sustainability

Review
Towards Sustainable Digital Agriculture for Smallholder
Farmers: A Systematic Literature Review
Nametshego Gumbi , Lucas Gumbi * and Hossana Twinomurinzi *

Centre for Applied Data Science, University of Johannesburg, Auckland Park,

P.O. Box 524, Johannesburg 2006, South Africa; nametshego.m@[Link]
* Correspondence: lnhlanhla@[Link] (L.G.); hossanat@[Link] (H.T.); Tel.: +27-64-521-8527 (H.T.)

Abstract: Smallholder farmers are key contributors to food security globally, and more so in develop-
ing countries. Despite their critical role in food security, smallholder farmers are highly constrained
by specific contextual challenges such as climate change, productivity, cost of production, credit
access, and financial resources constraints that impact their sustenance, sustainability, and growth.
Digital agriculture has emerged as a viable solution to addressing smallholder farmers’ contextual
challenges, with many digital solutions already existing and developed to serve the agriculture
sector. However, many smallholder farmers are beyond the reach of these digital solutions due
to underdeveloped or nonexistent digital ecosystems. This paper reports on a systematic review
conducted to examine the research that has been undertaken regarding digital agriculture ecosystems
in relation to smallholder farmers and to identify challenges, usage, benefits, access, and uptake
of the systems. The key findings reveal very limited research directed at digital literacy or skills,
affordability, and business model innovation. Most of the challenges concern digital infrastructure,
affordability, and digital literacy or skills. The findings also reveal that although digital agriculture is
still a nascent concept to smallholder farmers, there are a few early adopters who access information
mainly related to agriculture, selling, and marketing. There is, nonetheless, a lack of understanding
of the value of digital agriculture systems. The study develops a research agenda that could facilitate
digital transformation for smallholder farmers.

Keywords: digital agriculture; digital platforms; digital literacy; digital skills; 4IR; affordability;
Citation: Gumbi, N.; Gumbi, L.;
smallholder farmers; systematic literature review
Twinomurinzi, H. Towards
Sustainable Digital Agriculture for
Smallholder Farmers: A Systematic
Literature Review. Sustainability 2023,
15, 12530. [Link]
1. Introduction
su151612530 The agriculture sector plays a key role in socioeconomic development globally. The
sector is critical for ensuring food security as well as eliminating poverty (Sustainable
Academic Editor: Rajan Ghimire
Development Goal 1) and hunger (Sustainable Development Goal 2) [1,2]. The sector also
Received: 18 April 2023 plays an important role in improving employment, income, and standards of living for the
Revised: 24 July 2023 poor [1,2].
Accepted: 9 August 2023 Food security has been identified as a high priority in the developing regions of the
Published: 18 August 2023 world. Population growth coupled with the increased intensity of environmental events
such as floods and droughts, along with higher food prices and income inequalities, often
pose a threat to food access and availability for poor households in the developing regions
of the world [2].
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Smallholder farmers in developing countries play a critical role worldwide in ensur-
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
ing food security [3,4]. While there is no standard or universally accepted definition of
This article is an open access article
smallholder farmers, they are characterized as those farmers that cultivate small areas of
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
land (usually less than 10 ha and often less than 2 ha), use family labor, and depend on
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
their farms as their main source of both food security and income generation [5]. There
[Link]/licenses/by/ are approximately 500 million smallholder farmers globally who provide an estimated
4.0/). 70–80% of the food produced in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa [3,4]. This makes smallholder

Sustainability 2023, 15, 12530. [Link] [Link]

Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 20

Sustainability 2023, 15, 12530 2 of 20

70–80% of the food produced in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa [3,4]. This makes small-
holder farmers critically important and indispensable for food security in sub-Saharan
Africa and developing countries in general.
farmers critically important
Agriculture and indispensable
is an important for foodinsecurity
asset for livelihood in sub-Saharan
poor rural communities Africa and
in devel-
developing countries in general.
oping and low-income countries [6–8]. Smallholder farmers in developing and low-in-
comeAgriculture
countries are is an
theimportant asset for
primary source of livelihood
food security, in poor rural employment,
income, communities in develop-
poverty al-
ing and low-income countries [6–8]. Smallholder farmers in developing
leviation, and the improvement of livelihoods in rural areas. However, smallholder farm- and low-income
countries are the primary
ers in developing source of food
and low-income security,
countries income,constrained
are highly employment, by poverty
specific alleviation,
contextual
and the improvement of livelihoods in rural areas. However,
challenges such as climate change, credit access, failures of agricultural smallholder farmers in devel-
policies, con-
oping
straintsand low-income
of food countries are
safety standards, poorhighly constrained
infrastructure andbybusiness
specificenvironments,
contextual challenges
histori-
such as climate change,
cal background, geographiccredit access, failures
location, unbalanced of agricultural policies,deficiency
land distribution, constraints ofof food
appro-
safety standards, poor infrastructure and business environments,
priate skills and manpower, and the cost of telecommunication and Internet accessibility historical background,
geographic
[9–11]. location, unbalanced land distribution, deficiency of appropriate skills and
manpower, and the cost of
Digital agriculture, telecommunication
sometimes referred to and Internet
as smart accessibility
agriculture, smart[9–11].
farming, preci-
sion agriculture, or agriculture 4.0, has been identified as a viable solutionfarming,
Digital agriculture, sometimes referred to as smart agriculture, smart preci-
to addressing
sion agriculture, or agriculture 4.0, has been identified as a viable
smallholder farmers’ issues [12]. An example is the AgroTech Smartex Digital Platform solution to addressing
smallholder
designed andfarmers’
implementedissues by[12].
theAn example
Grameen is the AgroTech
Foundation Smartex
and partners Digital
with the aimPlatform
of im-
designed and implemented by the Grameen Foundation and
proving farm business productivity and profitability [12]. However, digital agriculturepartners with the aim of
improving farm business productivity and profitability [12]. However, digital agriculture
ecosystems are much more developed in urban areas compared with rural areas [13].
ecosystems are much more developed in urban areas compared with rural areas [13].
Many digital solutions developed to serve the agriculture sector already exist [14,15].
Many digital solutions developed to serve the agriculture sector already exist [14,15].
However, many smallholder farmers are beyond the reach of these digital solutions due
However, many smallholder farmers are beyond the reach of these digital solutions due to
to underdeveloped or nonexistent digital ecosystems [13]. Some of the challenges that
underdeveloped or nonexistent digital ecosystems [13]. Some of the challenges that make
make these digital solutions unsuitable for smallholder farmers’ contexts are the costs of
these digital solutions unsuitable for smallholder farmers’ contexts are the costs of service
service (affordability and lack of business model innovation), digital skills and digital lit-
(affordability and lack of business model innovation), digital skills and digital literacy
eracy gaps (impacting the use of digital platforms), a lack of digital technologies (4IR)
gaps (impacting the use of digital platforms), a lack of digital technologies (4IR) including
including smart devices, and digital infrastructure such as connectivity and mobile net-
smart devices, and digital infrastructure such as connectivity and mobile networking
working infrastructure for the Internet and broadband connectivity. Figure 1 depicts some
infrastructure for the Internet and broadband connectivity. Figure 1 depicts some of
of the
the elements
elements of of a digital
a digital agricultureecosystem:
agriculture ecosystem:namely,namely,the thedigital
digitalplatform
platform to to access
access
agriculture information, markets, finance, agri-inputs, supply chain
agriculture information, markets, finance, agri-inputs, supply chain management, advisory management, advi-
sory services, and business intelligence; business model innovation;
services, and business intelligence; business model innovation; digital literacy or skills; digital literacy or
skills; digital
digital infrastructure;
infrastructure; 4IR (artificial
4IR (artificial intelligence
intelligence (AI),big
(AI), cloud, cloud, big
data, thedata, the Internet
Internet of Things of
Things (IoT), and smart and remote sensors);
(IoT), and smart and remote sensors); and affordability. and affordability.

Figure 1. Digital agriculture ecosystem.

The aim of this paper was to investigate how digital agriculture ecosystems have been
researched regarding smallholder farmers. The investigation was carried out through a
 The aim of this paper was to investigate how digital agriculture ecosystems have
been researched regarding smallholder farmers. The investigation was carried out
through a systematic literature review (SLR) and covered the research performed from
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12530 2017 to 2022. The SLR sought to find answers to the following research questions (RQs):
3 of 20

RQ1. What research has been undertaken in relation to digital ecosystems for smallholder
farmers?
systematic literature review (SLR) and covered the research performed from 2017 to 2022.
The SLR sought to find answers to the following research questions (RQs):
RQ2. What are the challenges of digital agriculture ecosystems in relation to smallholder
RQ1. What research has been undertaken in relation to digital ecosystems for small-
farmers?
holder farmers?
RQ3.
RQ2. How
Whatareare
smallholder farmers
the challenges of using
digitaldigital solutions
agriculture in their businesses?
ecosystems in relation to small-
holder farmers?
RQ4. What are the factors that influence the uptake of digital solutions by smallholder
RQ3. How are smallholder farmers using digital solutions in their businesses?
farmers?
RQ4. What are the factors that influence the uptake of digital solutions by smallholder farmers?
RQ5. What are the benefits of digital solutions for smallholder farmers?
RQ5. What are the benefits of digital solutions for smallholder farmers?
RQ6.
RQ6. What
What is
is the
the level
levelof
ofaccess
accessto
toand
anduptake
uptakeof
ofdigital
digitalsolutions
solutionsbybysmallholder
smallholder farmers?
farmers?

2. Methodology
2. Methodology
To establish a structured approach and a guiding framework for the analysis of the
To establish a structured approach and a guiding framework for the analysis of the
research, the study followed Amui et al.’s (2017) [16] systematic review protocol shown in
research, the study followed Amui et al.’s (2017) [16] systematic review protocol shown in
Figure 2. The protocol is similar to that proposed by Lage Junior and Godinho Filho [17].
Figure 2. The protocol is similar to that proposed by Lage Junior and Godinho Filho [17].

Figure
Figure 2.
2. A
A systematic
systematic review
review protocol
protocol for
for the
the study.
study.

2.1. Identification
2.1. Identification of
of the
the Research
Research Articles
Articles
The first steps were (1) theconstruction
The first steps were (1) the constructionofofthe search
the terms,
search (2)(2)
terms, thethe
identification of the
identification of
relevant
the datadata
relevant sources, and (3)
sources, andthe(3)
application of inclusion
the application and exclusion
of inclusion criteria ascriteria
and exclusion indicated
as
in Figure 2.
indicated in Figure 2.
2.1.1. Construction of the Search Terms
2.1.1. Construction of the Search Terms
The search terms were derived from the unit of analysis (smallholder farmers) and
The search terms were derived from the unit of analysis (smallholder farmers) and
technology artifact (digital agriculture ecosystem). The search strings were constructed
technology artifact (digital agriculture ecosystem). The search strings were constructed
using the identified unit of analysis (smallholder farmers) and technology artifact (digital
using the identified unit of analysis (smallholder farmers) and technology artifact (digital
agriculture ecosystem). The dimensions (factors) of interest (challenges, access to, uptake,
agriculture ecosystem). The dimensions (factors) of interest (challenges, access to, uptake,
factors, use, and benefits) emerged from the SLR guided by the research questions (RQ1 to
RQ6). The full details of the constructed search strings that were used to identify suitable
research articles are presented in Appendix A.

2.1.2. Identification of the Data Sources

The study falls under the interdisciplinary field of information systems (IS) and
therefore used the following multidisciplinary databases as the data sources: Web of
 factors, use, and benefits) emerged from the SLR guided by the research questions (RQ1
to RQ6). The full details of the constructed search strings that were used to identify suita-
ble research articles are presented in Appendix A.

Sustainability 2023, 15, 12530 2.1.2. Identification of the Data Sources 4 of 20

The study falls under the interdisciplinary field of information systems (IS) and there-
fore used the following multidisciplinary databases as the data sources: Web of Science,
Science,
AcademicAcademic Search Premier,
Search Premier, ScienceScience Direct,
Direct, and and Google
Google [Link]. These databases
These databases are con-are
consistently utilized
sistently utilized by by many
many peer-reviewed
peer-reviewed SLRSLR studies
studies [18–26].
[18–26].

2.1.3.
[Link]
Inclusionand and Exclusion Criteria
Exclusion Criteria
After
Afterusing
usingthe thesame
same constructed search searchterms
termsforforall
alldatabases,
databases, a total
a total of of 4837
4837 articles
articles
were identified (Figure
were identified (Figure 3). 3). The first stage of the selection process involved the selection of of
stage of the selection process involved the selection
papers
papersbased
basedon onthetherelevancy
relevancyofofthe thetitle,
title,abstract,
abstract, and
and keywords. resulted in
keywords. This resulted in aa total
total of
173
of articles. Thus,Thus,
173 articles. in theinfirst
thestage of sorting,
first stage 4664 articles
of sorting, were excluded
4664 articles from the
were excluded identified
from the
identified
articles. Thearticles.
secondThe second
stage of thestage of the selection
selection process was process
basedwasonbased on the following
the following inclusion
inclusion
criteria: to criteria:
includeto includeor
journals journals or conference
conference articles
articles that that mentioned
mentioned the specific
the specific terms for
terms
the unitforof the unit ofand
analysis analysis and technology
technology artifact (Appendix
artifact (Appendix A) andA) theand the dimensions
dimensions of
of interest
interest
within within
their their content
content or title;orwere
title; written
were written
in thein English
the English language;
language; werewereacademically
academi-
cally peer-reviewed;
peer-reviewed; were published
were published in a six-year
in a six-year period
period (2017 (2017 to 2022);
to 2022); werewere focused
focused at at a
a firm
firm level and not at an individual level; and were also focused
level and not at an individual level; and were also focused on the agriculture sector oron the agriculture sector
or industries.
industries. In the
In the second
second sorting,after
sorting, afterremoving
removing duplicates
duplicatesinineacheachdatabase
database separately
separately
using the title and abstract, a total of six articles were further excluded
using the title and abstract, a total of six articles were further excluded from the from the identified
identified
articles.
articles.

[Link]
Figure schematicrepresentation
representation of
of the
the inclusion
inclusionand
andexclusion
exclusionprocess.
process.

InInthe
thethird
thirditeration,
iteration, exclusion
exclusion criteria
criteriawere
wereused
usedtotoexclude
exclude articles that
articles failed
that thethe
failed
eligibility test because they mentioned only some of the specific search terms but
eligibility test because they mentioned only some of the specific search terms but did not did not
solelyfocus
solely focusononthe
the research
research topic,
topic, digital
digital ecosystems,
ecosystems,nornordid
didthey
theyfocus
focusonon
agriculture
agriculture
digitalecosystems;
digital ecosystems; were
were practitioner-based
practitioner-based andand
notnot based
based on scientific
on any any scientific research
research method;
method; and did not focus on smallholder farmers but merely mentioned
and did not focus on smallholder farmers but merely mentioned smallholder farmers. In smallholder
farmers.
the In the final
final sorting, 125 sorting,
articles 125
werearticles werebased
excluded excluded based
on the on the of
analysis analysis of text
the full the full
of the
text of the articles, and only 42 peer-reviewed journal and conference papers remained, as
articles, and only 42 peer-reviewed journal and conference papers remained, as shown
shown in Figure 3. The primary exclusion criteria were articles that did not mention digital
in Figure 3. The primary exclusion criteria were articles that did not mention digital
agriculture ecosystem, or digital ecosystem for agriculture, or smallholder farmers.
agriculture ecosystem, or digital ecosystem for agriculture, or smallholder farmers.

2.2. Coding and Classification Framework

The systematic review was analyzed using the coding and classification framework
developed by Amui et al. (2017) [16] based on other works [17,27–30]. The classification
was performed using the following categories: context, focus, method, sector, and global
locations in the form of origin or continents, as shown in Table 1. The low- and middle-
income countries (LMICs) context emerged from the SLR.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12530 5 of 20

Table 1. Classification and coding framework.

Classification Description Codes

Global 1A
Sub-Saharan Africa 1B
Context
South Africa 1C
Low- and middle-income countries 1D
Digital platform 2A
Business model innovation 2B
Digital literacy or skills 2C
Focus
Digital infrastructure 2D
4IR 2E
Affordability 2F
Qualitative 3A
Quantitative 3B
Theoretical 3C
Method Empirical 3D
Case studies/interviews 3E
Survey 3F
Design 3G
Agriculture 4A
Sector
Not applicable 4B
Origin (continents) America 5A
Africa Europe 5B
Asia 5C
Africa 5D
Oceania 5E

3. Results and Analysis of the Systematic Literature Review

The 42 selected research articles were coded according to the coding and classification
framework in Table 1 with the resultant coding results shown in Supplementary Material,
Table S1. Summary of 42 selected articles main objectives is provided in Supplementary
Material Table S2 (Refer to the Supplementary Material Table S2). A detailed analysis of
the findings in accordance with the coding and classification framework (context, focus,
method, sector, and origins) is provided in Section 3.1, Section 3.2, Section 3.3, Section 3.4,
Section 3.5 to help answer RQ1. Section 3.6 provides a detailed analysis of the dimensions
of interest as they emerged from the SLR to help answer RQ2, RQ3, RQ4, RQ5 and RQ6.

3.1. Context
The context analysis was explored based on the research that has been conducted at
a global, sub-Saharan African, and South African level. There were 25 articles identified
from the global level, 12 articles were from sub-Saharan African countries, while 4 articles
were from South Africa, and 1 article was from an LMIC (Table 2). The 25 articles at
a global level originated from Europe; Central, South, and North America; East, South,
Southeast, and Western Asia; and Oceania (Italy, India, Taiwan, Sri Lanka, Indonesia,
Portugal, Vietnam, Colombia, Pakistan, Cambodia, Philippines, Thailand, Greece, Spain,
Serbia, United States of America, China, Myanmar, Iran, Lithuania, Brazil, Netherlands,
Germany, and Austria). The studies that came from sub-Saharan countries were from
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12530 6 of 20

Kenya, Ethiopia, Tunisia, South Africa, Malawi, Mali, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda, Ghana,
Mozambique, and Tanzania.

Table 2. Context.

Context No. of Articles Research Context Code

Global level 25 1A
Sub-Saharan Africa level 12 1B
South Africa level 4 1C
Low- and middle-income
1 1D
countries level

The studies are geographically limited in context, and the findings are limited in terms
of universal validity [31,32]. Alemayehu and Van Vuuren (2017) [33] identified that small
businesses in sub-Saharan Africa are facing systemic challenges that are exclusive to them
and not shared by enterprises in other countries. These challenges include limitations in
accessing financial resources, markets and marketing skills, and the business environment.
It is, therefore, important to conduct theoretical and empirical research that considers local
contexts using geographical location, culture, and profiles of enterprises as categorized
by [31].
The overall findings suggest that the intensity of research in relation to digital agricul-
ture ecosystems for smallholder farmers in the context of sub-Saharan Africa is very low
when compared with research performed at a global level. This presents a significant chal-
lenge for smallholder farmers in such contexts to leverage digital agriculture ecosystems
for sustainability, competitive advantage, and market growth. Even though there is one
study focusing on LMICs, it did not explicitly mention where the study was conducted.
These findings suggest that studies on digital agriculture ecosystems are, in general, limited
in sub-Saharan Africa and even more so in South Africa. Further studies that explicitly
consider sub-Saharan Africa and South Africa are needed to investigate digital agriculture
ecosystems in the context of smallholder farmers. It is, therefore, recommended that re-
search be conducted on digital agriculture ecosystems in relation to smallholder farmers
that explicitly considers sub-Saharan Africa in general and South Africa in particular.

3.2. Continents of Origin

The majority of the research originated from Africa (20) and Asia (13); 8 studies
originated in Europe, while 6 originated from America, and only 2 originated from Oceania.
While the majority of research originated in Africa, only four studies were conducted in
South Africa. To help with making more research available on digital agriculture ecosystems
for smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa, it is recommended that research be carried
out taking into account the contextual challenges of smallholder farmers.

3.3. Focus on Digital Ecosystems for Smallholder Farmers

Out of the 42 articles, including the combinations, 2 articles researched digital plat-
forms (2A), 4 articles researched digital infrastructure (2D), and 15 articles researched 4IR
(2E). There was only one article that researched business model innovation (2B). There
were no articles that researched digital literacy or skills (2C) nor affordability (2F). These
findings suggest that the majority of research focuses on three components of a digital
agriculture ecosystem (digital platforms, digital infrastructure, and 4IR technologies), with
very limited research directed at digital literacy or skills, affordability, and business model
innovation. This means that there is no research yet that focuses on all the components of a
digital agriculture ecosystem. These findings indicate that research on digital agriculture
ecosystems for smallholder farmers is still a nascent and emerging research area with a
very limited focus on the specific components of such a system. This is a research gap
that presents significant opportunities that need to be further explored, as the successful
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12530 7 of 20

adoption of digital agriculture by smallholder farmers is contingent on the existence of

a fully functional digital agriculture ecosystem within the smallholder farmer context
and environment.

3.4. Research Methods

There was diversity in the use and application of research methods in the 42 research
articles. Authors used single, mixed, qualitative, and quantitative research methods, which
included qualitative (3A), quantitative (3B), theoretical (3C), empirical (3D), case study
(3E), survey (3F), and design (3F) approaches for data collection (Table 3). Only 5 of
the 42 articles utilized empirical methods. The findings indicate the need for research
to use more empirical methods that can contextualize the digital agriculture ecosystems
research to smallholder farmers’ specific contexts. Specifically, empirical research utilizes
qualitative research methods as they bring out context-specific challenges, constraints,
issues, and preconditions.

Table 3. Research methods analysis.

Research Qualitative Quantitative Theoretical Empirical Case Studies Survey Design No. of
Methods 3A 3B 3C 3D 3E 3F 3G Articles
Single research
0 0 7 0 0 0 4 11
methods
Mixed
research 5 5 1 1 2 2 0 16
methods
Qualitative 13 0 2 1 11 4 1 32
Quantitative 0 12 0 3 8 8 2 33

3.5. Current Research Performed on Digital Ecosystems for Smallholder Farmers

The articles were analyzed to determine the current research conducted on digital
agriculture ecosystems in relation to smallholder farmers to further answer RQ1. Out of
the 42 identified research articles, there were no studies that focused on all the elements of
a digital agriculture ecosystem. The research studies focused on 4IR (2E) technologies such
as big data, AI, blockchain, the IoT, sensors, and cloud computing.
The studies also focused on digital platforms (2A), directing attention toward, for
example, farm management platforms such as soil and plant monitoring, yield monitoring,
predictive data analysis systems, breeding management, and real-time variable-rate fer-
tilizer application systems. Digital platforms research also focused on platforms such as
myAcker (for remote online gardeners to virtually manage agricultural plots in a game-like
setting); the web platform SIRIA ([Link] accessed on 4 June 2022); Agri-
Cloud (South Africa); MAP (Modern Agriculture Platform Chongzhou); AMIS (Malawi
Agriculture Market Information System); decision support systems; IoT farming platforms;
integrated pest management; and online dashboards; as well as on mobile applications, in-
cluding mobile money for agricultural use: namely, mKesh, Green Way Agri-Livestock, Site
Pyo—Cultivation, Golden Paddy, Htwet Toe, and Plant Protection. Lastly, the research also
focused on several digital platforms for agriculture use, such as Kilimo Salama, M-PESA
and M-Shwari (Kenya), AgiLife (Kenya and Uganda), Farm Force, E-Wallet, M-PESA, the
web-based platform Esoko, the Kenya-based platform Sokopepe, Twiga Food in Kenya, the
Mergata mobile-based platform, Mastercard 2KUZE, Ujuzi Kilimo, EthioSIS, and Phytclean.
Research on digital infrastructure (2D) focused on information and communication
technology (ICT), both wired and wireless, mobile cellular and mobile broadband con-
nection, as well as the Internet. Only one article focused on business model innovation
(2B), and there was no research performed on digital literacy or skills (2C) or affordability
(2F). This presents an opportunity for further research to be conducted on a complete
digital agriculture ecosystem as it applies to smallholder farmers, specifically research
that will consider digital literacy or skills, affordability, and business model innovation
elements. Smallholder farmers, just like small, micro, and medium enterprises (SMMEs),
 This presents an opportunity for further research to be conducted on a complete digital
agriculture ecosystem as it applies to smallholder farmers, specifically research that will
consider digital literacy or skills, affordability, and business model innovation elements.
Smallholder farmers, just like small, micro, and medium enterprises (SMMEs), are finan-
cially constrained and lack the human resources, required skills, and business model in-
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12530 8 of 20
novation for the adoption of digital solutions.

3.6. Dimensions Emerging from the Systematic Literature Review

are financially constrained and lack the human resources, required skills, and business
The following sections answer research questions RQ2, RQ3, RQ4, RQ5, and RQ6.
model innovation for the adoption of digital solutions.
Based on these questions the following dimensions emerged from the SLR: (1) challenges,
(2)
[Link] of access
Dimensions to and uptake,
Emerging from the (3) use, andLiterature
Systematic (4) benefits. The dimensions were analyzed
Review
in accordance with the codification results in Supplementary Material, Table S1.
The following sections answer research questions RQ2, RQ3, RQ4, RQ5, and RQ6.
Based on these questions the following dimensions emerged from the SLR: (1) challenges,
3.6.1. What Are the Challenges of Digital Agriculture Ecosystems in Relation to Small-
(2) level of access to and uptake, (3) use, and (4) benefits. The dimensions were analyzed in
holder Farmers?
accordance with the codification results in Supplementary Material, Table S1.
RQ2 sought to understand the current challenges of digital agriculture ecosystems in
3.6.1. What
relation Are the Challenges
to smallholder [Link] Digital Agriculture
of the 42 articlesEcosystems
selected forinthe
Relation to explicitly
SLR, 32
Smallholder Farmers?
mentioned and discussed the challenges of existing digital solutions for smallholder farm-
ers, while
RQ2 10 did not
sought mention or discuss
to understand any challenges.
the current challenges of digital agriculture ecosystems
in relation to smallholder
The identified challengesfarmers. Out of the 42
were categorized articles to
according selected for theof
the elements SLR, 32 explic-
a digital eco-
itly mentioned
system and discussed
for agriculture; the challenges
that is, digital platformof(2A),
existing digital
business solutions
model for smallholder
innovation (2B), dig-
farmers,
ital while
literacy 10 did(2C),
or skills not digital
mention or discuss any
infrastructure challenges.
(2D), 4IR (2E), and affordability (2F) (Fig-
The identified challenges were categorized according
ure 4). There were no challenges that were mentioned or discussed to theregarding
elements digital
of a digital
plat-
ecosystem
forms (2A).for agriculture;
More than 50%that is, digital
of the platform
challenges (2A), business
concerned model innovation
digital infrastructure (2D), (2B),
fol-
digital by
lowed literacy or skills (2C),
the challenges digital
related infrastructure
to affordability (2D),
(2F) 4IRthan
(more (2E),75%).
and affordability
The majority(2F) of
(Figure 4). (more
challenges There than
were 90%)
no challenges
regardingthat were ecosystem
a digital mentionedfor or agriculture
discussed regarding
concerneddigital
digi-
platforms
tal literacy (2A). More
or skills than 50% of the challenges concerned digital infrastructure (2D),
(2C).
followed by the challenges related to affordability (2F) (more than 75%). The majority of
challenges (more than 90%) regarding a digital ecosystem for agriculture concerned digital
literacy or skills (2C).

Data Trust and Security (2H)

Government (2G)

Affordability (2F)

4IR (2E)

Digital Infrastructure (2D)

Digital Literacy or Skills (2C)

Business Model Innovation (2B)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Figure 4.
Figure Challenges under
4. Challenges under each
each element
element of
of aa digital
digital ecosystem
ecosystem for agriculture.

As shown
As shown inin Table
Table4,4,challenges
challengesunder
under digital literacy
digital or skills
literacy (2C)(2C)
or skills include inadequate
include inade-
information about digital solutions, digital agriculture being a new concept
quate information about digital solutions, digital agriculture being a new concept to to smallholder
farmers, a lack of perceived value, timely and relevant information, language barriers, first
generation in farming (the Old), and a lack of knowledge about digital solutions. The lack of
perceived value of digital solutions may be the reason why the challenges related to business
model innovation (2B) are very low. The challenges of digital infrastructure (2D) include
land tenure issues, telecommunication and electrical infrastructure, and remote location.
Affordability (2F) challenges emanate from data rates and/or communication costs, the
costs of using technology, maintenance, replacing labor, and a lack of financial and human
resources. While challenges related to 4IR (2E), government (2G), and data trust and security
(2H) were very low, there were important factors of significant impact that were identified.
Cybersecurity was identified as a key challenge regarding 4IR (2E) technologies, while legal
infrastructure, political and social ramifications, and standardization and interoperability
challenges were key factors for government (2G). Trustworthiness emerged as a key factor
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12530 9 of 20

for data and trust security (2H). The findings reflected in Table 4 indicate that digital
ecosystems for agriculture are still too underdeveloped for smallholder farmers to be able
to consider digital agriculture as a viable solution to their needs and requirements. Research
focusing on the identified challenges is needed to support the development of a viable
digital agriculture ecosystem for smallholder farmers.

Table 4. Factors influencing challenges of digital solutions for smallholder farmers.

Elements of Digital Agriculture Ecosystem Factors of Influence (Challenges)

Business model innovation (2B) • Lack of perceived value of digital solutions

• Inadequate information about digital solutions

• Digital agriculture is a new concept for smallholder farmers.
• Lack of perceived value
Digital literacy or skills (2C) • Timely and relevant information
• Language barriers
• First generation in farming (the Old)
• Lack of knowledge about digital solutions

• Land tenure issues

Digital infrastructure (2D) • Telecommunication and electrical infrastructure
• Remote location

4IR (2E) • Cybersecurity

• Data rates and/or communication costs

• Cost of using technology
Affordability (2F) • Maintenance and replacing labor
• Lack of financial and human resources

• Legal infrastructure
Government (2G) • Political and social ramifications
• Standardization and interoperability

Data trust and security (2H) • Trustworthiness

3.6.2. How Are Smallholder Farmers Using Digital Solutions in Their Businesses?
RQ3 sought to establish how smallholder farmers are using digital solutions in their
businesses. Of the articles, 24 mentioned and explicitly discussed the use of digital solutions
by smallholder farmers, while 18 did not mention or discuss such use.
Smallholder farmers are using digital solutions mainly for accessing agricultural infor-
mation (46%) and monitoring and tracing (46%), followed by selling and/or marketing of
products (29%), detection (25%), and planting and production (21%) (Figure 5). Although
to a limited extent, smallholder farmers are also using digital solutions for fertilization,
communication, buying input supplies, harvesting, irrigation, banking/saving money, con-
trolling farming equipment, collecting agricultural data, refrigeration, mapping, prediction,
and for client creditworthiness assessment, as shown in Figure 5.
 smallholder farmers, a small segment of these farmers is already using digital solutions
for various applications, such as accessing information related to agriculture and the sell-
ing and marketing of agricultural products. Research focusing on further investigating the
applicability, relevancy, and value proposition of these applications in various small-
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12530 holder farmer settings and contexts will provide opportunities for the generalization and
10 of 20
validity of these applications.

Selling and/or Marketing of Products

Planting and Production

Communication

Banking/Saving Money

Irrigation

Collecting Agricultural Data

Refrigeration of fresh produce

Weather predictions

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Figure 5. Use of digital solutions by smallholder farmers.

Smallholder farmers are accessing agricultural information about livestock and live-
stock management techniques, agronomy, weather forecasts, forecasts on maize planting,
recommendations by fellow farmers for their specific farm locations, farming practices,
daily crop market trends and prices, and market information. Farmers are also accessing
agriculture information on possible occurrences of plant or crop diseases; pests; sudden
floods; unseasonal rain, wind, droughts, and other warning notifications; as well as the
best time to harvest crops.
Smallholder farmers use digital solutions for monitoring and tracing to police stock
theft and survey different areas of their farms. Furthermore, digital solutions are used to
keep a close eye on the location, health, and general well-being of their cattle; find lost
or stolen cattle; scare away predator animals; for cattle herding; to monitor ill, injured,
or distressed cattle; and for production efficiency. Lastly, they are used in resolving crop
problems and/or selling and providing information on the state of the soil and surrounding
environment in terms of pH, moisture, texture, color, air temperature, and light.
Smallholder farmers use the accessed agricultural information to gain knowledge on
daily crop market trends and prices and on market information for required interventions
such as planting more crops for which they have price information, resolving crop problems,
and selling. Refrigeration is used to preserve the shelf life and quality of fruits and
vegetables along with perishable agro-processing products until they reach supermarket
shelves; to monitor and detect the freshness of produce; to delay the ripening of fruit;
to automate processes in the supply chain; and to acquire, manage, store, and share
information and knowledge.
The smallholder farmers are also using digital solutions to detect possible occurrences
of plant or crop diseases, pests, sudden floods; unseasonal rain, wind, droughts, and other
warning notifications; the best time to harvest crops; and to detect information on the
state of the soil and surrounding environment in terms of pH, moisture, texture, color, air
temperature, and light.
These findings suggest that, although digital agriculture is still a nascent concept to
smallholder farmers, a small segment of these farmers is already using digital solutions for
various applications, such as accessing information related to agriculture and the selling
and marketing of agricultural products. Research focusing on further investigating the
applicability, relevancy, and value proposition of these applications in various smallholder
farmer settings and contexts will provide opportunities for the generalization and validity
of these applications.
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 20

Sustainability 2023, 15, 12530 Figure 5. Use of digital solutions by smallholder farmers. 11 of 20

3.6.3. What Are the Factors That Influence the Uptake of Digital Solutions by Small-
holder Farmers?
3.6.3. What Are the Factors That Influence the Uptake of Digital Solutions by
Smallholder
RQ4 sought Farmers?
to establish the factors that influence the uptake of digital solutions by
RQ4 sought
smallholder farmers. to establish
Thirty-onethearticles
factors mentioned
that influenceandthe uptake of
explicitly digital solutions
discussed the factorsby
smallholder farmers. Thirty-one articles mentioned and explicitly discussed the
that influence the uptake of digital solutions by smallholder farmers, while eleven articles factors that
influence
did not dothe
so. uptake of digital solutions by smallholder farmers, while eleven articles did
not do
Theso.
factors that were identified as influencing the uptake of digital solutions were
The factors
categorized that were
according to theidentified
elements asof influencing the uptake
a digital agriculture of digitalnamely,
ecosystem: solutions were
digital
categorized according to the elements of a digital agriculture ecosystem: namely,
platform (2A), business model innovation (2B), digital literacy or skills (2C), digital infra- digital
platform(2D),
structure (2A),4IR
business model
(2E), and innovation
affordability (2B),
(2F) digital
(Figure literacy
6). The studyor did
skills
not(2C),
find digital
any ena-in-
frastructure (2D), 4IR (2E), and affordability (2F) (Figure 6). The
bling factors linked to digital platform (2A) or 4IR (2E) elements (Figure 6). study did not find any
enabling factors linked to digital platform (2A) or 4IR (2E) elements (Figure 6).

Data Trust and Security (2H)

Government (2G)

Affordability (2F)

Digital Infrastructure (2D)

Digital Literacy or Skills (2C)

Business Model Innovation (2B)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Factorsenabling
[Link]
Figure enablingdigital
digitalsolutions
solutionsuptake
uptakeby
bysmallholder
smallholderfarmers.
farmers.

Theprimary
The primaryfactor
factorinfluencing
influencingthe
theuptake
uptakeof ofdigital
digitalsolutions
solutionsbybysmallholder
smallholderfarmers
farmers
is digital literacy or skills (2C) (87%). Digital literacy or skills can be improved
is digital literacy or skills (2C) (87%). Digital literacy or skills can be improved through through
timely and up-to-date data and knowledge, creating awareness, changing perceptions and
timely and up-to-date data and knowledge, creating awareness, changing perceptions and
behaviors, specific training for older farmers, understanding from farmers how digital
behaviors, specific training for older farmers, understanding from farmers how digital
solutions should be introduced to them, understanding the knowledge and attitude status
solutions should be introduced to them, understanding the knowledge and attitude status
of farmers, the inclusion of youth in agricultural education and training, smart agriculture
of farmers, the inclusion of youth in agricultural education and training, smart agriculture
knowledge, and business knowledge and capabilities (Table 5).
knowledge, and business knowledge and capabilities (Table 5).
Digital literacy or skills (2C) is followed by business model innovation (2B) (74%).
Business models can be innovated by offering off-the-shelf or do-it-yourself (DIY) digital
Table 5. Factors influencing the uptake of digital solutions.
solutions and through enhanced usability/ease of use; reproducibility of offered digital
Digital Agriculture Ecosys- solutions; government and private sector partnerships (public–private partnerships); part-
Factors of Influence
tem Elements nerships with community-based farmer associations; gender-responsive digital solutions;
• localized or contextualized
Offering off-the-shelf or digital solutions;
DIY digital and by ensuring the usefulness and utility of
solutions
• the offered digital solutions, as shown in Table
Enhanced usability/ease of use and reproducibility5. of offered digital solutions
• Government and private sector partnerships enabler
Government (2G) (48%) also emerges as a key for the uptake
(public–private of digital solutions
partnerships)
Business model innovation by smallholder farmers; specifically, the need for the development and implementation
• Partnerships with community-based farmer associations
(2B) of policies that are geared toward supporting smallholder business environments and
• Gender-responsive digital solutions
contexts (Table 5).
• Localized or contextualized digital solutions
• Usefulness and utility of offered digital solutions
• Timely and up-to-date data and knowledge
Digital literacy or skills (2C)
• Creating awareness
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12530 12 of 20

Table 5. Factors influencing the uptake of digital solutions.

Digital Agriculture Ecosystem Elements Factors of Influence

• Offering off-the-shelf or DIY digital solutions

• Enhanced usability/ease of use and reproducibility of
offered digital solutions
• Government and private sector partnerships
Business model innovation (2B) (public–private partnerships)
• Partnerships with community-based farmer associations
• Gender-responsive digital solutions
• Localized or contextualized digital solutions
• Usefulness and utility of offered digital solutions

• Timely and up-to-date data and knowledge

• Creating awareness
• Changing perceptions and behaviors
• Older farmers’ specific training
• Understanding from farmers how digital solutions should
Digital literacy or skills (2C) be introduced to them
• Understanding the knowledge and attitude status of
farmers
• Inclusion of youth in agriculture education and training
• Smart agriculture knowledge
• Business knowledge and capabilities

• Connectivity and mobile broadband access

Digital infrastructure (2D) • Availability of a suitable spectrum

• Credit access
Affordability (2F) • Access to mobile savings accounts
• Affordable digital solutions

• Development and implementation of policies that are

Government (2G) geared toward supporting the smallholder business
environment and context

• Establishing trust among the smallholder farming

Data trust and security (2H) community

Affordability (2F) (29%) is influenced by factors such as credit access, access to mobile
savings accounts, and affordable digital solutions, while digital infrastructure (2D) (19%) is
influenced by connectivity and mobile broadband access and the availability of a suitable
spectrum for the uptake of digital solutions by smallholder farmers, as shown in Table 5.
Lastly, the findings reveal that for data trust and security (2H) (19%), establishing trust
among the farming community is one of the most important factors influencing the uptake
of digital solutions by smallholder farmers (Table 5).

3.6.4. What Are the Benefits of Digital Solutions for Smallholder Farmers?
RQ5 sought to establish the benefits of digital solutions for smallholder farmers.
While 28 articles explicitly mentioned and discussed the benefits of digital solutions for
smallholder farmers, the remaining 14 articles did not do so.
Of the 28 articles that identified benefits of using digital solutions for smallholder
farmers, 10 mentioned getting agriculture information such as real-time prices; timely
alerts on weather, market trends, pests, and diseases; damage identification; and advice on
pesticide and fertilizer use as shown in Supplementary Material, Table S3. Nine articles
mentioned gaining better control and precision as a benefit of using digital solutions for
smallholder farmers to improve water conservation and to reduce soil erosion, environmen-
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12530 13 of 20

tal impact, and agricultural inputs. Other main identified benefits of using digital solutions
are productivity (8 articles), better earning and higher yield (7 articles), improving product
quality (7 articles), lowering costs or reducing transactional costs (6 articles), access to mar-
kets (5 articles), resilient farm production (4 articles), suppliers and value chain relations
(4 articles), and quality standards and compliance (4 articles) (Refer to Supplementary
Material, Table S3).
The systematic review also revealed efficiency, sustainability, transparency, a positive
impact on agricultural income, real-time data collection, improving farming decisions and
predictions, cash management, and financial identity as benefits of using digital solutions
for smallholder farmers. Other interesting benefits of using digital solutions for smallholder
farmers are a slowdown in migrating to cities [34], obtaining farming-related advice in one’s
own language [35], new knowledge generation [36–39], and women’s empowerment [37].
The research findings point to the importance of digital solutions for smallholder
farmers. This suggests that the time is “ripe” for research to be conducted on digital
agriculture ecosystems for smallholder farmers to ensure that these farmers are not left
out of the benefits that come with using digital solutions. The findings also point to the
need for research to explicitly focus on identifying the benefits of using digital solutions
for smallholder farmers. Future research should investigate whether taking the identified
benefits of digital solutions to smallholder farmers and incorporating them into a digital
agriculture ecosystem framework could translate into a potential relative advantage for
smallholder farmers. Lastly, the benefits identified here need to be communicated to
smallholder farmers to accelerate the uptake of digital solutions.

3.6.5. What Is the Level of Access to and Uptake of Digital Solutions by

Smallholder Farmers?
RQ6 sought to establish the level of access and uptake of digital solutions by small-
holder farmers. Eighteen articles mentioned and discussed the level of access to and uptake
of digital solutions by smallholder farmers, while twenty-four articles did not do so.
Of the 18 articles, 3 indicate that the level of access to and uptake of digital solutions
by smallholder farmers is still very limited [40–42]. Technologies such as wireless sensor
networks, which are critical for digital agriculture, are indicated as not being widely
adopted globally, especially by small-scale farmers [34]. Although the level of access and
uptake of digital solutions by smallholder farmers is still very limited, smallholder farmers
have been gradually increasing their level of access to and uptake of farm management
software; data analytics and forecasting applications; smart irrigation systems; soil, plant,
and crop monitoring systems; precision livestock systems; smart agriculture systems;
drones and robotic farm applications; smart greenhouse management systems; cloud
computing applications; environmental control systems; and mobile phones.
The majority (63%) of the 18 articles focused on mobile phones, while the other
11 articles were limited to a few digital innovations, as mentioned. These findings indicate
that there is limited research focused on determining the level of access to and uptake of
digital solutions by smallholder farmers. The existing research concerns only a few digital
innovations or technologies in relation to digital solutions for smallholder farmers. There is
thus an opportunity for research to address this gap, which is key to establishing the status
quo and tracking progress in relation to the adoption of digital agriculture by smallholder
farmers. A clear understanding of the status quo will assist all involved stakeholders
(such as academia, industry, practitioners, and government) to know whether current
interventions are yielding any positive outcomes or whether other approaches are needed.

4. Recommendation
This section provides recommendations for future research agendas that came out as a
result of the research findings that resulted from this systematic literature review. Based on
the findings and recommendations under context, the following research question is posed:
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12530 14 of 20

• How can a digital agriculture ecosystem be developed for smallholder farmers in the
agriculture sector of sub-Saharan Africa?
Based on the findings and recommendations on the origin of the studies, the following
research questions are asked:
• How can a digital agriculture ecosystem that considers contextual challenges be
developed for sub-Saharan smallholder farmers?
• What is the definition of smallholder farmers in the context of the sub-Saharan agricul-
ture sector?
To help with addressing the identified research gaps under focus on the digital agriculture
ecosystem for smallholder farmers, the authors propose the following research questions:
• What is the level of digital literacy or skills of smallholder farmers?
• Do smallholder farmers have access to digital infrastructure?
• What is the impact of the digital infrastructure on digital solutions uptake by small-
holder farmers?
The following future research question can be asked to assist with research that focuses
on all elements of a digital agriculture ecosystem (digital platforms, digital infrastructure,
business model innovation, digital literacy or skills, affordability, and 4IR technologies) to
add to the body of knowledge:
• How can a digital agriculture ecosystem for smallholder farmers be developed that
focuses on all the elements of the ecosystem and considers contextual challenges facing
these farmers?
The following questions could be asked to assist, under the ambit of government, with
alleviating the specific challenges identified:
• How can government develop a supportive legal infrastructure for smallholder farm-
ers to enable digital transformation?
• What are the political and social ramifications impeding smallholder farmers from
taking up and using digital solutions?
• How can government assist with the standardization and interoperability of digital
solutions for smallholder farmers?
The questions to be asked to help with challenges identified under digital skills (2C)
and affordability (2F) are:
• How can a digital solution for smallholder farmers’ development incorporate the local
languages of smallholder farmers?
• How can a digital solution for smallholder farmers be developed in a way that consid-
ers first-generation farmers?
• What is needed to educate smallholder farmers on developing digital solutions?
• How can the value of digital solutions for smallholder farmers be communicated
to them?
• What can be done to bring the cost of communication and data rates down for small-
holder farmers?
The questions to be asked to assist with eliminating the challenges identified under
business model innovation (2B) and digital infrastructure (2D) are as follows:
• How can digital solutions for smallholder farmers be developed in a way that increases
the participation of women in smallholder farming?
• How should digital solutions be communicated in a way that creates awareness for
smallholder farmers?
• How do digital solutions for smallholder farmers consider agriculture extension services?
• What is the impact of land tenure issues on the uptake of and access to digital solutions
by smallholder farmers?
• How should digital solutions for smallholder farmers be developed in a way that
considers land tenure issues?
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12530 15 of 20

• What is the effect of telecommunication and electrical infrastructure on digital solu-

tions for smallholder farmers?
• How should digital solutions for smallholder farmers be developed in a way that
considers the challenges posed by telecommunication and electrical infrastructure?
• How can digital solutions for smallholder farmers be developed in a way that takes
into account the remote locations of farmers?
Based on the key findings on how smallholder farmers are using digital solutions in
their businesses, the following research question is posed:
• What is the applicability, relevancy, and value proposition of digital solutions to
various smallholder farmer settings and contexts?
Recommendations for future research agendas that resulted from RQ1 to RQ6 are
presented below.
Research questions to help with identifying factors of influence under digital literacy
or skills are:
• How do smallholder farmers want digital solutions to be introduced to them?
• How should awareness of digital solutions for smallholder farmers be created?
• How can timely, up-to-date data and knowledge about digital solutions for smallholder
farmers be achieved through a digital agriculture ecosystem?
• How can the perceptions and behaviors of smallholder farmers toward digital solu-
tions be changed?
• How can training on digital solutions be developed and provided for older small-
holder farmers?
• What is the level of knowledge and attitudes of smallholder farmers toward
digital solutions?
• How can the inclusion of youth in agriculture education and training on digital
solutions for smallholder farmers be achieved?
• What is the level of knowledge of smallholder farmers on digital innovation within
digital agriculture solutions?
• Do smallholder farmers have the business knowledge and capabilities required for
them to uptake digital solutions?
Research questions to help with identifying factors of influence in relation to business
model innovation are:
• How can digital solutions be contextualized for the smallholder farmers’ contexts?
• How can business model innovation assist with gender-responsive digital solutions
for smallholder farmers?
• How can developed digital solution offerings be made available off-the-shelf or
through DIY for smallholder farmers?
• How can the design of digital solutions for smallholder farmers be developed to ensure
enhanced usability/ease of use and reproducibility?
• What role can government and private sector partnerships (public–private partner-
ships) and partnerships with community-based farmers’ associations play in the
development of digital solutions for smallholder farmers?
• What is the usefulness and utility of the offered digital solutions for smallholder farmers?
A research question to help with identifying factors of influence affecting government is:
• How can government develop and implement policies that are geared toward sup-
porting smallholder business environments and contexts?
Research questions to help with identifying factors of influence affecting affordabil-
ity are:
• How can digital solutions for smallholder farmers be developed in such a way that
they are affordable for smallholder farmers?
• How can the development of digital solutions ensure access to mobile savings accounts
and credit?
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12530 16 of 20

Research questions to help with identifying factors of influence related to digital

infrastructure are:
• What solutions can be put in place to ensure connectivity and mobile broadband access
to enable the uptake and use of digital solutions by smallholder farmers?
• How is the availability of spectrum affecting the access to and uptake of digital
solutions by smallholder farmers?
A research question to help with identifying factors of influence affecting data trust
and security is:
• How can trust in digital solutions be established among the smallholder
farming community?
Questions to assist with unearthing the benefits of digital solutions for smallholder
farmers could be:
• How should the benefits of digital solutions be communicated to smallholder farmers
to facilitate the uptake of such solutions?
• How does one develop a digital agriculture ecosystem so that it delivers the identified
benefits of using digital solutions for smallholder farmers?
• How can the age of older smallholder farmers be taken into account when communi-
cating the benefits of digital solutions to such farmers?
• How should the benefits of digital solutions be communicated to young people when
research has revealed that they are not interested in farming?
• How can the benefits of digital solutions be communicated in a way that attracts
young people to farming?
The recommended future research questions to assist in unearthing the level of access
to and uptake of digital solutions by smallholder farmers could be:
• Which digital agriculture platforms do smallholder farmers have access to and which
are they taking up?
• What is the level of access to and uptake of agricultural business model innovations
by smallholder farmers?
• What is the level of access to digital infrastructure by smallholder farmers?
• What is the level of access to and uptake of 4IR technologies by smallholder farmers?
• How is affordability affecting the access to and uptake of digital solutions by small-
holder farmers?

5. Conclusions
Smallholder farmers are the primary source of income, employment, poverty allevia-
tion, and livelihoods in remote rural areas. Yet, smallholder farmers are highly constrained
by the specific contextual challenges of climate change, productivity, cost of production,
credit access, and financial resources constraints, all of which impact their sustenance,
sustainability, and growth. Digital agriculture is seen as a viable solution to addressing
smallholder farmers’ contextual challenges. However, many smallholder farmers are be-
yond the reach of these digital solutions due to underdeveloped or nonexistent digital
ecosystems for smallholder farmers.
The key findings of this systematic review suggest that research on digital agriculture
ecosystems is very limited in sub-Saharan Africa. Most research focuses only on digital
platforms, digital infrastructure, and 4IR technology components of the digital agriculture
ecosystems, with very limited research directed at digital literacy or skills, affordability,
and business model innovation.
The findings also reveal that digital ecosystems for agriculture are still too underdevel-
oped for smallholder farmers to be able to consider digital agriculture as a viable solution
to their needs and requirements. As a result, only a few smallholder farmers are currently
using digital solutions in their businesses to access agricultural information and to sell and
market their agricultural produce.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12530 17 of 20

The findings reveal a research gap that calls for further studies, as the successful
adoption of digital solutions by smallholder farmers is contingent on the existence of fully
functional digital agriculture ecosystems within the smallholder farmers’ contexts and
environments. As a result, this article has drawn out an agenda for future research by
suggesting new questions in the six thematic areas (digital platforms, digital infrastructure,
business model innovation, digital literacy or skills, affordability, 4IR technologies, and
data trust and security) to close the research gap.
Finally, this study utilized only four multidisciplinary databases as the data sources
for the SLR, and this may have affected the number of relevant papers found. More
multidisciplinary databases should be considered for future systematic reviews on the
digital ecosystems for smallholder farmers.

Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https:
//[Link]/article/10.3390/su151612530/s1, Table S1: Results of Articles Codification;
Table S2: Brief Summary of Articles’ Main Objectives and Results. Table S3: Benefits of using
digital solutions for smallholder farmers.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, N.G.; methodology, N.G.; validation, L.G., H.T. and
N.G.; formal analysis, N.G.; investigation, N.G.; resources, H.T.; data curation, L.G. and H.T.;
writing—original draft preparation, N.G.; review and editing N.G., L.G. and H.T.; visualization, N.G.;
supervision, H.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. Specific Terms and Search Strings

The specific terms for the [Unit of Analysis] were:
• Smallholder Farmers OR
• Small-Scale Farmers OR
• Subsistence Farmers OR
• Resource Poor Farmers OR
• Low-Input Farmers OR
• Low-Income Farmers OR
• Small Micro and Medium Enterprises Farmers OR
• SMMEs Farmers OR
• Small Business Farmers OR
• Small and Medium Sized Enterprise Farmers OR
• SMEs Farmers OR
• Small and Medium Business Farmers OR
• SMBs Farmers
The specific terms for the [Technology Artifact] were:
• Digital Ecosystem OR
• Artificial Intelligence OR
• Cloud Computing OR
• Internet of Things OR
• Smart Sensors OR
• Remote Sensing OR
• Big Data OR
• Mobile
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12530 18 of 20

The specific terms for the [Phenomenon of Interest] were allowed to emerge from the
systematic literature search.
The [Technology Artifacts]:
1. Digital Ecosystem OR Artificial Intelligence OR Cloud Computing OR Internet of
Things OR Smart Sensors OR Remote Sensing OR Big Data OR Mobile
The [Unit of Analysis] AND [Technology Artifact]:
2. Smallholder Farmers AND Digital Ecosystem OR Artificial Intelligence OR Cloud
Computing OR Internet of Things OR Smart Sensors OR Remote Sensing OR Big Data
OR Mobile
3. Small-Scale Farmers AND Digital Ecosystem OR Artificial Intelligence OR Cloud
Computing OR Internet of Things OR Smart Sensors OR Remote Sensing OR Big Data
OR Mobile
4. Subsistence Farmers AND Digital Ecosystem OR Artificial Intelligence OR Cloud
Computing OR Internet of Things OR Smart Sensors OR Remote Sensing OR Big Data
OR Mobile
5. Resource Poor Farmers AND Digital Ecosystem OR Artificial Intelligence OR Cloud
Computing OR Internet of Things OR Smart Sensors OR Remote Sensing OR Big Data
OR Mobile
6. Low-Input Farmers AND Digital Ecosystem OR Artificial Intelligence OR Cloud
Computing OR Internet of Things OR Smart Sensors OR Remote Sensing OR Big Data
OR Mobile
7. Low-Income Farmers AND Digital Ecosystem OR Artificial Intelligence OR Cloud
Computing OR Internet of Things OR Smart Sensors OR Remote Sensing OR Big Data
OR Mobile
8. Small Micro and Medium Enterprise Farmers AND Digital Ecosystem OR Artificial
Intelligence OR Cloud Computing OR Internet of Things OR Smart Sensors OR
Remote Sensing OR Big Data OR Mobile
9. SMMEs Farmers AND Digital Ecosystem OR Artificial Intelligence OR Cloud Com-
puting OR Internet of Things OR Smart Sensors OR Remote Sensing OR Big Data
OR Mobile
10. Small Business Farmers AND Digital Ecosystem OR Artificial Intelligence OR Cloud
Computing OR Internet of Things OR Smart Sensors OR Remote Sensing OR Big Data
OR Mobile
11. Small and Medium Sized Enterprise Farmers AND Digital Ecosystem OR Artificial
Intelligence OR Cloud Computing OR Internet of Things OR Smart Sensors OR
Remote Sensing OR Big Data OR Mobile
12. SMEs Farmers AND Digital Ecosystem OR Artificial Intelligence OR Cloud Com-
puting OR Internet of Things OR Smart Sensors OR Remote Sensing OR Big Data
OR Mobile
13. Small and Medium Business Farmers AND Digital Ecosystem OR Artificial Intelli-
gence OR Cloud Computing OR Internet of Things OR Smart Sensors OR Remote
Sensing OR Big Data OR Mobile
14. SMBs Farmers AND Digital Ecosystem OR Artificial Intelligence OR Cloud Com-
puting OR Internet of Things OR Smart Sensors OR Remote Sensing OR Big Data
OR Mobile.

References
1. FAO. The Future of Food and Agriculture: Trends and Challenges. 2014. Available online: [Link]
[Link] (accessed on 4 June 2022).
2. Pawlak, K.; Kołodziejczak, M. The role of agriculture in ensuring food security in developing countries: Considerations in the
context of the problem of sustainable food production. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5488. [CrossRef]
3. Gomez, S. The Role of Smallholder Farms in Food and Nutrition Security; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020. [CrossRef]
4. Lowder, S.K.; Skoet, J.; Singh, S. What Do We Really Know About the Number and Distribution of Farms and Family Farms in the World?
Background Paper for the State of Food and Agriculture 2014; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2014.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12530 19 of 20

5. Vignola, R.; Harvey, C.A.; Bautista-Solis, P.; Avelino, J.; Rapidel, B.; Donatti, C.; Martinez, R. Ecosystem-based adaptation for
smallholder farmers: Definitions, opportunities and constraints. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2015, 211, 126–132. [CrossRef]
6. Laborde, D.; Martin, W.; Swinnen, J.; Vos, R. COVID-19 risks to global food security. Science 2020, 369, 500–502. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
7. National Planning Commission. Our Future–Make It Work. 2011. Available online: [Link]
gcis_document/201409/[Link] (accessed on 8 June 2023).
8. World Bank. World Bank List of Economies. (June 2020). Available online: [Link] (accessed on 8 June 2023).
9. Fanadzo, M.; Ncube, B. Challenges and opportunities for revitalising smallholder irrigation schemes in South Africa. Afr. J.
Online Water SA 2018, 44, 436–447. [CrossRef]
10. Pienaar, L.; Traub, L.N. Understanding the Smallholder Farmer in South Africa: Towards a Sustainable Livelihoods Classification.
In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference of Agricultural Economists, Milan, Italy, 8–14 August 2015; pp. 1–36.
11. Ssozi, J.; Asongu, S.; Amavilah, V.H. The effectiveness of development aid for agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa. J. Econ. Stud.
2019, 46, 284–305. [CrossRef]
12. Agyekumhene, C.; de Vries, J.R.; van Paassen, A.; Macnaghten, P.; Schut, M.; Bregt, A. The Role of ICTs in Improving Smallholder
Maize Farming Livelihoods: The Mediation of Trust in Value Chain Financing. In Proceedings of the 13th European International
Farming System Association Symposium. Theme 4-Smart Technologies in Farming and Food Systems, Chania, Greece, 1–5 July 2018.
13. FAO. Digital Technologies in Agriculture and Rural Areas, Briefing Paper FAO. 2019. Available online: [Link]
ca4887en/[Link] (accessed on 8 June 2022).
14. Beriya, A. Digital Agriculture: Challenges and Possibilities in India; Center for Sustainable Development (CSD), Earth Institute,
Columbia University: New York, NY, USA, 2020.
15. Beriya, A. Precision Agriculture to Digital Agriculture: A Literature Review; Center for Sustainable Development (CSD), Earth
Institute, Columbia University: New York, NY, USA, 2020.
16. Amui, L.B.L.; Jabbour, C.J.C.; de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L.; Kannan, D. Sustainability as a dynamic organizational capability: A
systematic review and a future agenda toward a sustainable transition. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 308–322. [CrossRef]
17. Lage Junior, M.; Godinho Filho, M. Variations of the kanban system: Literature review and classification. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2010,
125, 13–21. [CrossRef]
18. Adam, I.O.; Musah, A. Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in the Cloud in developing countries: A synthesis of the literature
and future research directions. J. Manag. Sustain. 2015, 5, 115–139. [CrossRef]
19. Asatiani, A. Why Cloud? A Review of Cloud Adoption Determinants in Organizations. In Proceedings of the 23rd European
Conference on Information System Proceedings, Munster, Germany, 26–29 May 2015; pp. 1–17. Available online: [Link]
[Link]/ecis2015_cr (accessed on 4 June 2022).
20. Asenso-Okyere, K.; Mekonnen, D.A. The Importance of ICTs in the Provision of Information for Improving Agricultural Productivity and
Rural Incomes in Africa; UNDP: New York, NY, USA, 2012.
21. Attard, J.; Orlandi, F.; Scerri, S.; Auer, S. A systematic review of open government data initiatives. Gov. Inf. Q. 2015, 32, 399–418.
[CrossRef]
22. Fahim El-Gazzar, R. A Literature Review on Cloud Computing Adoption Issues in Enterprises. In Creating Value for All through
IT. TDIT 2014. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology; Bergvall-Kåreborn, B., Nielsen, P.A., Eds.; Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; Volume 429. [CrossRef]
23. Gumbi, L.; Twinomurinzi, H. SMME Readiness for Smart Manufacturing (4IR) Adoption: A Systematic Review; Springer: Cham,
Switzerland, 2020. [CrossRef]
24. Jacsó, P. The plausibility of computing the h-index of scholarly productivity and impact using reference-enhanced databases.
Online Inf. Rev. 2008, 32, 266–283. [CrossRef]
25. Shah, S.R.U.; Mahmood, K. Review of Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus Search Results: The Case of Inclusive
Education Research, Library Philosophy and Practice (e-Journal). 2017, p. 1544. Available online: [Link]
edu/libphilprac%0A[Link] (accessed on 8 June 2022).
26. Yang, H.; Tate, M. A descriptive literature review and classification of Cloud computing research. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2012,
31, 35–60. [CrossRef]
27. Fahimnia, B.; Sarkis, J.; Davarzani, H. Green supply chain management: A review and bibliometric analysis. Int. J. Prod. Econ.
2015, 162, 101–114. [CrossRef]
28. Jabbour, C.J.C. Environmental training in organisations: From a literature review to a framework for future research. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 2013, 74, 144–155. [CrossRef]
29. Jabbour, C.J.C.; Jugend, D.; Jabbour, A.B.L.S.; Gunasekaran, A.; Latan, H. Green product development and performance of
Brazilian firms: Measuring the role of human and technical aspects. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 87, 442–451. [CrossRef]
30. Mariano, E.B.; Sobreiro, V.A.; do Nascimento Rebelatto, D.A. Human development and data envelopment analysis: A structured
literature review. Omega 2015, 54, 33–49. [CrossRef]
31. Davison, R.M.; Martinsons, M.G. Context is king! Considering particularism in research design and reporting. J. Inf. Technol.
2016, 31, 241–249. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12530 20 of 20

32. Priandi, M.; Fernandez, W.; Sandeep, M.S. The Role of Context in IS Research: A review of e-Government Research in Developing
economies. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, Melbourne,
Australia, 3–5 April 2019; pp. 387–390. [CrossRef]
33. Alemayehu, B.Z.; Van Vuuren, J. Munificence Contingent Small Business Growth Model (special emphasis to African SMEs
context). J. Small Bus. Entrep. 2017, 29, 251–269. [CrossRef]
34. Taheri, F.; DHaese, M.; Fiems, D.; Hosseininia, G.H.; Azadi, H. Wireless sensor network for small-scale farming systems in
southwest Iran: Application of Q-methodology to investigate farmers perceptions. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2020, 177, 105682.
[CrossRef]
35. Walker, S. Value-added weather advisories for small-scale farmers in South Africa delivered via mobile apps. Irrig. Drain. 2021,
70, 505–511. [CrossRef]
36. Chandra, R.; Collis, S. Digital agriculture for small-scale producers. Commun. ACM 2021, 64, 75–84. [CrossRef]
37. Kudama, G.; Dangia, M.; Wana, H.; Tadese, B. Will digital solution transform Sub-Sahara African agriculture? Artif. Intell. Agric.
2021, 5, 292–300. [CrossRef]
38. Protopop, I.; Shanoyan, A. Big data and smallholder farmers: Big data applications in the agri-food supply chain in developing
countries. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Assoc. 2016, 19, 173–190.
39. Silvestri, S.; Richard, M.; Edward, B.; Dharmesh, G.; Dannie, R. Going digital in agriculture: How radio and SMS can scale-up
smallholder participation in legume-based sustainable agricultural intensification practices and technologies in Tanzania. Int. J.
Agric. Sustain. 2021, 19, 583–594. [CrossRef]
40. 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. [CrossRef]
41. Jiménez, D.; Delerce, S.; Dorado, H.; Cock, J.; Munoz, A.A.; Agamez, A.; Jarvis, A. A scalable scheme to implement data-driven
agriculture for small-scale farmers. Glob. Food Secur. 2019, 23, 256–266. [CrossRef]
42. Marescotti, M.E.; Demartini, E.; Filippini, R.; Gaviglio, A. Smart farming in mountain areas: Investigating livestock farmers
technophobia and technophilia and their perception of innovation. J. Rural Stud. 2021, 86, 463–472. [CrossRef]

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.