All Issue

2026 Vol.6, Issue 3 Preview Page

Research Article

Analysis of differences in the perceived importance of sustainable agriculture evaluation factors according to smart agriculture expert types

스마트농업 전문가 유형에 따른 지속가능농업 평가요인의 중요도 인식 차이 분석

San-ho Kim1
,
Min-sun Kim2
,
Gun-il Bae3
,
Jong-hwan Lee4*
김 산호1
,
김 민선2
,
배 건일3
,
이 종환4*
1Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Consulting, Graduate School, Kumoh National Institute of Technology, Gumi, 39177, Republic of Korea
2Deputy General Manager, Business Development Team 1, Data Intelligence SC, KT Corporation, Seoul, 03154, Republic of Korea
3Ph.D., Department of Consulting, Kumoh National Institute of Technology, Gumi, 39177, Republic of Korea
4Professor, Department of Industrial Engineering, School of Big Data & Industrial Engineering, Kumoh National Institute of Technology, Gumi, 39177, Republic of Korea
1국립금오공과대학교 컨설팅학과 박사과정
2KT Data Intelligence 사업분과 사업개발1팀 차장
3국립금오공과대학교 컨설팅학과 박사
4국립금오공과대학교 산업·빅데이터공학부 교수
*Corresponding Author
30 September 2026. pp. 95-109
PDF XML Citation
Abstract

Purpose: This study analyzed differences in the perceived importance of sustainable agriculture evaluation factors according to the occupational positions and fields of expertise of smart agriculture experts, to support the development of an integrated evaluation framework. Methods: Survey data were collected from 254 experts and agricultural stakeholders. The evaluation framework comprised six upper-level factors and 24 sub-indicators. Respondents were classified by occupational position and field of expertise. Group differences were examined using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), followed by Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) test. Effect sizes were assessed using eta squared (η²). Results: Occupational position had little influence on the perceived importance of the upper-level factors, with a significant difference observed only for governance factors (p<0.05). In contrast, field of expertise significantly affected five of the six upper-level factors (p<0.001). Environmental sustainability showed the largest effect size (η²=0.209), followed by governance (η²=0.171), social sustainability (η²=0.154), and technological sustainability (η²=0.141). Among the 24 sub-indicators, 20 showed significant differences by field of expertise. Carbon emission reduction (η²=0.168), pesticide use reduction (η²=0.155), and agricultural data platform establishment (η²=0.141) exhibited the largest effect sizes. Conclusions: Perceived importance differed more by field of expertise than by occupational position. These findings support multidisciplinary approaches to sustainable agriculture evaluation.

Keywords
Smart Agriculture
Sustainable Agriculture
Expert Type
ANOVA
Effect Size
References
1

Balafoutis, A. T., Beck, B., Fountas, S., Tsiropoulos, Z., Vangeyte, J., van der Wal, T., Soto, I., Gómez-Barbero, M., Barnes, A., & Eory, V. (2017). Precision Agriculture Technologies Positively Contributing to GHG Emissions Mitigation, Farm Productivity and Economics. Sustainability, 9(8), 1339. doi: 10.3390/su9081339

10.3390/su9081339
2

Bongiovanni, R., & Lowenberg-DeBoer, J. (2004). Precision Agriculture and Sustainability. Precision Agriculture, 5(4), 359-387. doi: 10.1023/B:PRAG.0000040806.39604.aa

10.1023/B:PRAG.0000040806.39604.aa
3

Burgman, M. A., McBride, M., Ashton, R., Speirs-Bridge, A., Flander, L., Wintle, B., Fidler, F., Rumpff, L., Twardy, C. (2011). Expert status and performance. PLoS ONE, 6(7), e22998.

10.1371/journal.pone.002299821829574PMC3146531
4

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

5

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). (2013). Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture Systems: Guidelines Version 3.0. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

6

Kim, C. G., & Moon, D. H. (2012). Policy Priority of Green Growth in Agriculture and Rural Sectors Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Journal of Rural Development, 35(5), 45-64. [in Korean]

10.36464/JRD.2012.35.5.003
7

Kim, K. M., & Lee, S. Y. (2015). A Comparative Analysis on National Greenhouse Gas Reduction Implementation Strategies Using AHP and ANP. Journal of Environmental Policy, 14(1), 33-52. doi: 10.17330/joep.14.1.201503.33. [in Korean]

10.17330/joep.14.1.201503.33
8

Klerkx, L., Jakku, E., & Labarthe, P. (2019). A review of social science on digital agriculture, smart farming and Agriculture 4.0: New contributions and a future research agenda. NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 90-91, 100315.

10.1016/j.njas.2019.100315
9

Liakos, K. G., Busato, P., Moshou, D., Pearson, S., & Bochtis, D. (2018). Machine learning in agriculture: A review. Sensors, 18(8), 2674.

10.3390/s1808267430110960PMC6111295
10

Martin, T. G., Burgman, M. A., Fidler, F., Kuhnert, P. M., Low-Choy, S., McBride, M., & Mengersen, K. (2012). Eliciting expert knowledge in conservation science. Conservation Biology. 26(1), 29-38.

10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01806.x
11

Morgan, M. G. (2014). Use (and abuse) of expert elicitation in support of decision making for public policy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(20), 7176-7184.

10.1073/pnas.131994611124821779PMC4034232
12

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2008). Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries Since 1990. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France.

13

Pretty, J. (2008). Agricultural sustainability: Concepts, principles and evidence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 363(1491), 447-465.

10.1098/rstb.2007.216317652074PMC2610163
14

Son, M. H., Lee, S. B., Lee, G. S., & Kim, T. Y. (2019). A Study on the Proposal of the Customized Package through the Priority Analysis of Agricultural Environment Conservation Practices. Journal of Agriculture & Life Science, 53(5), 153-165. doi: 10.14397/jals.2019.53.5.153. [in Korean]

10.14397/jals.2019.53.5.153
15

Walter, A., Finger, R., Huber, R., & Buchmann, N. (2017). Smart farming is key to developing sustainable agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(24), 6148-6150.

10.1073/pnas.170746211428611194PMC5474773
16

Wolfert, S., Ge, L., Verdouw, C., & Bogaardt, M.-J. (2017). Big data in smart farming: A review. Agricultural Systems, 153, 69-80.

10.1016/j.agsy.2017.01.023
Information
  • Publisher :The Korean Society for Agricultural Machinery
  • Publisher(Ko) :한국농업기계학회
  • Journal Title :Journal of Agricultural Machinery Engineering
  • Journal Title(Ko) :농업기계공학
  • Volume : 6
  • No :3
  • Pages :95-109
  • Received Date : 2026-07-20
  • Revised Date : 2026-07-30
  • Accepted Date : 2026-08-03
  • DOI :https://doi.org/10.12972/jame.2026.6.3.3
Journal Informaiton Journal of Agricultural Machinery Engineering Journal of Agricultural Machinery Engineering
Online Submission
  • NRF
  • KOFST
  • KISTI Current Status
  • KISTI Cited-by
  • crosscheck
  • orcid
  • open access
  • ccl
Journal Informaiton Journal Informaiton - close