Next Article in Journal
Change and Adaptation of Family Dairy Farming in the Context of Global Capitalism
Previous Article in Journal
Spray Deposition, Drift and Equipment Contamination for Drone and Conventional Orchard Spraying Under European Conditions
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 15
Issue 23
10.3390/agriculture15232468
agriculture-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Adoption and Perception of Precision Technologies in Agriculture: Systematic Review and Case Study in the PDO Wines of Granada, Southern Spain

by
Jesús González-Vivar
1,
Rita Sobczyk
2,
Esteban Romero-Frías
3,4 and
Jesús Rodrigo-Comino
1,5,*
1
Departamento de Análisis Geográfico Regional y Geografía Física, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Campus Universitario de Cartuja, University of Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain
2
Department of Sociology, University of Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain
3
Medialab UGR, University of Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain
4
Department of Accountancy and Finance, University of Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain
5
Andalusian Research Institute in Data Science and Computational Intelligence (DaSCI), University of Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2025, 15(23), 2468; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15232468
Submission received: 29 October 2025 / Revised: 20 November 2025 / Accepted: 25 November 2025 / Published: 28 November 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Agricultural Economics, Policies and Rural Management)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Precision technologies are increasingly relevant in contemporary agriculture, offering tools to enhance efficiency, sustainability, and decision-making. Their adoption is becoming particularly critical among vine-growers in the wine industry, a sector facing market pressures, climate change, and generational shifts. This study combines a systematic literature review with an empirical analysis of the PDO (Protected Designation of Origin) Wines of Granada (Southern Spain) to examine perceptions of precision agriculture technologies at both global and regional scales. The review included 607 articles published between 2015 and 2025 in English (indexed in ISI Web of Knowledge), identifying key factors influencing technology adoption. Using “perception” and “precision agriculture” as search terms, only 97 articles simultaneously addressed both concepts. At the regional level, a case study involving 22 wineries (with 37 stakeholders) in Granada province was conducted, focusing on socioeconomic barriers and environmental conditions such as altitude, climate, and soil type. Results revealed cross-scale consistencies regarding the importance of costs and perceived usefulness of new technologies (e.g., proximal sensors, satellite imagery), but divergences concerning the difficulties in accessing them and their cost. The findings highlight the need for supportive policies, targeted training, and practical demonstrations to facilitate adoption, thereby fostering innovation and sustainability, especially in the wine sector of the province of Granada. Integrating international and local evidence provides a framework for designing regional strategies tailored to promote precision technologies that improve efficiency, quality, and sustainability in wine production.

1. Introduction

Agriculture is undergoing one of the most profound transformations in its recent history, driven by the incorporation of digital technologies such as remote sensors, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), geographic information systems (GIS), artificial intelligence, and data management platforms [1,2]. Under the conceptual umbrella of Precision Agriculture (PA), these tools aim to optimize resource use, increase productivity, and reduce environmental impacts [3,4]. In viticulture, the intrinsic heterogeneity of vineyards—resulting from variability in soils, topography, climate, and management practices—has particularly encouraged the adoption of technologies capable of monitoring, analyzing, and managing this complexity [5]. This trend reflects both the growing maturity of available tools and the increasing interest of the research community in their application [3,6,7]. In this study, the concept of perception refers to the set of attitudes, beliefs, and evaluations that farmers assign to a technology, while adoption refers to the decision to incorporate it stably into vineyard management. The precision technologies considered include proximal sensors, satellite imagery, UAVs, and digital decision-support platforms, whose expected benefits are linked to improvements in efficiency, quality, and environmental performance.
At the international level, many regions, especially in Europe and North America, have adopted precision technologies relatively quickly, particularly in large, export-oriented enterprises that perceive them as tools to enhance competitiveness and sustainability [8,9]. In contrast, in regions characterized by fragmented landholdings and a predominance of small family farms—as in much of the Mediterranean basin—adoption has been slower [10,11,12]. The scientific literature identifies the main barriers as high initial investment, perceived complexity of use, lack of specialized training, limited interoperability among systems, and uncertainty regarding economic returns [13,14,15].
Although research on precision agriculture has expanded exponentially over the past two decades, much of it has focused on technologies, algorithms, sensors, and models, with strong emphasis on agronomic efficiency and technical innovation. However, relatively few studies examine farmers’ perceptions of these technologies. Several authors have pointed out this gap, noting that psychological dimensions—such as attitudes, cognitive barriers, or perceptions of complexity—are often overlooked in comparison to the economic or technical aspects that dominate the literature [16,17,18]. Yet, measuring perception is critical, as it directly influences acceptance, the pace of adoption, and the long-term sustainability of innovation. The mere availability of technology is not sufficient; farmers must perceive it as useful, accessible, and capable of addressing concrete problems in daily vineyard management. When a tool is considered too complex, costly, or disconnected from real needs, distrust and resistance emerge. Conversely, when it demonstrably reduces costs, improves grape quality, or simplifies management, perceptions are more favorable and adoption accelerates [19,20].
Multiple factors shape these perceptions. Training and technical support build confidence, social influence from fellow winemakers and reference wineries guides adoption decisions, and institutional support or rural innovation programs foster more positive attitudes [21,22]. Perceptions also vary with farm size, producers’ socioeconomic profiles, and regional context. Notable differences emerge between major wine-producing countries such as Italy and Spain, and emerging regions such as Chile and South Africa, where interest in innovation often coexists with concerns over long-term economic sustainability [23,24].
Therefore, there is a clear need to systematically review the literature to identify how farmers’ perceptions of precision technologies in viticulture have been addressed. In regions with high variability in soils, altitude, and climate, such as the province of Granada (Southern Spain), it is expected that vine growers perceive the usefulness or complexity of precision technologies differently, making this territory an ideal laboratory for analyzing how context shapes these perceptions. In this framework, the present research combines a systematic review with a survey conducted at the regional case in the province of Granada (Southern Spain), focused on viticulture within the Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) Wines of Granada. This territory is particularly suitable for such analysis, as it combines diverse agroclimatic conditions with a production model based mainly on small and medium-sized wineries [25]. According to the Regulatory Council of PDO Wines of Granada [26], its subzones differ significantly in climate, altitude, and soil type, which strongly shape local practices.
Beyond these agro-climatic and structural particularities, Granada province also differs from other grape-producing regions in its productive organization and its capacity for innovation. Compared with more consolidated regions such as La Rioja or La Mancha, where the average farm size and the availability of capital facilitate the adoption of monitoring technologies [27,28], Andalusia—and the province of Granada in particular—presents a highly fragmented structure that limits economies of scale [29,30]. In contrast to Italy or France, where cooperatives play a key role in enabling collective investment [31,32], vine-growers in Granada tend to operate more independently, which increases perceived risk and slows adoption. This comparison illustrates how structural specificities shape innovation processes. The scientific literature shows a clear imbalance between the large volume of technical studies and the scarcity of research focused on farmers’ perceptions, a key gap for understanding the effective adoption of precision technologies. Since perceptions of usefulness and complexity directly influence acceptance and continued use, it is necessary to address them specifically. To this end, studies combining a systematic review of the recent literature with empirical analyses can represent a unique opportunity to assess particularly heterogeneous and fragmented viticultural regions. With this dual approach, two testable questions are still not answered: How has the literature addressed farmers’ perceptions of precision technologies? And to what extent do these perceptions align with or diverge from those observed at a regional scale?
The objective of this article is to analyze how the scientific literature addresses farmers’ perceptions of precision technologies and compare these results with a local case study in the PDO Wines of Granada. Specifically, two main goals are pursued: (1) to assess the social perception of these technologies, distinguishing between technical research and user acceptance studies, and (2) to contrast global trends with the local experience, using quantitative and qualitative data generated by the GO SOSVITI project “https://gososviti.com (accessed on 17 September 2025)”.
The review covers papers indexed in the ISI Web of Knowledge between 2015 and 2025, identifying the extent to which studies explicitly address farmers’ perceptions and how these perceptions are characterized—positive, negative, mixed, or neutral. These findings are then compared with the perceptions expressed by farmers and enterprises in Granada, highlighting convergences and divergences between global research and local experiences. We hypothesize that this integrated approach provides a robust framework for understanding not only the technological development of precision agriculture but also the ways in which innovations are received and adopted in specific contexts—an essential condition for ensuring their long-term sustainability and effectiveness.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Systematic Literature Review

A systematic review was conducted using the Web of Science Core Collection “https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/smart-search (accessed on 5 September 2025)”, selected for its rigor and broad coverage of peer-reviewed journals, between 1 January 2015 and 31 August 2025. The search strategy combined key terms in English such as “precision agriculture”, “technologies”, and “perception”. Searches were applied to article titles, abstracts, and keywords. The search was conducted using the Boolean string TS = (“precision agriculture” AND technologies AND perception”), so that only articles in which all three terms appeared simultaneously in the title, abstract, or keywords were included. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (i) scientific articles, reviews, book chapters, or conference proceedings published in English; (ii) publication period between 2015 and 2025, which represents a recent decade marked by the expansion and consolidation of precision agriculture applications; and (iii) explicit reference to perception and/or adoption of precision agriculture technologies in viticulture. Exclusion criteria removed technical notes, non-peer-reviewed documents, and studies not addressing perceptions or adoption. The initial Boolean query yielded 607 records. After screening titles and abstracts, potentially relevant studies were assessed in full text to verify compliance with the inclusion criteria. Finally, 97 articles were retained. The selection process followed the PRISMA framework, including the stages of identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion, and is summarized in a flow diagram (Figure 1).
Data were extracted by a single reviewer independently, without using automation tools beyond the detailed review of the literature. The authors of the reviewed articles were not contacted. All results reported in each study that were compatible with the perception domain were considered, regardless of the measurement method (surveys, interviews, focus groups, or case studies), ensuring that all relevant evidence on perceptions of precision agriculture technologies was included. No additional variables, such as country, region, funding, farm size, or other characteristics, were collected, as the analysis focused exclusively on the perception of the technologies.
The selected studies were analyzed to classify perceptions of precision agriculture technologies into four categories: positive, negative, mixed, or neutral. This classification was based on how technologies were reported to influence farmers’ attitudes, experiences, and willingness to adopt them. Most studies employed quantitative surveys as the main tool, often complemented by qualitative approaches (interviews, focus groups, or case studies) to provide richer insights into barriers, motivations, and user experiences. This dual approach allowed the identification of general trends in the literature and the characterization of factors influencing adoption, later compared with empirical evidence from the PDO Wines of Granada case study.
All studies meeting the inclusion criteria were considered for the synthesis, and results were organized in comparative tables by perception type. No data conversions, imputations, meta-analysis, heterogeneity exploration, or sensitivity analyses were performed due to the qualitative and descriptive nature of the data.
For their part, the risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence were not assessed using formal tools, although the interpretation of results considered the methodological transparency and sample size of each study. The synthesis was carried out descriptively and in tables, based on the qualitative classification of perceptions. No quantitative effect measures were calculated, nor was a meta-analysis conducted. Confidence in the results is based on the consistency observed among the included studies and the coherence of the conclusions drawn.
The existence of potential sources of bias is acknowledged, such as the restriction to English and the exclusive use of Web of Science, which may lead to an underrepresentation of local or regional studies published in other languages or in non-indexed repositories. However, our decision is justified because WoS provides an appropriate quality filter and adequate global coverage in precision agriculture.

2.2. Case Study

2.2.1. PDO Wines of Granada

The Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) Wines of Granada was created on 23 January 2008, under the name Asociación Vinos de Granada, with the aim of managing the quality label Vino de Calidad de Granada. This initiative sought to recognize and protect the authenticity of wines produced in the province of Granada, a territory with a long winemaking tradition and remarkable geographical and climatic diversity [34], which together create a distinctive environment for viticultural development [35]. In 2009, following the publication of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 607/2009, the designation Vino de Calidad de Granada was officially recognized as a PDO, allowing the wines from that year’s harvest to be bottled and marketed under the PDO label [36].
In 2018, the Junta de Andalucía approved the regulations governing the PDO’s Regulatory Council, formally establishing its governance structure, responsibilities, and oversight functions. The Regulatory Council was constituted as a non-profit public entity tasked with ensuring the quality and traceability of PDO wines. Its regulations define the composition of management bodies, guarantee representation of producers and wineries, promote gender parity, regulate electoral processes, and oversee sectoral participation in decision-making. The Council is also responsible for ensuring compliance with PDO specifications, protecting the denomination against misuse, and promoting PDO wines in national and international markets [37].
The PDO Specifications set out the rules for production, winemaking, labeling, and commercialization of the protected wines. They serve as a reference framework for producers and wineries, while providing the Regulatory Council with the necessary criteria to monitor and certify that wines meet PDO requirements. Collectively, these measures guarantee the authenticity, quality, and traceability of PDO wines from Granada, strengthening consumer trust and safeguarding the denomination [38]. Currently, the PDO Wines of Granada covers a large part of the provincial territory and includes 22 wineries affiliated with its governing body. These wineries actively promote and position PDO wines both nationally and internationally. Figure 2 shows their geographical distribution across the three main grape-producing subregions of the province: Geoparque–Norte, Contraviesa–Alpujarra, and Poniente.
For this study, only enterprises belonging to the PDO were considered as a representative sample of the territory. The selection was carried out for exploratory purposes and does not aim for population inference.

2.2.2. Environmental Characteristics of PDO Wines of Granada

Regarding climate, the province of Granada shows marked thermal and hydric diversity that directly affects viticulture and the quality of PDO wines. Three main climatic units can be distinguished (Figure 3): high mountain, continental Mediterranean, and subtropical Mediterranean. The high mountain zone (Sierra Nevada and upper Alpujarra) has average annual temperatures of 4–10 °C, cold winters with snowfall, moderate summers, and >800 mm annual precipitation. These conditions favor acidity preservation and phenolic accumulation, making it suitable for long-cycle varieties and fresh wines with aromatic complexity [39,40,41]. The continental Mediterranean climate, predominant in most PDO vineyards, presents average annual temperatures of 12–15 °C and 300–600 mm precipitation, offering the most stable conditions for quality wine production [41,42]. In contrast, the subtropical Mediterranean zone (Costa Tropical), where vineyards are scarcely present, has >16 °C and 300–400 mm rainfall. Figure 3 illustrates the distribution of climatic units and maps of temperature and precipitation [43].
Soils also play a key role, interacting with climate to shape viticultural potential [44,45]. The most widespread are calcareous soils (I Lc E (Bk)), shallow and carbonate-rich; mixed Calcisols with high content of rock fragments (Bk (Rc Jc Lk); Bk Rc I (E)); and fertile clay soils (Jc j,n,g) with good water retention. To a lesser extent, shallow Leptosols and lithic Calcisols occur [46,47]. Together, these soils provide fertility, drainage, and structure favorable for vine growth. Figure 4 shows their spatial distribution (a), integrated with a Digital Terrain Model (b) to illustrate how soil, topography, and climate combine to define the microclimates that characterize the PDO Wines of Granada. All maps presented in this work were created using QGIS version 2.40.12.

2.2.3. Design, Sample, and Analyzed Variables

To complement the literature review and situate international evidence within the local context, a questionnaire was administered to farmers, technicians, and owners in the province of Granada. The survey included both members of the Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) Wines of Granada who nonetheless operate in the same territory but under different environmental conditions (as observed above). The final sample consisted of 37 valid responses, selected according to criteria of territorial representativeness and including all wineries belonging to the PDO. Although the sample size can be considered modest, it is the real number of enterprises that we have in Granada province. The questionnaire was organized into thematic blocks covering both quantitative and qualitative variables. Table 1 summarizes the main sections and variables analyzed and Supplementary Materials displays all the questions included in this questionnaire.
The surveys were conducted within the framework of the GO SOSVITI project “https://gososviti.com (accessed on 5 September 2025)” during February and March 2025. It should be noted that all selected respondents completed the survey. The sample selection was based on choosing the individuals responsible for the wineries and technicians affiliated with the PDO.
The structure of the spreadsheet was designed to characterize winemaker profiles by capturing variables such as professional experience, vineyard size, information sources, and management practices, together with their willingness and expectations regarding technological tools. This organization facilitates the exploration of qualitative relationships between different dimensions of the winemaker’s profile and their attitudes toward innovation, without yet presenting quantitative results. Survey data in this work were collected in Microsoft Excel 2016, which was also used to generate tables and graphical information
Given the small sample size (n = 37), the analysis relied exclusively on descriptive statistics (frequencies, percentages, and graphs), without applying inferential tests.

3. Results

3.1. Findings from the Systematic Literature Review

The temporal analysis reveals a steady increase in publications on precision agriculture and perceptions since 2015, with a more pronounced rise from 2020 onwards (Figure 5). This pattern first highlights the form of the available evidence: a sustained upward trend, reaching a total of 133 records in 2025 compared to only 7 identified in 2015. Applying the inclusion criteria, the distribution of perceptions also shows a clear structure; studies with mixed results predominate, followed by positive assessments, while negative and neutral perceptions are relatively rare (expanded in Table 2). This configuration reflects a growing body of literature, yet it is still marked by ambivalences, where farmers acknowledge relevant benefits but maintain practical reservations. The simultaneous combination of favorable expectations and structural constraints explains the strong presence of mixed perceptions, which synthesize both the potential and the uncertainties inherent in the adoption of precision technologies.
When applying the inclusion criteria, the number of relevant articles also increased, although with greater year-to-year variation. This evolution indicates that while research output, in general, has expanded considerably, only a fraction directly addresses perceptions of precision agriculture, underscoring both the selectivity of the criteria and the persistence of a research gap. Based on the classification scheme, four categories of perception were identified: positive, negative, mixed, and neutral. As summarized in Table 2, the majority of studies reported mixed perceptions (51 articles), followed by positive perceptions (38). In contrast, negative (three articles) and neutral (five articles) perceptions were much less frequent. These results suggest that while farmers recognize potential benefits, they also express reservations and ambivalence, highlighting the complexity of adoption processes.
The analysis of farmers’ perceptions in the selected articles shows that, while agricultural technologies are broadly acknowledged for their potential to improve productivity and sustainability, their effective adoption is limited by structural, economic, and social constraints. The predominance of mixed perceptions suggests that farmers recognize potential benefits but remain cautious due to practical limitations and perceived risks. This indicates that acceptance depends not only on objective advantages but also on how innovations interact with local contexts. Key drivers of positive perceptions include access to training, technical support, economic incentives, and prior successful experiences with technology. In contrast, barriers such as high investment costs, technological complexity, inadequate infrastructure, and delayed economic returns contribute to negative or neutral perceptions, even if these are comparatively rare. Overall, the literature shows that although farmers recognize the potential benefits of precision technologies, their adoption is constrained by economic, training, and structural barriers, resulting in mixed perceptions that combine interest with caution.

3.2. Assessment of Technology Adoption and Perception in the PDO Wines of Granada

The general results of the case study show that technological adoption among the grape growers of the PDO Vinos de Granada remains very limited; only 3 out of the 37 respondents (≈8%) currently use any digital tool or precision agriculture system in their vineyards. However, future willingness to adopt technology is considerably higher, as 24 out of 37 participants (≈65%) expressed interest in incorporating a digital application or tool to support vineyard management in the future. These figures, shown in the subsequent, provide the interpretative framework for the detailed results presented below.

3.2.1. Socio-Demographic Profiles of the Sample and Land Characterization

The analysis of the 37 questionnaires provides a detailed overview of grape growers’ profiles and vineyard characteristics in the PDO Wines of Granada, reflecting the diversity and complexity of the sector in the province. As shown in Table 3, respondents have an average age of 62 years, revealing a predominantly older and experienced group, with a marked predominance of men. Their educational level is heterogeneous, ranging from no formal education to doctoral degrees, although the majority report a university degree or vocational training. This combination of accumulated experience and formal education suggests the coexistence of traditional viticultural knowledge with more academic and technical approaches.
On average, growers have 25 years of experience in viticulture, highlighting a high degree of specialization and continuity in cultivation practices. However, the economic role of vineyards is generally supplementary; only a minority of respondents identify viticulture as their main or exclusive source of income. This indicates that, while wine production is significant, most growers diversify their livelihoods, a pattern common in territories where viticulture coexists with other agricultural activities or complementary services.
The surveyed enterprises and vineyards showed wide variability in cultivated area, ranging from 0.01 ha to 25 ha. Nevertheless, the distribution shows a strong predominance of small-scale plots; more than half of the respondents own vineyards below the 1 ha threshold. Only a few holdings exceed 10 ha, representing outliers within the sample. This concentration of small vineyards underscores the family-based orientation of viticulture in Granada province, often managed as a complementary activity to household income or combined with other agricultural and territorial practices. Decision-making in vineyard management is primarily guided by economic factors, including profitability, investment capacity, and access to machinery and technical resources. At the same time, environmental considerations—such as soil erosion, water availability, and drought—also play a significant role. As summarized in Table 4, these economic and environmental dimensions coexist with broader structural concerns. Some vine growers adapt by cultivating vineyards at higher altitudes, where cooler temperatures and greater rainfall partially mitigate the climatic risks associated with the continent-wide Mediterranean conditions of the province. These sociodemographic profiles reflect a viticulture sector in the province of Granada characterized by accumulated experience and educational diversity, where vineyard management depends on both economic factors and environmental considerations.

3.2.2. Interaction Between Vineyard Size and Productive Orientation

The balance between economic and environmental priorities is closely linked to vineyard scale and production objectives. Small plots, which constitute the majority of the sample and are often not registered under the PDO Wines of Granada or other Protected Geographical Indications (PGIs), typically rely on practical, low-cost solutions. These vineyards are managed with a risk-minimization strategy, serving mainly as a complement to household income and frequently sharing resources with other crops or agricultural activities.
In contrast, as illustrated in Figure 6, larger vineyards and those certified under quality schemes exhibit a distinct profile. Within the sample, 16 growers belonged to the PDO Wines of Granada, and nearly 10 were also linked to a PGI, reflecting a stronger commitment to formal quality standards. Although this group represents a minority of growers in the region, it concentrates the highest economic and technical capacity, which positions it as a potential driver of innovation and technology adoption within the region.

3.2.3. Perceived Risks in Vineyard Management

The combination of structural (productive, economic, and environmental) factors produces a wide spectrum of management strategies across the province. While small-scale vineyards reinforce the image of traditional, multifunctional viticulture, the larger and certified holdings—although fewer—act as focal points of modernization and openness to innovation. Survey results on perceived risks, rated on a scale from 1 (very low importance) to 5 (very high importance), highlight clear differences among categories.
Environmental factors: Climate change emerges as the most critical risk, with 17 growers assigning the maximum score (5). Soil erosion is also relevant, with eight maximum scores and many intermediate responses, reflecting a significant though uneven concern for soil conservation. Productive factors: Yield remains a central priority, with 10 respondents assigning 5 and 6 assigning 4.
  • Human resources: Labor availability shows polarized perceptions. A total of 14 respondents rated it as unimportant (1), while 12 rated it high (4–5), indicating contrasting views on the need for qualified personnel.
  • Economic factors: Market prices also reveal polarization, with 14 respondents considering them unimportant (1), while 9 rated them as critical (5), with few intermediate responses.
Overall, growers give the highest priority to environmental and productive sustainability, particularly climate change and yield, while concerns about market dynamics and labor availability are more heterogeneous. Figure 7 illustrates these patterns using a horizontal stacked bar chart, where each bar represents a risk factor and each segment, the number of growers assigning each importance level.
Survey responses (Table 5) show that vineyard management is predominantly vine-focused, as 22 of the 37 respondents (59%) concentrate their practices primarily on the plant. A further 10 growers (27%) prioritize yield, reflecting an orientation toward maximizing production. In contrast, only five respondents (14%) adopt soil-focused practices, indicating that soil conservation receives less systematic attention. These results suggest that management strategies in the PDO Wines of Granada are largely directed toward optimizing vine performance and productivity, while soil conservation, although recognized by a minority, remains secondary within overall management priorities.
We conclude that the perception of environmental, productive, and economic risks varies according to farm profile and scale, shaping management strategies and willingness to adopt new technologies.

3.2.4. Technology Use and Desired Digital Tools

The current adoption of technological tools among grape growers is very limited; only 3 of the 37 respondents (8%) reported using them in their vineyards (Figure 8). In these cases, technology is applied to specific tasks such as automated irrigation systems or the monitoring of selected vineyard parameters. Despite this low uptake, there is clear potential for growth. Around 65% of respondents expressed willingness to use a dedicated digital application in the future to support vineyard management.
Among the 24 growers (35% out of the total) who declared such interest, the most valued characteristics were practicality, free access, and added informational value. In particular, 19 respondents (79%) emphasized the importance of obtaining additional data not available through direct observation, 17 (71%) highlighted the need for an easy and intuitive interface, and 12 (50%) pointed to the requirement that the tool should be free of cost. A smaller group (4 respondents, 17%) also valued the possibility of interacting with other growers through the application (Figure 9).
These results show that, while current adoption remains minimal, there is a latent demand for technological solutions that are simple, affordable, and complementary to growers’ expertise. Rather than sophisticated or complex systems, respondents prioritize tools that can provide accessible information and facilitate day-to-day vineyard management.
Finally, to explore potential drivers of adoption, a breakdown was performed by vineyard size and certification (PDO/PGI). Table 6 summarizes current adoption and future willingness according to these variables. It is observed that grape growers with larger vineyards (>5 ha) and/or PDO/PGI certification tend to adopt more technology and show greater future interest. In contrast, small vineyards (<1 ha) and those without certification exhibit low adoption and lower willingness, although there is still interest in digital tools.
These results suggest that vineyard size and PDO/PGI membership could act as drivers of technological adoption, likely due to the greater economic and technical capacity of these grape growers. While current adoption remains minimal, there is latent interest in digital solutions that are practical, accessible, and complementary to the grape growers’ experience, as reflected in Figure 8 and Figure 9.
These results show that although current technological adoption is minimal, there is latent interest in accessible and complementary digital tools, especially among vineyard owners with larger plots or PDO/PGI certification

4. Discussion

The analysis of the 97 articles included in the systematic review enabled the classification of perceptions of precision agriculture technologies, and most studies reported generally mixed perceptions, emphasizing the benefits of digital tools and sensors for efficiency, precision in resource management, and data-driven decision-making, not coinciding with some previous studies conducted at the regional scale [15,48]. Such technologies were also highlighted for their capacity to monitor environmental risks such as water variability, soil erosion, and climate change-related threats, thereby contributing to sustainability and resilience [49,50]. However, positive perception does not necessarily translate into adoption. Recurring barriers include high initial costs, technical complexity, insufficient training, incompatibility with traditional practices, and limited access to financial resources [51,52,53,54]. Even in technologically advanced regions, adoption remains uneven and strongly influenced by farm size, producer experience, familiarity with digital tools, and institutional support [55,56]. Regarding the evidence included in the systematic review, it should be noted that studies varied in methodology, sample size, and level of contextual detail. Additionally, only English-language publications were considered, which may have limited the representation of some regions or production systems. It should also be acknowledged that the review relied on a single database (Web of Science) and data extraction by a single reviewer, which may limit the completeness and reproducibility of the evidence synthesis.
When comparing these global findings with the case of Granada, a notable gap emerges. Only 3 of 37 surveyed growers reported using digital tools, representing less than 10% of the sample. This contrasts with the predominantly mixed perception described in the literature, highlighting a disconnect between expectations of technological benefits and their local adoption. Despite this low uptake, interest in accessible and intuitive solutions is evident; around 65% expressed willingness to use dedicated applications for vineyard management. Respondents emphasized ease of use, compatibility with traditional practices, and production of information that may complement direct observation; nearly 70% highlighted usability, about 50% valued additional information, and 30% sought interaction with other producers. These findings confirm that growers view technology primarily as a practical support rather than as a sophisticated replacement for existing practices.
Our comparison between international scientific evidence and the local case confirms clear points of convergence and divergence. The barriers most frequently identified in the literature—high costs, technical complexity, limited training, and the influence of farm size—were also reported by vine growers in Granada province, reflecting a shared perception pattern across regions. However, other barriers widely emphasized in global studies, such as digital connectivity issues or insufficient access to advisory services, appear less prominent in this context. On the other hand, structural constraints specific to Granada province, including extreme field fragmentation and marked altitudinal variability, amplify the gap between positive perceptions and current adoption. Making this correspondence explicit clarifies how international patterns are reproduced, adapted, or attenuated in the specific socio-environmental context of the PDO of wines of Granada.
This pattern highlights the importance of local trials and pilot programs to build trust, especially among those with lower levels of digital familiarity. In this regard, the province of Granada and the Regional Government of Andalusia offer potential instruments to facilitate the technological transition, such as Innovation Operational Groups (GO) co-funded by EAFRD; digitalization grants for the agri-food sector promoted by the Regional Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Water and Rural Development; or agricultural and viticultural experimental centers, such as IFAPA (Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research and Training), which could act as demonstration hubs.
In addition, there are already active European initiatives in the region that demonstrate a growing interest in agricultural innovation in real-world contexts, such as the SOILCRATES project (Soil Innovation Labs: CO-Regenerating and Transforming European Soils) or the HUMUS (Healthy Municipality Soil; “https://www.humus-project.eu/living-labs/ (accessed on 20 September 2025)” project funded by the European Union. These kinds of projects can promote the creation of “living labs” and “lighthouses”, collaborative experimentation and co-creation spaces where farmers, researchers, companies, and public administrations work together to generate, test, and adapt technological solutions under real field conditions. One of these living labs, called Granada Tierra Viva, is located in the province of Granada “https://soilcrates.eu/living-lab/granada-tierra-viva-spain/ (accessed on 20 September 2025)”, where 20 pilot projects are currently being developed to promote sustainable soil management, digitalization, and improved agricultural resilience.
The existence of such initiatives reinforces the idea that there is already a structural foundation and institutional interest in developing innovative projects in the study area, where viticulture represents a strategic sector. Therefore, it is recommended that local and regional policies strengthen coordination between universities, cooperatives, and public administrations to develop new pilot projects in digital viticulture, building upon the synergies and networks already established through European initiatives such as SOILCRATES. These actions would not only help reduce the technological gap but also allow the testing and validation of solutions in real production contexts, thereby enhancing the adoption and sustainability of innovation.
Adoption is also mediated by socioeconomic and structural factors such as vineyard size, consolidation, access to financing, prior training, and accumulated experience [57,58,59,60]. In Granada, larger and more established farms showed greater willingness to adopt innovations, while smaller and more traditional operations remained cautious, reflecting their limited economic and technical resources. This divergence highlights the need for differentiated strategies tailored to farm and producer profiles. Specifically, small vineyards could benefit from cost-free tools and peer-to-peer demonstration sessions, medium-sized farms within the PDO could be supported through subsidies and targeted training programs, and large or certified estates could engage in pilot programs using sensors and IoT technologies. These differentiated approaches should address perceived needs such as simplicity of use and provision of additional information. Another key element is the interaction between environmental risk perception and technological adoption. Although farmers recognize the impacts of climate change, soil erosion, and water scarcity, according to literature, these risks do not automatically trigger technological adoption unless accompanied by incentives, practical demonstrations, and institutional support [61,62,63]. This helps explain why, despite widespread awareness of environmental challenges, adoption remains limited in contexts such as Granada province.
Tools such as soil sensors, multispectral drones, and online geospatial platforms make it possible to monitor variations in moisture, nutrients, and meteorology, thereby supporting more specific agronomic decision-making [64,65].
The systematic review indicates that farmers recognize the benefits of precision agriculture but face recurring barriers such as high costs, technical complexity, lack of training, and farm size. In the case of Granada province, only a minority of vine growers currently use digital tools, although there is latent interest in adopting practical applications to support vineyard management. Differences between the global evidence and the local context can be explained by specific factors; farmers in Granada province deal with highly fragmented plots, marked altitudinal variability, and limited digital familiarity, while other global barriers, such as connectivity or access to advisory services, are less relevant. This disparity shows that adoption depends not only on perceived benefits but also on structural, economic, and technological conditions. Therefore, intervention programs should be designed considering these local factors. Practical demonstrations allow farmers to familiarize themselves with the tools without high risk. Subsidies and financial support can reduce initial investment barriers. Co-designing applications with users ensures that tools are intuitive, useful, and adapted to the real needs of the vineyard. Integrating these approaches helps bridge the gap between perception and actual adoption. Overall, these findings highlight the need for differentiated strategies that combine global evidence with adaptation to the local context [66,67,68].
A major strength of this study lies in its integrative design, which combines international evidence from 97 articles with local data from 37 grape growers in Granada province. This dual approach allows the identification of global trends while situating them within a specific context. By including socioeconomic, structural, and technological variables, the study provides a multidimensional framework that illustrates how factors such as farm size, experience, and resource access condition adoption.
Another strength is the practical applicability of the findings. Integrating the global literature with local perceptions generates insights for designing extension programs, training initiatives, and policy measures aimed at facilitating adoption [69,70]. Previous research confirms that training, technical assistance, perceived usefulness, and institutional support are decisive for adoption [71,72,73]. This highlights the importance of evaluating not only technological availability but also the readiness and willingness of producers to adopt innovations.
We recognize that our study presents several limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results. Firstly, the reduced sample (n = 37) limits the representativeness and generalizability of the findings to other big viticultural regions such as La Rioja or La Mancha. Our research is representative of areas characterized by agricultural crisis and increasing abandonment. Secondly, the use of self-reported data may have included some bias in some perceptions or attitudes, reflecting a more favorable assessment of technologies than objectively observed.
Finally, heterogeneity among respondents represents both a challenge and an opportunity. Not all farmers value technological benefits equally, which complicates generalization. At the same time, this diversity supports the design of differentiated strategies, segmented according to adoption profiles, resources, and motivations, to optimize the effectiveness of extension and training [74,75]. Future research should address the limited participation of women and younger growers in decision-making. Among other considerations, their greater involvement could enhance innovation and sustainability. Evaluating pilot programs for digital tools linked to the PDO—such as mobile apps, monitoring sensors, or interaction platforms—would provide evidence of their compatibility with traditional practices, especially if designed with gradual implementation and low-cost resources. Finally, further work is needed to analyze how growers perceive and manage environmental risks, and how technologies such as UAVs, sensors, and IoT can strengthen resilience and promote sustainable viticulture adapted to local conditions.
For future research, it would be valuable to conduct longitudinal studies that assess the adoption of digital technologies over time, considering social, economic, environmental, and agronomic factors year by year. In particular, gathering real data on yield, quality, and production variability and analyzing these together with environmental variables and vine growers’ perceptions would help to form a better understanding of how local conditions influence technological adoption. Additionally, it would be important to include estimates of annual variability and long-term climate trends, evaluating how climate change may affect viticulture and the effectiveness of precision technologies under different scenarios. Additionally, participatory methodologies and living labs could be explored to co-design tools adapted to local needs, assessing their effectiveness under real field conditions. Finally, it would be valuable to analyze the influence of training, gender, age, and the participation of young people in wine sector innovation, in order to design more inclusive and effective policies and support programs.

5. Conclusions

The gap between the potential of precision viticulture and its actual adoption in the Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) “Vinos de Granada” is evidenced by the limited use of digital tools, despite a clear interest among producers in intuitive and practice-oriented solutions. This study applied a dual methodological approach, combining a global systematic review (97 scientific articles) with local surveys conducted among 37 vine growers. The results reveal that only 10% of producers currently employ digital technologies, although 65% expressed a willingness to adopt them in the near future. Three main factors were identified as key determinants of adoption: economic cost, perceived usefulness, and the availability of training activities. Based on these findings, several policy measures can be proposed, including the development of cost-free online tools and peer-to-peer demonstration sessions, the provision of subsidies and targeted training programs, and the implementation of pilot projects in large or certified estates equipped with sensors and IoT technologies. Future research should incorporate longitudinal designs and participatory approaches—such as living labs—to assess the long-term dynamics of digital technology adoption. These efforts should integrate socioeconomic and environmental variables, together with empirical data on yield, grape quality, and production variability, in order to generate robust evidence on the effectiveness of specific interventions and inform adaptive, sustainable policy frameworks. Overall, these actions would contribute to narrowing the technological gap, enhancing adoption rates, and promoting sustainable innovation at the local scale.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/agriculture15232468/s1, Table S1: Summary of the 97 studies included in the Web of Science Core Collection review (2015–2025); Table S2: Questionnaire administered to vineyard managers of the DOP Vinos de Granada.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.S. and J.R.-C.; methodology, R.S.; formal analysis, J.G.-V. and E.R.-F. investigation, J.G.-V., R.S., E.R.-F. and J.R.-C.; data curation, R.S. writing—original draft preparation, J.G.-V., R.S., E.R.-F. and J.R.-C.; writing—review and editing, J.G.-V., R.S., E.R.-F. and J.R.-C., project administration, J.R.-C.; funding acquisition, J.R.-C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

We also acknowledge the support from projects granted by the University of Granada within the Plan Propio: (i) PP2022.EI-01, “Caracterizando la degradación ambiental en el viñedo granadino. Un enfoque multidisciplinar a largo plazo utilizando parcelas experimentales y muestreos poblacionales”; 1 (ii) PPJIA2022-58, “Caracterización hídrica del suelo en viñedos para la optimización de recursos agrícolas y ambientales”; and (iii) Proyectos Innovadores 2022–2025 de Grupos Operativos AEI-agri(Andalucía): “Creación de una herramienta DSS (Decision Support System) para el manejo sostenible del suelo en viticultura”. This research was also supported by the SOSVITI project—Sustainable Soil Management Decision Support System in Viticulture, funded under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Staff Exchanges action within Horizon Europe.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article/supplementary material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author(s).

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our gratitude to the owners of the PDO Wines of Granada, who spent time with the research team during the field research. During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used ChatGPT for the purposes of flow and grammar corrections. The authors have reviewed and edited the output and take full responsibility for the content of this publication.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Cisternas, I.; Velásquez, I.; Caro, A.; Rodríguez, A. Systematic literature review of implementations of precision agriculture. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2020, 176, 105626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Bhakta, I.; Phadikar, S.; Majumder, K. State-of-the-art technologies in precision agriculture: A systematic review. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2019, 99, 4878–4888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Zhang, S.; Wang, X.; Lin, H.; Qiang, Z. A review of the application of UAV multispectral remote sensing technology in precision agriculture. Smart Agric. Technol. 2025, 12, 101406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Shang, L.; Heckelei, T.; Gerullis, M.K.; Börner, J.; Rasch, S. Adoption and diffusion of digital farming technologies-integrating farm-level evidence and system interaction. Agric. Syst. 2021, 190, 103074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Rodrigo-Comino, J.; Keesstra, S.D.; Cerdà, A. Updating the scientific content of the modern geography of viticulture for human, physical and regional applied studies. Mediterr. Geosci. Rev. 2024, 6, 111–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Rejeb, A.; Rejeb, K.; Abdollahi, A.; Hassoun, A. Precision agriculture: A bibliometric analysis and research agenda. Smart Agric. Technol. 2024, 9, 100684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bonilla, I. Análisis y Manejo de la Variabilidad Intraparcelaria Del Viñedo en Relación Con la Calidad de la Uva y Del Vino. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad de La Rioja, La Rioja, Spain, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  8. Tamirat, T.W.; Pedersen, S.M.; Lind, K.M. Farm and operator characteristics affecting adoption of precision agriculture in Denmark and Germany. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. B Soil Plant Sci. 2018, 68, 349–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ortega, C.; Peraita Briceño, G. Innovación Tecnológica en el Sector Vitivinícola. 2006. Available online: https://repositorio.uchile.cl/bitstream/handle/2250/108411/ortega_c.pdf?sequence=3 (accessed on 25 August 2025).
  10. Blasch, J.; van der Kroon, B.; van Beukering, P.; Munster, R.; Fabiani, S.; Nino, P.; Vanino, S. Farmer preferences for adopting precision farming technologies: A case study from Italy. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2022, 49, 33–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Masi, M.; Di Pasquale, J.; Vecchio, Y.; Capitanio, F. Precision farming: Barriers of variable rate technology adoption in Italy. Land 2023, 12, 1084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Annosi, M.C.; Brunetta, F.; Monti, A.; Nati, F. Is the trend your friend? An analysis of technology 4.0 investment decisions in agricultural SMEs. Comput. Ind. 2019, 109, 59–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Dibbern, T.; Romani, L.A.S.; Massruhá, S.M.F.S. Main drivers and barriers to the adoption of Digital Agriculture technologies. Smart Agric. Technol. 2024, 8, 100459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Tran, D.; Schouteten, J.J.; Degieter, M.; Krupanek, J.; Jarosz, W.; Areta, A.; Emmi, L.; De Steur, H.; Gellynck, X. European stakeholders’ perspectives on implementation potential of precision weed control: The case of autonomous vehicles with laser treatment. Precis. Agric. 2023, 24, 2200–2222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Luque-Reyes, J.R.; Zidi, A.; Peña-Acevedo, A.; Gallardo-Cobos, R. Assessing Agri-Food Digitalization: Insights from Bibliometric and Survey Analysis in Andalusia. World 2025, 6, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Foguesatto, C.R.; Borges, J.A.R.; Machado, J.A.D. A review and some reflections on farmers’ adoption of sustainable agricultural practices worldwide. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 729, 138831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Yarashynskaya, A.; Prus, P. Precision Agriculture implementation factors and adoption potential: The case study of Polish agriculture. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Dessart, F.J.; Barreiro-Hurlé, J.; van Bavel, R. Behavioural factors affecting the adoption of sustainable farming practices: A policy-oriented review. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2019, 46, 417–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Thomas, R.J.; O’Hare, G.; Coyle, D. Understanding technology acceptance in smart agriculture: A systematic review of empirical research in crop production. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2023, 189, 122374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ruzzante, S.; Labarta, R.; Bilton, A. Adoption of agricultural technology in the developing world: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. World Dev. 2021, 146, 105599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Michailidis, A.; Charatsari, C.; Bournaris, T.; Loizou, E.; Paltaki, A.; Lazaridou, D.; Lioutas, E.D. A first view on the competencies and training needs of farmers working with and researchers working on precision agriculture technologies. Agriculture 2024, 14, 99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Nguyen, L.L.H.; Khuu, D.T.; Halibas, A.; Nguyen, T.Q. Factors that influence the intention of smallholder rice farmers to adopt cleaner production practices: An empirical study of precision agriculture adoption. Eval. Rev. 2024, 48, 692–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Lasanta Martínez, T.; Nadal-Romero, E.; Sáenz, R. El viñedo y el vino entre 1995 y 2019: Veinticinco años de cambios en la producción, mercado y consumo de vino en el mundo. Cuad. Investig. Geogr. Geogr. Res. Lett. 2023, 49, 211–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mejía Ayala, W.; Nodari, E.; Petrick, G.M.; Cerdá, J.M.; Rojas, F. Vitivinicultura en las Américas. In Perspectiva Geográfica; SPE: Richardson, TX, YSA, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  25. Rosúa-Campos, J.L.; Cortés-Heredia, B. Rutas Paisajísticas por el Viñedo de la Provincia de Granada; Editorial Universidad de Granada: Granada, Spain, 2016; 208p. [Google Scholar]
  26. Consejo Regulador DOP Vinos de Granada. (s.f.). Normativa y zonas de Producción. Available online: https://www.vinosdegranada.es (accessed on 7 September 2025).
  27. García-Escudero, E.; Martínez-Zapater, J.M. Evolución del Cultivo de la vid en España en los Últimos Cincuenta Años. 2022. Available online: https://digital.csic.es/bitstream/10261/306893/1/Evoluci%C3%B3n%20del%20cultivo%20de%20la%20vid%20en%20Espa%C3%B1a%20en%20los%20%C3%BAltimos%20cincuenta%20a%C3%B1os.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com (accessed on 27 August 2025).
  28. Rodríguez Fernández, M. Viticultura de Precisión Para la Caracterización y Gestión de Viñedos en un Contexto de Cambio Climático. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  29. Internacionales, A.F. La Relevancia Económica y Social del Sector Vitivinícola en España, 2023. Available online: https://interprofesionaldelvino.es/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Informe_relevancia_economica_y_social_del_sector_vitivinicola-_en-_Espana_2023_OIVE_vf.pdf (accessed on 2 September 2025).
  30. MAPA. Encuesta de Superficies y Rendimientos de Cultivos (ESYRCE). 2021. Available online: https://www.mapa.gob.es/es/estadistica/temas/estadisticas-agrarias/agricultura/esyrce/ (accessed on 30 December 2022).
  31. Pomarici, E.; Corsi, A.; Mazzarino, S.; Sardone, R. The Italian wine sector: Evolution, structure, competitiveness and future challenges of an enduring leader. Ital. Econ. J. 2021, 7, 259–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Couderc, J.P.; Marchini, A. Governance, commercial strategies and performances of wine cooperatives: An analysis of Italian and French wine producing regions. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2011, 23, 235–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, n71, 372. [Google Scholar]
  34. Delgado, M.; Sierra, C.; García Chicano, J.L. Influencia del Clima y Suelo en el Desarrollo del Olivar en la Provincia de Granada. 1972. Available online: https://digibug.ugr.es/handle/10481/81787 (accessed on 2 September 2025).
  35. Fraga, H.; Malheiro, A.C.; Moutinho-Pereira, J.; Cardoso, R.M.; Soares, P.M.M.; Cancela, J.J.; Pinto, J.G.; Santos, J.A. Integrated analysis of climate, soil, topography and vegetative growth in Iberian viticultural regions. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e108078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Orden de 21 de enero de 2009, Por la que se Aprueba el Reglamento del Vino de Calidad de «Granada» y de su Órgano de Gestión. Boletín Oficial de la Junta de Andalucía. Available online: https://www.juntadeandalucia.es/boja/2018/39/24 (accessed on 2 September 2025).
  37. Orden de 19 de febrero de 2018, por la que se Aprueba el Reglamento de Funcionamiento del Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Protegida «Granada». Boletín Oficial de la Junta de Andalucía. Available online: https://www.dopvinosdegranada.es/_files/ugd/bf7ccb_5e45683d68ae481eb74b09c54c0c1578.pdf (accessed on 2 September 2025).
  38. Pliego de Condiciones de la Denominación de Origen Protegida «Granada». Boletín Oficial de la Junta de Andalucía. Available online: https://www.dopvinosdegranada.es/_files/ugd/bf7ccb_168a9a0d0ca7482db924a913270f4fdb.pdf (accessed on 2 September 2025).
  39. Mansour, G.; Ghanem, C.; Mercenaro, L.; Nassif, N.; Hassoun, G.; Del Caro, A. Effects of altitude on the chemical composition of grapes and wine: A review. OENO One 2022, 56, 227–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Arias, L.A.; Berli, F.; Fontana, A.; Bottini, R.; Piccoli, P. Climate change effects on grapevine physiology and biochemistry: Benefits and challenges of high altitude as an adaptation strategy. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 835425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Pérez, C.R.; Molina, J.J.M.; de la Serrana, H.L.G. Relación entre las temperaturas máximas y los distintos parámetros de calidad en vinos. Ars Pharm. 2010, 51, 31–39. [Google Scholar]
  42. Ruiz, V.S.; Gómez-Miguel, V.; Tonietto, J.; Almorox, J. El Clima Vitícola de las Principales Regiones Productoras de uvas para vino en España. Clima, Zonificación y Tipicidad del vino en Regiones Vitivinícolas Iberoamericanas, 199. 2012. Available online: https://www.sidalc.net/search/Record/dig-alice-doc-928660/ (accessed on 10 September 2025).
  43. Datos Espaciales de Referencia de Andalucía (DERA). Instituto de Estadística y Cartografía de Andalucía. Datos climáticos de Andalucía [Conjunto de Datos]. 2006. Available online: https://www.juntadeandalucia.es/institutodeestadisticaycartografia/dega/datos-espaciales-de-referencia-de-andalucia-dera/descarga-de-informacion (accessed on 13 September 2025).
  44. Laget, F.; Tondut, J.-L.; Deloire, A.; Kelly, M.T. Climate trends in a specific Mediterranean viticultural area between 1950 and 2006. OENO One 2008, 42, 113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Cataldo, E.; Eichmeier, A.; Mattii, G.B. Effects of global warming on grapevine berries phenolic compounds—A review. Agronomy 2023, 13, 2192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Aguilar, J.; Martín, F.; Diez, M.; Sierra, M.; Fernández, J.; Sierra, C.; Ortega, E.; Oyonate, C. Mapa Digital de Suelos. Provincia de Granada. Dirección General para la Biodiversidad, Ministerio de Medio Ambiente. Madrid. 2006. Available online: https://www.miteco.gob.es/content/dam/miteco/es/biodiversidad/temas/desertificacion-restauracion/memoriamapasueloslucdemegranada_tcm30-512283.pdf (accessed on 16 September 2025).
  47. Olalla, M.; Ortega, E.; Villalón, M.; López, H.; López, M.C. Estudio de los factores naturales y humanos que definen y determinan la calidad de los vinos de la comarca granadina de la “Alpujarra-Contraviesa”. Ars Pharm. Int. 1997, 38, 333–344. [Google Scholar]
  48. Langer, G.; Kühl, S. Perception and acceptance of robots in dairy farming—A cluster analysis of German citizens. Agric. Hum. Values 2024, 41, 249–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Nath, S. A vision of precision agriculture: Balance between agricultural sustainability and environmental stewardship. Agron. J. 2024, 116, 1126–1143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. McCarthy, C.; Nyoni, Y.; Kachamba, D.J.; Banda, L.B.; Moyo, B.; Chisambi, C.; Banfill, J.; Hoshino, B. Can drones help smallholder farmers improve agriculture efficiencies and reduce food insecurity in Sub-Saharan Africa? Local perceptions from Malawi. Agriculture 2023, 13, 1075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Adnan, N.; Nordin, S.M.; Anwar, A. Transition pathways for Malaysian paddy farmers to sustainable agricultural practices: An integrated exhibiting tactics to adopt Green fertilizer. Land Use Policy 2020, 90, 104255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kountios, G.; Ragkos, A.; Bournaris, T.; Papadavid, G.; Michailidis, A. Educational needs and perceptions of the sustainability of precision agriculture: Survey evidence from Greece. Precis. Agric. 2018, 19, 537–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kudari, M.B.; Patil, S.L.; Nagaratna Biradar, N.B. Relationship between socio-economic characteristics of farmers and perceived attributes of precision farming. Int. J. Agric. Stat. Sci. 2017, 13, 145–148. [Google Scholar]
  54. Kudari, M.B.; Patil, S.L.; Nadagouda, B.T. Impact of precision farming practices on crop productivity and income of farmers and constraints faced by the farmers. Int. J. Agric. Stat. Sci. 2016, 12, 185–188. [Google Scholar]
  55. Li, J.; Zhang, X.; Wang, X. Study on the influence mechanism of adoption of smart farming technologies in China. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Shang, L.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, Y. Adoption and diffusion of digital farming technologies: A review. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2021, 190, 106396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Hörner, D.; Bouguen, A.; Frölich, M.; Wollni, M. Knowledge and adoption of complex agricultural technologies: Evidence from an extension experiment. World Bank Econ. Rev. 2022, 36, 68–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Suvittawat, A. Investigating farmers’ perceptions of drone technology in Thailand: Exploring expectations, product quality, perceived value, and adoption in agriculture. Agriculture 2024, 14, 2183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Masi, M.; De Rosa, M.; Vecchio, Y.; Bartoli, L.; Adinolfi, F. The long way to innovation adoption: Insights from precision agriculture. Agric. Food Econ. 2022, 10, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ullah, A.; Mahmood, N.; Zeb, A.; Kächele, H. Factors determining farmers’ access to and sources of credit: Evidence from the rain-fed zone of Pakistan. Agriculture 2020, 10, 586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Guo, Z.; Chen, X.; Zhang, Y. Impact of environmental regulation perception on farmers’ agricultural green production technology adoption: A new perspective of social capital. Technol. Soc. 2022, 71, 102085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Bhatnagar, S.; Chaudhary, R.; Sharma, S.; Janjhua, Y.; Thakur, P.; Sharma, P.; Keprate, A. Exploring the dynamics of climate-smart agricultural practices for sustainable resilience in a changing climate. Environ. Sustain. Indic. 2024, 24, 100535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Liu, M.; Liu, H. Farmers’ adoption of agriculture green production technologies: Perceived value or policy-driven? Heliyon 2024, 10, e23925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Retzlaff, R.; Molitor, D.; Behr, M.; Bossung, C.; Rock, G.; Hoffmann, L.; Evers, D.; Udelhoven, T. UAS-based multi-angular remote sensing of the effects of soil management strategies on grapevine. OENO One 2015, 49, 85–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Dorin, B.; Reynolds, A.G.; Lee, H.S.; Carrey, M.; Shemrock, A.; Shabanian, M. Detecting cool-climate Riesling vineyard variation using unmanned aerial vehicles and proximal sensors. Drone Syst. Appl. 2023, 12, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Kasimati, A.; Papadopoulos, G.; Manstretta, V.; Giannakopoulou, M.; Adamides, G.; Neocleous, D.; Vassiliou, V.; Savvides, S.; Stylianou, A. Case studies on sustainability-oriented innovations and smart farming technologies in the wine industry: A comparative analysis of pilots in Cyprus and Italy. Agronomy 2024, 14, 736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Gannon, K.E.; Conway, D.; Hardman, M.; Nesbitt, A.; Dorling, S.; Borchert, J. Adaptation to climate change in the UK wine sector. Clim. Risk Manag. 2023, 42, 100572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Boyer, J.; Touzard, J.M. To what extent do an innovation system and cleaner technological regime affect the decision-making process of climate change adaptation? Evidence from wine producers in three wine clusters in France. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 315, 128218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Lee, C.L.; Strong, R.; Dooley, K.E. Analyzing precision agriculture adoption across the globe: A systematic review of scholarship from 1999–2020. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Mozambani, C.I.; de Souza Filho, H.M.; Vinholis, M.D.M.B.; Carrer, M.J. Adoption of precision agriculture technologies by sugarcane farmers in the state of São Paulo, Brazil. Precis. Agric. 2023, 24, 1813–1835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Knierim, A.; Kernecker, M.; Erdle, K.; Kraus, T.; Borges, F.; Wurbs, A. Smart farming technology innovations—Insights and reflections from the German Smart-AKIS hub. NJAS Wageningen J. Life Sci. 2019, 90–91, 100314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Skevas, T.; Kalaitzandonakes, N. Farmer awareness, perceptions and adoption of unmanned aerial vehicles: Evidence from Missouri. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 2020, 23, 469–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Le Hoang Nguyen, L.; Halibas, A.; Quang Nguyen, T. Determinants of precision agriculture technology adoption in developing countries: A review. J. Crop. Improv. 2023, 37, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Peña-Holguín, R.R.; Vaca-Coronel, C.A.; Farías-Lema, R.M.; Zapatier-Castro, S.V.; Valenzuela-Cobos, J.D. Smart agriculture in Ecuador: Adoption of IoT technologies by farmers in Guayas to improve agricultural yields. Agriculture 2025, 15, 1679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Thompson, B.; Leduc, G.; Manevska-Tasevska, G.; Toma, L.; Hansson, H. Farmers’ adoption of ecological practices: A systematic literature map. J. Agric. Econ. 2024, 75, 84–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agriculture 15 02468 g001
Figure 1. Flow diagram of article selection based on PRISMA 2020 [33]. * Some articles were excluded for more than one reason, so the sum of the individual numbers exceeds the total of 510 excluded articles.
Figure 1. Flow diagram of article selection based on PRISMA 2020 [33]. * Some articles were excluded for more than one reason, so the sum of the individual numbers exceeds the total of 510 excluded articles.
Agriculture 15 02468 g001
Agriculture 15 02468 g002
Figure 2. Spatial distribution of the wineries of the PDO Wines of Granada.
Figure 2. Spatial distribution of the wineries of the PDO Wines of Granada.
Agriculture 15 02468 g002
Agriculture 15 02468 g003
Figure 3. Climatic maps of the province of Granada according to DERA: (A) climatic units; (B) precipitation; (C) temperatures [43].
Figure 3. Climatic maps of the province of Granada according to DERA: (A) climatic units; (B) precipitation; (C) temperatures [43].
Agriculture 15 02468 g003
Agriculture 15 02468 g004
Figure 4. Spatial distribution of soils and relief in Granada: (A) soil map; (B) Digital Terrain Model (DTM).
Figure 4. Spatial distribution of soils and relief in Granada: (A) soil map; (B) Digital Terrain Model (DTM).
Agriculture 15 02468 g004
Agriculture 15 02468 g005
Figure 5. Annual distribution of publications according to total articles (blue) and those selected based on the established criteria (red) for the period 2015–2025.
Figure 5. Annual distribution of publications according to total articles (blue) and those selected based on the established criteria (red) for the period 2015–2025.
Agriculture 15 02468 g005
Agriculture 15 02468 g006
Figure 6. Vineyards certified under quality labels by vineyard size: (A) PDO (Protected Designation of Origin); (B) PGI (Protected Geographical Indications).
Figure 6. Vineyards certified under quality labels by vineyard size: (A) PDO (Protected Designation of Origin); (B) PGI (Protected Geographical Indications).
Agriculture 15 02468 g006
Agriculture 15 02468 g007
Figure 7. Distribution of risk ratings by grape growers according to number of responses (1 = lowest concern; 5 = greatest concern).
Figure 7. Distribution of risk ratings by grape growers according to number of responses (1 = lowest concern; 5 = greatest concern).
Agriculture 15 02468 g007
Agriculture 15 02468 g008
Figure 8. Technological adoption and interest in digital tools: (A) current use of technology by vineyard owners; (B) favorable or unfavorable disposition toward using an app in the future.
Figure 8. Technological adoption and interest in digital tools: (A) current use of technology by vineyard owners; (B) favorable or unfavorable disposition toward using an app in the future.
Agriculture 15 02468 g008
Agriculture 15 02468 g009
Figure 9. Most requested features in a vineyard management app.
Figure 9. Most requested features in a vineyard management app.
Agriculture 15 02468 g009
Table 1. Thematic blocks and variables included in the questionnaire * administered to the wineries.
Table 1. Thematic blocks and variables included in the questionnaire * administered to the wineries.
Thematic BlockIncluded VariablesAssociated Construct
Surveyed ProfileAge, gender, educational level, years of experience in viticulture, sources of incomeControl/Context Variables
Vineyard CharacteristicsGeographic location, cultivated area (ha), yield, PDO (Protected Designation of Origin)/PGI (Protected Geographical Indication) membershipStructural Variables
Decision-Making Influencing FactorsEnvironmental factors, production profitability, labor availability, soil erosion, investment, subsidiesAdoption Determinants
Risk Assessment and PerceptionsDegree of concern about climate change, erosion, labor availability, yield, pricePerception → perceived usefulness/urgency
Soil Management PrioritiesProduction, plant health, soil healthPerception → priorities and trade-offs
Current TechnologiesUse of technological tools (yes/no), adoption of ability to use them (yes/no)Adoption → current use
Future WillingnessInterest in implementing new tools and desired features in applicationsAdoption → intention to adopt
* The full questionnaire is provided in Supplementary Materials, Table S2.
Table 2. Distribution of perceptions toward the use of technologies in agriculture according to the selected articles (n = 97). * Note: Type of perception (positive, negative, neutral, and mixed) were identified from the results and conclusions sections of every analyzed paper.
Table 2. Distribution of perceptions toward the use of technologies in agriculture according to the selected articles (n = 97). * Note: Type of perception (positive, negative, neutral, and mixed) were identified from the results and conclusions sections of every analyzed paper.
Type of PerceptionNumber of ArticlesMain Identified Reasons
Positive38Acceptance and satisfaction due to improvements in productivity, cost reduction, input optimization, and environmental benefits. Technology is perceived as useful and economically viable, especially when accompanied by training or incentives.
Negative3Rejection arising from high costs, regulatory barriers, lack of training, or perception of technological complexity. In some cases, it is associated with frustration over the lack of immediate results or distrust toward new tools.
Neutral5Indeterminate opinions or absence of explicit evaluation of the technology. Observed when articles do not directly measure perception, or when farmers lack sufficient experience to make a clear judgment.
Mixed51Coexistence of positive and negative aspects in technology adoption. Perceived usefulness and environmental benefits are highlighted, but difficulties related to costs, lack of training, infrastructure limitations, or risk of technological dependence are also noted. The diversity of productive and socioeconomic contexts explains the prevalence of this category.
Table 3. Profile of the surveyed grape growers (n = 37).
Table 3. Profile of the surveyed grape growers (n = 37).
VariableSummary Description
AgeMean: 62 years; range: 36–87 years
GenderMale: 27 (73%); Female: 10 (27%)
Educational levelNo studies: 6 (16%)
Primary: 6 (16%)
Secondary: 8 (22%)
Vocational Training: 3 (8%)
University degree: 12 (32%)
Master/Doctorate: 2 (5%)
Viticulture experienceMean: 25 years; range: 5–50 years
Economic dependence on vineyardVineyard as main economic source: 3 (8%)
Vineyard as supplementary economic source: 34 (92%)
Table 4. Factors influencing decision-making in soil management strategies (n = 37).
Table 4. Factors influencing decision-making in soil management strategies (n = 37).
Factor CategoryVariables IncludedPerceived Importance *Interpretative Comment
EconomicProduction profitability, initial investment, availability of machinery, and technical resourcesHighThese are the most determining criteria; they highlight economic viability and conditions for the capacity for innovation.
EnvironmentalSoil erosion, water availability, droughtMedium–HighHighly influential factors in high-altitude areas and vulnerable plots; they reflect a growing environmental concern
Productive/structuralVineyard scale, membership in PDO, diversification with other cropsVariableThey condition management strategy; small vineyards tend to prioritize low-cost solutions.
* Qualitative scale of perceived importance of economic, environmental, and productive factors derived from the surveys.
Table 5. Priority of attention in soil management according to grape growers (n = 37).
Table 5. Priority of attention in soil management according to grape growers (n = 37).
Area of FocusNumber of Responses *Percentage (%)
Production1027
Plant (vineyard)2259
Soil514
* Note: The percentage was calculated based on the total of 37 responses.
Table 6. Current use and future willingness to use digital tools by vineyard size and certification (PDO/PGI).
Table 6. Current use and future willingness to use digital tools by vineyard size and certification (PDO/PGI).
Vineyard SizeCertification (PDO/PGI)Current Use of TechnologyFuture Willingness to Use App
<1 ha
(Total = 20)		None(0/17)(9/17)
PDO or PGI(0/3)(2/3)
1–5 haNone(0/3)(2/3)
(Total = 11)PDO or PGI(0/8)(6/8)
5–10 haNone--
(Total = 2)PDO or PGI(1/2)(2/2)
>10 haNone--
(Total = 4)PDO or PGI(2/4)(3/4)
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

González-Vivar, J.; Sobczyk, R.; Romero-Frías, E.; Rodrigo-Comino, J. Adoption and Perception of Precision Technologies in Agriculture: Systematic Review and Case Study in the PDO Wines of Granada, Southern Spain. Agriculture 2025, 15, 2468. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15232468

AMA Style

González-Vivar J, Sobczyk R, Romero-Frías E, Rodrigo-Comino J. Adoption and Perception of Precision Technologies in Agriculture: Systematic Review and Case Study in the PDO Wines of Granada, Southern Spain. Agriculture. 2025; 15(23):2468. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15232468

Chicago/Turabian Style

González-Vivar, Jesús, Rita Sobczyk, Esteban Romero-Frías, and Jesús Rodrigo-Comino. 2025. "Adoption and Perception of Precision Technologies in Agriculture: Systematic Review and Case Study in the PDO Wines of Granada, Southern Spain" Agriculture 15, no. 23: 2468. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15232468

APA Style

González-Vivar, J., Sobczyk, R., Romero-Frías, E., & Rodrigo-Comino, J. (2025). Adoption and Perception of Precision Technologies in Agriculture: Systematic Review and Case Study in the PDO Wines of Granada, Southern Spain. Agriculture, 15(23), 2468. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15232468

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop