third section, whose subject is sustainable agriculture and the effects that it may have on natural environment, we used a Likert scale for the answers of the participants. The results are depicted initially in

Table 2. Are you concerned about the effects of agriculture on the natural environment?

Likert Scale	Percentage (%)
Strongly Disagree	0
Disagree	1.6
Neutral	15.4
Agree	43.4
Strongly Agree	39.6
Total	100.0

, representing whether the research participants are concerned about the environmental effects of agriculture and farming practices in general. According to their responses, the majority (43.4%) agree and another 39.6% strongly agree that there are various effects on the environment and thus are concerned about them. These findings suggest a high level of awareness among the participants regarding the environmental consequences of farming.

Secondly, in

Table 3. What do you believe is the effect that agriculture has on nature and the environment, in the way that is being practiced today?

Likert Scale	Percentage (%)
Strongly negative	11.0
Negative	39.0
Neutral	39.6
Positive	8.8
Strongly Positive	1.6
Total	100.0

, we can see the results of the question concerning the effect they think agriculture has on nature and the environment in general, according to the way that is being practiced today The majority of the respondents (39.6%) took a rather neutral position toward the way agriculture is currently practiced, which expresses mostly an uncertainty, while another 39% believes that the effects are clearly negative Only a small percentage (8.8%) of the participants though viewed the impact as positive. These findings suggest a great deal of uncertainty and even a lack of knowledge regarding the environmental sustainability of agricultural practices that most farmers use in their occupation. A neutral response does not necessarily indicate doubt. It could also demonstrate mixed feelings or a combination of positive and negative experiences about CAPs.

Finally, in (Figure 1) we present the results concerning their intention to change and adopt, that is if they have the intention to adopt changes in the way they manage their agricultural activity. A vast percentage of 51.1% claimed to be open and eager to adopt new ways, ideas and methods in their farming practices in order to enhance their productivity with respect to sustainability. Another 46.7% were more skeptical and stated they would only do so after considerable thought. These findings clearly suggest the need to further inform, educate and communicate the benefits of sustainability and the great impact that new farming methods should have on their agricultural activity in order to foster the change that is crucial for the future of agriculture.

When participants were asked if they are familiar with the term of Collective Awareness Platforms (CAPs), out of a total of all respondents, most of them replied the answer “no” (83%) that they have not heard of the term, which is an enormous percentage. Only a 6% answered “yes” that they have heard of the term and another 11% expressed uncertainty that is they are not sure what the term means (“I am not sure”). The first percentage of 83% indicates that farmers are not yet familiar with the concept of CAPs and the use of digital platforms, in general, and this is a case that needs to be changed.

It is also worth mentioning a specific question made to the survey participants about whether they believe that even without knowing, they may have used a Collective Awareness Platform showed in Figure 2. Out of the total of all respondents, most of them (90.7%), said that “it is very likely” that something like this has happened, 6.6% answered that “in no way” can this be and only 2.7% answered “yes I am sure that I have”. From that we can conclude that while most of the respondents in the sample consider their interaction with a Collective Awareness Platform (CAP) very likely, they do not answer with the confidence and certainty that would occur if this concept was clear in their minds. This shows that the term is still rather undefined or even unknown, and farmers are unfamiliar with the concept of CAPs and digital collective awareness platforms.

We can see that in contrast to the responses in

Table 4. Do you know what Collective Awareness Platforms (CAPSs) are?

Answers	Percentage (%)
No	83.0
Yes	6.0
I am not sure	11.0
Total	100.0

, where the majority of participants do not seem to know what CAPs are, here in Figure 2 the vast majority of respondents (90.7%) state that it is very likely that they have used a CAP without knowing it. The fact that most responders were unfamiliar with CAPs reveals a challenge for promoting their use, indicating that policies should go beyond infrastructure provision and focus on improving digital literacy and advisory services.

In another question of the survey regarding whether participants use a computer or any other electronic device, such as a tablet or mobile phone, out of the total of respondents, the largest percentage (97.8%) stated that “yes” they do, while only 2.2% answered “no” that they do not use any electronic device (

Table 5. Do you use a computer or any other electronic device, such as a tablet or mobile phone?

Answers	Percentage (%)
No	2.2
Yes	97.8
Total	100.0

). Thus, we can see that in the current era, digital technologies are widely used in people’s lives and are part of their everyday life. This also indicates that the participants are digitally informed and skilled so their interaction with other digital platforms should be easy to happen.

In the following, questions related to the Collective Awareness Platforms (CAPs) suggestions for agreement were included using a five-point Likert scale format to achieve the quick classification of the answers. Mean values are interpreted as follows: 1.00–1.79 = totally disagree, 1.80–2.59 = disagree, 2.60–3.39 = neither agree nor disagree, 3.40–4.19 = Agree and 4.20–5.00 = Strongly agree, according to Pimentel, J. [28].

In a question (

Table 6. Can the use of CAPs contribute to knowledge transmission? (Ν = 182).

Metric	Result
Mean	4.21
Mode	4
Std. Deviation	0.73

), on whether the use of a Collective Awareness Platform can contribute to knowledge transmission, the mean of the responses is 4.21 (Mode = 4.21). Thus, according to Pimentel, J. [29], it is estimated that the responses are at the “Strongly agree” level regarding the contribution of an (online) Collective Awareness Platform to knowledge transmission. The most frequent value in the above question is 4-Very Strongly Agree (Mode = 4). The standard deviation (Std. Deviation = 0.736) indicates that the sample is quite homogeneous in this particular response.

In a question (

Table 7. Can the use of CAPs contribute to increase productivity? (Ν = 182).

Metric	Result
Mean	3.58
Mode	4
Std. Deviation	0.737

), on whether the use of a Collective Awareness Platform can contribute to increase productivity, the mean of the answers is 3.58 (mean = 3.58), so according to Pimentel, J. [29] it is estimated that the answers are at the “Agree” level regarding the contribution of an (online) Collective Awareness Platform to increase productivity. The most frequent value in the above question is 4-Very (Mode = 4). The standard deviation (Std. Deviation = 0.737) indicates that the sample is quite homogeneous in this particular response.

In a question (

Table 8. Can the use of CAPs contribute to the reduction in production costs? (Ν = 182).

Metric	Result
Mean	3.36
Mode	3
Std. Deviation	0.680

), on whether the use of a Collective Awareness Platform can contribute to the reduction in production costs, the mean of the answers is 3.36 (mean = 3.36), so according to Pimentel, J. [28] it is estimated that the answers are at the level of “neither agree nor disagree” regarding the contribution of an (online) Collective Awareness Platform to the reduction in production costs. The most frequent value in the above question is 3-Medium (Mode = 3). The standard deviation (Std. Deviation = 0.680) indicates that the sample is quite homogeneous in this response.

In a question (

Table 9. Can the use of CAPs contribute to income improvement? (Ν = 182).

Metric	Result
Mean	3.41
Mode	3
Std. Deviation	0.720

), on whether the use of a Collective Awareness Platform can contribute to income improvement, the mean of the responses is 3.41 (mean = 3.41), so according to Pimentel, J. [29], it is estimated that the responses are at the “Agree” level regarding the contribution of an (online) Collective Awareness Platform to income improvement. The most frequent value in the above question is 3-medium (Mode = 3). The standard deviation (Std. Deviation = 0.720) indicates that the sample is quite homogeneous in this particular response.

In a question (

Table 10. Can the use of CAPs contribute to the production of quality agricultural products? (Ν = 182).

Metric	Result
Mean	3.48
Mode	3
Std. Deviation	0.741

), on whether the use of a Collective Awareness Platform can contribute to the production of quality agricultural products, the mean of the answers is 3.48 (mean = 3.48), so according to Pimentel, J. [29], it is estimated that the answers are at the “Agree” level regarding the contribution of an (online) Collective Awareness Platform to the production of quality agricultural products. The most frequent value in the above question is 3-Medium (Mode = 3). The standard deviation (Std. Deviation = 0.741) indicates that the sample is quite homogeneous in this response. In addition to the descriptive statistics presented above, further cross-tabulation and chi-square tests were performed to explore if socio-demographic characteristics (age, education, sex, years of farming) impact farmers’ attitudes on CAPs adoption and usage.

It is important to note that these findings are based on self-reported responses, which may be influenced by participant biases or misunderstandings. Although the descriptive statistics show mostly positive perceptions of CAPs, additional qualitative analysis is needed to understand how farmers might adopt these tools in practice.

Finally, through an analysis of four questions using the chi-squared (χ²) method and various variables, we were able to see from the research results whether they have a strong or independent relationship with each question (

Table 11. Crosstabs Test.

Question	Variable	Asymptotic Significance 2-Sided	The Relationship Between the Two Variables
Would you use Facebook (or any other social media) to lead to sustainable agricultural production?	Sex	p = 0.000 < 0.001	Strong
	Age	p = 0.000 < 0.001	Strong
	Family income	p = 0.027 > 0.001	Independent
	Level of education	p = 0.000 < 0.001	Strong
	Years of farming	p = 0.000 < 0.001	Strong
	Area	p = 0.129 > 0.001	Independent
Would you use a Forum to lead to sustainable agricultural production?	Sex	p = 0.000 < 0.001	Strong
	Age	p = 0.000 < 0.001	Strong
	Family income	p = 0.0006 < 0.001	Strong
	Level of education	p = 0.000 < 0.001	Strong
	Years of farming	p = 0.000 < 0.001	Strong
	Area	p = 0.060 > 0.001	Independent
Would you use a website to lead to sustainable agricultural production?	Sex	p = 0.000 < 0.001	Strong
	Age	p = 0.000 < 0.001	Strong
	Family income	p = 0.000 < 0.001	Strong
	Level of education	p = 0.000 < 0.001	Strong
	Years of farming	p = 0.000 < 0.001	Strong
	Area	p = 0.165 > 0.001	Independent
Would you adopt the use of a Collective Awareness Platform?	Sex	p = 0.000 < 0.001	Strong
	Age	p = 0.000 < 0.001	Strong
	Family income	p = 0.000 < 0.001	Strong
	Level of education	p = 0.000 < 0.001	Strong
	Years of farming	p = 0.000 < 0.001	Strong
	Area	p = 0.026 > 0.001	Independent

).

According to Chi-square results farmers with higher education levels and younger age are more likely to adopt CAPs, showing that demographic characteristics influence attitudes toward digital platforms in agriculture.

5. Discussion

The findings and the conclusion of this research shed light on key insights regarding the state of agriculture and the way that is being practiced in Greece, particularly regarding the concept of sustainability and sustainable farming methods and the role of Collective Awareness Platforms (CAPs) in farming. The results suggest that farming in Greece is primarily a conscious choice influenced by both family heritage and economic motivation and factors. A significant proportion of farmers are second- or third-generation agriculturists who inherit land and knowledge, enabling them to continue family traditions as well as gaining their basic income through agriculture. These individuals, often young and educated, demonstrate a degree of openness and willingness to innovation and to the adoption of new agricultural methods and practices, and they also have a certain degree of environmental awareness and sensitivity regarding the environmental effects of farming.

The responses to the study’s second question indicate that nearly 80% of participants recognize the impact of agriculture on the natural environment. This reflects a general awareness of issues such as environmental degradation, water scarcity, harmful fertilizers, overcultivation, and the importance of sustainable farming practices [30]. However, this awareness does not consistently translate into a strong conviction that current agricultural practices are harmful. While 39% of respondents believe that these practices negatively impact the environment, an almost equal proportion (39.6%) perceive their effects as neutral. This underscores the need for targeted educational initiatives to deepen farmers’ understanding of sustainability and encourage the adoption of environmentally friendly practices [31].

Encouragingly, most respondents expressed a willingness to adopt changes in their farming methods. The successful adoption of CAPs may be limited by factors such as digital literacy, internet connectivity, and access to required devices, making the need for targeted training and infrastructure support essential. To make policy recommendations actionable, these platforms could merge practical training in digital tools with guidance on how to use CAPs data effectively, in decision-making processes related to input reduction, water management or sustainable crop practices. Farmer cooperatives and local advisory services, which are already trusted by the farming community, can significantly contribute to delivering this support. This presents a valuable opportunity to enhance their access to knowledge, innovative practices, and collaborative networks. CAPs can play a primary role in this context by serving as platforms for organized communication, knowledge sharing, and problem-solving. Although most farmers in our sample are not familiar with CAPs, almost all of them regularly use digital devices, highlighting a gap between technology use and awareness of collaborative platforms. This reflects the literature on the digital divide, which emphasizes that access to devices alone is insufficient without the necessary knowledge and skills [32]. This gap has practical consequences for platform developers and advisory services. Instead of emphasizing technical terminology, tools should be presented in terms of their practical advantages and real-world value, for example, how they can save time, improve decision-making, or increase productivity. By providing clear, outcome-focused communication, combined with visible benefits, farmers may adopt these platforms more confidently. These platforms can help bridge the gap that exists between theory and practice, enabling farmers to exchange experiences, stay informed about advancements, and collectively promote sustainable agricultural methods [33].

The development and integration of CAPs into the agricultural sector can drive a significant transformation toward sustainability. CAPs provide tools for farmers to access real-time information, collaborate on solutions, and build a shared understanding of sustainable practices. By leveraging such platforms, young farmers who are willing to learn and adapt can actively participate in creating a more sustainable agricultural landscape. This aligns with the broader goal of fostering collective consciousness and resilience against the major environmental challenges we are facing [34].

It is important to note that although the results indicate that younger and more educated farmers tend to be more open to innovation, this trend should be viewed with caution due to the demographic characteristics of the sample. The overall representation of older farmers means that these results cannot be generalized but may reflect a trend that requires further investigation. In addition to the descriptive results, it is important to note the economic importance of CAPs in decreasing transaction costs, minimizing information asymmetries and improving access to markets. CAPs can promote efficiency and competitiveness in agriculture.

6. Conclusions

This research focused on how Collective Awareness Platforms (CAPs) support sustainable agriculture among a part of Greek farmers. The data indicates a large gap: although almost all respondents (97.8%) use digital devices, their awareness of CAPs is still quite limited (83%). However, more than half of the farmers are open to trying out new methods, and CAPs received high ratings for their contribution to knowledge sharing. These results indicate that CAPs have the potential to be important tools for sustainability, although this potential has not been achieved yet. To improve farmers’ digital literacy and promote adoption, policy actions should provide support through training and EU agriculture reforms. There are limitations to consider, such as the focus on a specific region, the reliance on self-reported data, and possible biases from the online survey method. Future research should broaden its geographical coverage, use longitudinal designs, and evaluate pilot CAP projects in practice. A useful next step could be qualitative research, such as in-depth interviews, to understand why 39.6% of farmers hold a neutral view on the environmental impact of current practices. Identifying the fundamental reasons and factors could inform more targeted interventions and policy strategies.