Dynamics of Using Digital Technologies in Agroecological Settings: A Case Study Approach

Abstract

The main objective of this study is to offer fresh empirical insight into the evolving relationship between digitalisation and agroecology by examining Mulini Di Segalari, a biodynamic vineyard in Italy. While much of the existing literature positions digital agriculture as potentially misaligned with agroecological principles, this case study unveils how digital tools can actively reinforce agroecological practices when embedded within supportive socio-technical networks. Novel findings of this study highlight how the use of digital technologies supported agroecological practices and led to the reconfiguration of social relations, knowledge systems, and governance structures within the farm. Employing a technographic approach revealed that the farm’s transformation was driven not just by technology but through collaborative arrangements involving different stakeholders. These interactions created new routines, roles, and information flows, supporting a more distributed and participatory model of innovation. By demonstrating how digital tools can catalyse agroecological transitions in a context-sensitive and socially embedded manner, this study challenges the binary framings of technology versus ecology and calls for a more nuanced understanding of digitalisation as a socio-technical process.

1. Introduction

Digitalisation has opened up a new chapter in the history of human evolution, and it has brought profound changes in the way the world works. Recent decades have experienced a drastic increase in the development and use of digital technologies for daily operations. Their role in increasing the efficiency, coordination, and transparency is undeniable. The unique strengths of these technologies have created easy pathways for their integration into various sectors of the economy. Agriculture is one of those sectors, and the transition phenomenon is popularly called “Digital revolution” or “Agriculture 4.0” [1]. It is believed that these technologies will help achieve the so-called sustainability objectives sooner. However, their consequences remain ambiguous.

History presents us with important lessons on the aftermath of disruptive events (e.g., the green revolution), and it is often suggested to evaluate system-wide long-term effects instead of making myopic observations. Currently, efforts are underway to make farming and food systems more sustainable in response to the unintended impacts of past phenomena. In achieving the objectives of sustainable food systems, ecological approaches to agriculture such as agroecology and regenerative farming have become prominent, and they are highly advocated by nations at the policy level [2,3,4,5,6].

On the one hand, agriculture is undergoing an ecological transition owing to the objective of sustainable food systems, and on the other hand, digital transition is happening at an unprecedented pace. Although the twin transitions pursue the same goal, their contrasting nature and dynamics create tensions that challenge their complementarity [4]. There are concerns that digitalisation could hinder the uptake of ecological agricultural approaches [5] due to their tendency to prioritise economic performance over everything [6] and potentially favour industrial agriculture, causing detrimental environmental impacts [7]. In addition, social repercussions such as exclusion and power dynamics have been reported [8,9,10]. These issues are prominent over the entire agricultural sector; however, they are more pronounced in ecological agriculture approaches such as agroecology. Movements such as “La Via Campesina” highly support this argument and proclaim that the technologies and the associated corporate governance pose considerable risks for food sovereignty, farmers’ autonomy, and peasant agroecology [9,11].

Digital technologies demonstrate significant potential in monitoring complex agroecosystems [12], resource use optimisation, risk anticipation, and enhancing effective communication with other stakeholders [13]. The advantages that digital technologies provide in farming, such as greater efficiency and precision, dematerialisation, disintermediation, and dissemination of information, have resulted in their easy and quick penetration into farming systems. However, this phenomenon is highly restricted to conventional agriculture [14]. Besides the concerns regarding unintended impacts of digital technologies, barriers such as high investment costs, complexity involved in their use, and technological compatibility with small farms are limiting their adoption in agroecological farming [15]. The tendency to adopt innovations varies across different actors, as users do not perceive the same benefits and risks of the digitalisation process [16]. The same applies to conventional and agroecological actors. In fact, integrating digital technologies into agroecological systems presents challenges; however, it also offers a significant opportunity to boost agricultural production and survive market competition while remaining ecological [17]. Such outcomes are attainable when digital solutions are carefully adapted to the contextual conditions and specific aims of agroecological systems [15], and this phenomenon is referred to as digital agroecology [14]

However, the research and literature focused on the role of digitalisation in agroecological contexts is limited [12,16,18,19,20,21,22,23], and existing studies are often conceptual or review-based [17,21,23,24,25,26], highlighting the need for context-specific case-study-based approaches [27]. Since the development, sale, and use of technology are inextricably intertwined with economic and political interests, cultural meanings, diverse knowledge systems, and human relationships, they cannot be considered in isolation [6]. Specifically, the underlying socio-political dynamics that determine the individual drivers and barriers for technology use and the resulting disruptions have been ignored in most of the existing studies [28].

Besides entailing significant technological shifts, digitalisation also encompasses various social, institutional, and economic transformations, which are often disruptive [29]. Acknowledging that digitalisation is a socio-technical process [4], consideration of the social and material interactions, i.e., mechanisms of the system, is important to understand the underlying issues in the system and the real compatibility of the twin transitions. Here, mechanisms are defined as the “structures, relations, powers and processes that cannot be observed directly but identified through their effects” [28]. By identifying and evaluating the underlying mechanisms in a particular context, the impacts of the use of technology in an agroecological farming system can be explored, thereby contributing evidence to the ongoing debate on digital agroecology. While offering clear guidance to practitioners on the use of digital technology in agroecological contexts, this case also provides a valuable model for researchers and policymakers to consider the complexities of digital transition when developing tailored strategies.

Overall, the study aims to investigate how digitalisation can contribute to ecological farm management using the Food and Agricultural Organisation’s (FAO’s) ten principles of agroecology as a lens for assessment [30]. Additionally, it intends to critically examine the ways in which digitalisation reshapes social dynamics within agroecological farming systems and how entrenched social structures, in turn, shape the conditions for a successful digital transition. Therefore, assuming a critical realist point of view [31], an agroecological viticulture farm that has employed digital tools in its operations has been taken as a case study in this research. Technography has been used as a methodology to identify the hidden mechanisms behind the use of digital technologies and the resulting socio-technical configurations by addressing the following research question:

How does the use of digital technologies alter the existing socio-technical system in an agroecological farm?

To enhance the clarity of the response to the research question mentioned above, it is fragmented into the following sub-questions, inspired by the technography research conducted by Jansen and Vellema [32]

• To what extent have digital technologies influenced the evolution of skills, knowledge, tools, and practices?
• How does the coordination between different actors change with the introduction of digital technologies?
• Which rules and routines have been institutionalised with the use of digital technologies?
• How do digital technologies contribute to the management of an agroecological farm?

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1. Digitalisation as a Socio-Technical Process

Digitalisation in agriculture is increasingly recognised not just as a technological shift but as a socio-technical process that reshapes how agricultural knowledge, practices, labour and ecosystems are managed. As the Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) framework emphasises, technological development is not linear or solely driven by technical considerations, but rather, it is seen as a co-evolutionary phenomenon that is shaped by and embedded within the social, cultural, political, institutional, and economic contexts of farming [33]. Particularly in agroecological systems, the adoption and impact of these technologies are mediated by the norms, values, power relations, and local knowledge systems that structure agroecological practices. The integration of digital tools introduces new tensions and opportunities in such systems where context-specific knowledge and farmer participation are central. Therefore, it is essential to examine the existing contextual aspects to understand how they are reshaped by the new socio-technical configurations introduced by digital technologies.

Technologies such as remote sensing and precision agriculture platforms may enhance ecological monitoring and input efficiency, but they also risk marginalising smallholders and agroecological approaches if they prioritise data-driven, industrial models [34,35]. The socio-material perspective [36] helps in highlighting how these technologies are entangled with the materiality of the land, crops, and local knowledge, thereby shaping, and being shaped by, agroecological realities. Moreover, digitalisation can catalyse institutional change by reconfiguring how decisions are made, who has access to knowledge, and how responsibilities are distributed [37]. Unless attention is being paid to equity and power dynamics, these technologies may create a digital divide, which deepens the existing divide, favouring the farms with more resources and leaving behind resource-poor small agroecological farms [38,39]. Therefore, the challenge for agroecology is to engage with digital technologies in ways that respect local autonomy, enhance biodiversity-based practices, and reinforce food sovereignty. This calls for participatory design, open-source platforms, and data stewardship models aligned with agroecological principles rather than just digitising industrial agriculture.

Thus, digitalisation in agriculture is not merely a matter of efficiency or innovation but a deeply social and political process, one that must be critically examined to ensure it supports sustainable, just, and ecologically sound food systems.

2.2. Agroecology as a Science, Set of Practices, and Social Movement

With the usage of the term “Agroecology” by Bensin in 1928 [40], agroecology evolved as a scientific discipline in the 1930s, and since then, several studies have mentioned the word “agroecology”, and their number has been greatly increasing in recent years [41]. The historical evolution of agroecology is divided into two main phases: the old age of agroecology (1930s–1960s) and the expansion of agroecology (the 1970s until now) [42]. After the green revolution, agroecology evolved as a set of practices in opposition to the high-input farming during the 1960s, and it began to be called a social movement in the 1980s, emphasising its role in protecting indigenous agricultural knowledge, biodiversity, family farms, rights to food, and food sovereignty [43]. Later, the political dimension of agroecology has become more pronounced since 2010, promoting its integration into policies and research [44].

Amid the existence of various definitions and approaches to agroecology, it is considered that they are all interlinked and co-evolved over time in different parts of the world, turning agroecology into an integrated approach [45]. The most recent definition states that “Agroecology is an integrated approach that simultaneously applies ecological and social concepts and principles to the design and management of food and agricultural systems” [46]. Agroecological farming seeks to optimise the interactions between different components of the ecosystem while considering the social issues that are to be addressed to realise a sustainable food system [46].

To reach a consensus on the meaning of the term “agroecology”, FAO was developed, a set of ten principles, through a multi-stakeholder consultation process between 2015 and 2019. The ten elements of agroecology include Diversity, Synergies, Efficiency, Resilience, Recycling, Co-creation and sharing of knowledge, Human and social values, Culture and food tradition, Responsible governance, and Circular and solidarity economy. The first five elements represent the ecological features of agroecology, and the next five represent the social and political aspects of agroecology [47]. All these elements are interlinked and interdependent, as represented in Figure 1.

Given the fact that agroecology inherently encompasses a set of practices and social processes, the integration of digital technologies often produces outcomes that could both complement and contradict the agroecological principles and established sets of rules and routines.

2.3. The Debate of Digital Agroecology

It is an undeniable fact that digital technologies have the capacity to solve a number of current agricultural problems. However, as the disruption is still new, there are not enough studies confirming that the problems are completely eliminated. Oftentimes, the solution to a problem could lead to additional problems, generating negative feedback loops if the impacts are not clearly assessed. In the United States, precision agricultural tools from high-tech corporations have transformed farming; however, farmers do not have the necessary skills or capacity to modify or repair their own machinery and software. They have been locked into proprietary ecosystems by depending on the corporation for repairs, resulting in high costs and a loss of autonomy, ultimately leading to the “Right to Repair” movement [48]. Such ambiguity regarding the impacts is further intensifying the debate on digital agroecology, which views digitalisation as a responsible, co-creative process involving all stakeholders [14].

Agroecological farming is grounded in the empowerment and rights of women, youth, and indigenous communities [30]. However, increasing dependence on corporate-controlled digital technologies risks undermining these foundational principles by marginalising local autonomy, eroding traditional knowledge systems, and shifting control away from these communities [6]. Primarily a peasant economy, agroecological farming relies on the farmer’s skills and expertise acquired through generations of experience in producing outputs without depending on external inputs. The integration of digital technologies in such systems changes the equation, especially when farmers’ knowledge systems are replaced by data-driven decision-making systems [49,50]. This results in the devaluation and erosion of the knowledge systems underpinning the collective, innovative practices of agroecological farming—practices that have evolved through deep engagement with the complex interplay of social and ecological dynamics [6,50].

That said, when digital technologies are viewed through the lens of agroecological principles [30], evidence shows that digital technologies can act as catalysts for knowledge transfer and co-creation by facilitating real-time collaboration, promoting different ways of communication, streamlining knowledge processes, and integrating diverse knowledge systems [44,45]. Digital technologies can contribute to achieving efficiency on the farm through the optimal management of resources, which results in reduced costs and increased income [15]. Additionally, the significance of digital technologies in understanding the dynamic and complex processes of agroecological systems and their potential in enabling the agroecological transformation is highly emphasised [14,17,26,51,52]. Nevertheless, despite the well-known potential of digital technologies in agriculture, there are still many open questions regarding their real benefits, hidden risks, and unintended consequences, especially in agroecological systems.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Technography

One way to address these open questions is by identifying the specific processes through which a digital technology operates. To this end, technography has been identified as an effective methodological approach [32], as it enables the study of existing processes that are often complex in an organised way. It is an interdisciplinary methodology to understand the socio-technical configurations associated with a technology [32,53]. Primarily, it as an ethnography of technology [54] and it tries to answer questions like what the task is, who does what, how a group is organised, what the rules and routines are, who selects what, what solution is taken, and what the outcome is [32,55]. It aims to study how a network of actors solve a particular problem using technology in a concrete social situation.

Technography views technological change as a process of reconfiguration of social and material components of a system [28,32]. The materials and processes through which the resources are put into practical use are usually disregarded in technology and innovation studies. Mapping these interactions is vital in understanding the dynamics of an agricultural technology [53,56]. The configuration of technological practices occurs within a wider social, economic, political, ecological, cultural and institutional context [53]. Hence, technography envisions technology as a “situated action”, and the concept of performance proposed by Richards aligns with this notion [57,58]. Employing the analytical lens of performance and situated action aids in analysing the farmer’s skills, embodied knowledge, behavioural patterns, and adoption dynamics in an empirical way [59].

The methodology is fundamentally structured around three dimensions: making/doing, distributed cognition, and construction of rules and routines. The dimension of making could be translated as the study of performance following Richards [32]. It begins with the description of the material and social circumstances in which the technology is being used and its interaction with the wider system. Briefly, the concept of performance deals with studying how the actors effectively use the available skills, knowledge, and resources to solve a problem and adjust to unpredictable situations [60].

Performing a task is not individual, but it involves a group of actors, and the knowledge is distributed among them. Technography views these groups as task groups [55], and they have a common purpose for which they organise and co-operate among themselves with their inherent knowledge systems in certain ways to accomplish ends. In task groups, cognition is seen as a distributed element rather than an individual entity, and it can be noticed in many socio-technical configurations [55,61]. Distributed cognition demands focus on the emerging knowledge in a task group rather than existing knowledge of a single actor [32]. After all, cognition is embedded in a set of real-life practices and occurs through interactions between individuals, artefacts like tools or instruments, and social systems [62].

The role that the task group members assume determines their position in the group, leading to power shifts and new hierarchies. Notably, the dynamics shift significantly with the involvement of an external institution. This calls for an understanding of how the rules, routines, protocols, and rituals enforced by institutions within a task group will become operationalised and how they impact and are impacted by the technology and innovations [32]. In this way, technography helps to identify how sets of rules and established regulations can structure social actions and practices [63].

Overall, technography adopts a realist position throughout the process of data collection, analysis, and interpretation, which enables the researcher to examine the actor’s knowledge with respect to the existing social structure and processes [32]. However, technography is just a methodology, and it must be complemented with an appropriate social analysis of the political, economic, and cultural processes that simultaneously happen with a technological change [32]. Consequently, a case study approach has been adopted in the current research, as it would allow a comprehensive analysis to be conducted of the context-specific socio-technical configurations resulting from the digital technology use in an agroecological farm.

3.2. Data Collection

As the focus of the technographic approach is to understand the underlying patterns in a situated action, this study opens space for participatory observation methods besides interviewing [32]. Accordingly, three data collection methods have been used: participatory observation, interviews, and secondary data collection. For about 27 working days between May 2023 to June 2023, the daily farm activities were thoroughly observed, including, but not limited to, workforce task assignments; farm practices like planting, weeding, spraying, monitoring, cleaning and bottling of wine; labelling; marketing, selling; hosting tourists; and the farmer’s participation in local co-operative markets. The participatory observation allowed us to attain a broad overview of the agroecological and socio-economic situation of the farm. Documentation of the everyday events as they unfolded was made in the form of field notes, videos, and pictures. The scope of the research was discussed with the farmer, and all the workers on the farm were informed beforehand regarding the ongoing research to sustain transparency.

Interviews were conducted based on a semi-structured, open-ended questionnaire to the farmer, workers, and the technological company to understand the agroecological zone of the farm, existing markets, input provisions, infrastructural facilities, socio-economic characteristics, drivers behind digital technology adoption, resources, skills, and knowledge involved in technology use, existing collaborations and the processes behind them, local conditions, and constraints. All the interviews were recorded and later transcribed. The secondary data, including the farm data (soil quality, microclimate, cover crops, fertiliser dosage and application period), economic data (production, sales, income and costs), employee statistics, and labour distribution data, was obtained from the farmer’s digital database. Later, the qualitative and uncoded data was transcribed and digitalised to conduct the analysis.

Within this research, the unique nature of the farm in terms of the farmer’s socio-economic background is seen not as a limitation but as a strength for the study, considering that every farm is distinctive in its own way. Ergo, this case could serve as a valuable model for other agroecological farms and contribute to the ongoing discourse on the harmony between digitalisation and agroecology.

3.3. Context of the Study

This research is set in the context of an agroecological farm located in Tuscany, Italy. The agroecological farm, registered as a company under the name “Mulini Di Segalari”, is in a valley amid the woodland on the side of a hill, which is 3 kilometres (km) from Castagneto Carducci, Province of Livorno, Italy. The overall farm size is 10 hectares (ha), comprising vineyards, olive orchards, woodland, natural vegetation, a small stream of water, and roads. The productive land of the farm is 6 ha, of which vineyards occupy 3.3 ha and olive orchards occupy 2.7 ha. The main product of the farm is wine, while olive oil holds a relatively small portion of the income. The particular case was chosen because of its rich context, alignment with the research aims, and the openness of stakeholders to participate in the study. While being agroecological, the farm has been using digital technologies such as a weather station, drones, and an e-commerce platform for management and marketing, thus aligning well with the concept of digital agroecology.

Originally from Florence, the family acquired the farm in 2000 and began renovating it in 2002. Vine cultivation commenced in 2003, and the farm’s transition to organic practices started in 2010. The wines produced by the farm, under the label “Mulini di Segalari,” have received organic certification from Demeter in 2017. Currently, the farm hosts various events, including wine tastings and agritourism. From 2014 to 2020, the farm accommodated WWoofers—individuals who visit and work on the farm to gain insights into organic agriculture.

Considering “situated action” [32] as a pivotal element in technography and the inherently context-specific nature of digital technology adoption, a concise presentation of the context, emphasising the causal mechanisms and underlying structures at play, is provided.

3.3.1. Farm Level

The farm operates as a dual-purpose entity, producing agricultural goods and serving as a site for tourism. The farm managers are Marina, a former architect, and her husband Emilio, an oenologist. They have two adult children who are often involved in managing the farm activities besides working in their own professional fields. The farm employs seven workers, with five individuals working six days a week and two others available for weekend and as-needed work. In addition to farming and wine production, the farm engages in wine tourism and agritourism activities during the season. Consequently, the study area consistently witnesses significant social activity, which has a huge potential to generate new socio-technical configurations and serves to enhance both the interest and complexity of the study.

3.3.2. Market Level

The farmer directly sells wine to local restaurants and through an e-commerce platform, reflecting the necessity of market engagement to sustain income. Approximately 40% of the wine is exported directly, with 35% sold to local restaurants, and the remainder (20–30%) to visiting tourists. Approximately 50% of sales through the e-commerce platform are international, suggesting that the farm’s market is shaped not only by local economic forces but also by international market forces. The farm’s compliance with DOC Bolgheri regulations and the ICEA and Demeter organic certifications indicates that the farm’s production is heavily influenced by the regulatory frameworks within which it operates. At the economic level, Marina has cultivated a strategy of reinvestment rather than savings, focusing on enhancing farm operations and securing its future growth. She says, “If I have money, I don’t like to take the money, I like to use them to increase the activity on the farm.” This includes acquiring equipment such as a tractor with a sprayer for mildew control and a quad for field monitoring.

3.3.3. Local Community Level

The farm’s operations are embedded in the broader local community, where it participates in several regional cooperative organisations. The farm’s involvement in local fairs and community development projects is a strategic response to the pressures of local competition, economic necessity, and market visibility. The relationships between Marina and other local producers in the DOC Bolgheri Consortium reflect a competitive cooperative dynamic, wherein producers share resources and knowledge to maintain the market position of Bolgheri wines but must still compete within that framework.

The farmer established strong ties with local neighbours, customers, and the regional community. In the farmer’s words, “I try to know my customers as much as possible. I sell directly to restaurants and local wine bars around here. I also sell directly in other parts of Italy. Sometimes I go to see where they are and who are selling my wines.” The exchange of wine for resources like manure and the direct relationships with local restaurants reflect an intricate web of interdependence that strengthens the farm’s position both locally and within its broader market context.

3.3.4. Global or Institutional Level

The farm’s integration into global markets, its association with global certification bodies like ICEA and Demeter, and its membership in organisations such as FIVI (Italian Federation of Independent Winegrowers) connect it to wider global movements in sustainable agriculture. However, the farm’s ability to navigate these global structures is contingent upon its adherence to international standards, which often require significant bureaucratic effort. The farmer’s collaborations with research institutes and technological companies underscore the farm’s attempts to integrate with evolving technological and agricultural innovations. These partnerships are driven by a need to adapt to changes in agricultural practices and market demands but also reflect the farmer’s dependency on external expertise to remain competitive. The farmer puts it this way: “I don’t believe that to be alone is a good way. I believe in the knowledge of the agricultural universities and companies. They work with a lot of technology and they are in evolution. I like to work with them. Because as they grow, they let me grow with them.”

3.3.5. Natural Environment Level

The farm operates within a specific environmental context, defined by the protected “Wooded Zones” and “Geological Constraint” areas. These areas are subject to regional authority regulations, which limit the farm’s ability to make changes to its operations. The farm’s organic and biodynamic certifications are necessary for accessing certain markets, but they also constrain the farm’s practices by setting stringent guidelines that must be adhered to. The farm’s compliance with these standards reflects the influence of broader environmental and ecological policies, which shape the farmer’s actions within a framework of regulation and certification.

The farm’s surrounding ecosystem, consisting of 50 tree species, various fruit trees, and a range of insects, bees, and butterflies, enhances the farm’s environmental resilience. The use of rotating cover crops and the application of manure as fertiliser reflect a commitment to ecological sustainability, highlighting the farm’s role in providing ecosystem services such as nutrient recycling and water retention. The farmer describes it as follows: “In our fields, you feel the nature. We can understand that the soil is not pressed. You can enter into the field also when it is wet because the grass is also saving the soil. It is like a carpet.”

From a critical realist perspective, the farmer’s actions are shaped by underlying structures that both constrain and enable her agency. The farm operates within a system of interrelated structures, i.e., local, regional, and global, that influence its operations, economic viability, and social relationships. While Marina’s personal agency is evident in her daily management and interaction with workers, her actions are deeply embedded in a broader context of economic necessity, regulatory frameworks, and market demands. The interactions between individual agency and structural constraints highlight the complex nature of farming in a globalised, regulated, and environmentally conscious market, where external factors are as significant as individual decisions in determining the farm’s success.

4. Results

4.1. Digitalisation at Mulini Di Segalari

As outlined in the preceding sections, the farm is managed ecologically to minimise environmental impact while prioritising biodiversity preservation. Despite its richness in diversity and vegetation, the farm contends with challenges such as wild animal attacks and the impacts of climate change. Through collaborations with educational and research institutes, the farm has embraced innovations and technologies, leading to the incorporation of digital technologies such as an e-commerce website, a weather station, and drones for harvesting. This, in turn, has brought new actors into the system, causing a shift in the existing configurations.

4.1.1. Social Media and the E-Commerce Website

Mulini Di Segalari presents itself to the wider world through an e-commerce website. Primarily a channel of marketing and sales, it also educates about the ecological ways of farming. It serves as a platform to make bookings and registrations for agritourism and wine tourism, thereby facilitating an easy process for the visitors. This virtual presence can be seen as both a manifestation of individual agency and a response to broader structural imperatives. The farm’s adoption of this technology reflects not merely a marketing choice but a necessity dictated by the contemporary socio-economic environment, where visibility in the virtual world is essential for economic viability and social relevance.

As the farmer insightfully articulates, “You are not existing when you are not in a virtual world,” revealing an awareness of the structural transformations that have redefined market access and community engagement. The agency exercised here is embedded within the wider structure of the digital economy, where an effective web presence is no longer optional but foundational to participation in local and global markets. Besides the visible benefits, the technology acts as a mechanism for value chain integration, reconnecting producers and consumers in line with principles of circular and solidarity economy models in agroecological farming. Through presenting the farm’s ecological farming ethos online, the website helps to articulate a counter-narrative to industrial agriculture.

Moreover, the farm’s active use of social media platforms such as Instagram and LinkedIn serves to bridge the local–global divide. It enables communication with a diverse array of stakeholders, including international wine buyers, ecological activists, WWOOFers, and journalists, thereby integrating the farm into transnational networks of knowledge exchange, activism, and commerce. These digital engagements have generated tangible economic and social benefits, expanding the farm’s customer base and enhancing its resilience against the vulnerabilities of local market dependency. The maintenance and development of the website and social media require ongoing investment, not just the 25-euro yearly hosting fee, but substantial labour in content creation, updates, and coordination among team members (Marina, Emilio, their daughter, and the administrative manager). This collective labour reflects the relational nature of knowledge production and dissemination within the farm’s broader system, embodying co-creation and skill-sharing practices that are themselves shaped by the pressures and possibilities of the digital economy.

Nevertheless, structural constraints are evident. Poor internet connectivity in the farm’s rural valley underscores infrastructural inequalities that continue to shape access to and participation in digital economies. Despite these technological barriers, the farmer’s strategic use of personal and professional networks has enabled Mulini di Segalari to maintain and grow its virtual presence, demonstrating how agency operates within and against structural limitations.

4.1.2. Weather Station

The integration of weather sensor stations at Mulini di Segalari exemplifies how farming practices are shaped by an interplay of structural conditions and individual agency. The installation of sensor technology, initiated a decade ago, responds to the structural constraints of organic agriculture, where chemical pesticides are limited and preventive strategies are crucial. The need to monitor the microclimate to manage mildew emergence illustrates the causal mechanisms at the ecological level that necessitate technological mediation. The farm’s use of technology allows for precision in irrigation and treatment. These data-driven practices reflect an epistemological shift from generic agronomic prescriptions to site-specific decision-making. Yet, the farmer’s reliance on embodied knowledge and experience remains central: “Naturally, my experience is over everything, but the data is fundamental.” This indicates a dialectical relationship between empirical observation and tacit expertise, mediated by sensor data.

The transformation of operational practices through real-time data reflects the farm’s adaptive capacity within broader ecological and economic constraints. The technology does not determine action on its own; rather, it enables Marina’s agency within a structured environment, enhancing sustainability through informed responsiveness. Thus, technological infrastructure on the farm is not just an innovation but a structural enabler within an evolving agroecological system.

4.1.3. Drones

The deployment of drone technology at Mulini di Segalari illustrates the influence of technological, ecological, regulatory, and economic structures on farm operations. The vineyard utilises two drones: a standard visual-monitoring drone and a custom-built drone equipped with an infrared camera, used specifically for harvest-time quality assessment. The acquisition of the infrared drone constructed by the farmer’s son, an aeronautical engineer, at a significantly reduced cost (EUR 1300), highlights the role of informal technical networks in mediating access to innovation in contexts where capital investment thresholds are high. Drones are not operated directly by the farmer, due to regulatory restrictions. Instead, a partnership with the Agri-tech firm, Agrobit, enables drone operation through contracted skilled labour, incurring an annual cost of EUR 900. This collaboration reflects broader institutional structures around technological governance and professional licensing, which shape who can operate advanced equipment and under what conditions. The cost is framed not simply as an operational expense, but as a structural requirement for accessing the benefits of precision viticulture.

The use of drone-enabled Normalised Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) mapping, as shown in Figure 2, represents a shift from traditional row-based harvesting to spatially differentiated harvesting based on vegetation density and vigour. The technology identifies zones of low, medium, and high fertility across the vineyard, allowing for selective harvesting and classification of grapes into different quality tiers. This has enabled the farm to expand its wine portfolio, producing Rose, Red 1, Red 2, and Superior wines, each aligned with specific quality grades and market segments. These differentiated outputs are a direct consequence of the data-intensive, site-specific harvesting enabled by drone technology.

This transition reflects deeper causal mechanisms: the growing influence of precision agriculture within wine production systems, the increasing importance of product differentiation in saturated and competitive markets, and the ecological imperative to maximise output quality with minimal input waste. Through the use of drones, inputs such as labour, fuel, and treatments are more precisely allocated, reducing environmental burden while enhancing operational efficiency and product value. Furthermore, drone integration enabled the co-creation of knowledge through collaboration with technological companies and the dissemination to tourists and consumers. These broader outcomes are not solely the product of individual initiative but are emergent effects of the farm’s interaction with technological infrastructures, regulatory systems, and evolving agroecological paradigms.

4.2. Impacts of Digital Technologies at Mulini Di Segalari

4.2.1. Making/Doing

The farmer’s active engagement with fellow producers and regional associations played a huge role in expanding the farming expertise. Additionally, attending online courses to acquire new skills related to technologies such as drones has further enhanced her capabilities in vineyard management and wine production. The farm successfully enabled a digital transition in their farm by combining both situated and expert knowledge from local producers, community, universities, technological companies, and their children. The farmer’s openness to innovation has been instrumental in making informed decisions and adopting new tools despite limited human and material resources. They acquired tools like weather stations, drones, and an e-commerce website and continually updated them with the evolving technologies and software. These digital technologies have attracted new stakeholders into the value chain, transformed farming practices, and demanded new knowledge and skill development. These configurations, implied by digital technologies, opened the farm to new collaborations and innovations.

4.2.2. Distributed Cognition

A task group is a conceptual unit of analysis used in technography [53], and this term was first used by Tom McFeat [55]. A task group constitutes a group of people among whom the tasks are distributed to achieve a common goal. The objective is to explore how the individuals in a task group use their physical and cognitive abilities to accomplish their ends. The distribution of tasks results in new responsibilities among the members, and everyone’s role in deploying materials influences the generation and distribution of information among the task group members.

For grape harvesting using drones, the farmer schedules the technicians to visit the farm in advance. On harvest day, skilled technicians operate the drone to calculate the NDVI and map fertility zones. Marina reviews the map, identifies harvest rows based on fertility zones, and opens nets in those areas. Farm workers then assess grape ripeness and harvest the grapes if ready, transporting them to the cellar. This process showcases the collective expertise and collaboration among technicians, the farmer, and farm workers, resulting in a successful grape harvest. During the harvesting, the quality of wine is determined by the workers’ ability to assess grape ripeness after the nets are opened by the farmer. The farmer’s skill in interpreting fertility zone maps and identifying specific vines for harvest is crucial. Incorrect NDVI calculations by technicians could lead to confusion, highlighting the importance of accurate drone technology and the technician’s expertise.

Therefore, harvesting is not an individual task but a collective effort involving different tools and actors with unique skills. Each member contributes based on their expertise, demonstrating a collaborative approach toward the common goal of harvesting high-quality grapes for winemaking. Creating high-quality wine using digital technology necessitates effective coordination among team members with diverse skills, knowledge, and experiences. Effective coordination optimises technology utilisation, such as drones, contributing to the production of good quality wine.

4.2.3. Rules and Routines

Mulini Di Segalari, an organic farm certified since 2010, prioritises ecological practices with a scientific approach. Certification requirements prompted the farmer to meticulously adopt organic farming methods. To comply with the spraying limits mandated by certification authorities, they aim to prevent crop pests and diseases and respond promptly if they occur. The emergence of pests and diseases is influenced by local weather conditions, highlighting the importance of understanding the farm’s microclimate. The weather station allows the farmer to monitor microclimate data via a mobile app and receive updates as needed. The farm’s commitment to organic practices and certification regulations drove the adoption of weather monitoring technology, facilitating data-driven decision-making to optimise pest and disease management strategies. The farmer’s intention to enhance the quality of wine led to the adoption of drones and the involvement of Agrobit, a technological company in farming operations.

Therefore, the farmer’s commitment to producing high-quality wine naturally, coupled with the necessity of meeting certification regulations, has influenced the adoption and utilisation of digital technologies within the vineyard. This strategic alignment supports the farm’s sustainable practices and underscores the farmer’s dedication to upholding certification standards.

5. Discussion

RQ1: To what extent have digital technologies influenced the evolution of skills, knowledge, tools, and practices?

The case of Mulini Di Segalari illustrates how digital transformation in agriculture is not a purely technical process but one shaped by the interaction of skills, knowledge systems, tools, and practices. The farm’s transition to digital farming reflects a blend of technical, analytical, and communication skills. While technical skills are essential for operating and updating devices, it is the farmer’s broader capacity for learning, experimentation, and decision-making that enables these technologies to be effectively embedded in their farming routines. This supports the idea that the adoption of digital technologies is not just about access but also about capability and adaptability [64], developed through both formal (e.g., online courses) and informal (e.g., community interactions) learning.

The integration of situated and expert knowledge from local producers, academic institutions, and family enabled them to contextualise and tailor digital tools to their farm’s specific needs. Social networks such as WhatsApp groups and regional associations played a key role in sharing knowledge and enhancing decision-making. This aligns with critical realist understandings of knowledge as stratified and emergent, where the interaction of individual agency and structural contexts produces new capacities for action [65,66]. The role of community knowledge-sharing platforms, such as WhatsApp groups, illustrates how social networks function as vital channels for diffusing and reshaping technological knowledge [67,68,69,70]. While there is a perceived risk of losing tacit knowledge by depending on algorithms for decision making [6,71], the opportunity to make more informed decisions [72] and the replacement of lost knowledge of older generations increases [73].

While tools like drones and weather stations are central, their value lies in how they are embedded in everyday practices like monitoring, managing, harvesting, and marketing, aligned with the farm’s commitment to organic and biodynamic methods. These technologies not only improved efficiency but also reshaped how work was organised and how knowledge was co-produced [34,74], thereby generating new agricultural practices that are both technologically informed and environmentally grounded. Their participation in regional associations and local wine events further reflects a networked learning environment. The farmer’s establishment of a robust knowledge network within and around her farm exemplifies a farm-level Agricultural Knowledge and Information System (micro-AKIS) [53], which is defined as the “knowledge systems that farmers personally assemble, including the range of individuals and organisations from whom they seek services and exchange knowledge, and the processes involved in the formation and working of the system, including the way farmers translate these resources into innovative activities (or not)” [53].

This case shows that digitalisation is a socially embedded, dynamic process, where innovation is driven by the ability to integrate diverse knowledge sources and adapt practices accordingly. It shows how a situated performance practice enables farmers to seek, use, and create affordances of what is available in their immediate surroundings and wider socio-technical networks [75]. In sum, the skills, knowledge, tools, and practices observed in this case illustrate that digital transformation in agriculture is relational, emergent, and practice-driven [10]. It highlights the importance of viewing technology use through a technographic and practice-oriented lens [76], attending to how people make and do with technologies in real-world contexts.

RQ2: How does the coordination between different members of the task group change with the introduction of digital technologies?

The integration of digital technologies, particularly drones for vineyard management and grape harvesting, has significantly reshaped the dynamics of coordination within the task group on the farm. This shift exemplifies the distributed cognition dimension of technography, where cognitive and material tasks are shared among individuals and technologies in a system of interdependence [62]. Digital tools like NDVI-mapping drones have introduced new layers of technical mediation into the traditional workflow. Coordination no longer revolves solely around physical labour but requires the effective interpretation and communication of digital information. For instance, technicians responsible for drone operation and NDVI data processing now occupy a central role in the workflow, as their outputs directly influence the farmer’s decision on where and when to initiate harvest. A miscalculation at this stage can disrupt the chain of actions that follows, revealing how digital errors can propagate across roles.

Moreover, the farmer’s role as a decision-maker has evolved [70]. Rather than relying solely on visual inspection or experiential cues, she now interprets digitally produced fertility zone maps to guide workers. This demands both digital literacy and a capacity to integrate new data with embodied field knowledge [77]. Her coordination role becomes both cognitive and interpretive, creating a bridge between digital abstraction and material action. The coordination among harvest workers also adapts. Although their core task of assessing grape ripeness and harvesting remains manual, it is now sequenced and spatially organised based on digital maps. This changes how labour is distributed and scheduled, introducing a level of precision that was previously unavailable [78].

The overall process illustrates how digital technologies not only shift who does what but also how information is produced, shared, and acted upon within the task group. In this context, coordination becomes multi-layered, involving real-time decision-making, cross-functional communication, and trust in digital representations [79]. Thus, the introduction of digital tools has transformed task group coordination from a largely sequential, manual process into a collaborative, data-driven, and distributed system of expertise [80].

RQ3: Which rules and routines have been institutionalised with the use of digital technologies?

At Mulini Di Segalari, the integration of digital technologies has led to the institutionalisation of new rules and routines that structure the farm’s daily operations and broader decision-making processes. These emergent practices are shaped by the farm’s commitment to organic and biodynamic certification standards, which necessitate precise, accountable, and timely interventions. One key institutionalised routine is the use of microclimate data for pest and disease management. This data-driven approach has become a foundational practice, enabling the farm to make proactive and compliant decisions about when and how to intervene in the vineyard. Over time, this routine has shifted the role of decision-making from reactive to anticipatory, embedding a scientific standard of care in the farm’s daily operation.

Additionally, the collaboration with Agrobit institutionalised the outsourcing of drone operations due to regulatory constraints on drone usage by uncertified individuals. Rather than purchasing a drone and awaiting certification, the farmer has created a normative partnership with Agrobit that enables data collection and experimental applications. This relationship has evolved into a routine where Agrobit serves not only as a service provider but also as a technological intermediary, reinforcing a division of roles and asymmetries in knowledge and access. The incorporation of digital technologies has also impacted communication flows and hierarchies within and beyond the farm [34,81]. These asymmetries created a technical hierarchy wherein expert actors (e.g., Agrobit engineers) hold privileged access to data interpretation and operational control, thereby shaping the direction and execution of tasks.

Overall, digital technologies at Mulini Di Segalari have institutionalised the following key rules and routines:

• Data-based decision-making for vineyard management and grape harvesting.
• Formalised partnerships with technology providers due to regulatory limitations.
• Asymmetric communication flows and emerging hierarchies in technical knowledge.
• Integration of technology into certification compliance routines.

The interplay of certification standards, technological capabilities, and human coordination has thus created a dynamic sociotechnical environment that continuously reshapes roles, routines, and power structures on the farm. These dynamics are regarded as “transformation accelerators” and are considered fundamental for food system transformation [82]. Digital technologies not only respond to regulatory demands but also actively shape them, enabling the development of new forms of governance and control. By doing so, digital tools could become both a catalyst for regulatory evolution and a product of changing policy landscapes [16,83].

RQ4: How do the existing digital technologies contribute to the management of an agroecological farm?

The case of Mulini Di Segalari provides a valuable empirical lens to examine the complementarities between digitalisation and agroecology. Despite ongoing debates about the potential incompatibilities between high-tech farming and ecological principles [6,84], the farm demonstrates how digital tools, when contextualised within agroecological values, can actively reinforce ecological, social, and economic dimensions of agroecology [17] as shown in the Figure 3.

• Synergies, Recycling and Biodiversity (Ecological Principles)

The use of drones for monitoring has been assisting in managing the farm’s natural vegetation and cover crops, leading to optimised biodiversity maintenance. This contributes directly to the principles of

• Synergies, by enhancing functional interactions between natural elements.
• Recycling, through better cover crop and organic matter management.
• Biodiversity, by ensuring diverse vegetation is conserved and monitored effectively.

2.

Efficiency and Resilience (Ecological/Economic Principles)

The drones are also employed in harvesting, reducing input use while maintaining wine quality, and this promotes

• Efficiency, by using fewer resources for better outputs [85,86].
• Resilience, by enhancing the farm’s adaptability to market fluctuations.

Similarly, the weather station enables precision agriculture, aligning input use with microclimatic variations. This reinforces

• Resource-use efficiency, by reducing unnecessary applications of water or fertilisers [85].
• Resilience, through improved responsiveness to environmental variability.

3.

Co-creation and Knowledge Sharing, Human and Social Values (Social Principles)

Drones and weather station implementation were possible through strategic collaborations with tech firms (e.g., Agrobit, Netsens). These interactions embody

• Co-creation and sharing of knowledge, as the farm becomes a site for experimentation and learning.
• Human and social values, by recognising the farmer’s role as both user and contributor in technological innovation.

4.

Circular and Solidarity Economy, Responsible Governance, Culture, and Food traditions (Socio-economic Principles)

The e-commerce website has empowered the farmer to engage directly with consumers, which contributes to

• Circular and solidarity economy, by localising sales and minimising intermediaries.
• Responsible governance, through transparency about agroecological practices to consumers.
• Culture and food traditions, by disseminating the local culture and traditions to different stakeholders globally.

While high costs and the lack of digital skills are initially posed as barriers, the farm overcame these constraints by engaging internal networks and external stakeholders (e.g., family, research institutions, and tech providers). This underscores the importance of collaborative networks in bridging the digital divide and ensuring that technological tools are adapted to agroecological purposes rather than imposed upon them.

The study illustrates that digital technologies, when embedded within the agroecological context, can facilitate the transition towards sustainable farming by supporting the principles of agroecology. However, trade-offs are inevitable in some cases with respect to social (loss of autonomy in decision-making) and economic (high investment costs) elements of agroecology, depending upon the context. In such cases, collaborative governance and stakeholder engagement are key to ensuring that digitalisation remains a complementary but not conflicting trajectory within agroecological systems.

However, this study is not devoid of limitations. In technography, there is an issue of determining the level of detail that is necessary for the description of a socio-technical configuration. Richards argues that it should not necessarily be a “thick description”, but rather, it could be a “thin description” of teamwork emphasising the details of performance [32,87]. Another limitation arises while accounting for the emergent knowledge in a task group, as sometimes, task groups are very spatially extended and it is impossible to collect the data [88]. Considering these limitations, the current study restricted the description of socio-technical processes to a thin description, and only the active members of the task group at the farm were examined. There could be a possibility of observer bias as the researcher’s stay and interactions with the farmer during the participatory observation might have influenced the research. Nevertheless, efforts were made by the researcher to reduce the bias by being reflexive on her own positionality and triangulating the participant observation data with interviews and documents. Consequently, a critical realist point of view [89,90,91,92] was adapted during the data collection and interpretation.

Given that these findings are derived from a single case study, their applicability to other contexts may be limited. Nevertheless, there is a possibility that they may be transferable to other agroecological settings with similar social structures. However, the study is grounded in the assumption that technological impacts are inherently context-specific, a position embraced by the authors, who therefore do not interpret this as a limitation. Nonetheless, future research incorporating multiple case studies across diverse contexts is recommended to gain a more comprehensive understanding of how these impacts may vary.

6. Conclusions

The case of Mulini Di Segalari illustrates how the adoption of digital technologies can actively contribute to agroecological practices through a dynamic interplay of technological, ecological, and social factors. The successful integration of tools like drones, weather stations, and an e-commerce platform has not only improved operational efficiency and product quality but also reinforced key principles of agroecology such as resource-use efficiency, co-creation of knowledge, and circular economy practices. Importantly, this case provides evidence that certain applications of digital technologies are feasible with agroecological farming systems.

A critical enabler of this transition has been the presence of a supportive socio-technical networks. This includes strong family involvement, proactive peer engagement through local networks, collaboration with stakeholders such as research institutions, technology companies, and certification bodies, as well as the farmer’s personal openness to innovation. Regulatory requirements tied to organic and biodynamic certifications further provided a structured motivation to explore digital tools in a targeted and meaningful way.

Importantly, the case underscores that technology alone is insufficient to drive systemic change. Rather, it is the socio-technical configuration, i.e., the synergistic relationship between social structures and technological innovations, that determines the effectiveness of digital integration. The ongoing adoption of new tools for tourism and consumer data management and the opportunity to serve as a demonstration farm further highlight how digitalisation can trigger continuous innovation and learning loops within agroecological systems.

This case contributes to the broader discourse on the convergence between agroecology and digitalisation by showing that the thoughtful integration of technology, guided by local context and strong stakeholder networks, can drive sustainable, inclusive, and innovative transformations in farming systems.