Stepwise frameworks for understanding the utilisation of conservation agriculture in Africa

Brown, Barbara J.; Nuberg, Ian; Llewellyn, Rick

doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2017.01.012

Cited by 98 publications

(92 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies of environmental practice and soil conservation practices in our sample showed the highest discrepancy in consistency of most variables (figure 3). Authors like Andersson and D'Souza (2014) ;Brown, Nuberg, and Llewellyn (2017); Pannell and Claassen (2020); and Weersink and Fulton (2020) have noted the need for a better understanding of adoption to define meaningful dependent variables in regression studies. They have emphasized the potential inadequacy of regression studies where adoption is measured as a binary variable.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Adopters versus the Technology: Which Matters More when Predicting or Explaining Adoption?

Munguia¹,

Llewellyn²

2020

Applied Eco Perspectives Pol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on the determinants of adoption of agricultural innovations (technologies and practices) has failed to converge towards a consistent explanation for why farmers choose to adopt new technologies and practices. This absence of convergence matters because it indicates that agricultural extension and policy are influenced by a body of literature that is often not able to offer clear recommendations on the variables that can be used to design policy interventions. Our analysis suggests that, in general, researchers have been too focused on understanding the adopter and the general farming context, and too little concerned with understanding the performance of the technology itself.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Adopters versus the Technology: Which Matters More when Predicting or Explaining Adoption?

Munguia¹,

Llewellyn²

2020

Applied Eco Perspectives Pol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Even for innovations that have been widely available and the subject of communication and extension programs over many years, substantial levels of nonexposure and nonawareness can sometimes still be found within a population of smallholder farmers (e.g. Brown, Nuberg, and Llewellyn , Jack ). Potential reasons include limited communication between farmers from different cultural groups or different locations, and limitations of the extension system.…”

Section: Additional Considerations For Predicting Adoption In Smallhomentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Extension to smallholder farmers has increasingly focused on "integrated" packages of practices, rather than individual practices. The specification of adoption needs to recognize that what is recommended to farmers as a full multicomponent package will often justifiably not be adopted in that predefined form (Ronner et al 2018;Brown 2017a;D'Souza and Mishra 2018). Farmers are likely to made sequential or separate decisions about adoption for each component of a package, rather than treat the package of practices as a unified whole.…”

Section: Specification Of Adoptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predicting Adoption of Innovations by Farmers: What is Different in Smallholder Agriculture?

Llewellyn¹,

Brown²

2020

Applied Eco Perspectives Pol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Predictions of the speed and extent of adoption of new agricultural practices and technologies are needed to inform decisions and plans in agricultural policy, research and extension. Using an existing tool for predicting the adoption of agricultural innovations in developed countries as the starting point, we identify a number of distinctive features of smallholder agriculture in developing countries that affect agricultural adoption. Additional factors that need to be considered when making predictions of adoption by smallholder populations include: They may be relatively more heterogeneous in their constraints, capabilities, resources, attitudes and priorities; they may be more influenced by particular cultural norms; they may prioritize subsistence over profits; they may be less reliant on agriculture as their primary source of income; they may have relatively high future discount rates; nonlandowner farmers may be less able to capture the benefits resulting from an innovation; and there may be lower and slower diffusion of information across the farming population, with more variable extension quantity and quality.

show abstract

“…Despite more than 50 years of research and extension, adoption of CA is limited and piecemeal in southern Africa (Brown, Nuberg, & Llewellyn, 2017). Specifically, <1% of the total arable area is under CA in southern Africa (Hove, Kadzere, Sims, Ager, & Mulila-Miti, 2011) although the percentage is about 8.3% in Zimbabwe (Richards et al, 2014).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Behaviour of smallholder farmers towards adoption of conservation agriculture in Zimbabwe

Mugandani

Mafongoya

2019

Soil Use and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conservation agriculture is critical to sustainably increasing agricultural productivity, enhancing climate resilience and food security. Much research on adoption of conservation agriculture has focused on its agronomic benefits, but little attention has been paid to the contribution of the behaviour of farmers over its adoption. To close this gap, a study was carried out to investigate the behaviour of smallholder farmers towards the adoption of conservation agriculture in Chivi, Murehwa and Mutoko districts, Zimbabwe. Data were collected through a pre‐tested questionnaire administered to 360 farmers, selected through a multi‐stage sampling process. This method was triangulated through focus group discussions, key informant interviews and personal observations. Data were analysed using percentages, means and inferential statistics. The results show that, although fewer than 10% of the respondents had received any formal training in agriculture, more than 80% of them relied on it for their major source of income. The respondents had high levels of knowledge on the social, environmental and economic benefits of conservation agriculture. However, the majority of the non‐adopters had an indifferent perception towards conservation agriculture. The knowledge and perception of the farmers was explained by age, gender, education and experience with conservation agriculture. Results also show a weak but significant correlation between knowledge and perception (Rs = 0.306, p < 0.05), knowledge and adoption (Rs = 0.484, p < 0.05) but a strong and significant correlation between perception and adoption (Rs = 0.808, p < 0.05). Addressing perception gaps is key to enhance adoption of conservation agriculture.

show abstract

Stepwise frameworks for understanding the utilisation of conservation agriculture in Africa

Cited by 98 publications

References 27 publications

The Adopters versus the Technology: Which Matters More when Predicting or Explaining Adoption?

The Adopters versus the Technology: Which Matters More when Predicting or Explaining Adoption?

Predicting Adoption of Innovations by Farmers: What is Different in Smallholder Agriculture?

Behaviour of smallholder farmers towards adoption of conservation agriculture in Zimbabwe

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About