Digital agriculture technology adoption in low and middle-income countries—a review of contemporary literature

The use of digital technology in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is shaped by multiple factors that can enable or hinder adoption. Understanding these factors is crucial, as LMICs face many constraints that limit the benefits of digital innovation. Therefore, this paper thoroughly evaluates the literature to identify the key determinants influencing the adoption of digital agriculture technologies in LMICs. A total of 30 relevant publications, dated between 2019 and May 2025, were retrieved from the academic databases Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science through a systematic search and analysis approach with clearly defined inclusion criteria to ensure relevance and comparability. This study highlights that socioeconomics, agro-ecological, technological, institutional, situational, social, and behavioral factors are the most frequently discussed influences on digital agriculture technology adoption. Nonetheless, only a few studies have examined all of the components of the complex adoption process, and the majority were only concerned with assessing the impact of a single factor. The findings suggest that these factors positively influence the adoption of digital agriculture technologies, but their effects vary across contexts. The study recommends that policymakers, practitioners, and development agencies adopt integrated strategies that address multiple barriers simultaneously to enhance the uptake and sustained use of digital agriculture technologies.

1 Introduction

Agriculture is the practice of nurturing land, reaping yields, and raising animals for different aims, including food production, fiber, medicinal plants, and other products used to sustain and advance human life. As of 2022, approximately 892 million people worldwide rely largely on agriculture and forestry for income (FAO, 2022), and farmers rapidly adopt digital agriculture technologies to enhance production (Duncan et al., 2021). The finances of many low and middle-income nations (LMICs) are led by agriculture, so advancing the agricultural sector is key to economic growth and prosperity. The development and uptake of new technologies have shaped the farm production system throughout history. Digital technologies, for instance, robotics, big data, the Internet of Things (IoT), sensors, augmented reality, 3D printing, artificial intelligence, ubiquitous connectivity, machine learning, integration systems, digital twins, and blockchain, among others, are in use by farmers worldwide (Klerkx and Rose, 2020). Digital technology profoundly transforms daily life, dynamic agricultural processes, related food, fiber, and bioenergy supply chains, structures, and preparatory revolution symbols (Choi et al., 2022). Integrating numerous agricultural technologies sparks the fourth agricultural revolution, also known as agriculture 4.0. (Figure 1; Cui and Wang, 2023).

Figure 1

Figure 1. The conceptual structure of “Agriculture 4.0” adopted by the previous study (Cui and Wang, 2023).

Digitalization in agriculture is likely to deliver technical optimization of agricultural production ways, value chains, and food systems (Barrett and Rose, 2022; Lajoie-O'malleya and Van Der Burgs, 2020). Researchers have focused on discovering how digital agriculture links to economic, environmental, and social consequences (Lajoie-O'malleya and Van Der Burgs, 2020), particularly how technologies have transformed farmers’ values, practices, and identities (Borman et al., 2022; Parlasca et al., 2022). Moreover, mutual interests such as food provenance and traceability, animal well-being in livestock businesses (Alshehri, 2023), and the ecological impact of various farming practices have been highlighted (Tullo et al., 2019). Despite this, past literature also identifies numerous potential opportunities for digital agriculture technology adoption that have not yet been met in LMICs. These opportunities include improving market access and financial inclusion by connecting farmers to markets, credit, and insurance services; improving climate resilience and precision agriculture through AI-based weather forecasting and IoT-enabled local monitoring systems (Tyagi and Tiwari, 2025); increasing supply chain transparency and efficiency through blockchain and smart contracts to ensure fair compensation and reduce losses; and providing timely extension services and agronomic advisory support (Khanday, 2025). The progress of digital technology in the agriculture sector is very gradual. Various essential elements must be in place before digital agriculture can recognize its full potential, such as equity and equality of access to technology, mobile networks, and electricity (Liu et al., 2021). For instance, in Sub-Saharan Africa, barely 47 percent of the population has access to electricity, and mobile connectivity has still to reach critical mass in many regions (Kudama et al., 2021). In LMICs like Sub-Saharan Africa, the Pacific, and East and Southeast Asia, many farmers have been working on small farms, and their livelihood depends on small-scale agricultural activities. These countries face challenges in adopting and accessing agricultural technologies (Hoang and Tran, 2023). As a result, educating farmers about new prospects and offering access to agricultural technology adoption are key tactics for increasing agrarian output efficiency and farmers’ small-scale livelihoods.

According to World Bank definitions (Data: World Bank Country and Lending Groups, 2019), LMICs are those with an annual gross national income per capita of <US$3,995, whereas upper-middle-income and high-income countries combined have an annual gross national income per capita of ≥US$3,995 (Papri et al., 2021). In a real setting in LMICs, agriculture is hindered by limitations in adopting digital technology, such as infrastructure, lack of knowledge and understanding, inaccessibility, high illiteracy rate, digital literacy, lack of transparency, socio-demographic, and institutional characteristics (Ruzzante et al., 2021; Porciello et al., 2022). These hurdles have made it more difficult to use digital technologies and slowed the progress of smart agriculture. Recognizing the significance and effectiveness of digital technology adoption in agriculture, alongside identifying current challenges in its execution, is essential. These concerns must be addressed head-on for digital agriculture to realize its potential fully and significantly contribute to the sector’s sustainable farming practices, food security, and economic development. Understanding the components of digital technology adoption that might reinforce existing outcomes and situations, alleviate stream issues, and develop digital agriculture for more sustainability is increasingly important. The present study highlights a scoping review of factors affecting the adoption of digital agriculture in LMICs, improving the literature on digital agriculture in two important ways: Initially, we examine and compile the research on determinants influencing digital technology adoption, which helps illuminate the significance of these technologies in the agricultural sector. Second, we propose areas for further exploration: (1) investigating specific factors that influence the adoption of digital agriculture, (2) examining the effects of key components highlighted in previous studies, and (3) studying the challenges in adopting digital agricultural technologies, along with recommending potential solutions.

2 Methods

The present work is a scoping review to emphasize the scope and factors affecting digital agriculture technology adoption in LMICs. The scoping review is considered to thematically describe the scope, extent, and description of prevailing evidence through a five-step procedure proposed by Arksey and O'Malley (2005). First, we recognize the study question; next, we classify applicable and relevant research studies through a structured search strategy; screen them based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria to ensure relevance and quality, extract key information by using a standardized data-charting form, and finally, findings were collated, summarized, and analyzed thematically. The study selection process was conducted per the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, and the results are presented in the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram.

2.1 Search approach and study selection

We searched academic databases Google Scholar, Scopus, and the ISI Web of Science for synonyms and keywords related to adopting digital agriculture technologies in LMICs. The search terms concentrated on elements promoting the adoption of digital agriculture technology. These sources are considered significant because case studies, reports, and other non-academic publications highlight the components influencing the adoption of digital technology. The literature search was conducted in May 2025 from the ISI Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases for sample collection. The analysis was initiated from the year 2019 to capture recent and relevant developments in the field, as the majority of significant contributions on this topic have emerged within the last 5–6 years. Data for 2019 was selected because this period represents a stage when these technologies had begun to achieve broader dissemination and adoption across several LMICs, thereby making it a particularly relevant and representative timeframe for analysis (Amoussouhoui et al., 2024).

The following criteria were used for the search: (a) topics: “factors” and “digital agriculture adoption,” (b) periods: from 2019 to 2025, (c) filtering paper type: as “Article.” With the same strategy, we discovered articles by searching “determinants influencing/promoting digital agriculture adoption” and “components affecting digital agriculture adoption in LMICs.” Furthermore, we used a search string method such as (“digital agriculture adoption”) AND (“digital technology adoption” OR “Agriculture 4.0 adoption” OR “Industry 4.0 adoption” OR “smart farming adoption” OR “precision agriculture adoption”). Figure 2 shows the search and screening steps of the article selection process according to the PRISMA 2020 strategies. After the initial screening, 15,184 records were identified. Reading each paper’s abstracts and titles helped with the next screening phase. After narrowing the research topic and restricting the language to English only, 6,661 records remained. Removing publications like books, editorials, and seminar summaries that were not relevant reduced the total to 1,433. In the final step, after full-text screening, only 30 of the 1,433 papers were found to be directly relevant to the review’s subject and were selected for further analysis.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Data screening process using the PRISMA (2020) flow diagram.

2.2 Inclusion and exclusion criteria

All research studies address components affecting the adoption of digital agriculture technology. These components are socio-economic factors, institutional determinants, and societal and environmental elements on adopting digital technology; other irrelevant factors were excluded, such as the studied technologies that are not on-farm digital technologies. All the included studies focused on original data from the target population(s) and geographies such as LMICs. Studies that identified digital agriculture technology without doing intervention testing with our target population were omitted. Original research articles and English-written studies were added; non-original and non-available in full-text articles were excluded. Non-English language publications were not investigated, which could have resulted in bias in the literature.

3 Results

3.1 Evaluated papers

Basic information about the 30 selected research publications is available in Table 1. These studies incorporate the general digital agriculture field to specific digital technologies such as IoT traceability technology, smart pesticide technology, drones or unmanned aerial vehicles technology, robotics, telecommunication systems, mobile apps, remote sensing, blockchain, artificial intelligence, and other relevant technologies. Regression modeling, technology acceptance modeling, and structural equation modeling are common quantitative techniques that use data acquired through surveys or interviews with farmers. The geographical areas are mostly the main agricultural production zones across LMICs, and the sample sizes varied from 112 to 1,985. The results of these investigations serve as the empirical foundation for this review evaluation.

Table 1

Table 1. Details of reviewed articles.

3.2 Identification and classifications of elements

Several critical factors emerged as significant determinants influencing the adoption of digital agriculture technologies in the studies reviewed. Table 2 specifies these components into six key types (i.e., socio-economic, agri-ecological, technological, situational, institutional, psychological, social, and behavioral). The ensuing section provides a full explanation of each component.

Table 2

Table 2. Major components affecting the adoption of digital agriculture technologies.

3.2.1 Socio-economic components

Socioeconomic elements are the personal information of farmers who have adopted digital agricultural technologies. Several agricultural technologies need a large amount of human capital (Tey et al., 2024). Farmers’ capabilities and knowledge affect their decision to adopt digital agriculture. Numerous studies highlighted socioeconomic components in analytic simulations as predictor constructs (Hoang and Tran, 2023; Hebsale Mallappa and Pathak, 2023; Zheng et al., 2019; Thar et al., 2021; Zakaria et al., 2020; Kitole et al., 2023). Noteworthy socioeconomic elements in the selected articles are age (Wang et al., 2024; Yatribi, 2020), gender (Nyagango et al., 2023), education (Hebsale Mallappa and Pathak, 2023), farming experience (Nazu et al., 2021), agricultural income (Zheng et al., 2019), and household or off-farm income (Miine et al., 2023). These articles reveal that young farmers are more technologically oriented and willing to adopt digital agriculture technology than older people (Thar et al., 2021; Bontsa et al., 2023). The influence of gender on adopting digital agriculture technology reveals an inconsistency in preferences. Men farmers use agricultural technologies more, and female farmers are less likely to adopt them (Nyagango et al., 2023; Krell et al., 2021). Adopting digital agricultural technology is strongly linked to farmer education because these tools necessitate knowledge-based skills and understanding (Hebsale Mallappa and Pathak, 2023; Nyagango et al., 2023; Krell et al., 2021). Similarly, farming experience positively influences the adoption of digital agricultural technologies (Zakaria et al., 2020; Nazu et al., 2021). This shows that experienced farmers are more willing to adopt cutting-edge and sophisticated technologies since they require less assistance from others throughout the implementation process. Despite opposing views about farm and non-farm income, studies have shown that the acceptance of digital agricultural equipment is unaffected by either source of income (Thar et al., 2021). In addition, research discovered that the higher the percentage of farming income, the larger the tendency to adopt technology (Zheng et al., 2019), and high household income is more effective in predicting farmers’ adoption of digital agriculture (Hebsale Mallappa and Pathak, 2023; Miine et al., 2023).

3.2.2 Agro-ecological components

Agroecology, recognized as agricultural ecology, is a farming method that considers ecological elements. It integrates ecological concepts into agricultural techniques to develop sustainable and resilient agricultural systems. The entire land area available for agricultural production is the farm size. Though this is a vital factor, the outcomes of the reviewed articles are ambiguous. For instance, cultivators with large land sizes are more likely to adopt digital agriculture (Hoang and Tran, 2023; Miine et al., 2023; Meng et al., 2023). Conversely, Zakaria et al. (2020) discovered that farmers with small farm sizes tend to adopt digital technologies, presuming that the associated expenses will be low. Moreover, Krell et al. (2021) it was found that farm size is not significantly related to adopting agricultural technology. Temperature, climate change, and rainfall influence the productivity and health of crops and livestock. Climate monitoring, modeling for prediction, and weather awareness tools improve agricultural output. Therefore, digital agriculture applications effectively track weather updates like rainfall and temperature, impacting adoption (Zakaria et al., 2020; Kumar et al., 2020). The selected studies have not thoroughly examined certain agroecological components, including crop diversity and rotation, soil health, water management, and pest and disease control.

3.2.3 Technological components

Digital agriculture technology adoption depends on data and equipment control, the need for technology, knowledge of new equipment, implementation cost, and information availability. Technology adoption is facilitated by characteristics that are compatible with work needs. When a technology’s perceived capabilities and task requirements align, a perceived demand for it develops. Articles claim that farmers’ adoption of agricultural technologies is positively influenced by their perceived need to use technology (Li et al., 2020). Furthermore, the degree to which a person comprehends that mechanical and technical infrastructures allow the use of technology and systems is known as facilitating conditions (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Ronaghi and Forouharfar (2020) discovered that conducive conditions motivate farmers to use digital agriculture instruments. This may eliminate hurdles that prevent farmers from embracing new technologies (Li et al., 2020). A farmer’s awareness of new technologies encourages them to accept them (Zheng et al., 2019). Moreover, the low-cost instruments (Nyagango et al., 2023; Cucho-Padin et al., 2020) and digital communication methods (Meng et al., 2023; Kante et al., 2019) raise the smart farming. Rather, significant financial costs limit adoption (Yoon et al., 2020). Farmers are more willing to use technology and apps if they can get timely and cost-effective agricultural information over the Internet.

3.2.4 Institutional components

Understanding agricultural modernization requires institutions such as government agencies, cooperatives, commercial units, loan provider groups, and training facilities. Selected articles demonstrated that government backing and subsidies significantly improve farmers’ readiness to adopt agricultural technologies (Yoon et al., 2020). Information and enhanced information-sharing opportunities, such as agri-researchers, service providers, and cooperative membership in farmer groups, lead to a growth in the usage of digital technologies (Hoang and Tran, 2023; Kitole et al., 2023; Krell et al., 2021; Meng et al., 2023). One of the factors that influences technology adoption is the availability of researchers (Zakaria et al., 2020). Farmers’ involvement in cooperatives improves access to production knowledge and innovation (Kumar et al., 2020). Access to financial or credit services and training centers is positively related to the farmer’s adoption of technologies (Zakaria et al., 2020; Miine et al., 2023; Meng et al., 2023; Benimana et al., 2021). These outcomes indicate that consistent government and cooperative support encourage farmers to adopt innovative farming methods.

3.2.5 Situational components

Farmers away from the market are likelier to use the digital application to get information. Farmers’ adoption of new technologies is significantly impacted by the distance to the nearest marketing hub (Kumar et al., 2020). Farmers who reside far from marketplaces are less likely to use digital applications, as reported by Thar et al. (2021) market distance, which is negatively significant. Furthermore, studies showed that the distance from farm to market and home to farm has a detrimental impact on the extent of farmers’ adoption of technologies (Zakaria et al., 2020; Kitole et al., 2023). The reason could be that smallholder farmers’ farms are away from their homes, making it hard for extension agents to access markets. This leads to poor technology uptake.

3.2.6 Social and behavioral components

Implementing new digital technologies entails more than simply technical considerations. Participants’ and stakeholders’ attitudes, actions, and beliefs also influence it. For example, Hebsale Mallappa and Pathak (2023) discovered that farmers’ perceived risk will likely impact their use of digital technologies in agriculture. One study found that perceived risks have a considerable detrimental impact on farmers’ adoption of technologies (Li et al., 2020). Perceived ease of use indicates the ability to use relevant information and operating processes related to technology. Farmers are less inclined to adopt new technology they perceive to be tough to use. Perceived usefulness also pertains to how farmers consider that the technology will improve efficiency, production, and effectiveness. Farmers who believe the technology is advantageous are more likely to use it. Hence, the studies discover that the perceived ease of use (Bontsa et al., 2023) and perceived usefulness (Diaz et al., 2021) considerably drive the intention to adopt the technologies (Zheng et al., 2019). Performance expectancy is the extent to which an individual believes that employing technology helps him accomplish his tasks better. The level of perceived convenience in incorporating technology is called effort expectancy (Venkatesh et al., 2003). We discovered that performance and effort expectancy had a major influence on technology adoption (Ronaghi and Forouharfar, 2020). The term “social influence” refers to an individual’s view of someone’s notion about using technology and systems (Zhang et al., 2020). There are incompatible outcomes of social influence on the adoption; for instance, some studies highlight that the social influence elements positively influence the adoption of digital technologies (Hebsale Mallappa and Pathak, 2023; Ronaghi and Forouharfar, 2020; Kante et al., 2019; Diaz et al., 2021). Nevertheless, Li et al. (2020) it was revealed that social influence is insignificant when adopting technologies.

3.3 Challenges in the adoption of digital agricultural technology

In LMICs, the adoption of digital agriculture technologies has several challenges. Farmers in most nations are ignorant of digital technologies, possess inadequate training and expertise, and lack the knowledge to use them effectively. Training courses and ongoing support are critical for the successful deployment of technologies. Financing expenditures in digital technology is difficult for small-scale farmers with limited financial capabilities. The initial expense of acquiring and implementing digital agricultural tools is elevated. As a result, updating their processes while remaining sustainable is tough (Smidt and Jokonya, 2022). Many rural areas lack basic digital infrastructure, especially internet access, storage spaces, and electricity, which prevents the application of digital technology in agriculture (Rola-Rubzen et al., 2020). Farmers’ concerns regarding the privacy and security of their agricultural data may serve as another obstacle to digital technology adoption. Many LMICs have a culture of uncertainty about novel solutions and technologies. As a result, conventional farming practices are deeply established, and many farmers avoid embracing new technologies for fear of losing their benefits (Ruzzante et al., 2021).

Furthermore, the lack of legislation supporting digital agriculture serves as a barrier to adoption. An insufficient regulatory framework can stymie the digital revolution’s application in agriculture. Agriculture firms might be unable to prepare for and invest in the digital revolution if digital technology is not adequately regulated (Khanna and Kaur, 2023).

Despite this, the agricultural industry in LMICs can leverage digital technology to increase farm productivity and encourage environmentally friendly and sustainable farming practices. Nevertheless, these challenges require a collaborative effort from the public and private agricultural sectors, governments, educational institutions, technology developers, and societies.

4 Discussion

This review highlighted the determinants impacting the adoption of agricultural technologies in LMICs. This review found that adopting digital agriculture technologies results from multidimensional factors. It is positively related to (i) socioeconomic elements (young farmers, males, highly educated, experienced farmers and have a farm and off-farm income), (ii) agro-ecological elements (farm size, climate change, and rainfall), (iii) technological elements (perceived need for technology characteristics, facilitating condition, understanding of new technology, cost of technology, access to information), (iv) institutional elements (government support, access to financial credit, access and participation to training, access to agri-researcher and service providers, membership in farming organizations/cooperatives), and (v) Situational components (farm distance from market, and home-farm distance), (vi) social and behavioral elements (perceived risk, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence).

It is important to emphasize that characteristics of farmers and farms, particularly education, experience, income level, and farm size, are documented as generally stable components and are rarely addressed as critical elements in research performed in developed nations (Olum et al., 2020). Studies seldom consider socioeconomic characteristics because they are consistent throughout developed countries (Dibbern et al., 2025; Oli et al., 2025). Nevertheless, the present study displays that these determinants are important for farmers’ adoption of agricultural technologies in LMICs. The agriculture sector in LMICs is distinguished by small-scale farming and a noteworthy assortment. The progressive economic development and execution of rural rehabilitation initiatives have resulted in a tremendous increase in the farming scale. During the swift shifts in rural setups and farming workforce systems, it is still vital to consider socioeconomic elements for empirical studies. In this article, socioeconomic factors, considering age, the older farmers tend to be conservative and reluctant to change and adopt technologies due to risk aversion. Compared to older young farmers, they are more open to innovations and more likely to adopt new technologies (Fragomeli et al., 2024). The adoption rate increases with the farmer’s education level, especially if technology is advanced, and learning is necessary for its use. The influence of gender on adopting new technologies remains unclear in most cases. According to agricultural and non-agricultural income, the higher the farm income, the more likely the farmer is to adopt new technologies. These findings align with a previous research study (Yatribi, 2020).

With all six groups of components, situational and agroecological are the least determined in the reviewed studies. Land size, temperature, climate change, rainfall, and farm distance from the market and home are the factors studied in this group. In developed nations, many articles have uncovered other determinants like irrigation water availability, soil quality, crop yields, and climate shocks, which are effective in adopting digital technologies (Khanna et al., 2022; Moysiadis et al., 2021). Moreover, Farmers value the agricultural revolution and are adaptable to natural conditions and climate change (Khanna and Kaur, 2023). Considering these factors in this study may lead to a tilted acceptance of technology adoption.

Most farmers’ decisions to adopt digital technologies are typically driven by greater profitability and revenue. The cost of these technologies often acts as a barrier, negatively influencing farmers’ adoption. Nevertheless, a few institutional components, like government support or incentives, the availability of financial credit facilities, and reliable service providers, can motivate farmers to adopt agricultural technologies, notwithstanding their price (Dibbern et al., 2024). Institutional components ultimately increase the perception of farmers and technology adoption rates. The literature indicates that the intensification of profit and the role of social and behavioral elements induce the adoption of technologies. The outcome proposes that the perceived risk, usefulness, and ease of adopting modern innovations are important in decision-making (Cui and Wang, 2023). Institutional and behavioral components are very flexible; therefore, intervention can increase the likelihood of agricultural technology adoption. For example, raising awareness and providing information about environmental degradation and climate change might help people comprehend sustainability better. Most farmers accept contemporary agricultural methods due to financial and technical help, regardless of their perceived profitability (Cui and Wang, 2023).

This review exhibits opportunities to transform the concept into reality as digital agriculture gradually emerges from the hype. Digital technological competencies are rapidly evolving (Abbasi et al., 2022), and their prices will likely fall. Though this review study offers useful information on these new technologies, more comprehensive research is required to bridge the gap between technological innovation and its applications. That work can guide the expansion of digital agriculture for private and societal gains. Future research should investigate barriers unique to specific LMICs, such as cultural, regulatory, and infrastructure-related factors, to better understand how localized challenges impact digital agricultural technology adoption.

The findings have several significant implications. To encourage the adoption of digital agricultural technologies, the government should develop region-specific plans to solve specific challenges, such as legislative constraints in Southeast Asia and infrastructure limitations in Sub-Saharan Africa. Investing in farmer training and capacity building ensures these instruments are used effectively. Furthermore, to promote accessibility and adoption, digital solutions should be tailored to local language, literacy levels, and cultural norms. While boosting access to markets, information, and financial services can help reduce rural poverty and close the digital divide, particularly in low-income communities, strengthening public-private partnerships can accelerate innovation, cut costs, and enhance scalability. Additionally, policymakers, technology developers, and other stakeholders can work together to establish a climate conducive to the successful adoption of digital agriculture technologies, resulting in greater agricultural production, sustainability, and resilience.

5 Conclusion

This review article provides an overview of components influencing the adoption of digital agriculture technology in LMICs. This exploratory review synthesizes evidence from previous studies on the factors influencing digital agricultural technology adoption and underscores that multi-dimensional considerations shape farmers’ adoption decisions. The adoption of digital agriculture technology is influenced by various technological, economic, social, situational, and institutional factors. For digital technologies to be successfully implemented and widely used in agriculture, it is essential to recognize these elements. This review found six components affecting the adoption of digital agricultural technologies. These important elements are socioeconomics, agroecological, institutional, technological, situational, social, and behavioral. Certain research studies have identified multiple factors related to the adoption of digital technologies, and most of them cannot be determined solely by assessing the impact of a single factor. This article combines previous information to recognize areas that require further research and policy development. This approach allows researchers, policymakers, and practitioners to receive unique insights about how to increase technology adoption rates. Accelerating digital technology adoption in rural areas needs collaboration between individuals, governments, technology providers, and extension agents. Policies can help ancillary farmers gain better access to information and services, improve their knowledge and proficiency, and reduce risk perception.

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors without undue reservation.

Author contributions

FM: Formal analysis, Data curation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – original draft. LW: Resources, Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Funding acquisition. MS: Data curation, Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization. XL: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Validation, Funding acquisition. GQ: Writing – review & editing, Methodology, Validation, Resources, Visualization.

Funding

The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This study was supported by the National Natural Science Fund of China (Grant No. 71973123) and the National Social Science Fund of China (Grant No. 22&ZD081).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The authors declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

Abbasi, R., Martinez, P., and Ahmad, R. (2022). The digitization of agricultural industry–a systematic literature review on agriculture 4.0. Smart Agric. Technol. 2:100042. doi: 10.1016/j.atech.2022.100042

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Akudugu, M., Nkegbe, P., Wongnaa, C., and Millar, K. (2023). Technology adoption behaviors of farmers during crises: what are the key factors to consider? J. Agric. Food Res. 14:100694. doi: 10.1016/j.jafr.2023.100694

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Alshehri, M. (2023). Blockchain-assisted internet of things framework in smart livestock farming. Internet Things 22:100739. doi: 10.1016/j.iot.2023.100739

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Amoussouhoui, R., Arouna, A., Ruzzante, S., and Banout, J. (2024). Adoption of ICT4D and its determinants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Heliyon 10:e30210. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e30210

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Arksey, H., and O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 8, 19–32. doi: 10.1080/1364557032000119616

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Barrett, H., and Rose, D. C. (2022). Perceptions of the fourth agricultural revolution: what’s in, what’s out, and what consequences are anticipated? Sociol. Ruralis 62, 162–189. doi: 10.1111/soru.12324

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Benimana, G. U., Ritho, C., and Irungu, P. (2021). Assessment of factors affecting the decision of smallholder farmers to use alternative maize storage technologies in Gatsibo District-Rwanda. Heliyon 7:e08235. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08235

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bontsa, N. V., Mushunje, A., and Ngarava, S. (2023). Factors influencing the perceptions of smallholder farmers towards adoption of digital technologies in eastern Cape Province, South Africa. Agriculture 13:1471. doi: 10.3390/agriculture13081471

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Borman, G. D., de Boef, W. S., Dirks, F., Gonzalez, Y. S., Subedi, A., Thijssen, M. H., et al. (2022). Putting food systems thinking into practice: integrating agricultural sectors into a multi-level analytical framework. Glob. Food Secur. 32:100591. doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100591

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Choi, T. M., Kumar, S., Yue, X., and Chan, H. L. (2022). Disruptive technologies and operations management in the industry 4.0 era and beyond. Prod. Oper. Manag. 31, 9–31. doi: 10.1111/poms.13622

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cucho-Padin, G., Loayza, H., Palacios, S., Balcazar, M., Carbajal, M., and Quiroz, R. (2020). Development of low-cost remote sensing tools and methods for supporting smallholder agriculture. Appl. Geomat. 12, 247–263. doi: 10.1007/s12518-019-00292-5

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cui, L., and Wang, W. (2023). Factors affecting the adoption of digital technology by farmers in China: a systematic literature review. Sustainability 15:14824. doi: 10.3390/su152014824

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Data: World Bank Country and Lending Groups. (2019). The World Bank [internet]. Available online at: http://databank.worldbank.org/data/download/site-content/OGHIST.xls

Google Scholar

Diaz, A. C., Sasaki, N., Tsusaka, T. W., and Szabo, S. (2021). Factors affecting farmers’ willingness to adopt a mobile app in the marketing of bamboo products. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. Adv. 11:200056. doi: 10.1016/j.rcradv.2021.200056

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Dibbern, T., Romani, L. A. S., and Massruhá, S. M. F. S. (2024). Main drivers and barriers to the adoption of digital agriculture technologies. Smart Agric. Technol. 8:100459. doi: 10.1016/j.atech.2024.100459

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Dibbern, T., Romani, L., and Massruhá, S. (2025). Drivers and barriers to digital agriculture adoption: a mixed-methods analysis of challenges and opportunities in Latin American. Sustainability 17:3676. doi: 10.3390/su17083676

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Duncan, E., Abdulai, A.-R., and Fraser, E. D. (2021). “Modernizing agriculture through digital technologies: prospects and challenges” in Handbook on the human impact of agriculture, Cheltenham, UK, and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing 138–161.

Google Scholar

FAO. (2022). Employment indicators 2000–2022 (October 2024 update). Available online at: https://www.fao.org/statistics/highlights-archive/highlights-detail/employment-indicators-2000-2022-%28september-2024-update%29/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Google Scholar

Fragomeli, R., Annunziata, A., and Punzo, G. (2024). Promoting the transition towards agriculture 4.0: a systematic literature review on drivers and barriers. Sustainability 16:2425. doi: 10.3390/su16062425

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hebsale Mallappa, V. K., and Pathak, T. B. (2023). Climate smart agriculture technologies adoption among small-scale farmers: a case study from Gujarat, India. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 7:1202485. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2023.1202485

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hoang, H. G., and Tran, H. D. (2023). Smallholder farmers’ perception and adoption of digital agricultural technologies: an empirical evidence from Vietnam. Outlook Agric. 52, 457–468. doi: 10.1177/00307270231197825

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kabirigi, M., Sekabira, H., Sun, Z., and Hermans, F. (2023). The use of mobile phones and the heterogeneity of banana farmers in Rwanda. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 25, 5315–5335. doi: 10.1007/s10668-022-02268-9

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kante, M., Oboko, R., and Chepken, C. (2019). An ICT model for increased adoption of farm input information in developing countries: a case in Sikasso, Mali. Inf. Process. Agric. 6, 26–46. doi: 10.1016/j.inpa.2018.09.002

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Khan, N. A., Gao, Q., Ali, S., Shahbaz, B., Khan, P., and Abid, M. (2020). Analyzing ICT-enabled agricultural advisory services in Pakistan: evidence from a marginalized region of Punjab province. Electron. Commer. Res. 22, 1107–1129. doi: 10.1007/s10660-020-09442-z

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Khan, N., Ray, R. L., Kassem, H. S., and Zhang, S. (2022). Mobile internet technology adoption for sustainable agriculture: evidence from wheat farmers. Appl. Sci. 12:4902. doi: 10.3390/app12104902

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Khanday, N. Y. (2025). “Revolutionizing agriculture: 5G-enabled IoT networks for smart farming” in Computational intelligence techniques for 5G enabled IoT networks (Cham: Springer), 191–212.

Google Scholar

Khanna, M., Atallah, S. S., Kar, S., Sharma, B., Wu, L., Yu, C., et al. (2022). Digital transformation for a sustainable agriculture in the United States: opportunities and challenges. Agric. Econ. 53, 924–937. doi: 10.1111/agec.12733

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Khanna, A., and Kaur, S. (2023). An empirical analysis on adoption of precision agricultural techniques among farmers of Punjab for efficient land administration. Land Use Policy 126:106533. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106533

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kitole, F. A., Mkuna, E., and Sesabo, J. K. (2023). Digitalization and agricultural transformation in developing countries: empirical evidence from Tanzania agriculture sector. Smart Agric. Technol. 7:100379. doi: 10.1016/j.atech.2023.100379

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Klerkx, L., and Rose, D. (2020). Dealing with the game-changing technologies of agriculture 4.0: how do we manage diversity and responsibility in food system transition pathways? Glob. Food Secur. 24:100347. doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2019.100347

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Krell, N., Giroux, S., Guido, Z., Hannah, C., Lopus, S., Caylor, K., et al. (2021). Smallholder farmers' use of mobile phone services in Central Kenya. Clim. Dev. 13, 215–227. doi: 10.1080/17565529.2020.1748847

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kudama, G., Dangia, M., Wana, H., and Tadese, B. (2021). Will digital solution transform sub-Sahara African agriculture? Artif. Intell. Agric. 5, 292–300. doi: 10.1016/j.aiia.2021.12.001

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kumar, A., Takeshima, H., Thapa, G., Adhikari, N., Saroj, S., Karkee, M., et al. (2020). Adoption and diffusion of improved technologies and production practices in agriculture: insights from a donor-led intervention in Nepal. Land Use Policy 95:104621. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104621

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lajoie-O'malleya, B., and Van Der Burgs, K. (2020). The future (s) of digital agriculture and sustainable food systems: an analysis of high-level policy documents. Ecosyst. Serv. 45:101183. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101183

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Li, W., Clark, B., Taylor, J. A., Kendall, H., Jones, G., Li, Z., et al. (2020). A hybrid modelling approach to understanding adoption of precision agriculture technologies in Chinese cropping systems. Comput. Electron. Agric. 172:105305. doi: 10.1016/j.compag.2020.105305

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Liu, W., Shao, X.-F., Wu, C.-H., and Qiao, P. (2021). A systematic literature review on applications of information and communication technologies and blockchain technologies for precision agriculture development. J. Clean. Prod. 298:126763. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126763

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Meng, Y., Li, W.-j., Shan, J., Jing, C., Chang, Q., Glyn, J., et al. (2023). Farmers’ precision pesticide technology adoption and its influencing factors: evidence from apple production areas in China. J. Integr. Agric. 22, 292–305. doi: 10.1016/j.jia.2022.11.002

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Miine, L. K., Akorsu, A. D., Boampong, O., and Bukari, S. (2023). Drivers and intensity of adoption of digital agricultural services by smallholder farmers in Ghana. Heliyon 9:e23023. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e23023

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Moysiadis, T., Adamides, G., Stylianou, A., Zotos, N., Giannakopoulou, M., and Alexiou, G. (2021). “Use of IoT technologies for irrigation and plant protection: the case for Cypriot fruits and vegetables” in Bio-economy and agri-production (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Academic Press, Elsevier), 175–194.

Google Scholar

Nazu, S. B., Khan, M. A., Saha, S. M., Hossain, M. E., and Rashid, M. H.-A. (2021). Adoption of improved wheat management practices: an empirical investigation on conservation and traditional technology in Bangladesh. J. Agric. Food Res. 4:100143. doi: 10.1016/j.jafr.2021.100143

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Nguyen, D. T., and Hoang, H. G. (2025). Determinants of farmers’ use of the internet in agriculture: a case study in Quang Nam province of Vietnam. Inf. Dev., 02666669251338221. doi: 10.1177/02666669251338221

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Nyagango, A. I., Sife, A. S., and Kazungu, I. (2023). Factors influencing the use of mobile phone for accessing agricultural marketing information by grape smallholder farmers in Tanzania. Cogent Bus Manag 10:2257865. doi: 10.1080/23311975.2023.2257865

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Oli, D., Gyawali, B., Acharya, S., and Oshikoya, S. (2025). Factors influencing learning attitude of farmers regarding adoption of farming technologies in farms of Kentucky, USA. Smart Agric. Technol. 10:100801. doi: 10.1016/j.atech.2025.100801

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Olum, S., Gellynck, X., Juvinal, J., Ongeng, D., and De Steur, H. (2020). Farmers’ adoption of agricultural innovations: a systematic review on willingness to pay studies. Outlook Agric. 49, 187–203. doi: 10.1177/0030727019879453

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Papri, N., Islam, Z., Leonhard, S. E., Mohammad, Q. D., Endtz, H. P., and Jacobs, B. C. (2021). Guillain–Barré syndrome in low-income and middle-income countries: challenges and prospects. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 17, 285–296. doi: 10.1038/s41582-021-00467-y

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Parlasca, M. C., Johnen, C., and Qaim, M. (2022). Use of mobile financial services among farmers in Africa: insights from Kenya. Glob. Food Secur. 32:100590. doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100590

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Porciello, J., Coggins, S., Mabaya, E., and Otunba-Payne, G. (2022). Digital agriculture services in low-and middle-income countries: a systematic scoping review. Glob. Food Secur. 34:100640. doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2022.100640

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rola-Rubzen, M. F., Paris, T., Hawkins, J., and Sapkota, B. (2020). Improving gender participation in agricultural technology adoption in Asia: from rhetoric to practical action. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 42, 113–125. doi: 10.1002/aepp.13011

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ronaghi, M. H., and Forouharfar, A. (2020). A contextualized study of the usage of the internet of things (IoTs) in smart farming in a typical middle eastern country within the context of unified theory of acceptance and use of technology model (UTAUT). Technol. Soc. 63:101415. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101415

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ruzzante, S., Labarta, R., and Bilton, A. (2021). Adoption of agricultural technology in the developing world: a meta-analysis of the empirical literature. World Dev. 146:105599. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105599

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Savari, M., Zhoolideh, M., and Limuie, M. (2024). Factors affecting the use of climate information services for agriculture: evidence from Iran. Clim. Serv. 33:100438. doi: 10.1016/j.cliser.2023.100438

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sharma, A., Mohan, A., Johri, A., and Asif, M. (2025). Determinants of financial technology (FinTech) adoption by the farmers in agrarian economy. Soc. Sci. Human. Open 11:101370. doi: 10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.101370

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Smidt, H. J., and Jokonya, O. (2022). Factors affecting digital technology adoption by small-scale farmers in agriculture value chains (AVCs) in South Africa. Inf. Technol. Dev. 28, 558–584. doi: 10.1080/02681102.2021.1975256

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Tey, Y. S., Brindal, M., Wong, S. Y., Ardiansyah,, Ibragimov, A., and Yusop, M. R. (2024). Evolution of precision agricultural technologies: a patent network analysis. Precis. Agric. 25, 376–395. doi: 10.1007/s11119-023-10076-y

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Thar, S. P., Ramilan, T., Farquharson, R. J., Pang, A., and Chen, D. (2021). An empirical analysis of the use of agricultural mobile applications among smallholder farmers in Myanmar. Electron. J. Inf. Syst. Develop. Countr. 87:e12159. doi: 10.1002/isd2.12159

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Tullo, E., Finzi, A., and Guarino, M. (2019). Environmental impact of livestock farming and precision livestock farming as a mitigation strategy. Sci. Total Environ. 650, 2751–2760. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.018

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Tyagi, A. K., and Tiwari, S. (2025). Blockchain and digital twin applications in smart agriculture. New York: CRC Press.

Google Scholar

Ulhaq, I., Pham, N. T. A., Le, V., Pham, H.-C., and Le, T. C. (2022). Factors influencing intention to adopt ICT among intensive shrimp farmers. Aquaculture 547:737407. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2021.737407

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., and Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 27, 425–478.

Google Scholar

Wang, W., Huang, Z., Fu, Z., Jia, L., Li, Q., and Song, J. (2024). Impact of digital technology adoption on technological innovation in grain production. J. Innov. Knowl. 9:100520. doi: 10.1016/j.jik.2024.100520

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Wang, Y.-n., Jin, L., and Mao, H. (2019). Farmer cooperatives’ intention to adopt agricultural information technology—mediating effects of attitude. Inf. Syst. Front. 21, 565–580. doi: 10.1007/s10796-019-09909-x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Yatribi, T. (2020). Factors affecting precision agriculture adoption: a systematic litterature review. Economics 8, 103–121. doi: 10.2478/eoik-2020-0013

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Yoon, C., Lim, D., and Park, C. (2020). Factors affecting adoption of smart farms: the case of Korea. Comput. Human Behav. 108:106309. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106309

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zakaria, A., Alhassan, S. I., Kuwornu, J. K., Azumah, S. B., and Derkyi, M. A. (2020). Factors influencing the adoption of climate-smart agricultural technologies among rice farmers in northern Ghana. Earth Syst. Environ. 4, 257–271. doi: 10.1007/s41748-020-00146-w

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhang, T., Tao, D., Qu, X., Zhang, X., Zeng, J., and Zhu, H. (2020). Automated vehicle acceptance in China: social influence and initial trust are key determinants. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 112, 220–233. doi: 10.1016/j.trc.2020.01.027

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zheng, S., Wang, Z., and Wachenheim, C. J. (2019). Technology adoption among farmers in Jilin Province, China: the case of aerial pesticide application. China Agric. Econ. Rev. 11, 206–216. doi: 10.1108/CAER-11-2017-0216

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zheng, Y.-y., Zhu, T.-h., and Wei, J. (2022). Does internet use promote the adoption of agricultural technology? Evidence from 1 449 farm households in 14 Chinese provinces. J. Integr. Agric. 21, 282–292. doi: 10.1016/S2095-3119(21)63750-4

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar