Systemic barriers blocking technology adoption in primary sector

Aquaculture technologies, including recirculating systems and water-quality monitoring sensors, are hindered by financing constraints. High investment requirements and long payback periods discourage uptake, particularly when producers lack access to credit or when markets fail to reward sustainable practices with higher prices.

Technological innovation across agriculture, horticulture, forestry and aquaculture is advancing faster than at any other point in the past century, yet global adoption remains stubbornly slow. Despite billions of dollars in research investment and a growing urgency to improve sustainability, productivity and climate resilience, new tools developed for primary sectors continue to fall short of widespread implementation. A new academic study argues that this adoption gap is not caused by shortcomings in technology alone but by systemic misalignment across financial, institutional and user-level conditions.

The study “Bridging the Adoption Gap in Primary Sectors: A Systemic Technology Adoption Model (STAM)”, published in Agronomy, introduces a new systems-based model designed to explain why promising innovations often stall and to guide policymakers, innovators and industry bodies toward more effective adoption pathways.

The research confronts one of the most persistent failures of primary-sector innovation: even when tools work in controlled environments, they rarely reach large-scale implementation. Technologies intended to improve yield management, animal welfare, supply-chain transparency, water efficiency and environmental monitoring are often met with enthusiasm at the research stage but struggle to penetrate real-world practice. The study states that overcoming this challenge requires shifting from a technology-centric view to a systemic one that accounts for how users, institutions, markets and finance interact to enable or disable adoption.

New four-quadrant framework to explain adoption barriers

The study introduces a new conceptual model, STAM, the Systemic Technology Adoption Mode, which repositions technological uptake as a multidimensional system rather than a linear sequence of steps. The framework incorporates four quadrants, each representing a critical domain that must be aligned for adoption to occur: technology, users, financial enablers and institutional or business-model readiness.

The first quadrant focuses on the technology itself, including the perceived advantages, ease of use, compatibility with existing systems and clarity of benefits. The authors argue that while technological attributes are often the subject of most innovation studies, they alone rarely predict adoption success. Even a highly efficient or environmentally beneficial tool may fail if other system components are misaligned.

The second quadrant focuses on users and their social networks. Factors such as risk perception, skill readiness, learning styles, social pressure and trust play a determining role in whether new innovations gain traction. The study identifies user behavior as a decisive barrier in many primary sectors, where technologies disrupt long-established routines, introduce new uncertainties or require training that is unavailable or undervalued.

The third quadrant addresses financial readiness. Many technologies require substantial upfront investments, ongoing maintenance costs or financing models that are inaccessible to small and medium producers. This quadrant includes the availability of subsidies, credit mechanisms, long-term return-on-investment evidence and alignment between cost distribution and value benefits. When these financial factors are misaligned, adoption stalls regardless of technological merit.

The fourth quadrant examines market structures, institutional frameworks and business-model configurations. Regulatory settings, certification requirements, supply-chain incentives, distribution networks and governance structures shape the economic and operational environment in which innovations must function. In many cases, institutional inertia or policy uncertainty prevents adoption even when user and financial conditions are favorable.

The study states that adoption only occurs when all four domains interact positively. Misalignment in any quadrant can cascade through the system, amplifying risk and reducing willingness to adopt. This systemic view explains why many technologies appear promising in pilot projects but fail once they enter real operational environments.

Systemic failures across agriculture, forestry and aquaculture

To demonstrate STAM’s relevance, the study examines adoption challenges across several primary-sector technologies. Each case reveals how systemic misalignment, rather than technical flaws, explains low uptake.

In livestock farming, virtual fencing technologies offer major welfare and labor-efficiency gains but face barriers stemming from high capital costs, uncertain regulatory acceptance and producer discomfort with digital monitoring tools. The technology may meet performance expectations, but adoption remains limited because financial, behavioral and institutional readiness do not align.

Precision-agriculture innovations are similarly affected. Tools for soil sensing, variable-rate application, yield mapping and remote monitoring rely on platforms that require digital literacy, reliable connectivity and coordinated value-chain participation. In many farming systems, these conditions are inconsistent, reducing willingness to adopt tools that appear beneficial on paper but difficult to integrate in practice.

In forestry, certification systems and traceability technologies face institutional challenges. The benefits accrue primarily to downstream actors such as exporters and processors, while costs often fall on forest owners. This imbalance discourages participation and reinforces low adoption rates even when technologies improve transparency and sustainability.

Aquaculture technologies, including recirculating systems and water-quality monitoring sensors, are hindered by financing constraints. High investment requirements and long payback periods discourage uptake, particularly when producers lack access to credit or when markets fail to reward sustainable practices with higher prices.

Across these examples, the study highlights the same pattern: barriers do not arise from the technology alone but from interactions between capital requirements, market readiness, institutional governance and user behavior. The STAM model provides a structured way to identify these interactive barriers before large-scale implementation begins.

New policy and design approaches to address system-level adoption gaps

The study offers recommendations for policymakers, industry coalitions, extension services and innovators. The authors emphasize that bridging the adoption gap requires coordinated action across institutions, markets and financial systems, rather than isolated efforts focused solely on product design.

One key recommendation is early-stage adoption assessment. Governments, research institutes and technology developers should evaluate financial, market and institutional conditions before investing heavily in new technologies. By identifying systemic constraints earlier, stakeholders can reduce wasted investment and design technologies that are more aligned with real-world conditions.

Another recommendation is the development of integrated financing mechanisms. Technologies that offer significant societal benefits, such as reducing emissions or improving animal welfare, may require subsidies, risk-sharing models or alternative business structures to support uptake. Without financial enablers, even well-designed innovations will struggle to achieve meaningful penetration.

The study also highlights the importance of strengthening institutional readiness. Regulatory clarity, certification frameworks, supply-chain incentives and industry partnerships must evolve in step with technological possibilities. Many innovations fail not because they lack technical efficacy but because institutional environments lag behind.

User engagement is another critical pillar. Training programs, demonstration sites, peer-to-peer learning networks and extension services remain essential for building user confidence and capability. The authors argue that user insights should inform innovation design from the outset, reducing both perceived and real risks associated with technology adoption.

Furthermore, the study encourages interdisciplinary collaboration. Adoption challenges cut across economics, sociology, technology design, finance and environmental policy. STAM provides a common language for uniting these disciplines, allowing for more holistic adoption strategies.