Adoption of Agricultural Innovations Within the ‘Farm to Fork’ Strategy: A Realistic Review of Barriers, Paradoxes, and Avenues for Change

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper employs a realist review methodology to examine the barriers and paradoxes in the adoption of agricultural technological innovations within the “farm to fork” strategy, demonstrating significant policy and practical implications. However, the following aspects require revision and refinement:

1. Section 3 “Systematic Review” and Section 2 “Methods” contain significant overlap, particularly regarding database selection, search strategies, and inclusion/exclusion criteria. Recommendation: Merge Section 3 into Section 2 or substantially streamline it to eliminate redundant descriptions and maintain logical flow throughout the article.
2. Table 1 (Geographical and temporal distribution of the literature) presents only “Country/Region” and “Number of Publications,” omitting data related to “Temporal Distribution.” This contradicts the table's title, “Geographical and Temporal Distribution.” Furthermore, the text following the table mentions that “research output in countries such as Australia and Canada has increased over time,” yet the table lacks a temporal dimension to support this claim, rendering the information incomplete. Add a “Temporal Distribution” dimension to Supplementary Table 1 to align the table content with its title while supporting the text's conclusion of “increased over time.”
3. In the section “2.1 Inclusion, Exclusion, and Quality Assessment Criteria,” the text only mentions “giving priority to articles that directly address the research questions and demonstrate methodological rigor,” but does not specify the dimensions or scoring criteria of the “epistemological quality scale.” It is recommended to supplement the detailed content of the “epistemological quality scale” to ensure the quality assessment process is transparent and reproducible.
4. In the “3. Systematic Review” and “4. Results” sections, the analysis process using the “Context-Mechanism-Outcome (CMO)” framework was not systematically broken down. It is recommended to add a subsection titled “Analysis of Agricultural Innovation Technology Adoption Based on the CMO Framework” to the “4. Results” section. This subsection should focus on core technologies such as precision agriculture and digital monitoring systems.
5. In the reference list, some entries have inconsistent formatting: for example, “Aladsani, H. K. (2022)” includes “journal volume/issue (54 (sup1))” and “page range (T165–S181)”, while "Caicedo Aldaz, J. C., et al. (2021)“ provides only a ”web link" without specifying the journal name, volume, issue, or page numbers. It is recommended to carefully verify the formatting according to journal requirements.
6. The term “smallholder farmers” is used inconsistently throughout the text, appearing as both “small-scale farmers” and “smallholder farmers” without a consistent definition upon first mention. It is recommended to standardize terminology by establishing a single term (e.g., “small-scale farmers”) when “smallholder farmers” first appears in the “Introduction” section and maintaining consistency throughout the remainder of the article.
7. Some terms are introduced without providing their full Chinese or English names upon first appearance, such as “CMO Analysis,” which is only mentioned in the ‘Keywords’ section. The meaning of “CMO (Context-Mechanism-Outcome)” is not explained when it first appears in the main text, potentially causing comprehension difficulties for readers unfamiliar with the field. It is recommended to supplement the full name and definition when the term first appears in the main text.
8. The article introduces the “organic agriculture yield paradox” and the “well-intentioned regulation paradox” in Section 5.2, “Paradoxes and Contradictions in Small-Scale Agriculture.” However, it merely describes these paradoxical phenomena without proposing potential solutions or mitigation pathways based on existing research or policy practices. It is recommended that a new subsection titled “Exploring Solutions” be added after each paradox analysis, presenting feasible pathways grounded in empirical cases from the literature.
9. The section “6. Conclusions” summarizes the research findings but does not explicitly address how the study limitations (such as the “lack of cross-regional comparative data” and “failure to consider farmers' psychological factors” mentioned in Section 5.3) impact the conclusions. It is recommended to add an explanation of how these limitations affect the conclusions in the Conclusions section.

Author Response

Section 3 “Systematic Review” and Section 2 “Methods” contain significant overlap, particularly regarding database selection, search strategies, and inclusion/exclusion criteria. Recommendation: Merge Section 3 into Section 2 or substantially streamline it to eliminate redundant descriptions and maintain logical flow throughout the article..

Response:
In the revised manuscript, Section 3 (“Systematic Review”) was merged into Section 2 (“Methods”), and overlapping content was streamlined. Database selection, search strategies, and eligibility criteria are now consolidated into Sections 2.2–2.4. This restructuring avoids redundancy, ensures coherence, and improves the methodological flow.

 

Comment 2

Table 1 (Geographical and temporal distribution of the literature) presents only “Country/Region” and “Number of Publications,” omitting data related to “Temporal Distribution.” This contradicts the table's title, “Geographical and Temporal Distribution.” Furthermore, the text following the table mentions that “research output in countries such as Australia and Canada has increased over time,” yet the table lacks a temporal dimension to support this claim, rendering the information incomplete. Add a “Temporal Distribution” dimension to Supplementary Table 1 to align the table content with its title while supporting the text's conclusion of “increased over time.”

 

Response:
Table 1 has been revised to include both geographical and temporal dimensions. Each country now indicates the year(s) of publication for included studies (2019–2024). This modification aligns the table content with its title and supports the textual claim regarding increased research output over time. In addition, a more detailed breakdown by year has been added to Supplementary Table S1.

 

Comment 3

In the section “2.1 Inclusion, Exclusion, and Quality Assessment Criteria,” the text only mentions “giving priority to articles that directly address the research questions and demonstrate methodological rigor,” but does not specify the dimensions or scoring criteria of the “epistemological quality scale.” It is recommended to supplement the detailed content of the “epistemological quality scale” to ensure the quality assessment process is transparent and reproducible.

 

Response:
Section 2.4 now specifies the dimensions of the epistemological quality scale applied during the screening process. The criteria include (i) clarity of research questions, (ii) adequacy of study design, (iii) methodological transparency, (iv) internal and external validity, (v) relevance to small-scale farmer contexts, and (vi) alignment with Farm to Fork objectives. Each dimension was scored on a 0–2 scale, and studies scoring below 5 were excluded. This addition increases transparency and reproducibility.

 

Comment 4

In the “3. Systematic Review” and “4. Results” sections, the analysis process using the “Context-Mechanism-Outcome (CMO)” framework was not systematically broken down. It is recommended to add a subsection titled “Analysis of Agricultural Innovation Technology Adoption Based on the CMO Framework” to the “4. Results” section. This subsection should focus on core technologies such as precision agriculture and digital monitoring systems.

 

Response:
A new subsection (now Section 3.6 in “Results”) has been added: “Analysis of Agricultural Innovation Technology Adoption Based on the CMO Framework.” This subsection systematically unpacks how Context–Mechanism–Outcome dynamics operate in adoption of precision agriculture, digital monitoring, and climate-smart technologies. The addition strengthens the realist dimension of the review and clarifies how barriers and enablers operate in practice.

 

Comment 5

In the reference list, some entries have inconsistent formatting: for example, “Aladsani, H. K. (2022)” includes “journal volume/issue (54 (sup1))” and “page range (T165–S181)”, while "Caicedo Aldaz, J. C., et al. (2021)“ provides only a ”web link" without specifying the journal name, volume, issue, or page numbers. It is recommended to carefully verify the formatting according to journal requirements.

 

Response:
We carefully revised the reference list following MDPI guidelines. All references were reformatted in numerical order of appearance. Missing details such as journal name, volume, issue, and page numbers were added where available, and all DOIs and URLs were verified. The formatting is now consistent with MDPI standards.

 

Comment 6

The term “smallholder farmers” is used inconsistently throughout the text, appearing as both “small-scale farmers” and “smallholder farmers” without a consistent definition upon first mention. It is recommended to standardize terminology by establishing a single term (e.g., “small-scale farmers”) when “smallholder farmers” first appears in the “Introduction” section and maintaining consistency throughout the remainder of the article.

Response:
The term “small-scale farmers” has been adopted consistently throughout the manuscript. This term is now introduced and defined at first mention in the Introduction, and all subsequent mentions have been standardized.

 

Comment 7

Some terms are introduced without providing their full Chinese or English names upon first appearance, such as “CMO Analysis,” which is only mentioned in the ‘Keywords’ section. The meaning of “CMO (Context-Mechanism-Outcome)” is not explained when it first appears in the main text, potentially causing comprehension difficulties for readers unfamiliar with the field. It is recommended to supplement the full name and definition when the term first appears in the main text.

 

Response:
This important clarification has been addressed. In Section 2.1, we now introduce the term in full as “Context–Mechanism–Outcome (CMO) analysis” at its first appearance, and its meaning is briefly explained. This ensures accessibility for readers unfamiliar with realist methodology.

 

Comment 8

The article introduces the “organic agriculture yield paradox” and the “well-intentioned regulation paradox” in Section 5.2, “Paradoxes and Contradictions in Small-Scale Agriculture.” However, it merely describes these paradoxical phenomena without proposing potential solutions or mitigation pathways based on existing research or policy practices. It is recommended that a new subsection titled “Exploring Solutions” be added after each paradox analysis, presenting feasible pathways grounded in empirical cases from the literature.

Response:

4.2 (formerly Section 5.2) has been revised to include a new subsection titled “Exploring Solutions.” For each paradox, we now present feasible mitigation pathways grounded in empirical cases, such as policy adjustments, incentive structures, and adaptive management strategies. This addition balances the identification of paradoxes with actionable recommendations.

 

Reviewer 1 – Comment 9

The section “6. Conclusions” summarizes the research findings but does not explicitly address how the study limitations (such as the “lack of cross-regional comparative data” and “failure to consider farmers' psychological factors” mentioned in Section 5.3) impact the conclusions. It is recommended to add an explanation of how these limitations affect the conclusions in the Conclusions section.

 

Response:
A new paragraph has been added at the end of Section 5 (Conclusions), explicitly linking the identified limitations—such as lack of cross-regional comparative data and limited attention to psychological factors—to the interpretation of the findings. This clarifies that the conclusions should be seen as context-sensitive rather than universally generalizable, while pointing toward priority areas for future research.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a highly relevant and timely analysis of the adoption of agricultural innovations in the context of the European Union’s Farm to Fork strategy, utilizing a realist review methodology to transcend traditional, confirmatory approaches in this field. Its core strengths lie in providing a multidimensional understanding of the barriers, paradoxes, and context-specific factors shaping technology implementation among small-scale farmers. The work is well-structured, methodologically robust, and draws upon a comprehensive and diverse body of recent literature, including both European and Global South perspectives.

 The theoretical and conceptual framing should be slightly enhanced for clarity and accessibility. The distinction between classical diffusion frameworks (e.g., Rogers) and the “realist review” (CMO) approach is present but could be communicated more explicitly. A concise summary or schematic contrasting these perspectives would greatly benefit readers who are less familiar with review methodologies, while also clarifying the unique analytical contributions of this paper.

While the review makes a compelling case for moving beyond generic accounts of barriers to innovation, the discussion linking the differentiated typology of small-scale farmers to specific policy interventions should be deepened. For example, the implications of subsidy concentration in the EU, land fragmentation in transition economies, and food security challenges in the Global South are articulated, but the translation of these findings into concrete policy recommendations could be more direct. The authors are encouraged to integrate summary tables or boxed sections outlining what targeted, context-sensitive interventions might look like for each typology.

The manuscript’s empirical anchoring is generally strong, but it would be improved by further showcasing how recent empirical studies substantiate the identified tensions and paradoxes. The discussion of paradoxes, such as the yield gap and sustainability concerns with organic farming or the unintended negative effects of well-intentioned regulations, is both original and policy-relevant. However, this discussion would be even more persuasive if directly buttressed with succinct presentation of key statistics, case findings, or specific literature examples in the main text.

The manuscript’s referencing is comprehensive, international, and up-to-date, but there are minor inconsistencies in the formatting and integration of references, particularly within tables and the text. Attention should be paid to ensuring all in-text short references or “et al.” citations match fully detailed references in the list, and DOIs should be included where available. Consistent citation formatting will improve editorial quality and accessibility.

Lastly, the conclusions and research agenda are well supported by the evidence and offer valuable directions for further study. To maximize impact on both academic and policy audiences, the authors are encouraged to tie each main conclusion and agenda item more explicitly to the empirical findings or referenced literature, perhaps through parenthetical citations or short summaries. In addition, highlighting the urgency or priority of specific gaps (such as the scarcity of socio-psychological adoption studies or the need for research in emerging economies affected by EU policies) for different stakeholders would further enhance clarity and utility.

Author Response

Comment 1

slightly enhanced for clarity and accessibility. The distinction between classical diffusion frameworks (e.g., Rogers) and the “realist review” (CMO) approach is present but could be communicated more explicitly. A concise summary or schematic contrasting these perspectives would greatly benefit readers who are less familiar with review methodologies, while also clarifying the unique analytical contributions of this paper.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. Section 4.3 (“Theoretical Contributions”) was revised to provide a clearer comparison between Rogers’ classical Diffusion of Innovations model and the Context–Mechanism–Outcome (CMO) realist approach. A schematic framework (Figure 6) has been integrated to visually contrast these perspectives, clarifying the unique analytical contribution of the realist methodology.

 

Comment 2
The discussion linking the differentiated typology of small-scale farmers to specific policy interventions should be deepened. The authors are encouraged to integrate summary tables or boxed sections outlining what targeted, context-sensitive interventions might look like for each typology.

Response:
We fully agree with this suggestion. Section 3.3 (“Typology of Small-Scale Farmers at the Global Level”) was expanded to include targeted, context-sensitive policy recommendations. A summary table was added, aligning each farmer typology (EU small-scale farmers, transition economies, Global South subsistence farmers) with concrete intervention pathways. This addition directly addresses subsidy concentration in the EU, land fragmentation in transition economies, and food security challenges in the Global South.

 

Comment 3
The manuscript’s empirical anchoring is generally strong, but it would be improved by further showcasing how recent empirical studies substantiate the identified tensions and paradoxes. The discussion of paradoxes… would be more persuasive if directly buttressed with key statistics, case findings, or literature examples.

Response:
We appreciate this insightful comment. Section 4.2 (“Paradoxes and Contradictions in Small-Scale Agriculture”) was revised to incorporate empirical evidence, case statistics, and recent study examples. Furthermore, a new subsection titled “Exploring Solutions” was added to present feasible mitigation pathways. This strengthens the connection between the identified paradoxes and real-world policy or practice examples, improving both persuasiveness and applicability.

 

Comment 4
The manuscript’s referencing is comprehensive, but there are minor inconsistencies in formatting and integration. Ensure all in-text short references match the reference list and include DOIs where available.

Response:
We carefully revised the reference list and in-text citations in line with MDPI guidelines. All references now appear in numerical order of appearance, with full consistency between in-text citations and the bibliography. DOIs and URLs were added wherever available. References in tables and supplementary materials were also cross-checked to ensure accuracy.

 

Comment 5
The conclusions and research agenda are well supported but should be tied more explicitly to empirical findings and highlight urgency or priority of specific gaps (e.g., socio-psychological adoption studies, emerging economies under EU policies).

Response:
We agree with the reviewer’s observation. The Conclusions (Section 5) were revised to explicitly link each key conclusion and research agenda item to support empirical findings, with references integrated parenthetically. A final paragraph was added highlighting the urgency of addressing socio-psychological adoption studies and the need for further research in emerging economies impacted by EU policies. This ensures that the conclusions are both empirically grounded and clearly prioritized for different stakeholders.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My related issues have been resolved.