Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract Purpose Site-specific weed management (SSWM) has become recognised as a promising strategy to reduce herbicide use without compromising crop yield. Despite technological advances, the economic viability and adoption of this technology remain uncertain. This review identifies and analyses 27 economic evaluation studies from the past three decades, focusing on methodological frameworks, considered factors, and reported results. Methods Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, a systematic literature review was conducted across Scopus, Wiley Online, and AgEcon Search to identify economic evaluations of SSWM published between 1990 and 2025. Out of 2,184 initial records, studies were screened manually based on explicit eligibility criteria, requiring an advanced economic analysis (e.g., partial budgeting, bio-economic modelling, or benefit-cost analysis). Due to substantial study heterogeneity, a qualitative synthesis was performed by grouping the final selected literature into thematic clusters based on methodology and technological context. Results Early studies, focused on robust biological modelling, often reported positive outcomes, yet they commonly underestimated or omitted technology and management costs, leading to overestimated profitability. When such costs were included, results were mixed or negative. While recent studies incorporating AI-based precision spraying included technology costs and showed improved profitability, they omitted biological modelling, similarly overestimating benefits. Published break-even analyses indicated that the required farm sizes exceeded the average farm size in countries like Germany, suggesting that widespread adoption might depend on service providers or cooperatives, although such approaches remain unpopular among farmers. Moreover, sensitivity analyses, crucial to simulation modelling, were conducted only in seven studies. Further methodological limitations include, for example, interpolated weed maps or simplified yield-loss functions. Furthermore, environmental and social benefits, core to the SSWM concept, were widely omitted in economic evaluations. Conclusion Despite the increasing availability of commercial solutions, empirical evaluations, particularly under real-world, multi-year conditions, remain scarce. This overview underscores the need for integrative approaches that combine technological advancements with refined bio-economic and ecological models. Informed by policy frameworks, such efforts are essential to balance profitability and sustainability goals, realising the full potential of SSWM in European small- to medium-scale farming systems.
Pitsyk et al. (Mon,) studied this question.