Effect of climate-smart agricultural practices on household food security in smallholder production systems: micro-level evidence from Kenya

Abstract

Background: Climate change in Sub-Saharan Africa has had a negative impact on agricultural production leading to food insecurity. Climate-smart agricultural (CSA) practices have the potential to reverse this trend because of its triple potential benefits of improved productivity and high income, reduction or removal of greenhouse gases and improved household food security. Hence, we empirically find the determinants of choice and the effect of CSAs on household food security among smallholder farmers in Kenya. Methods: Primary data were collected in Teso North Sub-county, Busia County of Kenya, among smallholder farmers. CSA practices used by farmers were grouped by principal component analysis and linked to food security by multinomial endogenous switching regression model. Results: With the application of principal component analysis, we clustered the CSA practices into 4 components: crop management, field management, farm risk reduction and soil management practices. We find that the greatest effect of CSA adoption by smallholder farmers on food security is when they use a larger package that contains all the four categories of practices. Adopters of this package were 56.83% more food secure in terms of HFCS and 25.44% in terms of HDDS. This package mitigates upon the impacts of climate change as well as enhancing nutrient availability in the soils for higher productivity. Further, adoption of this package was positively influenced by gender of the household head, farm size and value of productive farm assets. Conclusions: CSAs have the potential to alleviate food insecurity among smallholder farmers if used in combinations and to a larger extend. To enhance adoption, land fragmentation should be discouraged through civic education and provision of alternative income-generating activities for farmers to benefit when practiced on relatively bigger land. Farmers should be sensitized on the need to invest in farm productive assets in order to absorb the risks of climate change while enhancing adoption of CSA practices.

Determinants of the Adoption of Climate-Smart Agricultural Practices by Small-Scale Farming Households in King Cetshwayo District Municipality, South Africa

“…Additionally, farmers' education could enhance the productivity of agricultural extension services, as educated farmers could be more receptive to and productive with new agricultural innovations or practices. However, the result obtained is in contrast with the finding of Wekesa et al [17], who reported a negative influence of years of schooling on the choice of CSA package. Wekesa et al [17] argued that educated farmers would opt out of a CSA package if it does not offer risk reduction measures which could protect their investment against the risks of climate change.…”

“…This finding suggests that small-scale farmers, who are more open to the integration of different farming techniques, would adopt more CSA practices compared to their counterparts who rely solely on one farming enterprise. Being open to the combination of varying farming techniques creates a promising and conducive platform for mainstreaming CSA [17].…”

“…The concept of CSA in its framework aims to integrate these three goals to enhance agricultural productivity and food security under a changing climate [10]. Alongside innovations and technologies that are being harnessed towards the implementation of CSA, agricultural practices that fit into the CSA framework or profile have been identified as CSA technologies [17]. Therefore, this study conceptualizes agricultural practices that have been identified to fit into the CSA framework as CSA practices, and the level of adoption of these practices as the level of CSA adoption among the small-scale farmers in the study area/s.…”

The impact of adaptation practices on crop productivity in northwest Ethiopia: an endogenous switching estimation

“…As shown in Table 4, the impact of adaptation on crop yields is determined by differencing column (c1) and column (c2). The results portray that adaptation grants higher yields as compared with not adapting, which is consistent with several studies (for example Asrat and Simane 2017;Mohammed et al 2017;Bedeke et al 2018;Di Falco and Veronesi 2018;Gorst, Dehlavi, and Groom 2018;Khanal et al 2018;Nonvide 2018;Wekesa, Ayuya, and Lagat 2018). That is, farmers who actually adopted would have gained lower if they had not adapted; and those farmers who actually did not adapt would have gained higher if they had adapted (counterfactual).…”

“…Numerous studies have also examined the impact of climate change adaptation on crop productivity and income (see e.g. Asrat and Simane 2017;Mohammed et al 2017;Amare and Simane 2018;Di Falco and Veronesi 2018;Gorst, Dehlavi, and Groom 2018;Khanal et al 2018;Nonvide 2018;Wekesa, Ayuya, and Lagat 2018;Cholo et al 2019). However, the current study differs from these studies in at least four areas.…”