Affiliation:
1. Ural'skiy gosudarstvennyy agrarnyy universitet
2. Ural State University of Economics
3. Ural'skiy gosudarstvennyy lesotehnicheskiy universitet
Abstract
The processes of robotization of production occur in various industries, including such a conservative industry as agriculture. The aim of the study is to identify the territorial patterns of robotization of agriculture in the regions in relation to the indicators of their economic development. Regression analysis and Internet screening were used as research methods. Regional offices of the Ministry of Agriculture and Agribusiness provided data on the use of 435 units of robots used in the industry. In general, in the Russian Federation, the density of robotization of agriculture was 0.7497 robots per 10 thousand people employed in the industry. The density of robotization of agriculture by federal districts and regions was determined and the corresponding ranks were assigned to them. The author's methodology for ranking regions by robotization density is proposed, which is proposed to be divided into regions with high (over 3.0 robots per 10 thousand working in the industry), medium (from 0.75 to 3.0) and low density (less than 0.75 ) robotization. The average level of correlation between the gross agricultural output and the number of implemented robots was revealed (0.63). A high correlation is observed between labor productivity in agriculture and the number of implemented robots (0.78). There is a negative correlation between the share of agriculture in the gross value added of the regions and the amount of robotics used (-0.52) and the density of robotization (-0.59). This may indicate that robotics is used to a lesser extent in regions with traditionally developed agriculture. In the future, this may cause a technological lag in regions with a high share of agriculture, which must be taken into account by the executive authorities when developing programs for the innovative development of the industry.
Reference17 articles.
1. Hayashi S., Shigematsu K., Yamamoto S., Kobayashi K., Kohno Y., Kamata J., Kurita M. Evaluation of a strawberry‐harvesting robot in a field test // Biosystems Engineering. 2010. №105(2). pp.160-171, Hayashi S., Shigematsu K., Yamamoto S., Kobayashi K., Kohno Y., Kamata J., Kurita M. Evaluation of a strawberry‐harvesting robot in a field test // Biosystems Engineering. 2010. №105(2). pp.160-171
2. Slaughter D.C., Giles D.K., Downey D. Autonomous robotic weed control systems: A review // Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. 2008. №61 (1). pp.63-78, Slaughter D.C., Giles D.K., Downey D. Autonomous robotic weed control systems: A review // Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. 2008. №61 (1). pp.63-78
3. Zanlorensi L.A., Araújo V.M., Guimarães A.M. Automatic control and robotics for greenhouses: A review on heating technologies // Ibero|American Journal of Applied Computing. 2016. №4 (3). pp.21-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.6987485, Zanlorensi L.A., Araújo V.M., Guimarães A.M. Automatic control and robotics for greenhouses: A review on heating technologies // Ibero|American Journal of Applied Computing. 2016. №4 (3). pp.21-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.6987485
4. Zhao Y, Gong L, Huang Y, Liu C. A review of key techniques of vision‐based control for harvesting robot. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. 2016. №127. pp.311-323, Zhao Y, Gong L, Huang Y, Liu C. A review of key techniques of vision‐based control for harvesting robot. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. 2016. №127. pp.311-323
5. Bac CW, Henten EJ, Hemming J, Edan Y. Harvesting robots for High-value crops: State-of-the-art review and challenges ahead. Journal of Field Robotics. 2014. №31 (6). pp.888-911, Bac CW, Henten EJ, Hemming J, Edan Y. Harvesting robots for High-value crops: State-of-the-art review and challenges ahead. Journal of Field Robotics. 2014. №31 (6). pp.888-911