sustainability

Review
Barriers to the Adoption of Innovations for Sustainable
Development in the Agricultural Sector—Systematic Literature
Review (SLR)
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
* Correspondence: [email protected]

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
Citation: Campuzano, L.R.; Hincapié
Closure”, “Unfavorable Regulation”, Climate-Smart Agriculture, and “Unskilled Labor”. This article
Llanos, G.A.; Zartha Sossa, J.W.;
is intended not only to show trends in the barriers to innovation that prevents the achievement of
Orozco Mendoza, G.L.; Palacio, J.C.;
sustainability that the agricultural sector needs, but also to serve as an input for the development
Herrera, M. Barriers to the Adoption
of policies that provide solutions to these impediments. It was shown that 17 out of the 28 external
of Innovations for Sustainable
Development in the Agricultural
barriers are related to topics that could be solved by formulating policies, laws, incentives, guidelines,
Sector—Systematic Literature Review and regulations.
(SLR). Sustainability 2023, 15, 4374.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054374 Keywords: sustainability; scientific articles; literature review; obstacles; agriculture

Academic Editor: Antonio Boggia

Received: 23 January 2023

Revised: 17 February 2023 1. Theoretical Context
Accepted: 20 February 2023 Because of the Earth’s ecosystem and service functions (regulatory and cultural), the
Published: 1 March 2023
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
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
food, fiber, wood, and energy [1].
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. In recent years, it has been noted that population growth and per capita changes in the
This article is an open access article consumption of goods supplied by the land have caused extraordinary rates of land and
distributed under the terms and water use, with agriculture being one of the largest responsible sectors. The expansion of
conditions of the Creative Commons areas for agriculture, forestry, and commercial production has generated an increase in the
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// productivity of these activities, ensuring consumption associated with the corresponding
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ demand for food for the growing population [1]. However, this has also contributed to the
4.0/). increase in GHG, which translates into a change in the climate that reaches extremes, and

Sustainability 2023, 15, 4374. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054374 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2023, 15, 4374 2 of 23

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 sus-
tainable 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 pro-
cesses, 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].
Sustainability 2023, 15, 4374 3 of 23

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 avail-
able 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 market-
ing. 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 Indus-
trial 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 technol-
ogy 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
Sustainability 2023, 15, 4374 4 of 23

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 agricul-
tural 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 agroe-
cological 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 iden-
tification 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.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 4374 5 of 23
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 22

Figure 1. Stages of the used methodology.

Figure 1. Stages of the used methodology.

3.1.
3.3.Stage
StageI:3:Elaboration of Search
In-Depth Reading of Equation
Bibliographic Material
To
Asnarrow
a second down
filter,the problem,reading
a complete a problem tree
of the 53was built,
articles which
was allowed
carried out tofor the iden‐
validate that
tification
the theme ofdeveloped
the keywords was(sustainable,
related to theagriculture,
purpose ofinnovation,
this article.and barriers)
In total, used inwere
48 articles the
chosenequation
search to be usedforinscientific
the development
articles inofSCOPUS.
this paper (those
The in which
equation wasan innovation
modified and/or
twice until
barrier
the one was
that not identified
yielded were discarded).
a representative amount of bibliographic material related to the se‐
lected topic to be studied was obtained. The final equation was TITLE‐ABS‐KEY (sus‐
3.4. Stage
tainab* AND 4: Information
agricultureClassification
AND innovation AND barriers), obtaining 73 scientific articles.
A table was constructed to consolidate the most relevant information from each of the
articles,
3.2. Stagewhich
2: Firstwas classified
Reading into two sets
of Bibliographic as follows:
Material
• As General
a firstinformation: title, year
filter to determine the of publication,
articles abstract,
that would be a authors, keywords,
part of the journal,
study, the sum‐
mariescountry,
of the the impact obtained
73 articles factor (SJR), and
with thequartile
equationScimago.
were read to discard those that did
• correspond
not Qualitativetodetails: innovation
the context of the to be implemented,
agricultural sector ortype
didof innovation,
not address therelationship
issues re‐
lated to the sustainable development of the sector through innovations. In total,agricultural
with the 4RI, identified barrier, nature of the barrier (internal/external), 53 articles
subsector,
met the country, and article.
conditions.

3.5.Stage
3.3. Stage3:5:In‐Depth
Application of Technological
Reading Surveillance
of Bibliographic MaterialTechniques
Thea table
As secondfilled outawith
filter, all thereading
complete information identified
of the in the
53 articles wasprevious stage
carried out towas used
validate
as the main input for the analysis of the literature review with VantagePoint
that the theme developed was related to the purpose of this article. In total, 48 articlesSoftware. With
the qualitative details in the information table, an analysis of the trends
were chosen to be used in the development of this paper (those in which an innovation was constructed
among the reviewed articles.
and/or barrier was not identified were discarded).
4. Results
3.4. Stage 4: Information Classification
The following results correspond to the analysis produced by the consolidated general
A table was
information constructed
of the to consolidate
articles read. the most
The tables were relevantfrom
constructed information
the data from
relatedeach of
to the
the articles, which was classified into two sets as follows:
years of publication of the articles, the countries of origin, and the most relevant keywords
in the
General information:
literature review. title, year of publication, abstract, authors, keywords, journal,
country,
As shown inimpact
the Figurefactor
2, the(SJR), and of
number quartile Scimago.
articles published by the established ranges
shows a noticeable
Qualitative increase.
details: It wastoobserved
innovation that fromtype
be implemented, 1992oftoinnovation,
2000, only 1relationship
article was
published,
with the 20 4RI,
wereidentified
publishedbarrier,
between 2001 and
nature 2015,
of the and 27
barrier were published between
(internal/external), 2016
agricultural
and subsector,
2020. country, and article.
 eral 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 key‐
words 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
Sustainability 2023, 15, 4374 6 of 23
published, 20 were published between 2001 and 2015, and 27 were published between
2016 and 2020.

Figure2.2.Number
Figure Numberof
ofpapers
paperspublished
publishedper
peryear
yearrange.
range.

Forthe
For thefirst
firstrange,
range,thetheupper
upper limit
limit was
was established
established by by taking
taking into
into account
account the the adop-
adop‐
tionof
tion ofthe
theMillennium
MillenniumDeclaration,
Declaration, whichwhichestablished
established the theMillennium
Millennium Goals Goals (MDGs)
(MDGs) in in
2000 [20]. For the second range, 2015 was established as the limit
2000 [20]. For the second range, 2015 was established as the limit because it is the year in because it is the year in
which the new 2030 agenda was adopted by many countries,
which the new 2030 agenda was adopted by many countries, accepting the Sustainable accepting the Sustainable
DevelopmentGoals
Development Goals[21].
[21].
Inthe
In thefirst
firstrange
rangeofofthethe publication
publication years,
years, ref.[22]
[22]details
detailsthethe little
little communication
communication and and
cooperationwhich
cooperation whichtook
tookplace
placebetween
betweeninterdisciplinary
interdisciplinaryresearchers
researchersand andthethesmall
smallamount
amount
ofinformation
of information available
available to topolicy
policymakers
makersfocused
focusedon onpromoting
promotingsustainable
sustainableagriculture
agriculture
on
on innovations
innovations focused on on aadecrease
decreaseininpesticide
pesticideuse, use,crop
crop rotation,
rotation, and and no-plow
no‐plow agri-
agricul‐
culture, which could anticipate consequences of its
ture, which could anticipate consequences of its implementation in the implementation in the country of
of the
the
United
UnitedStates.
States.
For
For the
the range from
from 2001
2001to to2015,
2015,[23]ref.details
[23] details the technological
the technological integrations
integrations in innova‐ in
innovative
tive practices practices in Europe
in Europe and exposes
and exposes the few theresources
few resources
utilized utilized
and the and the fragmenta-
fragmentation of
tion of research
research in the design
in the design and management
and management of orchards,
of orchards, precision precision
agriculture,agriculture, green
green technol‐
technology,
ogy, geneticgenetic engineering,
engineering, in vitro,
in vitro, and micropropagation.
and micropropagation. Organic Organic agriculture
agriculture is a
is a topic
topic addressed in five articles: Ref. [24] detected that in the United
addressed in five articles: [24] detected that in the United States, this innovation is per‐ States, this innovation
isceived
perceived as unpredictable,
as unpredictable, and and
usersusers relate
relate it toitextra
to extra costs
costs andand thethe limited
limited availability
availability of
of required
required products.
products. Ref.Ref.
[25][25] states
states thatthat in Germany,
in Germany, this innovation
this innovation receivedreceived
only aonlysmalla
small amount of reception due to the few known success stories among
amount of reception due to the few known success stories among farmers, the lack of spe‐ farmers, the lack of
specialized knowledge
cialized knowledge andand expertise
expertise networks,
networks, andand thethe difficulty
difficulty of of entering
entering thethe network
network of
of
organic agriculture actors which have already been established. Ref. [26] found that there
organic agriculture actors which have already been established. Ref. [26] found that there
isislittle
littlemarket
marketinterest
interesttotopay
payextra
extrafor
fororganic
organicproducts;
products;there thereisisalso
alsolittle
littleinformation
informationon on
these
these products and a lack of support from the government. Ref. [27] detected that
products and a lack of support from the government. Ref. [27] detected that once
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
 risk perception, data security, few subsidies, and the uncertainty regarding receivin
return on an investment make up the barriers to adopt sustainable development in C
nese farms, while [31] detected that in Italy, this same innovation presents a resistance
be implemented due to factors such as educational level, age, investment power, and
Sustainability 2023, 15, 4374 7 of 23
size of farmers’ farms. Finally, [32] details agroecology and exposes that the econom
power of large industries prevents the deployment of this innovation at a global level.
Based on the farms.
size of farmers’ geographical origin,
Finally, ref. 29 countries
[32] details agroecology were the ones
and exposes that
that the commissioned
economic
production
power ofof articles
large related
industries to the
prevents thetheme developed.
deployment The United
of this innovation Stateslevel.
at a global leads the par
Based on the geographical origin, 29 countries were the ones
ipation with 13 of them, followed by England, Australia, Italy, France, Netherlands, A that commissioned
the production of articles related to the theme developed. The United States leads the
gentina, Belgium, Canada, China, Germany, and Switzerland, respectively, thus maki
participation with 13 of them, followed by England, Australia, Italy, France, Netherlands,
up the top 12 countries
Argentina, that participated
Belgium, Canada, China, Germany, in the publicationrespectively,
and Switzerland, of articles,thus
as shown
making in Figu
3. Onupthe
the other hand, the
top 12 countries thatUnited States
participated and
in the Italy areofthe
publication countries
articles, as shown with the lowest
in Figure 3. p
On the
centage of other hand, the United
collaboration at theStates
timeandof Italy are the countries
publication, with the and
with 38.46% lowest16.67%,
percentage respectiv
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 conju of their
total articles, while Argentina and Switzerland only have publications in conjunction with
tion with other countries.
other countries.

Figure 3. Number of papers published per country (top 12 countries).

Figure 3. Number of papers published per country (top 12 countries).

In Figure 4 related
In Figure 4 relatedto
to the clustermap
the cluster map of top
of top 30 keywords,
30 keywords, the
the most most common
common in the in
Sustainability 2023, 15, x articles
articles FOR were
PEERwere “Sustainable Agriculture”,
“Sustainable
REVIEW Agriculture”,“Agroecology”, “Climate “Climate
“Agroecology”, Change”, “Innovation”,
Change”, “Inno
8 of
and “Organic Farming”; Sustainable Agriculture appeared in six articles (12.5%), while the
tion”,next
and “Organic Farming”; Sustainable Agriculture appeared in six articles (12.5
four each appeared in four articles (8.33%).
while the next four each appeared in four articles (8.33%).

Figure 4. Cluster
Figuremap of top 30
4. Cluster mapkeywords.
of top 30 keywords.
5. Discussion
5. Discussion
After qualitatively analyzing the articles read with the results of the VantagePoint
After qualitatively
Software, the analysis analyzing
was complemented withthe articles
5 topics read with
detected the results
in each of the VantagePoi
of the papers: the
Software, the analysis was complemented with 5 topics detected in each
type of innovation, relationship with the Fourth Industrial Revolution, the barrier detected, of the papers: th
the type oftype of innovation,
barrier relationship
(internal/external), andwith the Fourth
the method IndustrialTable
of analysis. Revolution,
1 showsthe thebarrier d
tected, the type of barrier
consolidation of these five axes. (internal/external), and the method of analysis. Table 1 show
the consolidation of these five axes.

Table 1. List of innovations, barriers, and methodologies from articles.

Innovation Innovation Type 4IR Relation Innovation Barrier to Overcome Barrier Type Methodology
Sustainability 2023, 15, 4374 8 of 23

Table 1. List of innovations, barriers, and methodologies from articles.

Innovation Barrier
Innovation Innovation Type 4IR Relation Barrier Type Methodology
to Overcome
Agriculture adapted to Lack of policies that promote
Process innovation No External Inferred SLR
climate change innovation [33]
Economic power in large
Agroecology Process innovation No industries impedes smaller External Inferred SLR
farms to develop [32]
Agroecology Process innovation No Lack of farmers’ knowledge [34] Internal SLR not mentioned
Weak farmer’s contact
Agroecology Process innovation No Internal SLR not mentioned
networks [34]
Greater work effort with no
Alternative food
Process innovation No visible Return on Internal SLR
networks
Investment [35]
Alternative food Lack of policies that promote
Process innovation No External SLR
networks that innovation [35]
Lack of policies that promote SLR and
Aquaculture Process innovation No External
that innovation [36] complements
Lack of policies that promote
Aquaculture Process innovation No External Inferred SLR
that innovation [37]
Low priority of the subject in
Aquaculture Process innovation No External Inferred SLR
the country [36]
Little investment in
Aquaculture Process innovation No External Inferred SLR
research [29]
Biological nitrification Lack of policies that promote
Product innovation Yes External Inferred SLR
inhibition that innovation [37]
Biotech crops Product innovation Yes Unfavorable regulation [38] External Inferred SLR
Carbon-rich farming Process innovation No Weak infrastructure [39] Internal Inferred SLR
Farmer’s difficulty accessing
Carbon-rich farming Process innovation No External Inferred SLR
credit [39]
Lack of technical assistance for
Carbon-rich farming Process innovation No External Inferred SLR
farmers [39]
Low availability of
Carbon-rich farming Process innovation No External Inferred SLR
materials [39]
Organizational Return on investment
Circular economy No Internal SLR not mentioned
model innovation uncertainty [40]
Climate-smart SLR and
Process innovation Yes Unsuitable business model [41] Internal
agriculture complements
Climate-smart SLR and
Process innovation Yes Complex financing [42] External
agriculture complements
Climate-smart SLR and
Process innovation Yes Farmer’s investment power [42] Internal
agriculture complements
Climate-smart Return on investment SLR and
Process innovation Yes Internal
agriculture uncertainty [42] complements
Climate-smart SLR and
Process innovation Yes High implementation costs [42] External
agriculture complements
Climate-smart Long-term return on SLR and
Process innovation Yes Internal
agriculture investment [42] complements
Climate-smart Lack of policies that promote SLR and
Process innovation Yes External
agriculture that innovation [42] complements
Sustainability 2023, 15, 4374 9 of 23

Table 1. Cont.

Innovation Barrier
Innovation Innovation Type 4IR Relation Barrier Type Methodology
to Overcome
Climate-smart SLR and
Process innovation Yes Unfavorable regulation [42] External
agriculture complements
Climate-smart Sustainable standards are SLR and
Process innovation Yes External
agriculture difficult to meet [42] complements
Climate-smart SLR and
Process innovation Yes Lack of farmers’ knowledge [42] Internal
agriculture complements
Climate-smart SLR and
Process innovation Yes Epistemic closure [42] Internal
agriculture complements
Climate-smart Problem not perceived by SLR and
Process innovation Yes Internal
agriculture farmers [42] complements
Climate-smart SLR and
Process innovation Yes Farmer’s education level [42] Internal
agriculture complements
Climate-smart SLR and
Process innovation Yes The market is not interested [42] External
agriculture complements
Climate-smart SLR and
Process innovation Yes Unskilled labor [42] Internal
agriculture complements
Collaborative approach Organizational SLR and
No Internal differences [42] Internal
in livestock model innovation complements
Collaborative approach Organizational SLR and
No Hierarchies [42] Internal
in livestock model innovation complements
Community-supported Organizational
No The market is not interested [24] External SLR not mentioned
agriculture model innovation
Community-supported Organizational More expensive end
No External SLR not mentioned
agriculture model innovation product [24]
Community-supported Organizational Low availability of
No Internal SLR not mentioned
agriculture model innovation products [24]
Controlled
environment Process innovation Yes High implementation costs [43] External SLR not mentioned
agriculture
Controlled traffic Incompatibility with
Process innovation No Internal SLR
farming technology [44]
Incompatibility with
Crop mixtures Process innovation No Internal SLR not mentioned
technology [45]
Crop mixtures Process innovation No Greater work effort [45] Internal SLR not mentioned
Crop mixtures Process innovation No Unskilled labor [45] Internal SLR not mentioned
Lack of alignment between the
Crop rotation Process innovation No scientific community and External Inferred SLR
politicians [22]
Lack of communication
Crop rotation Process innovation No between interdisciplinary External Inferred SLR
researchers [22]
Lack of policies that promote
Drip irrigation Process innovation Yes External SLR not mentioned
that innovation [7]
Drip irrigation Process innovation Yes Few subsidies for farmers [7] External SLR not mentioned
Drip irrigation Process innovation Yes Complex financing [7] External SLR not mentioned
Drip irrigation Process innovation Yes The market is not interested [7] External SLR not mentioned
Drip irrigation Process innovation Yes Environment conditions [7] External SLR not mentioned
Drip irrigation Process innovation Yes Unfavorable regulation [7] External SLR not mentioned
Sustainability 2023, 15, 4374 10 of 23

Table 1. Cont.

Innovation Barrier
Innovation Innovation Type 4IR Relation Barrier Type Methodology
to Overcome
Drip irrigation Process innovation Yes Unskilled labor [7] Internal SLR not mentioned
Drip irrigation Process innovation Yes Low educational level [7] Internal SLR not mentioned
Drip irrigation Process innovation Yes Epistemic closure [7] Internal SLR not mentioned
Incompatibility with
Drip irrigation Process innovation Yes Internal SLR not mentioned
technology [7]
Return on investment
Drip irrigation Process innovation Yes Internal SLR not mentioned
uncertainty [7]
Drip irrigation Process innovation Yes No perception of benefit [7] Internal SLR not mentioned
Eco-friendly nets Process innovation No Lack of farmers’ knowledge [46] Internal SLR not mentioned
Eco-friendly nets Process innovation No Complex financing [46] External SLR not mentioned
Lack of policies that promote
Fire forecasting models Process innovation Yes External Inferred SLR
that innovation [37]
Genetic engineering Product innovation Yes Complex financing [47] External Inferred SLR
Information collection and
Genetic engineering Product innovation Yes External Inferred SLR
reuse access [47]
Sustainable standards are
Genetic engineering Product innovation Yes External Inferred SLR
difficult to meet [48]
Lack of policies that promote
Genetic engineering Product innovation Yes External Inferred SLR
that innovation [43]
Low priority of the subject in
Genetic engineering Product innovation Yes External Inferred SLR
the country [36]
Little investment in
Genetic engineering Product innovation Yes External Inferred SLR
research [29]
Genetic engineering Product innovation Yes The market is not interested [26] External SLR not mentioned
Genetic engineering Product innovation Yes Lack of farmers’ knowledge [26] Internal SLR not mentioned
Lack of government
Genetic engineering Product innovation Yes External SLR not mentioned
support [26]
Negative image generated by
Genetic engineering Product innovation Yes External SLR not mentioned
media/internet for farmers [26]
Genetic engineering Product innovation Yes Little international cooperation External SLR not mentioned
Genetic engineering Product innovation Yes Little investment in research External SLR not mentioned
Genetic engineering Product innovation Yes Research fragmentation [23] External SLR not mentioned
Lack of policies that promote
Green technology Process innovation Yes External Inferred SLR
that innovation [29]
Low priority of the subject in
Green technology Process innovation Yes External Inferred SLR
the country [29]
Little investment in
Green technology Process innovation Yes External Inferred SLR
research [29]
Little international
Green technology Process innovation Yes External SLR not mentioned
cooperation [23]
Little investment in
Green technology Process innovation Yes External SLR not mentioned
research [23]
Green technology Process innovation Yes Research fragmentation [23] External SLR not mentioned
Integrated Return on investment
Process innovation No Internal SLR not mentioned
crop–livestock systems uncertainty [49]
Integrated Difficulty accessing credit for
Process innovation No External SLR not mentioned
crop–livestock systems farmers [49]
Integrated
Process innovation No Weak infrastructure [49] Internal SLR not mentioned
crop–livestock systems
Sustainability 2023, 15, 4374 11 of 23

Table 1. Cont.

Innovation Barrier
Innovation Innovation Type 4IR Relation Barrier Type Methodology
to Overcome
Integrated
Process innovation No Unskilled labor [49] Internal SLR not mentioned
crop–livestock systems
Integrated
Process innovation No Unfavorable regulation [49] External SLR not mentioned
crop–livestock systems
Integrated Lack of policies that promote
Process innovation No External SLR not mentioned
crop–livestock systems that innovation [49]
Integrated pest
Process innovation Yes Implementation costs [43] External SLR not mentioned
management
Integrated pest Lack of policies that promote
Process innovation Yes External Inferred SLR
management that innovation [50]
Integrated pest
Process innovation Yes Few subsidies for farmers [50] External Inferred SLR
management
Integrated pest Little investment in
Process innovation Yes External Inferred SLR
management research [50]
Integrated pest SLR and
Process innovation No Risk perception [25] Internal
management complements
Integrated pest Return on investment SLR and
Process innovation No Internal
management uncertainty [25] complements
Integrated pest SLR and
Process innovation No Epistemic closure [25] Internal
management complements
Integrated pest SLR and
Process innovation No Weak contact networks [25] Internal
management complements
Integrated pest SLR and
Process innovation No Lack of farmers’ knowledge [25] Internal
management complements
Integrated pest Economic power large SLR and
Process innovation No External
management industries [25] complements
Intensive clavipectoral
Process innovation No Lack of farmers’ knowledge [51] Internal SLR not mentioned
systems
Intensive silvopastoral Lack of policies that promote
Process innovation No External SLR not mentioned
systems that innovation [51]
Lac caused by climate
variability k of alignment of the
Less pesticide use Process innovation No External Inferred SLR
scientific community and
politicians [22]
Lack of communication
Less pesticide use Process innovation No between interdisciplinary External Inferred SLR
researchers [22]
Lack of policies that promote
Low-carbon crops Process innovation No External Inferred SLR
that innovation [29]
Low priority of the subject in
Low-carbon crops Process innovation No External Inferred SLR
the country [29]
Little investment in
Low-carbon crops Process innovation No External Inferred SLR
research [29]
Little international
Micropropagation Process innovation Yes External SLR not mentioned
cooperation [23]
Little investment in
Micropropagation Process innovation Yes External SLR not mentioned
research [23]
Micropropagation Process innovation Yes Research fragmentation [23] External SLR not mentioned
Multi-resistant SLR and
Product innovation No No perception of benefit [52] Internal
cultivars complements
Sustainability 2023, 15, 4374 12 of 23

Table 1. Cont.

Innovation Barrier
Innovation Innovation Type 4IR Relation Barrier Type Methodology
to Overcome
Multi-resistant SLR and
Product innovation No Unfavorable regulation [52] External
cultivars complements
Multi-resistant SLR and
Product innovation No Epistemic closure [52] Internal
cultivars complements
Multi-resistant SLR and
Product innovation No Badly formulated policy [52] External
cultivars complements
Nanotechnology Product innovation Yes Unskilled labor [53] Internal Inferred SLR
Nanotechnology Product innovation Yes Lack of farmers’ knowledge [53] Internal Inferred SLR
No-till agriculture Process innovation No Unskilled labor [54] Internal SLR
Lack of policies that promote
No-till agriculture Process innovation No External Inferred SLR
that innovation [37]
Lack of alignment between the
No-till agriculture Process innovation No scientific community and External Inferred SLR
politicians [22]
Lack of communication
No-till agriculture Process innovation No between interdisciplinary External Inferred SLR
researchers [22]
Orchard design and Little international
Process innovation Yes External SLR not mentioned
management cooperation [23]
Orchard design and Little investment in
Process innovation Yes External SLR not mentioned
management research [23]
Orchard design and
Process innovation Yes Research fragmentation [23] External SLR not mentioned
management
Non-standardized regulations
Organic agriculture Process innovation No External SLR
(global) [55]
Price competitiveness in SLR and
Organic agriculture Process innovation No External
markets [56] complements
Lack of policies that promote SLR and
Organic agriculture Process innovation No External
that innovation [56] complements
SLR and
Organic agriculture Process innovation No Unfavorable regulation [56] External
complements
Little investment in SLR and
Organic agriculture Process innovation No External
research [56] complements
Organic agriculture Process innovation No Investigation prioritization [28] External Inferred SLR
Lack of policies that promote SLR and
Organic agriculture Process innovation No External
that innovation [27] complements
SLR and
Organic agriculture Process innovation No Epistemic closure [27] Internal
complements
Return on investment SLR and
Organic agriculture Process innovation No Internal
uncertainty [27] complements
SLR and
Organic agriculture Process innovation No Weak infrastructure [27] Internal
complements
Incompatibility with SLR and
Organic agriculture Process innovation No Internal
technology [27] complements
Organic agriculture Process innovation No The market is not interested [26] External SLR not mentioned
Organic agriculture Process innovation No Lack of farmers’ knowledge [26] Internal SLR not mentioned
Lack of government
Organic agriculture Process innovation No External SLR not mentioned
support [26]
Negative image generated by
Organic agriculture Process innovation No External SLR not mentioned
media/internet [26]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 4374 13 of 23

Table 1. Cont.

Innovation Barrier
Innovation Innovation Type 4IR Relation Barrier Type Methodology
to Overcome
SLR and
Organic agriculture Process innovation No Risk perception [25] Internal
complements
Return on investment SLR and
Organic agriculture Process innovation No Internal
uncertainty [25] complements
SLR and
Organic agriculture Process innovation No Epistemic closure [25] Internal
complements
SLR and
Organic agriculture Process innovation No Weak contact networks [25] Internal
complements
SLR and
Organic agriculture Process innovation No Lack of farmers’ knowledge [25] Internal
complements
Economic power large SLR and
Organic agriculture Process innovation No External
industries [25] complements
Organic agriculture Process innovation No The market is not interested [24] External SLR not mentioned
More expensive end
Organic agriculture Process innovation No External SLR not mentioned
product [24]
Low availability of
Organic agriculture Process innovation No Internal SLR not mentioned
products [24]
SLR and
Precision agriculture Process innovation Yes Small farm size [31] Internal
complements
SLR and
Precision agriculture Process innovation Yes Investment power [31] Internal
complements
SLR and
Precision agriculture Process innovation Yes Poor data handling [31] Internal
complements
Age is not compatible with new SLR and
Precision agriculture Process innovation Yes Internal
tendencies [57] complements
SLR and
Precision agriculture Process innovation Yes Farmer’s educational level [57] Internal
complements
Precision agriculture Process innovation Yes Small farm size [30] Internal SLR
Precision agriculture Process innovation Yes Farmer’s educational level [30] Internal SLR
Farmer’s low investment
Precision agriculture Process innovation Yes Internal SLR
power [30]
Incompatibility with
Precision agriculture Process innovation Yes Internal SLR
technology [30]
Precision agriculture Process innovation Yes No perception of benefit [30] Internal SLR
Precision agriculture Process innovation Yes High-risk perception [30] Internal SLR
Precision agriculture Process innovation Yes Data security paradigm [30] External SLR
Precision agriculture Process innovation Yes Few subsidies for farmers [30] External SLR
Return on investment
Precision agriculture Process innovation Yes Internal SLR
uncertainty [30]
Little international
Precision agriculture Process innovation Yes External SLR not mentioned
cooperation [23]
Little investment in
Precision agriculture Process innovation Yes External SLR not mentioned
research [23]
Precision agriculture Process innovation Yes Research fragmentation [23] External SLR not mentioned
Rooftop agriculture Process innovation No Unfavorable regulation [58] External SLR
SLR and
Ruminant farming Process innovation Yes Epistemic closure [59] Internal
complements
Return on investment SLR and
Ruminant farming Process innovation Yes Internal
uncertainty [59] complements
Problem not perceived by SLR and
Ruminant farming Process innovation Yes Internal
farmers [59] complements
Sustainability 2023, 15, 4374 14 of 23

Table 1. Cont.

Innovation Barrier
Innovation Innovation Type 4IR Relation Barrier Type Methodology
to Overcome
Rural cooperative Organizational
Yes Implementation costs [60] External Inferred SLR
economic organizations model innovation
Rural cooperative Organizational
Yes Unskilled labor [60] Internal Inferred SLR
economic organizations model innovation
Smart irrigation
Process innovation Yes High implementation costs [60] External SLR not mentioned
systems
Smart irrigation
Process innovation Yes Epistemic closure [60] Internal SLR not mentioned
systems
Smart irrigation SLR and
Process innovation Yes High implementation costs [61] External
systems complements
Smart irrigation SLR and
Process innovation Yes Epistemic closure [61] Internal
systems complements
Smart irrigation Lack of policies that promote
Process innovation Yes External Inferred SLR
systems that innovation [29]
Smart irrigation Low priority of the subject in
Process innovation Yes External Inferred SLR
systems the country [29]
Smart irrigation Little investment in
Process innovation Yes External Inferred SLR
systems research [29]
Soil conditioners from
Product innovation No Unfavorable regulation [62] External Inferred SLR
bioenergy
Soil conditioners from No perception of benefit by
Product innovation No Internal Inferred SLR
bioenergy farmers [62]
Soil conditioners from Little investment in
Product innovation No External Inferred SLR
bioenergy research [62]
Sustainable agriculture Process innovation No Epistemic closure [62] Internal Inferred SLR
Sustainable nutrient
Process innovation No Unskilled labor [63] Internal SLR not mentioned
management
Sustainable nutrient
Process innovation No Weak infrastructure [63] Internal SLR not mentioned
management
Sustainable supply Internal company policies not SLR and
Process innovation No Internal
chain management compatible with change [64] complements
Sustainable supply Strategic management of SLR and
Process innovation No Internal
chain management companies [64] complements
Transplantation of
Lack of policies that promote
bio-geographical Process innovation Yes External Inferred SLR
that innovation [29]
species
Transplantation of
Low priority of the subject in
bio-geographical Process innovation Yes External Inferred SLR
the country [29]
species
Transplantation of
Little investment in
bio-geographical Process innovation Yes External Inferred SLR
research [29]
species
Urban agriculture Process innovation No Unfavorable regulation [58] External SLR
Lack of policies that promote
Urban agriculture Process innovation No External Inferred SLR
that innovation [29]
Low priority of the subject in
Urban agriculture Process innovation No External Inferred SLR
the country [29]
Little investment in
Urban agriculture Process innovation No External Inferred SLR
research [29]
Using reduced fertilizer SLR and
Process innovation No Badly formulated policy [65] External
rates complements
Sustainability 2023, 15, 4374 15 of 23

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] pro-
jected 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 conse-
quences 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 repre-
sent 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 environ-
mental 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.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 4374 16 of 23

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 con-
sumers 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 re-
sources 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,
Sustainability 2023, 15, 4374 17 of 23

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 classifica-
tion 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,
Sustainability 2023, 15, 4374 18 of 23

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 unfamil-
iarity [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 an-
swers 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 inno-
vations 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 im-
plementation 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 identi-
fied: 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 pa-
per, 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. Like-
wise, ref. [62] evaluates the conflicts that occur between science, regulation, perception, and
environmental impact when attempting to implement solutions for the generation of soil
Sustainability 2023, 15, 4374 19 of 23

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 lit-
erature 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 modifi-
cation. 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
Sustainability 2023, 15, 4374 20 of 23

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.
[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.
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. [CrossRef]
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. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
6. OECD. Agricultural Innovation Systems, Agricultural Innovation Systems: A Framework for Analysing the Role of the Government; OECD
Publishing: Paris, France, 2013. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 4374 21 of 23

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. [CrossRef]
8. Rogers, P.P.; Jalal, K.F.; Boyd, J.A. An Introduction to Sustainable Development; Routledge: Milton Park, UK, 2012.
9. Keeble, B.R. The Brundtland Report: “Our Common Future”. Med. War 1988, 4, 17–25. [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. [CrossRef]
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. [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. [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. [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. [CrossRef]
16. Toxopeus, H.; Polzin, F. Reviewing financing barriers and strategies for urban nature-based solutions. J. Environ. Manag. 2021,
289, 112371. [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. [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. [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. [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.
[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. [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. [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. [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. [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. [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.
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. [CrossRef]
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. [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.
[CrossRef]
32. Gliessman, S.; Friedmann, H.; Howard, P.H. Agroecology and food sovereignty. IDS Bull. 2019, 50, 91–110. [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. [CrossRef]
34. Blesh, J.; Wolf, S.A. Transitions to agroecological farming systems in the Mississippi River Basin: Toward an integrated socioeco-
logical analysis. Agric. Hum. Values 2014, 31, 621–635. [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. [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. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 4374 22 of 23

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. [CrossRef]
38. Redick, T. Coexistence, North American style: Regulation and litigation. GM Crops Food 2012, 3, 60–71. [CrossRef]
39. Scherr, S.J.; Sthapit, S. Mitigating Climate Change through Food and Land Use; Worldwatch: Washington, DC, USA, 2009.
40. Zucchella, A.; Previtali, P. Circular business models for sustainable development: A “waste is food” restorative ecosystem. Bus.
Strategy Environ. 2019, 28, 274–285. [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. [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. [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. [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.
[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. [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. [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. [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. [CrossRef]
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.
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. [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. [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. [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. [CrossRef]
54. Mukhopadhyay, S.S. Nanotechnology in agriculture: Prospects and constraints. Nanotechnol. Sci. Appl. 2014, 7, 63–71. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
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. [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. [CrossRef]
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. [CrossRef]
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.
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. [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. [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. [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. [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. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 4374 23 of 23

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. [CrossRef]
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. [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.
67. Weiss, C.; Bonvillian, W.B. Legacy sectors: Barriers to global innovation in agriculture and energy. Technol. Anal. Strategic Manag.
2013, 25, 1189–1208. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.