Next Article in Journal
Dynamic Vehicle Routing Problem with Fuzzy Customer Response
Previous Article in Journal
Adsorption Characteristics of Cd2+ Ions in Aqueous Solution on Modified Straw Biochar
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Barriers to the Adoption of Innovations for Sustainable Development in the Agricultural Sector—Systematic Literature Review (SLR)

by
Laura Restrepo Campuzano
,
Gustavo Adolfo Hincapié Llanos
,
Jhon Wilder Zartha Sossa
*,
Gina Lía Orozco Mendoza
,
Juan Carlos Palacio
and
Mariana Herrera
School of Engineering, Faculty of Agroindustrial Engineering, Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana, Medellín 050001, Colombia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(5), 4374; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054374
Submission received: 23 January 2023 / Revised: 17 February 2023 / Accepted: 20 February 2023 / Published: 1 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Agriculture)

Abstract

:
In this article, we focused on studying the current barriers to implementing innovations in order for the agricultural sector to become more sustainable. Through a systematic literature review (SLR), 73 scientific articles were obtained with a search equation in SCOPUS. Of these, 48 were analyzed because of the mention of an obstacle preventing the sector from implementing innovations towards sustainability. Information related to the publication year, abstract, authors, keywords, innovation, innovation type, relationship with Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR), identified barrier, nature of the barrier (internal/external), agricultural subsector, country, and methodology of each article was identified, and with VantagePoint software, a technological surveillance technique was applied as a quantitative analysis of the information. The United States is the country with the most publications related to the subject. The most mentioned keywords were “Sustainable Agriculture”, “Agroecology”, “Climate Change”, “Innovation”, and “Organic Farming”. Additionally, a qualitative analysis showed 43 types of innovations, 16 of them related to technology. “Organic Agriculture” is the most mentioned innovation, followed by “Genetic Engineering” and “Precision Agriculture”. In addition, 51 barriers were identified, 28 external to farmers and 23 internal. “Lack of policies that promote that innovation Innovative Practices” is the most mentioned barrier, followed by “Epistemic Closure”, “Unfavorable Regulation”, Climate-Smart Agriculture, and “Unskilled Labor”. This article is intended not only to show trends in the barriers to innovation that prevents the achievement of sustainability that the agricultural sector needs, but also to serve as an input for the development of policies that provide solutions to these impediments. It was shown that 17 out of the 28 external barriers are related to topics that could be solved by formulating policies, laws, incentives, guidelines, and regulations.

1. Theoretical Context

Because of the Earth’s ecosystem and service functions (regulatory and cultural), the biodiversity it offers, and because it is the supply and sink of greenhouse gases (GHG), this means that it plays an important role in the water and aerosol energy exchange between the Earth’s surface and the atmosphere, which is needed in order to ensure the supply of food, fiber, wood, and energy [1].
In recent years, it has been noted that population growth and per capita changes in the consumption of goods supplied by the land have caused extraordinary rates of land and water use, with agriculture being one of the largest responsible sectors. The expansion of areas for agriculture, forestry, and commercial production has generated an increase in the productivity of these activities, ensuring consumption associated with the corresponding demand for food for the growing population [1]. However, this has also contributed to the increase in GHG, which translates into a change in the climate that reaches extremes, and consequently leading to the loss of ecosystems (forests, savannas, grasslands, and wetlands) and a decline in biodiversity. Sustainable land use can help reduce the negative impacts of these stressors [1], but sustainability cannot only be understood as environmentalism, it also concerns social equity and economic development [2].
The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) is an institution that seeks a more sustainable agriculture to combat global concerns, such as eliminating hunger, food insecurity, malnutrition, and reducing rural poverty. These are missions that were reinforced in 2015 with the creation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), in which the commitment to end poverty and hunger by 2030 was established. However, climate change represents a challenge for the compliance of these goals, as slow-onset environmental change processes, increased climate variability, and more frequent and severe extreme weather events affect agricultural productivity and add pressure to already fragile ecological and food systems [3].
This is why innovation strategies, such as agricultural innovation systems (AIS), are key examples of potential ways to improve the economic, environmental, and social performance of the agricultural sector. Not only because agriculture contributes to about 30% of global gross domestic product and has high returns on investment [4], but also due to the long-term positive impact of agricultural research and development (R&D) on productivity growth that is well established, and the fact that technologies and practices can help improve the sustainability of the use of natural resources. Nevertheless, agriculture receives about 5% of investment for R&D activities [5].
Agricultural production will need to increase more rapidly to meet a larger and more diverse demand for food, fiber, and fuel from an ever-growing population, as well as for the development of non-food products of a biological origin. Meeting these demands in a sustainable way will require increases in agricultural productivity and efficiency in the use of natural resources (land, water, and biodiversity) in a context of increasing competition between agriculture and other uses of finite land and water resources, and the uncertainties associated with climate change. This will require changes in production methods, including the adoption of technological and other innovations, at every step of the agri-food chain [6].
However, innovation in the agricultural sector is affected by barriers to its adoption, and, as [7] states, these barriers inhibit or reduce innovative activities; therefore, it has become increasingly important to identify and understand them.
The purpose of this article is to carry out a systematic literature review in order to identify and analyze the global barriers that exist in the agricultural sector to implement innovative practices that lead to a transformation toward sustainable agriculture. The conclusions that are developed are intended to be useful for future research in the scientific community. To develop the systematic literature review, the keywords that were input to generate a search equation were required to produce at least 50 articles that document information related to the topic of interest. From the revision of the texts, it was sought to consolidate the most relevant information of the article related to the proposed innovation, identify the characterization of the barrier, identify the agro-industrial practice and where it is generated, and identify the geolocation and search method. With this information, VantagePoint software will be used to analyze the data to study trends and generate conclusions and recommendations for future investigations.

2. Theoretical Framework

Development must aim to reach the needs and aspirations of humans. However, today, this is not true for a large number of people in terms of food, housing, employment, and beyond. Most people have legitimate aspirations for a better quality of life. In a world where poverty and inequity are endemic, there will always be the possibility of ecological crises of multiple kinds. Sustainable development explores the connection between quality of life and the environmental state, considering, at the same time, economic development, social equity, and environmental quality [8].
Agriculture is one of the examples of human intervention in natural systems during this development process and, until recently, it was small-scale and with a limited impact. As of today, their intervention is considerable and drastic in scale and impact, and more threatening to life support systems. This has no reason to be, thus we speak of sustainable development, which should not endanger the natural systems that support life on Earth. For all this, the World Commission on Environment and Development invites you to assist this situation by re-examining critical issues of the environment and development and formulating action proposals to address them that are concrete, realistic, and, above all, innovative [9].
Innovation is understood as a new or improved product or process (or combination) that differs significantly from previous products or processes and that has been made available to potential users (product) or put into use by the unit (process). The key components include the role of knowledge as the basis for innovation, novelty, and usefulness, and the creation or preservation of value as the presumed goal of innovation, which is uncertain and can only be fully evaluated at some point after its implementation [10].
There are three types of innovations: product, process, organizational, and marketing. The value of innovation can also evolve and provide different types of benefits to different stakeholders and are necessary for the study of government policy initiatives to promote innovation that offers socially desirable outcomes such as inclusion, sustainability, employment, or economic growth [10].
In agriculture, as in other sectors, innovation is the main driver of productivity growth. It is estimated that public spending on agricultural R&D has significant impacts on the growth and competitiveness of the total productivity of agricultural factors, but innovation is highlighted as an action to improve the environmental performance of farms. Innovation will have a key role to play in helping the agri-food sector to produce more nutritious, diverse, and abundant food, and to provide the raw material for non-food uses, without depleting natural resources, and adapting to the expected changes in the natural conditions of a changing climate. In some regions, the challenge is to adapt agricultural production systems to more difficult natural environments (e.g., due to salinity and more frequent droughts) [6]. Accepting this reality, some countries are attempting to solve agricultural problems through mechanization, automation, and modernization. The Fourth Industrial Revolution (4RI) will serve as the opportune moment to accelerate the scale and commercialization of agriculture.
The Fourth Industrial Revolution, or 4IR, refers to the looming revolutionary era in which information and communication technologies (ICT) will converge. The revolution will spark new technological innovations in six areas: artificial intelligence, robotics, the Internet of Things (IoT), unmanned vehicles, 3D printing, and nanotechnology. The 4IR will include a variety of new technologies that use big data to incorporate the physical, biological, and digital worlds in a way that will affect all sectors of life [11].
Agriculture is greatly affected by climate, and, currently, science has no means to accurately predict and control it. For this reason, agriculture relies heavily on intelligence and wisdom, including human experience, making it difficult to standardize. 4RI technology can make decisions that exceed human wisdom and experience. It will solve certain problems that cannot be solved with current technology, such as livestock odors, the cost of too much processing, and the likelihood of pests occurring due to climate change. So, the 4IR can be seen as an “environmentally friendly” revolution, unlike our current revolution. At the same time, it will lead to greater technological innovations and far-reaching changes in the economy, society, and life [11].
Despite this, traditional social systems enforce community control over agricultural practices and traditional rights related to water, forests, and land; it does not necessarily impede growth and expansion. Instead, it limits the acceptance and diffusion of technical innovations [9], what we call barriers.
According to [12], the concept of a barrier to innovation is quite ambiguous in the literature. It states that it can be referred to as what prevents innovative activities in companies or as obstacles that can be overcome with effort, but it highlights that they appear to be largely relative and context-dependent (what constitutes a barrier and the degree to which it hinders innovative activities depending on the company and its characteristics).
The categorization of barriers to innovation can be provided by those that are external and those that are internal. This division makes it possible to recognize the barriers that a company can influence and the barriers that are partially or totally outside its influence. Internal ones originate within the context of activity and are related to its management and organization (e.g., financial resources, competencies, and mindsets). External barriers arise when there is an interaction with other organizations or actors in economic and innovation systems (e.g., competitors, customers, partners, and governments) [12].
In recent years, different studies have been carried out on barriers in different agricultural sectors. Ref. [13], in their paper on the barriers to the use of digital technologies for sustainable agricultural development and food security in Mali, identifies the barriers in three projects; the authors focused on the perceptions of and the reactions of users to the technologies, as well as the barriers to usability and sustainability of the technologies.
On the other hand, [14], in their study identifying the barriers and motivations for soil tests in the beef and sheep meat sector, as well as [15], present the evaluation of adoption barriers of the IoT smart agriculture of Brazilian farmers. The study sought to describe the main characteristics and resistances of smart agriculture that impede the adoption of innovations; the authors used stepwise regression to assess the rejection attributes of IoT innovation predicted by knowledge transfer barriers.
Likewise, [16], in their paper related to the review of financial barriers and strategies for nature-based urban solutions, identified more than nine financial barriers. Ref. [17] presents the barriers, challenges, and requirements for the use of information and communication technologies in the agricultural sector in Bangladesh. The authors detailed the barriers faced by these extension programs in the use of ICT; they propose the possible solutions, needs, and requirements that must be implemented during decision making.
Likewise, [18] analyzes what is related to soil and pest management in agricultural systems as well as drivers and barriers to the implementation of practices based on agroecological principles. Finally, [19] presents the classification of seven barriers related to nature-based urban solutions.

3. Materials and Methods

To determine the barriers that prevent the adoption of innovations focused on the sustainable development of the agricultural sector, a systematic literature review (SLR) was carried out, which was developed in the following stages (also shown in Figure 1).

3.1. Stage I: Elaboration of Search Equation

To narrow down the problem, a problem tree was built, which allowed for the identification of the keywords (sustainable, agriculture, innovation, and barriers) used in the search equation for scientific articles in SCOPUS. The equation was modified twice until the one that yielded a representative amount of bibliographic material related to the selected topic to be studied was obtained. The final equation was TITLE-ABS-KEY (sustainab* AND agriculture AND innovation AND barriers), obtaining 73 scientific articles.

3.2. Stage 2: First Reading of Bibliographic Material

As a first filter to determine the articles that would be a part of the study, the summaries of the 73 articles obtained with the equation were read to discard those that did not correspond to the context of the agricultural sector or did not address the issues related to the sustainable development of the sector through innovations. In total, 53 articles met the conditions.

3.3. Stage 3: In-Depth Reading of Bibliographic Material

As a second filter, a complete reading of the 53 articles was carried out to validate that the theme developed was related to the purpose of this article. In total, 48 articles were chosen to be used in the development of this paper (those in which an innovation and/or barrier was not identified were discarded).

3.4. Stage 4: Information Classification

A table was constructed to consolidate the most relevant information from each of the articles, which was classified into two sets as follows:
  • General information: title, year of publication, abstract, authors, keywords, journal, country, the impact factor (SJR), and quartile Scimago.
  • Qualitative details: innovation to be implemented, type of innovation, relationship with the 4RI, identified barrier, nature of the barrier (internal/external), agricultural subsector, country, and article.

3.5. Stage 5: Application of Technological Surveillance Techniques

The table filled out with all the information identified in the previous stage was used as the main input for the analysis of the literature review with VantagePoint Software. With the qualitative details in the information table, an analysis of the trends was constructed among the reviewed articles.

4. Results

The following results correspond to the analysis produced by the consolidated general information of the articles read. The tables were constructed from the data related to the years of publication of the articles, the countries of origin, and the most relevant keywords in the literature review.
As shown in Figure 2, the number of articles published by the established ranges shows a noticeable increase. It was observed that from 1992 to 2000, only 1 article was published, 20 were published between 2001 and 2015, and 27 were published between 2016 and 2020.
For the first range, the upper limit was established by taking into account the adoption of the Millennium Declaration, which established the Millennium Goals (MDGs) in 2000 [20]. For the second range, 2015 was established as the limit because it is the year in which the new 2030 agenda was adopted by many countries, accepting the Sustainable Development Goals [21].
In the first range of the publication years, ref. [22] details the little communication and cooperation which took place between interdisciplinary researchers and the small amount of information available to policy makers focused on promoting sustainable agriculture on innovations focused on a decrease in pesticide use, crop rotation, and no-plow agriculture, which could anticipate consequences of its implementation in the country of the United States.
For the range from 2001 to 2015, ref. [23] details the technological integrations in innovative practices in Europe and exposes the few resources utilized and the fragmentation of research in the design and management of orchards, precision agriculture, green technology, genetic engineering, in vitro, and micropropagation. Organic agriculture is a topic addressed in five articles: Ref. [24] detected that in the United States, this innovation is perceived as unpredictable, and users relate it to extra costs and the limited availability of required products. Ref. [25] states that in Germany, this innovation received only a small amount of reception due to the few known success stories among farmers, the lack of specialized knowledge and expertise networks, and the difficulty of entering the network of organic agriculture actors which have already been established. Ref. [26] found that there is little market interest to pay extra for organic products; there is also little information on these products and a lack of support from the government. Ref. [27] detected that once again in the United States, there is a barrier to this innovation associated with the lack of policies for financing farmers and the opposition of farms to change their traditional model due to a high degree of uncertainty at the time of organic farming. Finally, ref. [28] concluded that the lack of prioritization of research associated with organic agriculture is the greatest barrier to this innovation in Canada.
Starting in 2015, trends focused on technological innovations began to be seen. Ref. [29] detected that the low priority within Malaysia of innovations in biogeographic species transplantation, plant and crop gene technology, aquaculture, urban agriculture, low-carbon crops, green technology, intelligent irrigation systems, and research exchange represents a barrier to the sustainable development of national agriculture. In Ref. [30], the authors studied precision agriculture and delved into how the size of farms, educational level, investment power, incompatibility with technology, no perception of benefit, high-risk perception, data security, few subsidies, and the uncertainty regarding receiving a return on an investment make up the barriers to adopt sustainable development in Chinese farms, while ref. [31] detected that in Italy, this same innovation presents a resistance to be implemented due to factors such as educational level, age, investment power, and the size of farmers’ farms. Finally, ref. [32] details agroecology and exposes that the economic power of large industries prevents the deployment of this innovation at a global level.
Based on the geographical origin, 29 countries were the ones that commissioned the production of articles related to the theme developed. The United States leads the participation with 13 of them, followed by England, Australia, Italy, France, Netherlands, Argentina, Belgium, Canada, China, Germany, and Switzerland, respectively, thus making up the top 12 countries that participated in the publication of articles, as shown in Figure 3. On the other hand, the United States and Italy are the countries with the lowest percentage of collaboration at the time of publication, with 38.46% and 16.67%, respectively of their total articles, while Argentina and Switzerland only have publications in conjunction with other countries.
In Figure 4 related to the cluster map of top 30 keywords, the most common in the articles were “Sustainable Agriculture”, “Agroecology”, “Climate Change”, “Innovation”, and “Organic Farming”; Sustainable Agriculture appeared in six articles (12.5%), while the next four each appeared in four articles (8.33%).

5. Discussion

After qualitatively analyzing the articles read with the results of the VantagePoint Software, the analysis was complemented with 5 topics detected in each of the papers: the type of innovation, relationship with the Fourth Industrial Revolution, the barrier detected, the type of barrier (internal/external), and the method of analysis. Table 1 shows the consolidation of these five axes.

5.1. Innovation Type

A total of 43 innovations were found, of which none of them were related to marketing innovation (following the Oslo Manual classifications).
Agroecology as process innovation is mentioned by [41] as a transition to alternative sustainable systems to mitigate the high environmental and social costs of agriculture of grains and rotational graziers in the region of Iowa, Mississippi. Additionally, ref. [32] projected it as a framework for action for global food systems that must migrate to sustainable systems that will open paths for the transition to new ways of seeing, experiencing, and obtaining food.
Additionally, it was found that no-till agriculture is another process innovation that ensures soil conservation and the remediation of erosion caused by agriculture. Ref. [22] mentions the investment of millions of USD in the United States to address soil erosion (which includes no-till agriculture) and the barrier when developing policies focused on promoting sustainable agriculture and anticipating consequences of its implementation due to the little information for the elaborators of these documents, as well as the non-cooperation between interdisciplinary researchers. Ref. [37] exposes Latin America as a region that must rapidly integrate innovations due to its high vulnerability to the consequences of climate change. No-till agriculture is proposed as an alternative to taking care of the natural resources of the agricultural farms of the region, which must be integrated with other technologies (also studied in the articles) such as fire prevention models and biological nitrification inhibition, but policies must be built to support sustainable practices that reduce negative environmental impacts while maintaining ecosystem function and services. Ref. [47], on the other hand, speaks of the high profitability of no-till agriculture in Brazil, but of its failure due to the low abilities of farmers to manage the practice.
Urban agriculture is another process innovation that involves the integration of the city in this hitherto rural process. Ref. [29] details this initiative as one of the solutions proposed to achieve agricultural sustainability in the country of Malaysia (an economy in transition) and the difficulty it has had due to the lack of policies to develop an effective scientific framework. Ref. [58] studies this new process of agriculture in the context of the European Union, and that it arises as a solution to land limitations. Despite its expansion across the continent, regulations did not provide a conducive environment for such an initiative to become a way for cities to cope with climate change, food and nutrition security, biodiversity management, and human prosperity.
In product innovations, the study of genetics for food improvement stands out. Ref. [23] mentions genetic engineering as an alternative to going from a performance-based model to one to improve the quality traits of products, ensure food safety, satisfy market demands and consumer rights, and the administration of agroecosystems and non-renewable resources such as soil and the environment. However, the European fruit sector must work to strengthen international cooperation for research, increase the resources allocated for it, and stop the fragmentation that it is receiving. Ref. [26] emphasizes the importance of this innovation in Australia, which has shown positive results for farmers, but it must confront public attitudes and the media that show a negative image of this advance. Ref. [48] states that in the United States, genetic engineering positively impacts the environment and society since it constantly produces more than organic systems and uses zero-tillage conservation methods, but regulations and accountability standards represent a difficult barrier to overcome. Ref. [47] outlines the importance of genetic resources research in the Brazilian agricultural sector, in which alleles and genetic combinations that are effective in certain environments but not in others have been highlighted. These data would be very useful to accelerate food production processes by maintaining a stable and diverse biosphere by expanding crop production in a reduced land area due to environmental degradation caused by the human invasion and climate change, while maintaining biodiversity. Access, collection, availability of information, and financing represent the most important barriers to overcome.
Nanotechnology is another product innovation that, according to [53], has the potential to improve efficiencies in the use of nutrients in fertilizers, control pests, understand parasite phenomena, develop biopesticides, strengthen natural fibers, eliminate contaminants from soil and water, improve the shelf life of vegetables and flowers, manage water precision, reclaim salt-affected soils, and stabilize erosion-prone surfaces. However, in the Indian agricultural sector, there is no willingness to invest in these initiatives because of a lack of education and knowledge in agricultural practices.
Organizational model innovations focus on collaboration throughout the agricultural production chain. Ref. [24] discusses community-supported agriculture that provides consumers with healthy, locally grown foods, revitalizes local food economies, and addresses the dissatisfaction of certain customers of large agricultural corporations in New York, the United States. The non-availability of products, their extra cost, and a market that is mostly not interested in the initiative are the impediments to these communities. Studies detailing the Rural Cooperative Economic Organizations in China that accelerate the agricultural industrialization process show that they do not have a skilled labor force and struggle with high implementation costs. Ref. [43] highlights that collaborative models of pig farming in the Netherlands result in smarter and more innovative solutions and provide support in the development of more sustainable agricultural concepts, but they must ensure that internal relationships are optimal and break with hierarchies in the market.
A circular economy is an organizational model innovation that [40] highlights in the case of a sustainable business model that integrates all the actors in the agricultural chain of rice and wheat production in Italy. Uncertainty regarding a return on investment is the main barrier that must be overcome to implement this type of initiative according to the results of this study.

5.2. Fourth Industrial Revolution Relation

Since 2006, innovations related to the Fourth Industrial Revolution have increased and, in this article, 17 innovations of this nature were identified.
Integrated pest management (IPM) was reviewed in three articles, of which two relate it to technologies and one does not. Ref. [25] studies this topic in German horticulture through biological methods. Ref. [50] details this innovation and how it should be integrated with technological practices to monitor the use of pesticides and fertilizers for decision making by farmers and present successful case studies of this good practice in Germany, the United States, and Canada in sugar beet, almonds, cotton, oranges, tomatoes, lettuce, carrot, and apple crops. Finally, ref. [43] highlights this innovation as a solution for flower and vegetable greenhouse areas in France where a large number of pesticides are used; the articles exposes the importance of designing more robust controlled crops where both technological and ecological approaches are integrated, which involves high-tech tools dedicated to IPM.
The 4IR-related innovations stand out for allowing the constant monitoring of resources for agriculture that generates efficiency and better decision making by farmers. For example, smart irrigation systems are a solution to save water in crops. In Malaysia, these types of innovations are affected by the lack of policies that support their implementation, the low priority they have in the country in the public agenda, and the low investment for related research [29]. In Australia [61] and Campania [60], these systems face a low level of implementation due to the high associated costs and due to the epistemic closure of farmers (they cling to their traditional beliefs of crop management).
Precision agriculture (PA) is another technological innovation that provides accurate information on the status of crops for the responsible use of resources. For fruit crops in Europe, research plays a fundamental role in the optimal deployment of these initiatives, but the lack of resources, international cooperation, and fragmentation of this academic sector are marked obstacles [23]. In China’s agricultural sector, this technology is not expanded by factors such as farm size, educational level, farmer’s investment power, incompatibility with technology, no benefit and risk perception, data security uncertainty, few subsidies, and return on investment uncertainty [30]. Finally, in Italy, the age of the farmers and their level of education are impediments to implementing PA [57] as well as farm size, farmer’s investment power, and data handling [31].
Climate smart agriculture (CSA) is another technological option to monitor crop factors that can prevent negative consequences characteristic of climate change. In OECD countries such as Switzerland, the Netherlands, Italy, and France, the implementation of these initiatives is slow in agri-food supply chains [42]. Economic issues such as financing, the investment power of farmers, return on investment uncertainty, implementation costs, and long-term return on investment; politic issues such as a lack of policies regarding unfavorable regulation, which makes it difficult to meet sustainable standards; and social issues such as the lack of farmers knowledge, epistemic closure, the problem not being perceived, educational level, unskilled workforce, and an uninterested market are the reasons why there is no optimal deployment of these new systems. On the other hand, in crops from France, Switzerland, Italy, and the Netherlands, the problem with the correct execution of CSA is that this is an unsuitable business model for the context in which it is desired to be implemented within [41].

5.3. Barriers and Types

A total of 51 barriers were consolidated from the review of the articles. The classification of these was defined from the recognition of those factors that a farmer influences to generate a change and those that are partially or totally outside his influence “…Internal barriers originate within a firm and are closely related to its management and organization and include issues relating to, for example, financial resources, competences, and mindsets. External barriers originate from a firm’s external environment and emerge when a firm interacts with other organizations or actors in economic and innovation systems; these include issues relating to, for example, the behavior of competitors, customers, partners, and governments...” [12].
A lack of policies that promote innovations was the external barrier with the highest recurrence in the review. Ref. [37] mentions it as an impediment to implementing biological nitrification inhibition, fire forecasting models, and no-till agriculture in Latin America, innovations that are proposed to manage the increase in greenhouse gases associated with the agricultural sector. Ref. [49] mentions it when analyzing integrated crop–livestock systems to intensify sustainable agriculture and livestock farming in Brazil. Ref. [7] detected it in their study of sustainable water management for food production in Australia through drip irrigation. Ref. [35] highlights it as an obstacle in alternative food networks in the United States for both farmers and consumers. Ref. [56] highlights it in the study carried out in the country of Argentina on organic beekeeping models to generate transitions towards sustainable agriculture. Genetic engineering, aquaculture, green technology, low-carbon crops, smart irrigation systems, the transplantation of bio-geographical species, and urban agriculture also represents a challenge in Malaysia, according to [29], to create a scientific framework for the sustainability of the agricultural sector. Aquaculture as a solution for the fish farming sector in the European Union, despite presenting an important contribution to the economic sphere, lacks policies that promote the practice [36]. Ref. [42] also highlights this in the agri-food supply chains of Switzerland, the Netherlands, Italy, and France to achieve a correct deployment of climate-smart agriculture innovations. In Africa, they also face these types of barriers to implementing agriculture adapted to climate change when they wish to generate solutions for the consequences caused by climate variability [40]. In Colombia, the intensive silvopastoral systems must have a strategy to spread this type of practice, which must go hand in hand with a political framework that they lack [51]. In terms of the sectors of agriculture, livestock farming (dairy), poultry farming, and floriculture in the United States, ref. [27] alludes to the lack of policies to implement innovations focused on organic agriculture processes. Finally, ref. [50] mentions this as an impediment to advance in integrated pest management systems in sugar beet, almonds, cotton, oranges, tomatoes, lettuce, carrot, and apple crops in the countries of Germany, the United States, and Canada.
On the other hand, epistemic closure (or lock) is the inertia and resistance to unfamiliarity [59] and was the internal barrier with the highest repetitions. Ref. [25] speaks of this barrier in the horticulture and agriculture of Germany for the individual decision making of farmers when adopting organic practices and integrated pest management systems in the production process. Ref. [27] details this in her study of the adoption of organic farming practices in farmers in the United States dedicated to agriculture, livestock farming (dairy), poultry farming, and floriculture. Ref. [66] focuses on this again in the context of the North American country, but in terms of progressing with the implementation of sustainable agriculture. In Belgium, ref. [52] studies a case of multi-resistant cultivars for wheat and answers the question of its slow commercial implementation through the barrier in question. Ref. [61] finds that in Australia, smart irrigation systems are not correctly adopted due to this resistance from farmers. Ref. [42] shows that in Switzerland, the Netherlands, Italy, and France climate-smart agriculture in the agri-food supply chain is not diffused correctly by the internal barrier. In Campania, smart irrigation systems emerge as a solution to the consequences of climate change, but the paradigms of farmers themselves are the main barrier to their implementation [60]. In Australia, efficient water use through drip irrigation innovations faces resistance from those who work the land [7]. Last, in England, initiatives such as ruminant farming are proposed in agriculture, recreation, education, and research as eco modernization solutions for “greening” the economy [59,67].
Taking into account the update of results for the period 2021–2023, several reviews were found; however, only two of them mention specific barriers to the adoption of innovations for sustainable development in agriculture. Ref. [16] identified two barriers for urban nature-based solutions (NBS): coordination between public and private funders and integration of NBS benefits into valuation and accounting methods; they also discussed strategies found in the literature that address these barriers. In this paper, nine financial barriers were found: uncertainty and long-term return on investment, little investment in R&D, difficulty accessing credit, complex financing, farmer’s investment power, high implementation costs, few subsidies for peasants, null perception of benefits, and investment power. Some of these barriers are more related to the findings of [16] in terms of financial barrier 2; on barrier 1, the authors found no similarities.
In this same period, the paper by [19] was found, in which seven barriers were identified: limited collaborative governance, knowledge, data and awareness challenges, low private sector engagement, competition over urban space, insufficient policy development, implementation and enforcement oriented around NBS, insufficient public resources (incl. maintenance challenges), and citizen engagement challenges. In the results of our paper, nine barriers directly relate to those identified by [19], these are summarized as: a lack of policies, lack of farmer knowledge, data security paradigm, internal policies of non-compatible companies with the change, strategic management of companies, lack of policies, few subsidies, little investment in research and badly formulated policy in the citizen engagement challenges grouping. We concluded that this not achieve a relationship with our paper.

5.4. Methodologies Used in the Articles Analyzed

A systematic literature review (SLR) was the methodology used by certain authors of the articles read to study specific cases of innovations. However, there were papers in which its implementation was not specified and others in which it was complemented with methods such as interviews, surveys, and calls, among others.
Ref. [38] studied the unfavorable regulation of the United States to implement biotech crops in food production systems through a historical review of this innovation in the country, but the study does not specify the SLR methodology as a method to do so. Likewise, ref. [62] evaluates the conflicts that occur between science, regulation, perception, and environmental impact when attempting to implement solutions for the generation of soil conditioners from bioenergy processes through an exhaustive review of documentation, but the term SLR is not explicitly found. Finally, ref. [32] talks about the importance of agroecology in global transitions towards sustainable agriculture and how the economic power that large industries have is the greatest impediment to achieving this objective, not specifically mentioning an SLR.
On the other hand, some complemented their search with other methodologies. Ref. [66] studied the reasons why sugarcane growers in Australia have been reluctant to modify their fertilization practices using reduced fertilizer rates to suit environmental objectives through a literature review; 82 interviews took place with representatives of the sugar industry in the region and other stakeholders interested in the environmental performance of the industry. Ref. [64] studied the barriers to the sustainable supply chain management of agriculture in Pakistan, collecting important information through the literature and expert discussions, the results of questionnaires, and information from large companies to build a model using the fuzzy AHP technique. Ref. [31] exposes the factors that interfere with the adoption of precision agriculture in Italy through the help of a case study in which a considerable amount of information was collected from the literature and later complemented with the construction of a statistical model using ISTAT.
Throughout the review, innovations studied with an explicitly declared SLR were identified. Ref. [35] used the methodology to determine the challenges faced by farmers and consumers within alternative food network initiatives in the United States. Ref. [58] studied the current state of urban agriculture in the European Union by reviewing the literature associated with existing projects, of which it is found that unfavorable regulation does not allow for this type of innovation to be extended. Ref. [44], through a literature review, exposes some of the benefits that may result from the adoption of controlled traffic farming in grain crops in Australia and thus reaches the fact that the region’s incompatibility with this type of technology represents the main barrier that prevents its correct deployment.

6. Conclusions

Through the methodology, it was possible to identify that in the agricultural sector, there is more tendency to innovate processes implemented throughout the production chain, which aim to promote sustainable practices. From the 43 cases found, 33 were process innovation, 6 were product innovation, and 4 were organizational models. The innovation that had the highest number of related articles was organic agriculture with seven publications, followed by genetic engineering with five and precision agriculture with four, reassuring that the most popular innovations correspond to some change in the process of production followed by innovation in product change. Additionally, suggesting that innovations not related directly to the core activity of the subsector are less developed in the agricultural sector and should be studied in detailed.
Technology begins to gain strength in the sector as a mechanism for improvement through innovations for sustainable development. Its study has tended to rise since 2006. There is a trend in the use of monitoring mechanisms that optimize decision making in the use of resources and inputs for the maintenance of products, as well as their genetic modification. Of the 43 types of innovations, 17 were related to the technologies of the Fourth Industrial Revolution and 27 were not; this number is expected to grow exponentially as the world continues to develop more technological skills. However, it is important to highlight the great work that has to be made to train and sensitize farmers and encourage young people to continue working in the fields, as it was concluded that the farmer’s educational level, age, and indifference were some of the barriers that appeared in the investigation.
The review allows us to conclude that external barriers are the ones with the highest incidence, within which the lack of policies or their unfavorableness are identified as those that affect the correct implementation of innovations that promote sustainable development in the agricultural sector. A total of 51 barriers were detected, of which 28 were classified as external and 23 as internal. The “Lack of policies that promote that innovation” is the barrier that presented the most mentions (in 12 articles, it was identified as an impediment to the implementation of innovations), which is external; followed by epistemic closure with 9 mentions (being internal), and unfavorable regulation and unskilled labor with 8 mentions each and being external and internal, respectively. This finding could be a call to action for governments to start developing more definitions of the agricultural sector, which is one of the main economic activities for most countries.
The systematic literature review is a highly accepted methodology in the formulation of scientific articles. The articles reviewed present different development methodologies that were classified according to their level of relationship with SLR. Of the 48 articles, 13 did not correspond to a literature review, 15 did not specify the methodology, but it is inferred that it is SLR, 14 used this methodology, complementing it with interviews or surveys of interest groups detected in the articles, and 6 articles specified the SLR as the methodology used. However, it was used to study the specific topics and there was no article reviewed with a comparison or an analysis of the trends between the case studies.
The results of this article are intended not only to show trends in the barriers to innovation that prevent achieving the sustainability that the agricultural sector needs, but they also serve as an input for the development of policies that provide solutions to these impediments. It was evidenced that 17 out of the 28 external barriers are related to topics that could be solved by formulating policies, laws, incentives, guidelines, regulations, benefits, and prioritization in the public agenda, among others (badly formulated policy, data security, difficulty accessing credit, few subsidies, financing, implementation costs, investigation prioritization, lack of alignment of the scientific community and politicians, lack of government support, lack of promotion policies, little international cooperation, little investment in research, low priority of the subject in the country, non-standardized regulations (global), price competitiveness in markets, sustainable standards difficult to meet, and unfavorable regulation). Additionally, being able to break down these barriers with these types of means would provide an optimal basis for other obstacles to be solved in the long term (those related to knowledge, integration of academia, research, and the uncertainty of farmers).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.L.O.M., J.W.Z.S. and G.A.H.L.; methodology, L.R.C. and M.H.; software, J.C.P.; validation, L.R.C. and M.H.; formal analysis, L.R.C. and M.H.; investigation, L.R.C. and M.H.; writing—original draft preparation, L.R.C., M.H. and G.A.H.L.; writing—review and editing, L.R.C., G.A.H.L., J.W.Z.S., G.L.O.M., J.C.P. and M.H.; visualization, J.C.P.; supervision, G.L.O.M.; project administration, L.R.C. and M.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Porter, J.R.; Challinor, A.J.; Henriksen, C.B.; Howden, S.M.; Martre, P.; Smith, P. Invited review: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, agriculture, and food—A case of shifting cultivation and history. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2019, 25, 2518–2529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. University of Alberta. ‘What Is Sustainability?’. PR Newswire. 2013. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/docview/447133453?accountid=10297%5Cnhttps://metalib.dmz.cranfield.ac.uk:9003/cranfield?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&atitle=Sun+Microsystems+Takes+RFID+From+.&genre=unknown&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&sid=ProQ:ProQ:abidateline&forcedol=true (accessed on 1 June 2022).
  3. FAO. Strategy on Climate; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  4. Von Braun, J.; Gulati, A.; Kharas, H. Key policy actions for sustainable land and water use to serve people. Economics 2017, 11, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Pardey, P.G.; Chan-Kang, C.; Dehmer, S.P.; Beddow, J.M. Agricultural R&D is on the move. Nature 2016, 537, 301–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. OECD. Agricultural Innovation Systems, Agricultural Innovation Systems: A Framework for Analysing the Role of the Government; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Greenland, S.; Levin, E.; Dalrymple, J.F.; O’Mahony, B. Sustainable innovation adoption barriers: Water sustainability, food production and drip irrigation in Australia. Soc. Responsib. J. 2019, 15, 727–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Rogers, P.P.; Jalal, K.F.; Boyd, J.A. An Introduction to Sustainable Development; Routledge: Milton Park, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  9. Keeble, B.R. The Brundtland Report: “Our Common Future”. Med. War 1988, 4, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. OECD; Eurostat. Oslo Manual 2018: Guidelines for Collecting, Reporting and Using Data on Innovation, 4th ed.; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2018. [CrossRef]
  11. Sung, J. The Fourth Industrial Revolution and Precision Agriculture. In Automation in Agriculture-Securing Food Supplies for Future Generations; Intechopen: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Sandberg, B.; Aarikka-Stenroos, L. What makes it so difficult? A systematic review on barriers to radical innovation. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2014, 43, 1293–1305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Sidibé, A.; Olabisi, L.S.; Doumbia, H.; Touré, K.; Niamba, C.A. Barriers and enablers of the use of digital technologies for sustainable agricultural development and food security: Learning from cases in Mali. Elem. Sci. Anth. 2021, 9, 00106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Rhymes, J.M.; Wynne-Jones, S.; Williams, A.P.; Harris, I.M.; Rose, D.; Chadwick, D.R.; Jones, D.L. Identifying barriers to routine soil testing within beef and sheep farming systems. Geoderma 2021, 404, 115298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Strong, R.; Wynn, J.T.; Lindner, J.R.; Palmer, K. Evaluating Brazilian agriculturalists’ IoT smart agriculture adoption barriers: Understanding stakeholder salience prior to launching an innovation. Sensors 2022, 22, 6833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Toxopeus, H.; Polzin, F. Reviewing financing barriers and strategies for urban nature-based solutions. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 289, 112371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ahsan, M.B.; Leifeng, G.; Safiul Azam, F.M.; Xu, B.; Rayhan, S.J.; Kaium, A.; Wensheng, W. Barriers, Challenges, and Requirements for ICT Usage among Sub-Assistant Agricultural Officers in Bangladesh: Toward Sustainability in Agriculture. Sustainability 2022, 15, 782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Surchat, M.; Wezel, A.; Tolon, V.; Breland, T.A.; Couraud, P.; Vian, J.F. Soil and pest management in French polynesian farming systems and drivers and barriers for implementation of practices based on agroecological principles. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5, 708647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Dorst, H.; van der Jagt, A.; Toxopeus, H.; Tozer, L.; Raven, R.; Runhaar, H. What’s behind the barriers? Uncovering structural conditions working against urban nature-based solutions. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2022, 220, 104335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. FAO. The Millennium Development Goals. 2005. Available online: http://www.fao.org/forestry/26559/en/ (accessed on 29 September 2020).
  21. SDG Fund. From MDGs to SDGs. Available online: https://www.sdgfund.org/mdgs-sdgs (accessed on 29 September 2020).
  22. Ogg, C.W. Addressing Information Needs to Support Sustainable Agriculture Policies. J. Sustain. Agric. 1992, 2, 113–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Sansavini, S. The role of research and technology in shaping a sustainable fruit industry: European advances and prospects. Rev. Bras. de Frutic. 2006, 28, 550–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Stagl, S.; O’Hara, S.U. Motivating factors and barriers to sustainable co sumer behaviour. Int. J. Agric. Resour. Gov. Ecol. 2002, 2, 75–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. König, B. Adoption of sustainable production techniques: Structural and social determinants of the individual decision making process. Acta Horticu. 2004, 655, 259–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wheeler, S.A. The barriers to further adoption of organic farming and genetic engineering in Australia: Views of agricultural professionals and their information sources. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2008, 23, 161–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Constance, D.H.; Choi, J.Y. Overcoming the barriers to organic adoption in the United States: A Look at pragmatic conventional producers in Texas. Sustainability 2010, 2, 163–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hammermeister, A.M.; Pidskalny, R.; Nelson, K.; Martin, R.C. Establishing Priorities for Organic Research in Canada; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  29. Ahmed, F.; Al-Amin, A.Q.; Masud, M.M.; Kari, F.; Mohamad, Z. A science framework (SF) for agricultural sustainability. An. da Acad. Bras. de Ciências 2015, 87, 1887–1902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Clark, B.; Jones, G.D.; Kendall, H.; Taylor, J.; Cao, Y.; Li, W.; Zhao, C.; Chen, J.; Yang, G.; Chen, L.; et al. A proposed framework for accelerating technology trajectories in agriculture: A case study in China. Front. Agric. Sci. Eng. 2018, 5, 485–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Bucci, G.; Bentivoglio, D.; Finco, A.; Belletti, M. Exploring the impact of innovation adoption in agriculture: How and where Precision Agriculture Technologies can be suitable for the Italian farm system? IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 275, 012004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gliessman, S.; Friedmann, H.; Howard, P.H. Agroecology and food sovereignty. IDS Bull. 2019, 50, 91–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Khan, M.A.; Akhtar, M.S. Agricultural Adaptation and Climate Change Policy for Crop Production in Africa. Crop Prod. Glob. Environ. Issues 2015, 437–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Blesh, J.; Wolf, S.A. Transitions to agroecological farming systems in the Mississippi River Basin: Toward an integrated socioecological analysis. Agric. Hum. Values 2014, 31, 621–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bruce, A.B.; Som Castellano, R.L. Labor and alternative food networks: Challenges for farmers and consumers. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2017, 32, 403–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Bostock, J.; Lane, A.; Hough, C.; Yamamoto, K. An assessment of the economic contribution of EU aquaculture production and the influence of policies for its sustainable development. Aquac. Int. 2016, 24, 699–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. MC Bustamante, M.; Martinelli, A.L.; Ometto, J.P.; Carmo, J.B.D.; Jaramillo, V.; Gavito, E.M.; Araujo, I.P.; Austin, A.T.; Pérez, T.; Marquina, S. Innovations for a sustainable future: Rising to the challenge of nitrogen greenhouse gas management in Latin America. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2014, 9, 73–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Redick, T. Coexistence, North American style: Regulation and litigation. GM Crops Food 2012, 3, 60–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Scherr, S.J.; Sthapit, S. Mitigating Climate Change through Food and Land Use; Worldwatch: Washington, DC, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  40. Zucchella, A.; Previtali, P. Circular business models for sustainable development: A “waste is food” restorative ecosystem. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2019, 28, 274–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Long, T.B.; Blok, V.; Poldner, K. Business models for maximising the diffusion of technological innovations for climate-smart agriculture. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 2017, 20, 5–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Long, T.B.; Blok, V.; Coninx, I. Barriers to the adoption and diffusion of technological innovations for climate-smart agriculture in Europe: Evidence from the Netherlands, France, Switzerland and Italy. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 9–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. De Olde, E.M.; Carsjens, G.J.; Eilers, C.H.A.M. The role of collaborations in the development and implementation of sustainable livestock concepts in The Netherlands. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2017, 15, 153–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Poncet, C.; Bresch, C.; Fatnassi, H.; Mailleret, L.; Bout, A.; Perez, G.; Pizzol, J.; Carlesso, L.; Paris, B.; Parolin, P. Technological and ecological approaches to design and manage sustainable greenhouse production systems. Acta Hortic. 2015, 1107, 45–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Antille, D.L.; Peets, S.; Galambošová, J.; Botta, G.F.; Rataj, V.; Macak, M.; Tullberg, J.N.; Chamen, W.C.T.; White, D.R.; Misiewicz, P.A.; et al. Review: Soil compaction and controlled traffic farming in arable and grass cropping systems. Agron. Res. 2019, 17, 653–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Lemken, D.; Spiller, A.; von Meyer-Höfer, M. The Case of Legume-Cereal Crop Mixtures in Modern Agriculture and the Transtheoretical Model of Gradual Adoption. Ecol. Econ. 2017, 137, 20–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Vidogbéna, F.; Adégbidi, A.; Tossou, R.; Assogba-Komlan, F.; Martin, T.; Ngouajio, M.; Simon, S.; Parrot, L.; Garnett, S.T.; Zander, K.K. Exploring factors that shape small-scale farmers’ opinions on the adoption of eco-friendly nets for vegetable production. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2016, 18, 1749–1770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Buchanan-Wollaston, V.; Wilson, Z.; Tardieu, F.; Beynon, J.; Denby, K. Harnessing diversity from ecosystems to crops to genes. Food Energy Secur. 2017, 6, 19–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Redick, T.P. Coexistence of biotech & organic or non-gm crops USDA AC21 and sustainability standards. In Proceedings of the 2016 ASABE Annual International Meeting, Orlando, FL, USA, 17–20 July 2016. [Google Scholar]
  50. Cortner, O.; Garrett, R.; Valentim, J.; Ferreira, J.; Niles, M.; Reis, J.; Gil, J. Perceptions of integrated crop-livestock systems for sustainable intensification in the Brazilian Amazon. Land Use Policy 2019, 82, 841–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Fernando, W.G.D.; Ramarathnam, R.; Nakkeeran, S. Advances in Crop Protection Practices for the Environmental Sustainability of Cropping Systems; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Calle, Z.; Murgueitio, E.; Chará, J.; Molina, C.H.; Zuluaga, A.F.; Calle, A. A Strategy for Scaling-Up Intensive Silvopastoral Systems in Colombia. J. Sustain. For. 2013, 32, 677–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Vanloqueren, G.; Baret, P.V. Why are ecological, low-input, multi-resistant wheat cultivars slow to develop commercially? A Belgian agricultural “lock-in” case study. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 66, 436–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Mukhopadhyay, S.S. Nanotechnology in agriculture: Prospects and constraints. Nanotechnol. Sci. Appl. 2014, 7, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  55. Hogarth, J.R. Evolutionary models of sustainable economic change in Brazil: No-till agriculture, reduced deforestation and ethanol biofuels. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 2017, 24, 130–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Tsvetkov, I.; Atanassov, A.; Vlahova, M.; Carlier, L.; Christov, N.; Lefort, F.; Rusanov, K.; Badjakov, I.; Dincheva, I.; Tchamitchian, M.; et al. Plant organic farming research–current status and opportunities for future development. Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip. 2018, 32, 241–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Vila Seoane, M.; Marín, A. Transiciones hacia una agricultura sostenible: El nicho de la apicultura orgánica en una cooperativa Argentina. Mundo Agrario 2017, 18, 049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Bucci, G.; Bentivoglio, D.; Finco, A. Factors affecting ict adoption in agriculture: A case study in Italy. Qual.-Access Success 2019, 20, 122–129. [Google Scholar]
  59. Sanyé-Mengual, E.; Kahane, R.; Gianquinto, G.; Geoffriau, E. Evaluating the current state of rooftop agriculture in Western Europe: Categories and implementation constraints. Acta Hortic. 2018, 1215, 325–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Bruce, A.; Spinardi, G. On a wing and hot air: Eco-modernisation, epistemic lock-in, and the barriers to greening aviation and ruminant farming. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2018, 40, 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Chen, M. Analysis on Innovation Cost Barriers to the Development of New-Style Rural Cooperative Economic Organizations. Adv. Intell. Soft Comput. 2012, 273–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. O’Mahony, B.; Dalrymple, J.; Levin, E.; Greenland, S. The role of information communications technology in sustainable water management practice. Int. J. Sustain. Agric. Manag. Inform. 2016, 2, 79–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Riding, M.J.; Herbert, B.M.; Ricketts, L.; Dodd, I.; Ostle, N.; Semple, K.T. Harmonising conflicts between science, regulation, perception and environmental impact: The case of soil conditioners from bioenergy. Environ. Int. 2015, 75, 52–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Bellarby, J.; Siciliano, G.; Smith, L.; Xin, L.; Zhou, J.; Liu, K.; Jie, L.; Meng, F.; Inman, A.; Rahn, C.; et al. Strategies for sustainable nutrient management: Insights from a mixed natural and social science analysis of Chinese crop production systems. Environ. Dev. 2017, 21, 52–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Nazam, M.; Hashim, M.; Randhawa, M.A.; Maqbool, A. Modeling the Barriers of Sustainable Supply Chain Practices: A Pakistani Perspective. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Management Science and Engineering Management, St. Catharines, ON, Canada, 5–8 August 2019; pp. 348–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Benn, K.E. Barriers to adoption of recommended fertiliser practices by sugarcane growers in the Wet Tropics. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists, Bundaberg, Australia, 28–30 April 2015; pp. 132–139. [Google Scholar]
  67. Weiss, C.; Bonvillian, W.B. Legacy sectors: Barriers to global innovation in agriculture and energy. Technol. Anal. Strategic Manag. 2013, 25, 1189–1208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Stages of the used methodology.
Figure 1. Stages of the used methodology.
Sustainability 15 04374 g001
Figure 2. Number of papers published per year range.
Figure 2. Number of papers published per year range.
Sustainability 15 04374 g002
Figure 3. Number of papers published per country (top 12 countries).
Figure 3. Number of papers published per country (top 12 countries).
Sustainability 15 04374 g003
Figure 4. Cluster map of top 30 keywords.
Figure 4. Cluster map of top 30 keywords.
Sustainability 15 04374 g004
Table 1. List of innovations, barriers, and methodologies from articles.
Table 1. List of innovations, barriers, and methodologies from articles.
InnovationInnovation Type4IR RelationInnovation Barrier to OvercomeBarrier TypeMethodology
Agriculture adapted to climate changeProcess innovationNoLack of policies that promote innovation [33]ExternalInferred SLR
AgroecologyProcess innovationNoEconomic power in large industries impedes smaller farms to develop [32] ExternalInferred SLR
AgroecologyProcess innovationNoLack of farmers’ knowledge [34] InternalSLR not mentioned
AgroecologyProcess innovationNoWeak farmer’s contact networks [34]InternalSLR not mentioned
Alternative food networksProcess innovationNoGreater work effort with no visible Return on Investment [35]InternalSLR
Alternative food networksProcess innovationNoLack of policies that promote that innovation [35]ExternalSLR
AquacultureProcess innovationNoLack of policies that promote that innovation [36] ExternalSLR and complements
AquacultureProcess innovationNoLack of policies that promote that innovation [37] ExternalInferred SLR
AquacultureProcess innovationNoLow priority of the subject in the country [36] ExternalInferred SLR
AquacultureProcess innovationNoLittle investment in research [29] ExternalInferred SLR
Biological nitrification inhibitionProduct innovationYesLack of policies that promote that innovation [37] ExternalInferred SLR
Biotech cropsProduct innovationYesUnfavorable regulation [38]ExternalInferred SLR
Carbon-rich farmingProcess innovationNoWeak infrastructure [39]InternalInferred SLR
Carbon-rich farmingProcess innovationNoFarmer’s difficulty accessing credit [39]ExternalInferred SLR
Carbon-rich farmingProcess innovationNoLack of technical assistance for farmers [39]ExternalInferred SLR
Carbon-rich farmingProcess innovationNoLow availability of materials [39] ExternalInferred SLR
Circular economyOrganizational model innovationNoReturn on investment uncertainty [40]InternalSLR not mentioned
Climate-smart agricultureProcess innovationYesUnsuitable business model [41]InternalSLR and complements
Climate-smart agricultureProcess innovationYesComplex financing [42] ExternalSLR and complements
Climate-smart agricultureProcess innovationYesFarmer’s investment power [42] InternalSLR and complements
Climate-smart agricultureProcess innovationYesReturn on investment uncertainty [42] InternalSLR and complements
Climate-smart agricultureProcess innovationYesHigh implementation costs [42] ExternalSLR and complements
Climate-smart agricultureProcess innovationYesLong-term return on investment [42] InternalSLR and complements
Climate-smart agricultureProcess innovationYesLack of policies that promote that innovation [42]ExternalSLR and complements
Climate-smart agricultureProcess innovationYesUnfavorable regulation [42]ExternalSLR and complements
Climate-smart agricultureProcess innovationYesSustainable standards are difficult to meet [42]ExternalSLR and complements
Climate-smart agricultureProcess innovationYesLack of farmers’ knowledge [42]InternalSLR and complements
Climate-smart agricultureProcess innovationYesEpistemic closure [42]InternalSLR and complements
Climate-smart agricultureProcess innovationYesProblem not perceived by farmers [42]InternalSLR and complements
Climate-smart agricultureProcess innovationYesFarmer’s education level [42]InternalSLR and complements
Climate-smart agricultureProcess innovationYesThe market is not interested [42]ExternalSLR and complements
Climate-smart agricultureProcess innovationYesUnskilled labor [42]InternalSLR and complements
Collaborative approach in livestockOrganizational model innovationNoInternal differences [42]InternalSLR and complements
Collaborative approach in livestockOrganizational model innovationNoHierarchies [42]InternalSLR and complements
Community-supported agricultureOrganizational model innovationNoThe market is not interested [24] ExternalSLR not mentioned
Community-supported agricultureOrganizational model innovationNoMore expensive end product [24]ExternalSLR not mentioned
Community-supported agricultureOrganizational model innovationNoLow availability of products [24]InternalSLR not mentioned
Controlled environment agricultureProcess innovationYesHigh implementation costs [43]ExternalSLR not mentioned
Controlled traffic farming Process innovationNoIncompatibility with technology [44]InternalSLR
Crop mixturesProcess innovationNoIncompatibility with technology [45]InternalSLR not mentioned
Crop mixturesProcess innovationNoGreater work effort [45]InternalSLR not mentioned
Crop mixturesProcess innovationNoUnskilled labor [45] InternalSLR not mentioned
Crop rotationProcess innovationNoLack of alignment between the scientific community and politicians [22] ExternalInferred SLR
Crop rotationProcess innovationNoLack of communication between interdisciplinary researchers [22] ExternalInferred SLR
Drip irrigationProcess innovationYesLack of policies that promote that innovation [7] ExternalSLR not mentioned
Drip irrigationProcess innovationYesFew subsidies for farmers [7]ExternalSLR not mentioned
Drip irrigationProcess innovationYesComplex financing [7] ExternalSLR not mentioned
Drip irrigationProcess innovationYesThe market is not interested [7]ExternalSLR not mentioned
Drip irrigationProcess innovationYesEnvironment conditions [7]ExternalSLR not mentioned
Drip irrigationProcess innovationYesUnfavorable regulation [7] ExternalSLR not mentioned
Drip irrigationProcess innovationYesUnskilled labor [7] InternalSLR not mentioned
Drip irrigationProcess innovationYesLow educational level [7]InternalSLR not mentioned
Drip irrigationProcess innovationYesEpistemic closure [7]InternalSLR not mentioned
Drip irrigationProcess innovationYesIncompatibility with technology [7] InternalSLR not mentioned
Drip irrigationProcess innovationYesReturn on investment uncertainty [7]InternalSLR not mentioned
Drip irrigationProcess innovationYesNo perception of benefit [7]InternalSLR not mentioned
Eco-friendly netsProcess innovationNoLack of farmers’ knowledge [46]InternalSLR not mentioned
Eco-friendly netsProcess innovationNoComplex financing [46]ExternalSLR not mentioned
Fire forecasting modelsProcess innovationYesLack of policies that promote that innovation [37]ExternalInferred SLR
Genetic engineeringProduct innovationYesComplex financing [47]ExternalInferred SLR
Genetic engineeringProduct innovationYesInformation collection and reuse access [47]ExternalInferred SLR
Genetic engineeringProduct innovationYesSustainable standards are difficult to meet [48]ExternalInferred SLR
Genetic engineeringProduct innovationYesLack of policies that promote that innovation [43]ExternalInferred SLR
Genetic engineeringProduct innovationYesLow priority of the subject in the country [36] ExternalInferred SLR
Genetic engineeringProduct innovationYesLittle investment in research [29] ExternalInferred SLR
Genetic engineeringProduct innovationYesThe market is not interested [26]ExternalSLR not mentioned
Genetic engineeringProduct innovationYesLack of farmers’ knowledge [26]InternalSLR not mentioned
Genetic engineeringProduct innovationYesLack of government support [26] ExternalSLR not mentioned
Genetic engineeringProduct innovationYesNegative image generated by media/internet for farmers [26] ExternalSLR not mentioned
Genetic engineeringProduct innovationYesLittle international cooperationExternalSLR not mentioned
Genetic engineeringProduct innovationYesLittle investment in researchExternalSLR not mentioned
Genetic engineeringProduct innovationYesResearch fragmentation [23]ExternalSLR not mentioned
Green technologyProcess innovationYesLack of policies that promote that innovation [29] ExternalInferred SLR
Green technologyProcess innovationYesLow priority of the subject in the country [29] ExternalInferred SLR
Green technologyProcess innovationYesLittle investment in research [29]ExternalInferred SLR
Green technologyProcess innovationYesLittle international cooperation [23]ExternalSLR not mentioned
Green technologyProcess innovationYesLittle investment in research [23]ExternalSLR not mentioned
Green technologyProcess innovationYesResearch fragmentation [23]ExternalSLR not mentioned
Integrated crop–livestock systems Process innovationNoReturn on investment uncertainty [49]InternalSLR not mentioned
Integrated crop–livestock systems Process innovationNoDifficulty accessing credit for farmers [49]ExternalSLR not mentioned
Integrated crop–livestock systems Process innovationNoWeak infrastructure [49] InternalSLR not mentioned
Integrated crop–livestock systems Process innovationNoUnskilled labor [49] InternalSLR not mentioned
Integrated crop–livestock systems Process innovationNoUnfavorable regulation [49]ExternalSLR not mentioned
Integrated crop–livestock systems Process innovationNoLack of policies that promote that innovation [49] ExternalSLR not mentioned
Integrated pest managementProcess innovationYesImplementation costs [43] ExternalSLR not mentioned
Integrated pest managementProcess innovationYesLack of policies that promote that innovation [50] ExternalInferred SLR
Integrated pest managementProcess innovationYesFew subsidies for farmers [50]ExternalInferred SLR
Integrated pest managementProcess innovationYesLittle investment in research [50] ExternalInferred SLR
Integrated pest managementProcess innovationNoRisk perception [25] InternalSLR and complements
Integrated pest managementProcess innovationNoReturn on investment uncertainty [25] InternalSLR and complements
Integrated pest managementProcess innovationNoEpistemic closure [25] InternalSLR and complements
Integrated pest managementProcess innovationNoWeak contact networks [25] InternalSLR and complements
Integrated pest managementProcess innovationNoLack of farmers’ knowledge [25] InternalSLR and complements
Integrated pest managementProcess innovationNoEconomic power large industries [25] ExternalSLR and complements
Intensive clavipectoral systemsProcess innovationNoLack of farmers’ knowledge [51] InternalSLR not mentioned
Intensive silvopastoral systemsProcess innovationNoLack of policies that promote that innovation [51] ExternalSLR not mentioned
Less pesticide useProcess innovationNoLac caused by climate variability k of alignment of the scientific community and politicians [22] ExternalInferred SLR
Less pesticide useProcess innovationNoLack of communication between interdisciplinary researchers [22]ExternalInferred SLR
Low-carbon cropsProcess innovationNoLack of policies that promote that innovation [29] ExternalInferred SLR
Low-carbon cropsProcess innovationNoLow priority of the subject in the country [29]ExternalInferred SLR
Low-carbon cropsProcess innovationNoLittle investment in research [29] ExternalInferred SLR
MicropropagationProcess innovationYesLittle international cooperation [23]ExternalSLR not mentioned
MicropropagationProcess innovationYesLittle investment in research [23]ExternalSLR not mentioned
MicropropagationProcess innovationYesResearch fragmentation [23]ExternalSLR not mentioned
Multi-resistant cultivarsProduct innovationNoNo perception of benefit [52]InternalSLR and complements
Multi-resistant cultivarsProduct innovationNoUnfavorable regulation [52] ExternalSLR and complements
Multi-resistant cultivarsProduct innovationNoEpistemic closure [52] InternalSLR and complements
Multi-resistant cultivarsProduct innovationNoBadly formulated policy [52]ExternalSLR and complements
NanotechnologyProduct innovationYesUnskilled labor [53] InternalInferred SLR
NanotechnologyProduct innovationYesLack of farmers’ knowledge [53] InternalInferred SLR
No-till agricultureProcess innovationNoUnskilled labor [54] InternalSLR
No-till agricultureProcess innovationNoLack of policies that promote that innovation [37] ExternalInferred SLR
No-till agricultureProcess innovationNoLack of alignment between the scientific community and politicians [22] ExternalInferred SLR
No-till agricultureProcess innovationNoLack of communication between interdisciplinary researchers [22] ExternalInferred SLR
Orchard design and managementProcess innovationYesLittle international cooperation [23]ExternalSLR not mentioned
Orchard design and managementProcess innovationYesLittle investment in research [23]ExternalSLR not mentioned
Orchard design and managementProcess innovationYesResearch fragmentation [23]ExternalSLR not mentioned
Organic agricultureProcess innovationNoNon-standardized regulations (global) [55]ExternalSLR
Organic agricultureProcess innovationNoPrice competitiveness in markets [56]ExternalSLR and complements
Organic agricultureProcess innovationNoLack of policies that promote that innovation [56]ExternalSLR and complements
Organic agricultureProcess innovationNoUnfavorable regulation [56]ExternalSLR and complements
Organic agricultureProcess innovationNoLittle investment in research [56] ExternalSLR and complements
Organic agricultureProcess innovationNoInvestigation prioritization [28] ExternalInferred SLR
Organic agricultureProcess innovationNoLack of policies that promote that innovation [27] ExternalSLR and complements
Organic agricultureProcess innovationNoEpistemic closure [27]InternalSLR and complements
Organic agricultureProcess innovationNoReturn on investment uncertainty [27]InternalSLR and complements
Organic agricultureProcess innovationNoWeak infrastructure [27]InternalSLR and complements
Organic agricultureProcess innovationNoIncompatibility with technology [27]InternalSLR and complements
Organic agricultureProcess innovationNoThe market is not interested [26]ExternalSLR not mentioned
Organic agricultureProcess innovationNoLack of farmers’ knowledge [26] InternalSLR not mentioned
Organic agricultureProcess innovationNoLack of government support [26] ExternalSLR not mentioned
Organic agricultureProcess innovationNoNegative image generated by media/internet [26]ExternalSLR not mentioned
Organic agricultureProcess innovationNoRisk perception [25]InternalSLR and complements
Organic agricultureProcess innovationNoReturn on investment uncertainty [25] InternalSLR and complements
Organic agricultureProcess innovationNoEpistemic closure [25] InternalSLR and complements
Organic agricultureProcess innovationNoWeak contact networks [25]InternalSLR and complements
Organic agricultureProcess innovationNoLack of farmers’ knowledge [25]InternalSLR and complements
Organic agricultureProcess innovationNoEconomic power large industries [25] ExternalSLR and complements
Organic agricultureProcess innovationNoThe market is not interested [24]ExternalSLR not mentioned
Organic agricultureProcess innovationNoMore expensive end product [24] ExternalSLR not mentioned
Organic agricultureProcess innovationNoLow availability of products [24] InternalSLR not mentioned
Precision agricultureProcess innovationYesSmall farm size [31] InternalSLR and complements
Precision agricultureProcess innovationYesInvestment power [31] InternalSLR and complements
Precision agricultureProcess innovationYesPoor data handling [31] InternalSLR and complements
Precision agricultureProcess innovationYesAge is not compatible with new tendencies [57] InternalSLR and complements
Precision agricultureProcess innovationYesFarmer’s educational level [57] InternalSLR and complements
Precision agricultureProcess innovationYesSmall farm size [30] InternalSLR
Precision agricultureProcess innovationYesFarmer’s educational level [30] InternalSLR
Precision agricultureProcess innovationYesFarmer’s low investment power [30]InternalSLR
Precision agricultureProcess innovationYesIncompatibility with technology [30]InternalSLR
Precision agricultureProcess innovationYesNo perception of benefit [30]InternalSLR
Precision agricultureProcess innovationYesHigh-risk perception [30] InternalSLR
Precision agricultureProcess innovationYesData security paradigm [30] ExternalSLR
Precision agricultureProcess innovationYesFew subsidies for farmers [30] ExternalSLR
Precision agricultureProcess innovationYesReturn on investment uncertainty [30] InternalSLR
Precision agricultureProcess innovationYesLittle international cooperation [23]ExternalSLR not mentioned
Precision agricultureProcess innovationYesLittle investment in research [23]ExternalSLR not mentioned
Precision agricultureProcess innovationYesResearch fragmentation [23]ExternalSLR not mentioned
Rooftop agricultureProcess innovationNoUnfavorable regulation [58]ExternalSLR
Ruminant farmingProcess innovationYesEpistemic closure [59]InternalSLR and complements
Ruminant farmingProcess innovationYesReturn on investment uncertainty [59]InternalSLR and complements
Ruminant farmingProcess innovationYesProblem not perceived by farmers [59]InternalSLR and complements
Rural cooperative economic organizationsOrganizational model innovationYesImplementation costs [60]ExternalInferred SLR
Rural cooperative economic organizationsOrganizational model innovationYesUnskilled labor [60]InternalInferred SLR
Smart irrigation systemsProcess innovationYesHigh implementation costs [60]ExternalSLR not mentioned
Smart irrigation systemsProcess innovationYesEpistemic closure [60]InternalSLR not mentioned
Smart irrigation systemsProcess innovationYesHigh implementation costs [61]ExternalSLR and complements
Smart irrigation systemsProcess innovationYesEpistemic closure [61]InternalSLR and complements
Smart irrigation systemsProcess innovationYesLack of policies that promote that innovation [29] ExternalInferred SLR
Smart irrigation systemsProcess innovationYesLow priority of the subject in the country [29] ExternalInferred SLR
Smart irrigation systemsProcess innovationYesLittle investment in research [29] ExternalInferred SLR
Soil conditioners from bioenergyProduct innovationNoUnfavorable regulation [62]ExternalInferred SLR
Soil conditioners from bioenergyProduct innovationNoNo perception of benefit by farmers [62] InternalInferred SLR
Soil conditioners from bioenergyProduct innovationNoLittle investment in research [62]ExternalInferred SLR
Sustainable agricultureProcess innovationNoEpistemic closure [62]InternalInferred SLR
Sustainable nutrient managementProcess innovationNoUnskilled labor [63]InternalSLR not mentioned
Sustainable nutrient managementProcess innovationNoWeak infrastructure [63]InternalSLR not mentioned
Sustainable supply chain management Process innovationNoInternal company policies not compatible with change [64]InternalSLR and complements
Sustainable supply chain management Process innovationNoStrategic management of companies [64]InternalSLR and complements
Transplantation of bio-geographical speciesProcess innovationYesLack of policies that promote that innovation [29] ExternalInferred SLR
Transplantation of bio-geographical speciesProcess innovationYesLow priority of the subject in the country [29]ExternalInferred SLR
Transplantation of bio-geographical speciesProcess innovationYesLittle investment in research [29]ExternalInferred SLR
Urban agricultureProcess innovationNoUnfavorable regulation [58]ExternalSLR
Urban agricultureProcess innovationNoLack of policies that promote that innovation [29] ExternalInferred SLR
Urban agricultureProcess innovationNoLow priority of the subject in the country [29]ExternalInferred SLR
Urban agricultureProcess innovationNoLittle investment in research [29] ExternalInferred SLR
Using reduced fertilizer ratesProcess innovationNoBadly formulated policy [65]ExternalSLR and complements
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

Campuzano, L.R.; Hincapié Llanos, G.A.; Zartha Sossa, J.W.; Orozco Mendoza, G.L.; Palacio, J.C.; Herrera, M. Barriers to the Adoption of Innovations for Sustainable Development in the Agricultural Sector—Systematic Literature Review (SLR). Sustainability 2023, 15, 4374. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054374

AMA Style

Campuzano LR, Hincapié Llanos GA, Zartha Sossa JW, Orozco Mendoza GL, Palacio JC, Herrera M. Barriers to the Adoption of Innovations for Sustainable Development in the Agricultural Sector—Systematic Literature Review (SLR). Sustainability. 2023; 15(5):4374. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054374

Chicago/Turabian Style

Campuzano, Laura Restrepo, Gustavo Adolfo Hincapié Llanos, Jhon Wilder Zartha Sossa, Gina Lía Orozco Mendoza, Juan Carlos Palacio, and Mariana Herrera. 2023. "Barriers to the Adoption of Innovations for Sustainable Development in the Agricultural Sector—Systematic Literature Review (SLR)" Sustainability 15, no. 5: 4374. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054374

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