IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/cmpart/334754.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Determinants of climate smart agricultural technology adoption in the Northern Province of Zambia

Author

Listed:
  • Lungu, Harad Chuma

Abstract

Our world, as we know it, is changing faster than what scientific evidence has thus far predicted. Globally, we see an increased occurrence of indeterminate and unpredictable climatic events changing the daily livelihood of people across the planet. Particularly, such impacts include the frequent occurrences of droughts, the increased incidences of pests and diseases in farmer fields (such as the fall army worm in Zambia), the reduced annual rainfall and shrinking freshwater supplies, the increased number of forest wild fires, and the reduction of farmers’ yields. This calls for the need to adapt and build resilience. To support the adaptation and resilience agenda, various global initiatives have been undertaken and include the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Kyoto Protocol, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and the Paris Agreement. Despite these global efforts, climate change impacts are still severe for developing countries like Zambia, experienced through erratic weather conditions leading to droughts and floods. This affects rural households more severely, where 70% of the Zambian population rely on agriculture (IAPRI, 2016). Between 1960 and 2003, Zambia’s average temperature rose by 1.3 degrees Celsius and rainfall decreased by 2.3 % each decade (Norimitsu, 2016). To counter these adverse effects, policies were formulated at national level to guide the national agenda on climate change, which includes the National Policy on Climate Change (NPCC) and the National Adaptation Program of Action (NAPA). These policy initiatives have explicitly identified environmentally friendly agricultural and natural resource management practices, which include: (1) improved agronomic practices, (2) tillage and residual management, (3) agroforestry, and (4) increased participation of women, youth and children in climate change programmes, among others, as the main tools for improving smallholder productivity and building resilience strategies. These measures have shown to suit the Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) framework developed by the Food and Agricultural Organization vi (FAO) of the United Nations (UN), which is governed by three clear objectives. The CSA objectives include: (i) sustainably increasing agriculture productivity and incomes; (ii) adapting to climate change; and (iii) reducing greenhouse gas emissions. A good volume of literature exists that has assessed the determinants and intensity of the adoption of conservation agricultural technology. However, few studies have examined the uptake of single technologies within the conservation agriculture package, and the low adoption rates of the entire conservation package confirms that farmers have a tendency to selectively pick technologies in the package. As a result of the selective picking of technologies, factors influencing the adoption of individual agricultural technologies and the interrelatedness of the adopted technologies, i.e. whether adopting one particular technology influences the decision to adopt another climate smart technology within a household, has remained subtle. Further, evidence on the impact of the demographic diversity of age is elusive in the CSA framework with regard to the adoption of crop rotation and an efficient stove design as individual technologies. In addition to determining factors influencing the adoption decision of crop rotation as an adaptation strategy and the efficient stove as a mitigation strategy to climate change, we test and analyse whom between the young and old farmer is most likely to adopt the efficient stove and/or the crop rotation technologies by testing hypotheses and observing the effect of the age variable. The reason for including the age variable is not only to assess the demographic impact, but also to guide the Zambian policymakers who are promoting youth participation in technology adoption. We further investigate the role of other demographic variables, such as family size, income and gender, in assessing their roles in the adoption decision. In addition to the econometric analyses, we use independent t-tests and tests of association to examine the statistical differences that exist amongst the respondents as they pertain to the adoption of the CSA technologies, i.e. the efficient cooking stove and crop rotation technologies. This study makes use of survey data collected by the International Fund for Agricultural Development IFAD1 as part of their Smallholder Productivity Promotional Program (S3P). The data is cross-sectional in nature, consisting of a total of 182 smallholder farm households from the Northern Province of Zambia. They used random sampling techniques, based on a sampling frame provided by the Zambian Central Statistical Office (CSO). The first stage involved identifying the Primary Sampling Unit (PSU) and randomly selected Standard Enumeration Areas (SEAs) within the PSU in which the farm households belonged. The data was captured by administering survey questionnaires to the selected respondents. Further, Key Informant Interviews (KII) and Focused Group Discussions (FGDs) were held to enrich and verify the data collected. The model used in this study is the Recursive Bivariate Probit Model (RBPM), which checks for potential biases, such as non-randomness and self-selection. This was necessary, given the nature of the survey that captured data in an area where development programmes are promoted. Overall, the study revealed that, of the CSA technologies practised in the Northern Province of Zambia, crop rotation and the efficient cooking stove design were the most adopted technologies, followed by minimum tillage and residual retention. In this study, we focused on crop rotation and the efficient stove for analyses for the reason that higher rates of adoption are an indication of technology suitability and acceptance. The findings show that a greater number (55%) of the respondents indicated that they were aware of climate change and its consequences, and have since adopted measures to mitigate and build resilience. The study also identified variables found to have significant effects on influencing adoption decisions, such as various human and social capital characteristics; the wealth status of the respondent households; group formation as part of social capital, extension and awareness variables; and location and crops grown. Remarkably, the effect of age on the two technologies under investigation, i.e. the efficient cook stove and crop rotation, was mixed. For instance, the older farmers located in Mungwi and Kasama Districts were more likely to adopt the efficient stove, compared than those in Mbala District were, whereas no significant age effects were found on the crop rotation technology. We also show that those respondents who are exposed to the technologies through demonstration trials are less likely to adopt the technologies, indicating a reluctance to switch to the CSA technologies being promoted, i.e. crop rotation and the efficient stove. In terms of gender, the results show that women-headed households have statistically lower levels of income and smaller household sizes than their male counterparts do, and this can have profound effects on accessing and adopting the CSA technologies. The key findings in the study support the importance of the CSA framework as a comprehensive guide in adapting to climate change in the Northern Province of Zambia. Greater attention must be directed towards the capacity building of agricultural groups as mediums by which the climate change agenda is pushed. The study finds that networks and associational life are more effective in promoting the adoption of CSA technologies.

Suggested Citation

  • Lungu, Harad Chuma, 2019. "Determinants of climate smart agricultural technology adoption in the Northern Province of Zambia," Research Theses 334754, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:cmpart:334754
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.334754
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/334754/files/Lungu_Determinants_2019.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.334754?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    2. Kumar, Shubh K., 1994. "Adoption of hybrid maize in Zambia: effects on gender roles, food consumption, and nutrition," Research reports 100, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    3. Li, Chuhui & Poskitt, D.S. & Zhao, Xueyan, 2019. "The bivariate probit model, maximum likelihood estimation, pseudo true parameters and partial identification," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 209(1), pages 94-113.
    4. Julius Manda & Arega D. Alene & Cornelis Gardebroek & Menale Kassie & Gelson Tembo, 2016. "Adoption and Impacts of Sustainable Agricultural Practices on Maize Yields and Incomes: Evidence from Rural Zambia," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(1), pages 130-153, February.
    5. Marenya, Paswel P. & Barrett, Christopher B., 2007. "Household-level determinants of adoption of improved natural resources management practices among smallholder farmers in western Kenya," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 515-536, August.
    6. Mendelsohn, Robert & Dinar, Ariel, 1999. "Climate Change, Agriculture, and Developing Countries: Does Adaptation Matter?," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 14(2), pages 277-293, August.
    7. Aslihan Arslan & Nancy McCarthy & Leslie Lipper & Solomon Asfaw & Andrea Cattaneo & Misael Kokwe, 2015. "Climate Smart Agriculture? Assessing the Adaptation Implications in Zambia," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(3), pages 753-780, September.
    8. Hailemariam Teklewold & Menale Kassie & Bekele Shiferaw, 2013. "Adoption of Multiple Sustainable Agricultural Practices in Rural Ethiopia," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(3), pages 597-623, September.
    9. D'souza, Gerard & Cyphers, Douglas & Phipps, Tim, 1993. "Factors Affecting the Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Practices," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(2), pages 159-165, October.
    10. Quisumbing, Agnes R. & Meinzen-Dick, Ruth Suseela & Raney, Terri L. & Croppenstedt, André & Behrman, Julia A. & Peterman, Amber, 2014. "Synopsis of Gender in agriculture: Closing the knowledge gap:," Issue briefs 84, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    11. Tarisayi Pedzisa & Lovemore Rugube & Alex Winter-Nelson & Kathy Baylis & Kizito Mazvimavi, 2015. "The Intensity of adoption of Conservation agriculture by smallholder farmers in Zimbabwe," Agrekon, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(3), pages 1-22, September.
    12. Haggblade, Steven & Tembo, Gelson, 2003. "Development, Diffusion and Impact of Conservation Farming in Zambia," Food Security Collaborative Working Papers 54464, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    13. Philip K. Thornton & Mario Herrero, 2015. "Adapting to climate change in the mixed crop and livestock farming systems in sub-Saharan Africa," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 5(9), pages 830-836, September.
    14. Bola Amoke Awotide & Aziz A. Karimov & Aliou Diagne, 2016. "Agricultural technology adoption, commercialization and smallholder rice farmers’ welfare in rural Nigeria," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 4(1), pages 1-24, December.
    15. United Nations, 2016. "The Sustainable Development Goals 2016," Working Papers id:11456, eSocialSciences.
    16. Srivatsan V. Raghavan & Jiang Ze & Jina Hur & Liu Jiandong & Nguyen Ngoc Son & Sun Yabin & Liong Shie-Yui, 2017. "Distributional Impacts of Climate Change and Food Security in Southeast Asia," Working Papers DP-2016-41, Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA).
    17. Schuck, Eric C. & Nganje, William & Yantio, Debazou, 2002. "The role of land tenure and extension education in the adoption of slash and burn agriculture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 61-70, November.
    18. Gideon Danso-Abbeam & Joshua Antwi Bosiako & Dennis Sedem Ehiakpor & Franklin Nantui Mabe, 2017. "Adoption of improved maize variety among farm households in the northern region of Ghana," Cogent Economics & Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 1416896-141, January.
    19. Simtowe, Franklin & Kassie, Menale & Diagne, Aliou & Asfaw, Solomon & Shiferaw, Bekele & Silim, Said & Muange, Elijah, 2011. "Determinants of Agricultural Technology Adoption: The Case of Improved Pigeonpea Varieties in Tanzania," Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, Humboldt-Universitaat zu Berlin, vol. 50(4), pages 1-21.
    20. Raghavan, Srivatsan V & Ze, JIang & Hur, Jina & Jiandong, Liu & Son, Nguyen Ngoc & Yabin, Sun & Shie-Yui, Liong, 2017. "Distributional Impacts of Climate Change and Food Security in Southeast Asia," 2017 ASAE 9th International Conference, January 11-13, Bangkok, Thailand 284818, Asian Society of Agricultural Economists (ASAE).
    21. Feder, Gershon & Just, Richard E & Zilberman, David, 1985. "Adoption of Agricultural Innovations in Developing Countries: A Survey," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 33(2), pages 255-298, January.
    22. B.C. Okoye & A. Abass & B. Bachwenkizi & G. Asumugha & B. Alenkhe & R. Ranaivoson & R. Randrianarivelo & N. Rabemanantsoa & I. Ralimanana, 2016. "Differentials in technical efficiency among smallholder cassava farmers in Central Madagascar: A Cobb Douglas stochastic frontier production approach," Cogent Economics & Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(1), pages 1143345-114, December.
    23. Mendola, Mariapia, 2007. "Agricultural technology adoption and poverty reduction: A propensity-score matching analysis for rural Bangladesh," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 372-393, June.
    24. Chiara Monfardini & Rosalba Radice, 2008. "Testing Exogeneity in the Bivariate Probit Model: A Monte Carlo Study," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 70(2), pages 271-282, April.
    25. Koirala, Krishna H. & Mishra, Ashok K. & Sitienei, Isaac, 2015. "Farm Productivity and Technical Efficiency of Rural Malawian Households: Does Gender Make a Difference?," 2015 Annual Meeting, January 31-February 3, 2015, Atlanta, Georgia 196903, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    26. Heckman, James J. & Robb, Richard Jr., 1985. "Alternative methods for evaluating the impact of interventions : An overview," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1-2), pages 239-267.
    27. Ngoma, Hambulo & Mulenga, Brian P. & Jayne, T.S., 2014. "What Explains Minimal Usage of Minimum Tillage Practices in Zambia? Evidence from District-representative Data," Food Security Collaborative Policy Briefs 171875, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    28. Doss, Cheryl R. & Morris, Michael L., 2001. "How does gender affect the adoption of agricultural innovations?: The case of improved maize technology in Ghana," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 25(1), pages 27-39, June.
    29. Narayan, Deepa & Pritchett, Lant, 1999. "Cents and Sociability: Household Income and Social Capital in Rural Tanzania," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 47(4), pages 871-897, July.
    30. Monica Fisher & Tsedeke Abate & Rodney Lunduka & Woinishet Asnake & Yoseph Alemayehu & Ruth Madulu, 2015. "Drought tolerant maize for farmer adaptation to drought in sub-Saharan Africa: Determinants of adoption in eastern and southern Africa," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 133(2), pages 283-299, November.
    31. Kaczan, David & Arslan, Aslihan & Lipper, Leslie, 2013. "Climate-Smart Agriculture? A review of current practice of agroforestry and conservation agriculture in Malawi and Zambia," ESA Working Papers 288985, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Agricultural Development Economics Division (ESA).
    32. D'Souza, Gerard E. & Cyphers, Douglas & Phipps, Tim T., 1993. "Factors Affecting The Adoption Of Sustainable Agricultural Practices," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 22(2), pages 1-7, October.
    33. Nyanga, Progress H., 2012. "Factors Influencing Adoption and Area under Conservation Agriculture: A Mixed Methods Approach," Sustainable Agriculture Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 1(2).
    34. Agnes R. Quisumbing & Ruth Meinzen-Dick & Terri L. Raney & André Croppenstedt & Julia A. Behrman & A (ed.), 2014. "Gender in Agriculture," Springer Books, Springer, edition 127, number 978-94-017-8616-4, December.
    35. Hassan, Rashid M. & Nhemachena, Charles, 2008. "Determinants of African farmers’ strategies for adapting to climate change: Multinomial choice analysis," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 2(1), pages 1-22, March.
    36. Mittal, Surabhi & Tripathi, Gaurav, 2009. "Role of Mobile Phone Technology in Improving Small Farm Productivity," Agricultural Economics Research Review, Agricultural Economics Research Association (India), vol. 22(Conferenc).
    37. Tom S. Jayne & Nicholas J. Sitko & Nicole M. Mason & David Skole, 2018. "Input Subsidy Programs and Climate Smart Agriculture: Current Realities and Future Potential," Natural Resource Management and Policy, in: Leslie Lipper & Nancy McCarthy & David Zilberman & Solomon Asfaw & Giacomo Branca (ed.), Climate Smart Agriculture, pages 251-273, Springer.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Aslihan Arslan & Kristin Floress & Christine Lamanna & Leslie Lipper & Solomon Asfaw & Todd Rosenstock, 2020. "IFAD RESEARCH SERIES 63 - The adoption of improved agricultural technologies - A meta-analysis for Africa," IFAD Research Series 304758, International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).
    2. Giuseppe Maggio & Marina Mastrorillo & Nicholas J. Sitko, 2022. "Adapting to High Temperatures: Effect of Farm Practices and Their Adoption Duration on Total Value of Crop Production in Uganda," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(1), pages 385-403, January.
    3. Ali M. Oumer & Michael Burton & Atakelty Hailu & Amin Mugera, 2020. "Sustainable agricultural intensification practices and cost efficiency in smallholder maize farms: Evidence from Ethiopia," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(6), pages 841-856, November.
    4. Arslan, Aslihan & Belotti, Federico & Lipper, Leslie, 2017. "Smallholder productivity and weather shocks: Adoption and impact of widely promoted agricultural practices in Tanzania," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 68-81.
    5. Ignaciuk, A. & Maggio, G. & Mastrorillo, M. & Sitko, N., 2021. "Adapting to high temperatures: evidence on the impacts of sustainable agricultural practices in Uganda," ESA Working Papers 309364, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Agricultural Development Economics Division (ESA).
    6. Ndiritu, S. Wagura & Kassie, Menale & Shiferaw, Bekele, 2014. "Are there systematic gender differences in the adoption of sustainable agricultural intensification practices? Evidence from Kenya," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 117-127.
    7. Dung, Luu Tien & Phi Ho, Dinh & Thi Kim Hiep, Nguyen & Hoi, Phan Thi, 2018. "The Determinants of Rice Farmers� Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Technologies in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam," Asian Journal of Applied Economics, Kasetsart University, Center for Applied Economics Research, vol. 25(2), December.
    8. Munir Ahmed & Ghulam Mustafa & Muhammad Iqbal, 2016. "Impact of Farm Households’ Adaptations to Climate Change on Food Security: Evidence from Different Agro-ecologies of Pakistan," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 55(4), pages 561-588.
    9. Paudel, G. & Krishna, V. & McDonald, A., 2018. "Why some inferior technologies succeed? Examining the diffusion and impacts of rotavator tillage in Nepal Terai," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277149, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Gebremariam, Gebrelibanos & Tesfaye, Wondimagegn, 2018. "The heterogeneous effect of shocks on agricultural innovations adoption: Microeconometric evidence from rural Ethiopia," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 154-161.
    11. Michler, Jeffrey D. & Baylis, Kathy & Arends-Kuenning, Mary & Mazvimavi, Kizito, 2019. "Conservation agriculture and climate resilience," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 148-169.
    12. Goundan, Anatole & Sall, Moussa & Henning, Christian H. C. A., 2020. "Modeling interrelated inputs adoption in rainfed agriculture in Senegal," Working Papers of Agricultural Policy WP2020-05, University of Kiel, Department of Agricultural Economics, Chair of Agricultural Policy.
    13. Egziabher, Kidanemariam G. & Mathijs, Erik & Deckers, Jozef A. & Gebrehiwot, Kindeya & Bauer, Hans & Maertens, Miet, 2013. "The Economic Impact of a New Rural Extension Approach in Northern Ethiopia," Working Papers 146558, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    14. Kpadonou, Rivaldo & Barbier, Bruno & Denton, Fatima & Owiyo, Tom, 2015. "Linkage between and determinants of organic fertilizer and modern varieties adoption in the Sahel," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212016, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Heleene Tambet & Yaniv Stopnitzky, 2021. "Climate Adaptation and Conservation Agriculture among Peruvian Farmers," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(3), pages 900-922, May.
    16. Qian Guo & Oreoluwa Ola & Emmanuel O. Benjamin, 2020. "Determinants of the Adoption of Sustainable Intensification in Southern African Farming Systems: A Meta-Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-13, April.
    17. Oumer, Ali M. & Burton, Michael, 2018. "Drivers and Synergies in the Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Intensification Practices: A Dynamic Perspective," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 273871, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Ruzzante, Sacha & Labarta, Ricardo & Bilton, Amy, 2021. "Adoption of agricultural technology in the developing world: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    19. Kazushi Takahashi & Rie Muraoka & Keijiro Otsuka, 2020. "Technology adoption, impact, and extension in developing countries’ agriculture: A review of the recent literature," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(1), pages 31-45, January.
    20. Hailemariam Teklewold & Alemu Mekonnen & Gunnar Kohlin & Salvatore Di Falco, 2017. "Does Adoption Of Multiple Climate-Smart Practices Improve Farmers’ Climate Resilience? Empirical Evidence From The Nile Basin Of Ethiopia," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 8(01), pages 1-30, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:cmpart:334754. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.agriculturaleconomics.net .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.