thesis on sustainable agriculture

Loading metrics

Open Access

Climate change resilient agricultural practices: A learning experience from indigenous communities over India

Affiliation South Asian Forum for Environment, India

* E-mail: [email protected] , [email protected]

Affiliation Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology), Lausanne, Switzerland

• Amitava Aich, 
• Dipayan Dey, 
• Arindam Roy

Published: July 28, 2022

• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000022
• Reader Comments

The impact of climate change on agricultural practices is raising question marks on future food security of billions of people in tropical and subtropical regions. Recently introduced, climate-smart agriculture (CSA) techniques encourage the practices of sustainable agriculture, increasing adaptive capacity and resilience to shocks at multiple levels. However, it is extremely difficult to develop a single framework for climate change resilient agricultural practices for different agrarian production landscape. Agriculture accounts for nearly 30% of Indian gross domestic product (GDP) and provide livelihood of nearly two-thirds of the population of the country. Due to the major dependency on rain-fed irrigation, Indian agriculture is vulnerable to rainfall anomaly, pest invasion, and extreme climate events. Due to their close relationship with environment and resources, indigenous people are considered as one of the most vulnerable community affected by the changing climate. In the milieu of the climate emergency, multiple indigenous tribes from different agroecological zones over India have been selected in the present study to explore the adaptive potential of indigenous traditional knowledge (ITK)-based agricultural practices against climate change. The selected tribes are inhabitants of Eastern Himalaya (Apatani), Western Himalaya (Lahaulas), Eastern Ghat (Dongria-Gondh), and Western Ghat (Irular) representing rainforest, cold desert, moist upland, and rain shadow landscape, respectively. The effect of climate change over the respective regions was identified using different Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scenario, and agricultural practices resilient to climate change were quantified. Primary results indicated moderate to extreme susceptibility and preparedness of the tribes against climate change due to the exceptionally adaptive ITK-based agricultural practices. A brief policy has been prepared where knowledge exchange and technology transfer among the indigenous tribes have been suggested to achieve complete climate change resiliency.

Citation: Aich A, Dey D, Roy A (2022) Climate change resilient agricultural practices: A learning experience from indigenous communities over India. PLOS Sustain Transform 1(7): e0000022. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000022

Editor: Ashwani Kumar, Dr. H.S. Gour Central University, INDIA

Copyright: © 2022 Aich et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

1 Introduction

Traditional agricultural systems provide sustenance and livelihood to more than 1 billion people [ 1 – 3 ]. They often integrate soil, water, plant, and animal management at a landscape scale, creating mosaics of different land uses. These landscape mosaics, some of which have existed for hundreds of years, are maintained by local communities through practices based on traditional knowledge accumulated over generations [ 4 ]. Climate change threatens the livelihood of rural communities [ 5 ], often in combination with pressures coming from demographic change, insecure land tenure and resource rights, environmental degradation, market failures, inappropriate policies, and the erosion of local institutions [ 6 – 8 ]. Empowering local communities and combining farmers’ and external knowledge have been identified as some of the tools for meeting these challenges [ 9 ]. However, their experiences have received little attention in research and among policy makers [ 10 ].

Traditional agricultural landscapes as linked social–ecological systems (SESs), whose resilience is defined as consisting of 3 characteristics: the capacity to (i) absorb shocks and maintain function; (ii) self-organize; (iii) learn and adapt [ 11 ]. Resilience is not about an equilibrium of transformation and persistence. Instead, it explains how transformation and persistence work together, allowing living systems to assimilate disturbance, innovation, and change, while at the same time maintaining characteristic structures and processes [ 12 ]. Agriculture is one of the most sensitive systems influenced by changes in weather and climate patterns. In recent years, climate change impacts have been become the greatest threats to global food security [ 13 , 14 ]. Climate change results a decline in food production and consequently rising food prices [ 15 , 16 ]. Indigenous people are good observers of changes in weather and climate and acclimatize through several adaptive and mitigation strategies [ 17 , 18 ].

Traditional agroecosystems are receiving rising attention as sustainable alternatives to industrial farming [ 19 ]. They are getting increased considerations for biodiversity conservation and sustainable food production in changing climate [ 20 ]. Indigenous agriculture systems are diverse, adaptable, nature friendly, and productive [ 21 ]. Higher vegetation diversity in the form of crops and trees escalates the conversion of CO 2 to organic form and consequently reducing global warming [ 22 ]. Mixed cropping not only decreases the risk of crop failure, pest, and disease but also diversifies the food supply [ 23 ]. It is estimated that traditional multiple cropping systems provide 15% to 20% of the world’s food supply [ 1 ]. Agro-forestry, intercropping, crop rotation, cover cropping, traditional organic composting, and integrated crop-animal farming are prominent traditional agricultural practices [ 24 , 25 ].

Traditional agricultural landscapes refer to the landscapes with preserved traditional sustainable agricultural practices and conserved biodiversity [ 26 , 27 ]. They are appreciated for their aesthetic, natural, cultural, historical, and socioeconomic values [ 28 ]. Since the beginning of agriculture, peasants have been continually adjusting their agriculture practices with change in climatic conditions [ 29 ]. Indigenous farmers have a long history of climate change adaptation through making changes in agriculture practices [ 30 ]. Indigenous farmers use several techniques to reduce climate-driven crop failure such as use of drought-tolerant local varieties, polyculture, agro-forestry, water harvesting, and conserving soil [ 31 – 33 ]. Indigenous peasants use various natural indicators to forecast the weather patterns such as changes in the behavior of local flora and fauna [ 34 , 35 ].

The climate-smart agriculture (CSA) approach [ 36 ] has 3 objectives: (i) sustainably enhancing agricultural productivity to support equitable increase in income, food security, and development; (ii) increasing adaptive capacity and resilience to shocks at multiple levels, from farm to national; and (iii) reducing Green House Gases (GHG) emissions and increasing carbon sequestration where possible. Indigenous peoples, whose livelihood activities are most respectful of nature and the environment, suffer immediately, directly, and disproportionately from climate change and its consequences. Indigenous livelihood systems, which are closely linked to access to land and natural resources, are often vulnerable to environmental degradation and climate change, especially as many inhabit economically and politically marginal areas in fragile ecosystems in the countries likely to be worst affected by climate change [ 25 ]. The livelihood of many indigenous and local communities, in particular, will be adversely affected if climate and associated land-use change lead to losses in biodiversity. Indigenous peoples in Asia are particularly vulnerable to changing weather conditions resulting from climate change, including unprecedented strength of typhoons and cyclones and long droughts and prolonged floods [ 15 ]. Communities report worsening food and water insecurity, increases in water- and vector-borne diseases, pest invasion, destruction of traditional livelihoods of indigenous peoples, and cultural ethnocide or destruction of indigenous cultures that are linked with nature and agricultural cycles [ 37 ].

The Indian region is one of the world’s 8 centres of crop plant origin and diversity with 166 food/crop species and 320 wild relatives of crops have originated here (Dr R.S. Rana, personal communication). India has 700 recorded tribal groups with population of 104 million as per 2011 census [ 38 ] and many of them practicing diverse indigenous farming techniques to suit the needs of various respective ecoclimatic zones. The present study has been designed as a literature-based analytical review of such practices among 4 different ethnic groups in 4 different agroclimatic and geographical zones of India, viz, the Apatanis of Arunachal Pradesh, the Dongria Kondh of Niamgiri hills of Odisha, the Irular in the Nilgiris, and the Lahaulas of Himachal Pradesh to evaluating the following objectives: (i) exploring comparatively the various indigenous traditional knowledge (ITK)-based farming practices in the different agroclimatic regions; (ii) climate resiliency of those practices; and (iii) recommending policy guidelines.

2 Methodology

2.1 systematic review of literature.

An inventory of various publications in the last 30 years on the agro biodiversity, ethno botany, traditional knowledge, indigenous farming practices, and land use techniques of 4 different tribes of India in 4 different agroclimatic and geographical zones viz, the Apatanis of Arunachal Pradesh, the Dongria Kondh of Niamgiri hills of Odisha, the Irular in the Nilgiris, and the Lahaulas of Himachal Pradesh has been done based on key word topic searches in journal repositories like Google Scholar. A small but significant pool of led and pioneering works has been identified, category, or subtopics are developed most striking observations noted.

2.2 Understanding traditional practices and climate resiliency

The most striking traditional agricultural practices of the 4 major tribes were noted. A comparative analysis of different climate resilient traditional practices of the 4 types were made based on existing information available via literature survey. Effects of imminent dangers of possible extreme events and impact of climate change on these 4 tribes were estimated based on existing facts and figures. A heat map representing climate change resiliency of these indigenous tribes has been developed using R-programming language, and finally, a reshaping policy framework for technology transfers and knowledge sharing among the tribes for successfully helping them to achieve climate resiliency has been suggested.

2.3 Study area

Four different agroclimatic zones and 4 different indigenous groups were chosen for this particular study. The Apatanis live in the small plateau called Zero valley ( Fig 1 ) surrounded by forested mountains of Eastern Himalaya in the Lower Subansiri district of Arunachal Pradesh. It is located at 27.63° N, 93.83° E at an altitude ranging between 1,688 m to 2,438 m. Rainfall is heavy and can be up to 400 mm in monsoon months. Temperature varies from moderate in summer to very cold in the winter months. Their approximate population is around 12,806 (as per 2011 census), and Tibetan and Ahom sources indicate that they have been inhabiting the area from at least the 15th century and probably much earlier ( https://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/5893/ ).

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

The base map is prepared using QGIS software.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000022.g001

The Lahaulas are the inhabitants of Lahaul valley ( Fig 1 ) that is located in the western Himalayan region of Lahaul and Spiti and lies between the Pir Panjal in the south and Zanskar in the north. It is located between 76° 46′ and 78° 41′ east longitudes and between 31° 44′ and 32° 59′ north altitudes. The Lahaul valley receives scanty rainfalls, almost nil in summer, and its only source of moisture is snow during the winter. Temperature is generally cold. The combined population of Lahaul and Spiti is 31,564 (as per 2011 census).

The Dongria Kondh is one of the officially designated primitive tribal group (PTG) in the Eastern Ghat region of the state Orissa. They are the original inhabitants of Niyamgiri hilly region ( Fig 1 ) that extends to Rayagada, Koraput, and Kalahandi districts of south Orissa. Dongria Kondhs have an estimated population of about 10,000 and are distributed in around 120 settlements, all at an altitude up to 1,500 above the sea level [ 39 ]. It is located between 190 26′ to 190 43′ N latitude and 830 18′ to 830 28′ E longitudes with a maximum elevation of 1,516 meters. The Niyamgiri hill range abounds with streams. More than 100 streams flows from the Niyamgiri hills and 36 streams originate from Niyamgiri plateau (just below the Niyam Raja), and most of the streams are perennial. Niyamgiri hills have been receiving high rainfall since centuries and drought is unheard of in this area.

The Irular tribes inhabit the Palamalai hills and Nilgiris of Western Ghats ( Fig 1 ). Their total population may be 200,000 (as per 2011 census). The Palamali Hills is situated in the Salem district of Tamil Nadu, lies between 11° 14.46′ and 12° 53.30′ north latitude and between 77° 32.52′ to 78° 35.05′ east longitude. It is located 1,839 m from the mean sea level (MSL) and more over the climate of the district is whole dry except north east monsoon seasons [ 40 , 41 ]. Nilgiri district is hilly, lying at an elevation of 1,000 to 2,600 m above MSL and divided between the Nilgiri plateau and the lower, smaller Wayanad plateau. The district lies at the juncture of the Western Ghats and the Eastern Ghats. Its latitudinal and longitudinal location is 130 km (latitude: 11° 12 N to 11° 37 N) by 185 km (longitude 76° 30 E to 76° 55 E). It has cooler and wetter climate with high average rainfall.

3 Results and discussion

3.1 indigenous agricultural practices in 4 different agro-biodiversity hotspots.

Previous literatures on the agricultural practices of indigenous people in 4 distinct agro-biodiversity hotspots did not necessarily focus on climate resilient agriculture. The authors of these studies had elaborately discussed about the agro-biodiversity, farming techniques, current scenario, and economical sustainability in past and present context of socioecological paradigm. However, no studies have been found to address direct climate change resiliency of traditional indigenous agricultural practices over Indian subcontinent to the best of our knowledge. The following section will primarily focus on the agricultural practices of indigenous tribes and how they can be applied on current eco-agricultural scenario in the milieu of climate change over different agricultural macroenvironments in the world.

3.1.1 Apatani tribes (Eastern Himalaya).

The Apatanis practice both wet and terrace cultivation and paddy cum fish culture with finger millet on the bund (small dam). Due to these special attributes of sustainable farming systems and people’s traditional ecological knowledge in sustaining ecosystems, the plateau is in the process of declaring as World Heritage centre [ 42 – 44 ]. The Apatanis have developed age-old valley rice cultivation has often been counted to be one of the advanced tribal communities in the northeastern region of India [ 45 ]. It has been known for its rich economy for decades and has good knowledge of land, forest, and water management [ 46 ]. The wet rice fields are irrigated through well-managed canal systems [ 47 ]. It is managed by diverting numerous streams originated in the forest into single canal and through canal each agriculture field is connected with bamboo or pinewood pipe.

The entire cultivation procedure by the Apatani tribes are organic and devoid of artificial soil supplements. The paddy-cum-fish agroecosystem are positioned strategically to receive all the run off nutrients from the hills and in addition to that, regular appliance of livestock manure, agricultural waste, kitchen waste, and rice chaff help to maintain soil fertility [ 48 ]. Irrigation, cultivation, and harvesting of paddy-cum-fish agricultural system require cooperation, experience, contingency plans, and discipline work schedule. Apatani tribes have organized tasks like construction and maintenance of irrigation, fencing, footpath along the field, weeding, field preparation, transplantation, harvesting, and storing. They are done by the different groups of farmers and supervised by community leaders (Gaon Burha/Panchayat body). Scientific and place-based irrigation solution using locally produced materials, innovative paddy-cum-fish aquaculture, community participation in collective farming, and maintaining agro-biodiversity through regular usage of indigenous landraces have potentially distinguished the Apatani tribes in the context of agro-biodiversity regime on mountainous landscape.

3.1.2 Lahaula (Western Himalaya).

The Lahaul tribe has maintained a considerable agro-biodiversity and livestock altogether characterizing high level of germ plasm conservation [ 49 ]. Lahaulas living in the cold desert region of Lahaul valley are facultative farmers as they able to cultivate only for 6 months (June to November) as the region remained ice covered during the other 6 months of the year. Despite of the extreme weather conditions, Lahaulas are able to maintain high level of agro-biodiversity through ice-water harvesting, combinatorial cultivation of traditional and cash crops, and mixed agriculture–livestock practices. Indigenous practices for efficient use of water resources in such cold arid environment with steep slopes are distinctive. Earthen channels (Nullah or Kuhi) for tapping melting snow water are used for irrigation. Channel length run anywhere from a few meters to more than 5 km. Ridges and furrows transverse to the slope retard water flow and soil loss [ 50 ]. Leaching of soil nutrients due to the heavy snow cover gradually turns the fertile soil into unproductive one [ 51 ]. The requirement of high quantity organic manure is met through composting livestock manure, night soil, kitchen waste, and forest leaf litter in a specially designed community composting room. On the advent of summer, compost materials are taken into the field for improving the soil quality.

Domesticated Yaks ( Bos grunniens ) is crossed with local cows to produce cold tolerant offspring of several intermediate species like Gari, Laru, Bree, and Gee for drought power and sources of protein. Nitrogen fixing trees like Seabuckthrone ( Hippophae rhamnoides ) are also cultivated along with the crops to meet the fuels and fodder requires for the long winter period. Crop rotation is a common practice among the Lahaulas. Domesticated wild crop, local variety, and cash crops are rotated to ensure the soil fertility and maintaining the agro-biodiversity. Herbs and indigenous medicinal plants are cultivated simultaneously with food crops and cash crop to maximize the farm output. A combinatorial agro-forestry and agro-livestock approach of the Lahaulas have successfully able to generate sufficient revenue and food to sustain 6 months of snow-covered winter in the lap of western Himalayan high-altitude landscape. This also helps to maintain the local agro-biodiversity of the immensely important ecoregion.

3.1.3 Dongria Kondh (Eastern Ghat).

Dongria Kondh tribes, living at the semiarid hilly range of Eastern Ghats, have been applying sustainable agro-forestry techniques and a unique mixed crop system for several centuries since their establishment in the tropical dry deciduous hilly forest ecoregion. The forest is a source for 18 different non-timber forest products like mushroom, bamboo, fruits, vegetables, seeds, leaf, grass, and medicinal products. The Kondh people sustainably uses the forest natural capital such a way that maintain the natural stock and simultaneously ensure the constant flow of products. Around 70% of the resources have been consumed by the tribes, whereas 30% of the resources are being sold to generate revenue for further economic and agro-forest sustainability [ 52 ]. The tribe faces moderate to acute food grain crisis during the post-sowing monsoon period and they completely rely upon different alternative food products from the forest. The system has been running flawlessly until recent time due to the aggressive mining activity, natural resources depleted significantly, and the food security have been compromised [ 53 ].

However, the Kondh farmer have developed a very interesting agrarian technique where they simultaneously grow 80 varieties of different crops ranging from paddy, millet, leaves, pulses, tubers, vegetables, sorghum, legumes, maize, oil-seeds, etc. [ 54 ]. In order to grow so many crops in 1 dongor (the traditional farm lands of Dongria Kondhs on lower hill slopes), the sowing period and harvesting period extends up to 5 months from April till the end of August and from October to February basing upon climatic suitability, respectively.

Genomic profiling of millets like finger millet, pearl millet, and sorghum suggest that they are climate-smart grain crops ideal for environments prone to drought and extreme heat [ 55 ]. Even the traditional upland paddy varieties they use are less water consuming, so are resilient to drought-like conditions, and are harvested between 60 and 90 days of sowing. As a result, the possibility of complete failure of a staple food crop like millets and upland paddy grown in a dongor is very low even in drought-like conditions [ 56 ].

The entire agricultural method is extremely organic in nature and devoid of any chemical pesticide, which reduces the cost of farming and at the same time help to maintain environmental sustainability [ 57 ].

3.1.4 Irular tribes (Western Ghat).

Irulas or Irular tribes, inhabiting at the Palamalai mountainous region of Western Ghats and also Nilgiri hills are practicing 3 crucial age-old traditional agricultural techniques, i.e., indigenous pest management, traditional seed and food storage methods, and age-old experiences and thumb rules on weather prediction. Similar to the Kondh tribes, Irular tribes also practice mixed agriculture. Due to the high humidity in the region, the tribes have developed and rigorously practices storage distinct methods for crops, vegetables, and seeds. Eleven different techniques for preserving seeds and crops by the Irular tribes are recorded till now. They store pepper seeds by sun drying for 2 to 3 days and then store in the gunny bags over the platform made of bamboo sticks to avoid termite attack. Paddy grains are stored with locally grown aromatic herbs ( Vitex negundo and Pongamia pinnata ) leaves in a small mud-house. Millets are buried under the soil (painted with cow dung slurry) and can be stored up to 1 year. Their storage structure specially designed to allow aeration protect insect and rodent infestation [ 58 ]. Traditional knowledge of cross-breeding and selection helps the Irular enhancing the genetic potential of the crops and maintaining indigenous lines of drought resistant, pest tolerant, disease resistant sorghum, millet, and ragi [ 59 , 60 ].

Irular tribes are also good observer of nature and pass the traditional knowledge of weather phenomenon linked with biological activity or atmospheric condition. Irular use the behavioral fluctuation of dragonfly, termites, ants, and sheep to predict the possibility of rainfall. Atmospheric phenomenon like ring around the moon, rainbow in the evening, and morning cloudiness are considered as positive indicator of rainfall, whereas dense fog is considered as negative indicator. The Irular tribes also possess and practice traditional knowledge on climate, weather, forecasting, and rainfall prediction [ 58 ]. The Irular tribes also gained extensive knowledge in pest management as 16 different plant-based pesticides have been documented that are all completely biological in nature. The mode of actions of these indigenous pesticides includes anti-repellent, anti-feedent, stomach poison, growth inhibitor, and contact poisoning. All of these pesticides are prepared from common Indian plants extract like neem, chili, tobacco, babul, etc.

The weather prediction thumb rules are not being validated with real measurement till now but understanding of the effect of forecasting in regional weather and climate pattern in agricultural practices along with biological pest control practices and seed conservation have made Irular tribe unique in the context of global agro-biodiversity conservation.

3.2 Climate change risk in indigenous agricultural landscape

The effect of climate change over the argo-ecological landscape of Lahaul valley indicates high temperature stress as increment of number of warm days, 0.16°C average temperature and 1.1 to 2.5°C maximum temperature are observed in last decades [ 61 , 62 ]. Decreasing trend of rainfall during monsoon and increasing trend of consecutive dry days in last several decades strongly suggest future water stress in the abovementioned region over western Himalaya. Studies on the western Himalayan region suggest presence of climate anomaly like retraction of glaciers, decreasing number of snowfall days, increasing incident of pest attack, and extreme events on western Himalayan region [ 63 – 65 ].

Apatani tribes in eastern Himalayan landscape are also experiencing warmer weather with 0.2°C increment in maximum and minimum temperature [ 66 ]. Although no significant trend in rainfall amount has been observed, however 11% decrease in rainy day and 5% to 15% decrease in rainfall amount by 2030 was speculated using regional climate model [ 67 ]. Increasing frequency of extreme weather events like flashfloods, cloudburst, landslide, etc. and pathogen attack in agricultural field will affect the sustainable agro-forest landscape of Apatani tribes. Similar to the Apatani and Lahaulas tribes, Irular and Dongria Kondh tribes are also facing climate change effect via increase in maximum and minimum temperature and decrease in rainfall and increasing possibility of extreme weather event [ 68 , 69 ]. In addition, the increasing number of forest fire events in the region is also an emerging problem due to the dryer climate [ 70 ].

Higher atmospheric and soil temperature in the crop growing season have direct impact on plant physiological processes and therefore has a declining effect on crop productivity, seedling mortality, and pollen viability [ 71 ]. Anomaly in precipitation amount and pattern also affect crop development by reducing plant growth [ 72 ]. Extreme events like drought and flood could alter soil fertility, reduce water holding capacity, increase nutrient run off, and negatively impact seed and crop production [ 73 ]. Agricultural pest attack increases at higher temperature as it elevates their food consumption capability and reproduction rate [ 74 ].

3.3 Climate resiliency through indigenous agro-forestry

Three major climate-resilient and environmentally friendly approaches in all 4 tribes can broadly classified as (i) organic farming; (ii) soil and water conservation and community farming; and (iii) maintain local agro-biodiversity. The practices under these 3 regimes have been listed in Table 1 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000022.t001

Human and animal excreta, plant residue, ashes, decomposed straw, husk, and other by-products are used to make organic fertilizer and compost material that helps to maintain soil fertility in the extreme orographic landscape with high run-off. Community farming begins with division of labour and have produced different highly specialized skilled individual expert in different farming techniques. It needs to be remembered that studied tribes live in an area with complex topological feature and far from advance technological/logistical support. Farming in such region is extremely labour intensive, and therefore, community farming has become essential for surviving. All 4 tribes have maintained their indigenous land races of different crops, cereal, vegetables, millets, oil-seeds, etc. that give rises to very high agro-biodiversity in all 4 regions. For example, Apatanis cultivate 106 species of plants with 16 landraces of indigenous rice and 4 landraces of indigenous millet [ 75 ]. Similarly, 24 different crops, vegetables, and medicinal plants are cultivated by the Lahaulas, and 50 different indigenous landraces are cultivated by Irular and Dongria Kondh tribes.

The combination of organic firming and high indigenous agro-biodiversity create a perfect opportunity for biological control of pests. Therefore, other than Irular tribe, all 3 tribes depend upon natural predator like birds and spiders, feeding on the indigenous crop, for predation of pests. Irular tribes developed multiple organic pest management methods from extract of different common Indian plants. Apatani and Lahaulas incorporate fish and livestock into their agricultural practices, respectively, to create a circular approach to maximize the utilization of waste material produced. At a complex topographic high-altitude landscape where nutrient run-off is very high, the practices of growing plants with animals also help to maintain soil fertility. Four major stresses due to the advancement of climate change have been identified in previous section, and climate change resiliency against these stresses has been graphically presented in Fig 2 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000022.g002

Retraction of the glaciers and direct physiological impact on the livestock due to the temperature stress have made the agricultural practices of the Lahaula’s vulnerable to climate change. However, Irular and Dongria Kondh tribes are resilient to the temperature stress due to their heat-resistant local agricultural landraces, and Apatanis will remain unaffected due to their temperate climate and vast forest cover. Dongria Kondh tribe will successfully tackle the water stress due to their low-water farming techniques and simultaneous cultivation of multiple crops that help to retain the soil moisture by reducing evaporation. Hundreds of perennial streams of Nyamgiri hills are also sustainably maintained and utilised by the Dongria Kondhs along with the forests, which gives them enough subsistence in form of non-timber forest products (NTFPs). However, although Apatani and Lahuala tribe extensively reuse and recirculate water in their field but due to the higher water requirement of paddy-cum-fish and paddy-cum-livestock agriculture, resiliency would be little less compared to Dongria Kondh.

Presence of vast forest cover, very well-structured irrigation system, contour agriculture and layered agricultural field have provided resiliency to the Apatani’s from extreme events like flash flood, landslides, and cloud burst. Due to their seed protection practices and weather prediction abilities, Irular tribe also show resiliency to the extreme events. However, forest fire and flash flood risk in both Eastern Ghat and Western Ghat have been increased and vegetation has significantly decreased in recent past. High risk of flash flood, land slide, avalanches, and very low vegetation coverage have made the Lahaulas extremely vulnerable to extreme events. Robust pest control methods of Irular tribe and age-old practices of intercropping, mixed cropping, and sequence cropping of the Dongria Kondh tribe will resist pest attack in near future.

3.4 Reshaping policy

Temperature stress, water stress, alien pest attack, and increasing risk of extreme events are pointed out as the major risks in the above described 4 indigenous tribes. However, every tribe has shown their own climate resiliency in their traditional agrarian practices, and therefore, a technology transfers and knowledge sharing among the tribes would successfully help to achieve the climate resilient closure. The policy outcome may be summarizing as follows:

• Designing, structuring and monitoring of infrastructural network of Apatani and Lahaul tribes (made by bamboo in case of Apatanis and Pine wood and stones in case of Lahaulas) for waster harvesting should be more rugged and durable to resilient against increasing risk of flash flood and cloud burst events.
• Water recycling techniques like bunds, ridges, and furrow used by Apatani and Lahaul tribes could be adopted by Irular and Dongria Kondh tribes as Nilgiri and Koraput region will face extreme water stress in coming decades.
• Simultaneous cultivation of multiple crops by the Dongria Kondh tribe could be acclimated by the other 3 tribes as this practice is not only drought resistance but also able to maximize the food security of the population.
• Germplasm storage and organic pest management knowledge by the Irular tribes could be transferred to the other 3 tribes to tackle the post-extreme event situations and alien pest attack, respectively.
• Overall, it is strongly recommended that the indigenous knowledge of agricultural practices needs to be conserved. Government and educational institutions need to focus on harvesting the traditional knowledge by the indigenous community.

3.5 Limitation

One of the major limitations of the study is lack of significant number of quantifiable literature/research articles about indigenous agricultural practices over Indian subcontinent. No direct study assessing risk of climate change among the targeted agroecological landscapes has been found to the best of our knowledge. Therefore, the current study integrates socioeconomic status of indigenous agrarian sustainability and probable climate change risk in the present milieu of climate emergency of 21st century. Uncertainty in the current climate models and the spatiotemporal resolution of its output is also a minor limitation as the study theoretically correlate and proposed reshaped policy by using the current and future modeled agro-meteorological parameters.

4. Conclusions

In the present study, an in-depth analysis of CSA practices among the 4 indigenous tribes spanning across different agro-biodiversity hotspots over India was done, and it was observed that every indigenous community is more or less resilient to the adverse effect of climate change on agriculture. Thousands years of traditional knowledge has helped to develop a unique resistance against climate change among the tribes. However, the practices are not well explored through the eyes of modern scientific perspective, and therefore, might goes extinct through the course of time. A country-wide study on the existing indigenous CSA practices is extremely important to produce a database and implementation framework that will successfully help to resist the climate change effect on agrarian economy of tropical countries. Perhaps the most relevant aspect of the study is the realization that economically and socially backward farmers cope with and even prepare for climate change by minimizing crop failure through increased use of drought tolerant local varieties, water harvesting, mixed cropping, agro-forestry, soil conservation practices, and a series of other traditional techniques.

• View Article
• Google Scholar
• 2. Nori M, Switzer J, Crawford A. Herding on the brink: towards a global survey of pastoral communities and conflict. An Occasional Working Paper from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Commission on Environmental. Economic and Social Policy. Gland: IUCN; 2005.
• 3. Howard P, Puri R, Smith L. Globally important agricultural heritage systems: a scientific conceptual framework and strategic principles. Rome: FAO; 2009.
• 6. Adger WN, Brooks N, Bentham G, Agnew M, Eriksen S. New indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity. Norwich: Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research; 2005.
• PubMed/NCBI
• 9. IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development). Agriculture at a crossroads, international assessment of agricultural knowledge, science and technology for development global report. Washington, DC: Island Press; 2009.
• 10. Salick J, Byg A. Indigenous peoples and climate change. Report of Symposium, 12–13 April 2007. University of Oxford and Missouri Botanical Garden. Oxford: Tyndall Centre Publication; 2007.
• 12. Westley F, Zimmerman B, Patton M. Getting to maybe. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Random House of Canada; 2006.
• 25. PAR (Platform for Agrobiodiversity Research). Workshop report: experiences, knowledge gaps and opportunities for collaboration. The use of agrobiodiversity by indigenous peoples and rural communities in adapting to climate change [online]. Rome: Platform for Agrobiodiversity Research. 2009. Available from: https://satoyama-initiative.org/case_studies/the-use-of-agrobiodiversity-by-indigenous-and-traditional-agricultural-communities-in-adapting-to-climate-change/ PAR Chiang Mai Technical Report.doc [cited 2011 May 11].
• 32. Browder JO. Fragile lands in Latin America: strategies for sustainable development. Boulder: Westview Press; 1989.
• 36. FAO. “Climate-smart” agriculture: policies, practices and financing for food security, adaptation and mitigation. Rome. 2010.
• 45. Haimendorf CVF. The Apatanis and their neighbours. London: Oxford University Press; 1962.
• 65. Krishnan R, Shrestha AB, Ren G, Rajbhandari R, Saeed S, Sanjay J, et al. Unravelling climate change in the Hindu Kush Himalaya: rapid warming in the mountains and increasing extremes. In: The Hindu Kush Himalaya Assessment. Cham: Springer; 2019. p. 57–97.
• 69. TNSAPCC (Tamil Nadu State Action Plan for Climate Change reports). 2013. Available from: https://cag.gov.in/uploads/media/tamil-nadu-climate-change-action-plan-20200726073516.pdf .

• Open access
• Published: 15 March 2022

Effects of sustainable agricultural practices on farm income and food security in northern Ghana

• Edinam Dope Setsoafia   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7213-8920 1 ,
• Wanglin Ma 1 &
• Alan Renwick   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7847-8459 1  

Agricultural and Food Economics volume  10 , Article number:  9 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

12k Accesses

33 Citations

Metrics details

The adoption of sustainable agricultural practices (SAPs) has been recommended by many experts and international institutions to address food security and climate change problems. Global support for the Sustainable Development Goals has focused attention on efforts to up-scale the adoption of SAPs in developing countries where growth in populations and incomes compromises the resilience of natural resources. This study investigates the factors affecting smallholder farmers’ decisions to adopt SAPs (improved seed, fertilizer, and soil and water conservation) and the impacts of the adoption on farm income and food security, using data collected from Ghana. Food security is captured by the reduced coping strategy index and household dietary diversity. The multinomial endogenous switching regression model is utilized to address selection bias issues. Results show that farmers’ decisions to adopt SAPs are influenced by the social demographics of the households, plot-level characteristics, extension services and locations. Adopting all three SAPs has larger positive impacts on farm income and food security than adopting single or two SAPs. Our findings advocate for policies that enhance the quality of extension service and strengthen farmer-based organizations for the wider dissemination of adequate SAP information. Farmers should be encouraged to adopt SAPs as a comprehensive package for increasing farm income and ensuring food security.

Introduction

There is considerable pressure on agriculture to meet the demands of a growing world population. This is heightened with rising demand for necessities such as food, raw materials for industries, and biofuels. However, growth in agricultural production globally does not match this demand well, especially in parts of Africa. Africa has been projected to be vulnerable to climate change because of its proximity to the equator (Ojo et al. 2021 ; Thinda et al. 2021 ; Sarr et al. 2021 ; Onyeneke 2021 ; Ahmed 2022 ). Some of the physical impacts of climate change in Africa are rising sea levels, temperature andchange, and rainfall change (World Bank 2010 ; Abdulai 2018 ), which will harm agricultural productivity, farm income, food security, and economic development. This will negatively affect the poor, whose livelihoods are tired of agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa.

There has been a global discussion on overcoming the negative externalities of climate change. Most experts believe that sustainable agriculture management could be a solution to the challenge associated with climate change (Kassie et al. 2013 ; Ndiritu et al. 2014 ; Ogemah 2017 ; Zhou et al. 2018 ; Adenle et al. 2019 ; Rose et al. 2019 ; Zeweld et al. 2020 ; Ma and Wang 2020 ; Ehiakpor et al. 2021 ; Bekele et al. 2021 ). This approach is expected to improve agricultural production performance whilst reversing the negative degradation processes on the agroecosystem, particularly in smallholder farming systems. It is an upgrade of the green revolution, which led to a significant increase in agricultural productivity globally and is credited for jump-starting economies in Asia out of poverty but has left negative externalities such as deforestation, land degradation, salinization of water bodies, and loss of biodiversity in its wake.

To reverse the negative externalities from crop intensification, farmers have been advised to adopt sustainable agricultural practices (SAPs), which are made up of elements of the green revolution and an agronomic revolution. The literature is filled with studies on the adoption of specific or single elements of SAPs, such as improved seed, irrigation, drought-tolerant crop varieties, climate-resilient crop variety, organic soil amendments, and soil and water conservation practices, and their effects on crop yield and net farm income (Abdulai and Huffman 2014 ; Agula et al. 2018 ; Adenle et al. 2019 ; Adegbeye et al. 2020 ; Kimathi et al. 2021 ; Zheng et al. 2021 ; Ahmed 2022 ; Yang et al. 2022 ). Despite the potential complementarity or substitutability of specific elements of SAPs, the research on the adoption of multiple SAPs and their effects on outcome variables such as income, outputs, consumption expenditure and food security remains limited.

This paper seeks to investigate the determinants of multiple SAP adoption and the adoption effects on farm income and food security, using second-hand data collected from Ghana. This study contributes to the literature in twofold. First, it provides empirical insights into the importance of SAPs on welfare indicators, specifically food security. The use of food security as a proxy measure for welfare is particularly important in the Ghanaian context, where farming is done mostly on a subsistence level, and farmers sell crops as and when they need cash. Thus, farmers may be food secure but not have a high net farm income or high consumption expenditure. Our analysis extends previous studies that have focused on other proxies of household welfare such as net farm income, net crop income and consumption expenditure (Kassie et al. 2013 ; Teklewold et al. 2013a ; Manda et al. 2016 ; Bopp et al. 2019 ; Oyetunde Usman et al. 2020 ; Ehiakpor et al. 2021 ). Secondly, we employ a multinomial endogenous switching regression model to mitigate selection bias. In particular, this model helps address the selection bias issues arising from observed factors (e.g., age, gender and education) and unobserved factors (farmers’ innate ability in innovation adoption and motivations to address external shocks). Findings from the study will aid in formulating specific policies targeted at improving SAP adoption and enhancing the food security status of farm households in developing countries.

The remaining sections of the paper are as follows; " Literature review " section covers a review of relevant literature. The methodology is presented in " Methodology " section. The descriptive and empirical results are presented and discussed in " Results and discussions " section. The final section highlights the conclusions and policy implications of the findings.

Literature review

A growing number of studies have explored the factors that determine the adoption of SAPs in Africa. In the past, most of the works have focused on single components of SAPs (Abdulai and Huffman 2014 ; Carrión Yaguana et al. 2015 ; Fisher et al. 2015 ; Adenle et al. 2019 ; Manda et al. 2020a ; Martey et al. 2020 ; Kimathi et al. 2021 ; Lampteym 2022 ). For example, Abdulai and Huffman ( 2014 ) reported that rice farmers’ decisions to adopt soil and water conservation are influenced by their education, capital and labour constraints, social networks, extension contacts, and farm soil conditions. Manda et al. ( 2018 ) found that farmers’ decisions to adopt improved maize varieties are mainly influenced by education, household size, livestock holdings, land per capita, market information, and locations in Zambia. The study by Martey et al. ( 2020 ) reveals that farmers’ adoption of drought-tolerant maize varieties is mainly determined by access to seed, gender, access to extension, labour availability and location of the farmer in Ghana. Kimathi et al. ( 2021 ) investigated farmers’ decisions to adopt climate-resilient potato varieties and found that the main factors affecting adoption were access to information, quality seeds, training, group membership and variations in agro-ecological zones.

Some studies have also explored the factors affecting smallholder farmers’ decisions to adopt multiple SAPs. Most of the past works have been focused on Eastern and Southern Africa (Teklewold et al. 2013a ; Kassie et al. 2015 ; Cecchini et al. 2016 ; Bese et al. 2021 ; Nonvide 2021 ), though a growing number of studies seek to bridge the research gap in the adoption of multiple SAPs in West Africa (Nkegbe and Shankar 2014 ; Struik et al. 2014 ; Ehiakpor et al. 2021 ; Faye et al. 2021 ). The multiple SAPs considered by Teklewold et al. ( 2013a ) include maize–legume rotation, conservation tillage, animal manure use, improved seed, and inorganic fertiliser use. They showed that a household’s trust in government support, credit constraints, spouse education, rainfall and plot-level disturbances, household wealth, social capital and networks, labour availability, plot and market access are the main factors determining both the probability and the extent of adoption of SAPs in rural Ethiopia. In their investigation for Ghana, the multiple SAPs considered by Ehiakpor et al. ( 2021 ) include improved maize seeds, maize-legume rotation, animal manure, legume intercropping, crop residue retention, zero/minimum tillage, integrated pest management, and chemical fertilizer. Non-farm income, livestock ownership, pest and disease prevalence, farmers’ experience of erosion, farmers’ perception of poor soil fertility, participation in field demonstration, membership of saving groups, access to agricultural credit, plot ownership, and distance to the agricultural input market are found to be important determinants of adoption of SAPs (Ehiakpor et al. 2021 ).

Studies estimating the impacts of SAP have utilized various outcome variables, such as household income, agrochemical use, demand for labour, crop yields, food security (Teklewold et al. 2013b ; Abdulai and Huffman 2014 ; Gebremariam and Wünscher 2016 ; Manda et al. 2016 ; Amondo et al. 2019 ; Marenya et al. 2020 ; Oduniyi and Chagwiza 2021 ). Gebremariam and Wünscher ( 2016 ) found that higher combinations of SAPs led to higher payoff measured by net crop income and consumption expenditure in Ghana. Khonje et al. ( 2018 ) showed that joint adoption of multiple SAPs had higher impacts on yields, household income and poverty than the adoption of components of the technology package in Zambia. Amondo et al. ( 2019 ) found that adopting drought-tolerant maize varieties increases maize yield by 15% in Zambia. Marenya et al. ( 2020 ) concluded that a higher number of SAPs adopted resulted in higher maize grain yield and maize income in Ethiopia. The adoption of elements of SAPs has been said to be context-specific because there are no blueprints of the various combination of SAPs that work in every environment. Therefore, this study explores how SAP adoption affects farm income and food security, using Ghana as a case.

Methodology

Smallholder farmers make decisions to adopt SAPs in response to external shocks such as drought, erosion, perceived decline in soil fertility, weeds, pests, and diseases. Both observed factors (e.g., age, gender, education and farm size) and unobserved factors (e.g., farmers’ innate abilities and motivations) may affect their decisions when choosing to adopt a single SAP or a package (Kassie et al. 2013 ; Teklewold et al. 2013a ; Manda et al. 2016 ; Ehiakpor et al. 2021 ). Due to the self-selection nature of technology adoption, farmers without adopting any SAPs and those adopting a single SAP or package may be systematically different. The fact results in a selection bias issue, which should be addressed for consistently estimating the effects of SAP adoption.

When technology adoption has more than two options, previous studies have used either the multi-valued treatment effects (MVT) model (Cattaneo 2010 ; Ma et al. 2021 ; Czyżewski et al. 2022 ) or the multinomial endogenous switching regression (MESR) model (Kassie et al. 2015 ; Oparinde 2021 ; Ahmed 2022 ) to address the selection bias issues. For example,Czyżewski et al. ( 2022 ) estimated the long-term impacts of political orientation (economic views and individual value systems) on the environment using the MVT model. They confirmed that local orientation is conducive to long-term environmental care. Using the MESR model, Ahmed ( 2022 ) evaluated the impact of improved maize varieties and inorganic fertilizer on productivity and wellbeing. He found that combining the two technologies significantly boosts maize yield and consumption expenditure than adopting the technologies in isolation. Because of the non-parametric nature, the MVT model can only address the observed selection bias and does not account for unobserved section bias. In comparison, the MESR model can help mitigate selection bias issues arising from both observed and unobserved factors, and thus, it is employed in this study.

Multinomial endogenous switching regression

The MESR model estimate three stages. The first stage models factors affecting smallholder farmers’ decisions to adopt a specific SAP technology or a package. Following Teklewold et al. ( 2013a ), this study focuses on three main SAP technologies, namely improved seeds (I), fertilizer (F), and soil and water conservation (cereal-legume rotation/cereal – legume intercropping, manure use, organic input use) (S). The three categories result in eight possible choices of SAPs. It bears an emphasis here that because of the small number of observations in the group that captures the combination of improved seed and fertilizer (26 samples) and the group that captures the combination of improved seed and soil and water conservation (9 samples), we combined them in empirical estimations. Also, it is worth noting here that no household has only adopted improved seed. These facts indicate that there are six mutually exclusive choices of SAP technology, including (1) non-adoption (I 0 F 0 S 0 ); (2) fertilizer only (I 0 F 1 S 0 ); (3) soil and water conservation only (I 0 F 0 S 1 ); (4) combination of improved seed and fertilizer and combination of improved seed and soil and water conservation (I 1 F 1 S 0 ); (5) combination of fertilizer and soil and water conservation (I 0 F 1 S 1 ); (6) combination of improved seed, fertilizer, and soil and water conservation (I 1 F 1 S 1 ). Farmers choose one of the six possible choices to maximize the expected benefit.

The study assumes that the error terms are identical and independently Gumbel distributed, the probability that farmer i , with X characteristics will choose package j, is specified using a multinomial logit model (McFadden 1973 ; Teklewold et al. 2013a ; Zhou et al. 2020 ; Ma et al. 2022b ). It is specified as follows:

where P ij represents the probability that a farmer i chooses to adopt SAP technology j. X i is a vector of observed exogenous variables that capture household, plot, and location-level characteristics. β j is a vector of parameters to be estimated. The maximum likelihood estimation is used to estimate the parameters of the latent variable model.

In the second stage, the ordinary least square (OLS) model is used to establish the relationship between the outcome variables (farm income and food security) and a set of exogenous variables denoted by Z for the chosen SAP technology. Non-adoption of SAPs (i.e., base category, I 0 F 0 S 0 ) is denoted as j  = 1, with the other combinations denoted as ( j  = 2 …, 6). The possible equations for each regime is specified as:

where I is an index that denotes farmer i ’s choice of adopting a type of SAP technology; Q i is the outcome variables for the i- th farmer; Z i is a vector of exogenous variables; α 1 and α J are parameters to be estimated; u i 1 and u iJ are the error terms.

Relying on a vector of observed covariates, captured by Z i , Eqs. (2a) and (2b) can help address the observed selection bias issue. However, if the same unobserved factors (e.g., farmers’ motivations to adopt SAPs) simultaneously influence farmers’ decisions to adopt SAPs and outcome variables, the error terms in Eqs. (2a) and (2b) and the error term in Eq. ( 1 ) would be correlated. In this case, unobserved selection bias occurs. Failing to address such type of selection bias would generate biased estimates. Within the MESR framework, the selectivity correction terms are calculated after estimating Eq. ( 1 ) and then included into Eqs. (2a) and (2b) to mitigate unobserved selection bias. Formally, Eqs. (2a) and (2b) can be rewritten as follows:

where Q i and Z i are defined earlier; λ 1 and λ J are selectivity correction terms used to address unobserved selection bias issues; σ 1 and σ J are covariance between error terms in Eqs. ( 1 ), (2a) and (2b). In the multinomial choice setting, there are J  − 1 selectivity-correction terms, one for each alternative SAP combination.

For consistently estimating the MESR model, at least one instrumental variable (IV) should be included in X i in the MNL model but not in the Z i in the outcome equations. In this study, two distance variables, distance to weekly market and minutes 30 to the plot, are employed as IVs for model identification purposes. Distance to the weekly market is measured as a continuous variable, measured in minutes. The variable representing minutes 30 to plot is a dummy variable, which equals 1 if the plot is within 30 min from the homestead and 0 otherwise. The two IVs are not expected to affect farm income and food security directly. We checked the validity of the IVs by running the Falsification test and conducting the correlation coefficient analysis (Pizer 2016 ; Liu et al. 2021 ; Ma et al. 2022a ). For the sake of simplicity, we did not report the results.

The average treatment effect on the treated (ATT) is calculated at the third step. This involves comparing the expected outcomes (farm income and food security) of SAP adopters and non-adopters, with and without adoption. Using experimental data, it is easier to establish impacts; however, this study is based on observational cross-sectional data, thus making impact evaluation a bit challenging. The challenge is mainly estimating the counterfactual outcome, i.e. the outcome of SAP adopters if they had not adopted the SAP technology. Following previous studies (Kassie et al. 2015 ; Oparinde 2021 ; Ahmed 2022 ), the study estimates ATT in the actual and the counterfactual scenarios using the following equations:

The outcome variables for SAP adopters with adoption (observed):

The outcome variables for SAP adopters had they decided not to adopt (Counterfactual):

The difference between Eqs. (4a) and (5a) or Eqs. (4b) and (5b) is the ATT. For example, the difference between Eqs. (4a) and (5a) is given as:

Data and variables

The study used data collected by IITA for their Africa RISING project ( https://africa-rising.net/ ) in the three northern regions, namely, Northern, Upper East, and Upper West regions. The data was collected in 2014 from 1284 households operating approximately 5500 plots in 50 rural communities in northern Ghana. The baseline survey used a stratified two-stage sampling technique, and data was collected using Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI) supported by Survey CTO software on tablets (Tinonin et al. 2016 ). A structured questionnaire was used to conduct the household interviews. The data covers the various SAP technologies, demographic characteristics, agricultural land holdings, crop outputs and sales, livestock production, farmers’ access to agricultural information and knowledge, access to credit and markets, household assets, and income.

The outcome variables for this study are farm income and food security. The farm income of crops cultivated is obtained by valuing the yield of crops at market price and deducting the costs of all variable inputs. Two variables capture food security, including reduced coping strategy index (rCSI) and household dietary diversity (HDD). Specifically, the rCSI is an index that is measured by scoring coping strategies households use (and frequency of use) when they experience food insecurity. rCSI is an index with five standardized questions on the coping strategies used when faced with food insecurity, the more strategies used, and food insecure the household is. The rCSI score ranges from 0 to 63. A higher level of rCSI score means a higher level of food insecurity. The HDD variable is based on the diverse food groups a household consumes. The higher the score, the more diverse the diet of a household, and the more food secure the household is. Drawing upon previous empirical studies on the adoption of SAPs and related agricultural innovations (Kassie et al. 2013 ; Teklewold et al. 2013a ; Manda et al. 2016 ; Bopp et al. 2019 ; Oyetunde Usman et al. 2020 ; Ma and Wang 2020 ; Ehiakpor et al. 2021 ; Pham et al. 2021 ), we have identified and selected a range of control variables that may influence the adoption of SAPs. These include age, gender, education, marital status, household size, farm size, off-farm income, Africa RISING member, extension, extension satisfaction, number of crops, drought and floods, market access, sandy soil, clay soil, flat slope, moderate to steep, and location dummies.

Results and discussions

Descriptive results.

Table 1 shows the frequency of respondents that used the different categories of SAPs. Of the eight possible categories of SAPs initially specified, 6.78% of farmers in our sample did not adopt any SAPs (I 0 F 0 S 0 ). No farmers adopted imported seed only (I 1 F 0 S 0 ), while only 9 farmers combined improved seed and soil and water conversation as SAPs (I 1 F 0 S 1 ). Only 26 farmers combined improved seed and soil and water conservation as SAPs (I 1 F 1 S 0 ). Therefore, as discussed earlier, we merged I 1 F 1 S 0 and I 1 F 0 S 1 into one group (coded as I 1 F 1 S 0 ), and the empirical analysis includes six groups in total. Table 1 also shows that more than half of the farmers in our sample (51.17%) combined fertilizer and soil and water conservation as SAPs. Around 7% of farmers adopted all the three identified SAPs.

Table 2 presents the variables and statistical descriptions. It shows that the average farm income is 2561 GHS (roughly 400 USD). The average means of rCSI and HDD, which capture food security, are 5.576 and 7.799, respectively. Table 2 also shows that the average age of respondents was about 48 years. Around 84% of respondents are male, and almost 90% of respondents got married. The surveyed households averagely have around 9 persons. About 61% of respondents received advice from extension officers, and 45.6% were satisfied with the extension services. Approximately 70% of respondents had accessed the markets.

Empirical results

Determinants of adoption of sap categories.

Table 3 presents the results estimated by the MNL model, demonstrating the factors that influence smallholder farmers’ decisions to adopt different SAPs categories. Farmers without adopting any type of SAPs (i.e. I 0 F 0 S 0 ) are used as the reference group in empirical estimations. Because the primary objective of the MNL model estimations is to calculate the selectivity correction terms rather than explain the determinants of SAP adoption perfectly, we explain the results of Table 3 briefly. The results show gender variable has significant coefficients in columns 2, 4 and 5. Our results appear to suggest that women are more likely to combine improved seeds and fertilizer (I 1 F 1 S 0 ) as SAPs to increase farm productivity. In comparison, men are more likely to rely on fertilizer (I 0 F 1 S 0 ) or combine fertilizer and soil and water conservation technology ( I 0 F 1 S 1 ) as SAPs to improve farm performance. Our findings are largely supported by the previous studies (Smale et al. 2018 ; Paudel et al. 2020 ; Tambo et al. 2021 ), reporting gendered differences in agricultural technology adoption. For example, Smale et al. ( 2018 ) found that women are more likely to adopt improved seeds on the plots they manage in Sudan. Education has positive impacts in all estimated specifications but is only statistically significant in the specification of adopting improved seed and fertilizer (I 1 F 1 S 0 ). Better education enables farmers to be aware of the benefits of SAPs and motivate them to adopt them, especially productivity-enhancing technologies such as improved seed and fertilizer. This finding is consistent with the findings of Kassie et al. ( 2014 ) for Tanzania and Gebremariam and Wünscher ( 2016 ) for Ghana.

The significant coefficients of household size in columns 2 and 6 suggest that larger households are more likely to adopt multiple SAPs (I 1 F 1 S 1 ) but are less likely to adopt single SAP such as fertilizer (I 0 F 1 S 0 ). Larger households usually mean better labour endowments, allowing them to adopt multiple SAPs more easily than small ones. This is consistent with the findings of Kassie et al. ( 2014 ). Off-farm income has positive and significant coefficients in columns 3, 5 and 6. The findings suggest that farmers receiving a higher level of off-farm income are more likely to adopt fertilizer only (I 0 F 1 S 0 ), combine fertilizer and soil and water conservation as SAPs (I 0 F 1 S 1 ), and adopt all three SAPs (I 1 F 1 S 1 ). Additional income from off-farm activities can help release credit constraint issues, allowing farmers to invest in innovative technologies such as SAPs to improve farm performance. In their study for Pakistan, Kousar and Abdulai ( 2016 ) found that participation in off-farm work increases farmers’ adoption of soil conservation measures.

The African RISING member variable has a positive and statistically significant impact on farmers’ fertiliser adoption only (I 0 F 1 S 0 ), the combination of improved seed and fertilizer (I 1 F 1 S 0 ), and the combination of fertilizer and soil and water conservation (I 0 F 1 S 1 ). The importance of farmer-based organisations in promoting the adoption of innovative technologies has been widely discussed in the literature (Zhang et al. 2020 ; Manda et al. 2020b ; Yu et al. 2021 ). For example, Manda et al. ( 2020a , b ) reported that membership in agricultural cooperatives increases the adoption speed of improved maize by 1.6–4.3 years. We show that farmers having access to extension services are more likely to adopt SAPs, including fertilizer only (I 0 F 1 S 0 ), soil and water conservation only (I 0 F 0 S 1 ), and all three SAps (I 1 F 1 S 1 ). In their studies for Nepal, Suvedi et al. ( 2017 ) found that farmers’ participation in extension programs increases their adoption of improved crop varieties. This finding is further confirmed by Nakano et al. ( 2018 ), who found that farmer-to-farmer training through extension programs enhance farmers’ adoption of technologies (e.g., fertilizer and improved bund) in Tanzania. The location dummies are statistically significant in columns 2, 4 and 5. Our findings suggest that relative to farmers living in Upper West (reference group), those residing in Northern and Upper East are more likely to adopt fertilizer only (I 0 F 1 S 0 ) and a combination of fertilizer and soil and water conservation (I 0 F 1 S 1 ), but less likely to adopt the combination of improved seeds and fertilizer (I 1 F 1 S 0 ). Our findings confirm spatial-fixed characteristics (e.g., social-economic conditions, resource endowments, climate conditions, and institutional arrangements) may also affect smallholder farmers’ decisions to adopt SAPs and highlight the importance of including them in estimations.

Average treatment effects of SAPs

Table 4 presents the results estimating the treatment effects of SAP adoption on farm income and food security. For the sake of brevity, we do not present and discuss the results estimated by the OLS regression model but are available upon reasonable requests. Our ATT estimate results in Table 4 record differentiated findings regarding the impacts of adopting only one SAP technology on farm income and food security, measured by rCSI score and HDD score. Specifically, adopting only fertilizer (I 0 F 1 S 0 ) significantly reduces rCSI score and improves HDD score. The ATT estimates indicate that fertilizer adoption only (I 0 F 1 S 0 ) decreases rCSI score by 42% and increases the HDD score by 6.5%. We find that fertilizer adoption only (I 0 F 1 S 0 ) decreases farm income. A possible reason could be the improper use of fertilizer by smallholder farmers, such as using lower than recommended amounts of fertilizer; hence they do not achieve the maximum potential output expected.

Adoption of SAP package that combines improved seed and fertilizer (I 1 F 1 S 0 ) improves food security significantly. The ATT estimates show that I 1 F 1 S 0 adoption reduces rCSI score by 45% and increases HDD score by 4%. However, I 1 F 1 S 0 adoption decreases farm income, a finding that is largely consistent with the finding of Ma and Wang ( 2020 ), showing that SAP adoption significantly decreases farm income in China. Adoption of SAP package that combines fertilizer and soil and water conservation (I 0 F 1 S 1 ) increases farm income and improves food security. We show that I 0 F 1 S 1 adoption increases farm income by 12%, reduces rCSI score by 23%, and improves HDD score by 5%.

The ATT estimates show that adopting all the three SAPs (I 1 F 1 S 1 ) positively and statistically impacts farm income and food security. The impact magnitudes of adopting all the three SAPs are larger than that of adopting single or two SAPs. Specifically, the I 1 F 1 S 1 adoption increases farm income by 23%, reduces rCSI score by 53%, and improves HDD score by 14%. Our results are largely supported by the previous studies (Teklewold et al. 2013a ; Manda et al. 2016 ; Oduniyi and Chagwiza 2021 ), pointing out that adopting multiple SAPs has larger impacts on welfare measures than adopting only one or two SAPs. For example, Teklewold et al. ( 2013b ) showed that multiple SAP adoption significantly increases household income in Ethiopia. Oduniyi and Chagwiza ( 2021 ) found that adopting sustainable land management practices increases the food security of smallholder farmers in South Africa.

Conclusions and policy implications

Many institutions have credited sustainable agricultural practices (SAPs) as a viable solution that helps tackle the worlds’ feeding problems and worsening environmental issues. This study used a multinomial endogenous switching regression (MESR) to investigate factors that affect smallholder farmers’ decisions to adopt different categories of SAPs and estimate the effects of the adoption on farm income and food security. In particular, we used two measures, including rCSI score and HDD score, to capture food security. We estimated the data collected by IITA for their Africa RISING project in Ghana.

The MNL results showed that farmers’ decisions to adopt SAPs are influenced by the social demographics of the households (e.g., gender, education, marital status, and household size), plot-level characteristics (e.g., number of crops, soil types, and topography), extension services, and locations. The study also recorded differentiated findings regarding the impacts of adopting only one or two SAPs on farm income and food security. For example, adopting only fertilizer significantly reduces rCSI score and improves HDD score, but it unexpectedly decreases farm income. Adoption of SAP package that combines improved seed and fertilizer significantly improves food security measures, but it also decreases farm income. Nevertheless, we found that adopting all the three SAPs positively and statistically impacts farm income and food security. The impact magnitudes of adopting all the three SAPs are larger than that of adopting single or two SAPs.

The study highlights that policies that improve the extension agents to farmer ratio should be pursued since access to extension positively influenced the adoption of SAPs. The satisfaction with the extension agent variable positively influenced the adoption of all the SAPs. This highlights the need to improve the quality of extension service to minimize the risk of adoption due to inadequate information transfer. Membership in farmer-based organizations (FBOs) such as Africa RISING positively influenced the adoption of different packages of SAPs. Therefore farmers should be encouraged to join FBOs, and similar organizations should be established or strengthened to enhance the dissemination of information regarding SAPs. Policies to improve farmer income and food security should advocate for the comprehensive adoption of all the SAPs packages and provide incentives to motivate the adoption of all SAPs packages.

Availability of data and materials

Data is available from the leading author upon the reasonable request.

Abdulai A (2018) Simon Brand Memorial Address: The challenges and adaptation to climate change by farmers in sub-Saharan Africa. Agrekon 57:28–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/03031853.2018.1440246

Article   Google Scholar  

Abdulai A, Huffman W (2014) The adoption and impact of soil and water conservation technology: an endogenous switching regression application. Land Econ 90:26–43

Adegbeye MJ, Reddy PRK, Obaisi AI et al (2020) Sustainable agriculture options for production, greenhouse gasses and pollution alleviation, and nutrient recycling in emerging and transitional nations—an overview. J Clean Prod 242:118–319

Adenle AA, Wedig K, Azadi H (2019) Sustainable agriculture and food security in Africa: the role of innovative technologies and international organizations. Technol Soc 58:101143

Agula C, Akudugu MA, Dittoh S, Mabe FN (2018) Promoting sustainable agriculture in Africa through ecosystem-based farm management practices: evidence from Ghana. Agric Food Secur 7:5

Ahmed MH (2022) Impact of improved seed and inorganic fertilizer on maize yield and welfare: evidence from Eastern Ethiopia. J Agric Food Res 7:100266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2021.100266

Amondo E, Simtowe F, Rahut DB, Erenstein O (2019) Productivity and production risk effects of adopting drought-tolerant maize varieties in Zambia. Int J Clim Chang Strateg Manag 11:570–591. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCCSM-03-2018-0024

Bekele RD, Mirzabaev A, Mekonnen D (2021) Adoption of multiple sustainable land management practices among irrigator rural farm households of Ethiopia. L Degrad Dev 32:5052–5068. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.4091

Bese D, Zwane E, Cheteni P (2021) The use of sustainable agricultural methods amongst smallholder farmers in the Eastern Cape province, South Africa. Afr J Sci Technol Innov Dev 13:261–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/20421338.2020.1724388

Bopp C, Engler A, Poortvliet PM, Jara-Rojas R (2019) The role of farmers’ intrinsic motivation in the effectiveness of policy incentives to promote sustainable agricultural practices. J Environ Manage 244:320–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.04.107

Carrión Yaguana V, Alwang J, Norton G, Barrera V (2015) Does IPM have staying power? Revisiting a potato-producing area years after formal training ended. J Agric Econ 66:1–16

Cattaneo MD (2010) Efficient semiparametric estimation of multi-valued treatment effects under ignorability. J Econom 155:138–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2009.09.023

Cecchini S, Scott C, Imai KS et al (2016) Does adaptation to climate change provide food security? A micro-perspective from Ethiopia. Am J Agric Econ 46:825–842. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aar006

Czyżewski B, Polcyn J, Brelik A (2022) Political orientations, economic policies, and environmental quality: multi-valued treatment effects analysis with spatial spillovers in country districts of Poland. Environ Sci Policy 128:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.11.001

Ehiakpor DS, Danso-Abbeam G, Mubashiru Y (2021) Adoption of interrelated sustainable agricultural practices among smallholder farmers in Ghana. Land use policy 101:105142

Faye JB, Hopple AM, Bridgham SD (2021) Indigenous farming practices increase millet yields in Senegal, West Africa. Agroecol Sustain Food Syst 45:159–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2020.1815927

Fisher M, Abate T, Lunduka RW et al (2015) Drought tolerant maize for farmer adaptation to drought in sub-Saharan Africa: determinants of adoption in eastern and southern Africa. Clim Change 133:283–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1459-2

Gebremariam G, Wünscher T (2016) Combining sustainable agricultural practices pays off: evidence on welfare effects from Northern Ghana. African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE)

Kassie M, Jaleta M, Shiferaw B et al (2013) Adoption of interrelated sustainable agricultural practices in smallholder systems: evidence from rural Tanzania. Technol Forecast Soc Change 80:525–540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.08.007

Kassie M, Jaleta M, Mattei A (2014) Evaluating the impact of improved maize varieties on food security in Rural Tanzania: evidence from a continuous treatment approach. Food Secur 6:217–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-014-0332-x

Kassie M, Teklewold H, Jaleta M et al (2015) Understanding the adoption of a portfolio of sustainable intensification practices in eastern and southern Africa. Land Use Policy 42:400–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.08.016

Khonje MG, Manda J, Mkandawire P et al (2018) Adoption and welfare impacts of multiple agricultural technologies: evidence from eastern Zambia. Agric Econ 49:599–609. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12445

Kimathi SM, Ayuya OI, Mutai B (2021) Adoption of climate-resilient potato varieties under partial population exposure and its determinants: Case of smallholder farmers in Meru County, Kenya. Cogent Food Agric 7:66. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2020.1860185

Kousar R, Abdulai A (2016) Off-farm work, land tenancy contracts and investment in soil conservation measures in rural Pakistan. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 60:307–325

Lampteym S (2022) Agronomic practices in soil water management for sustainable crop production under rain fed agriculture of drylands in sub-Sahara Africa. Afr J Agric Res 18:18–26. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR2021.15822

Liu M, Min S, Ma W, Liu T (2021) The adoption and impact of E-commerce in rural China: application of an endogenous switching regression model. J Rural Stud 83:106–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.02.021

Ma W, Wang X (2020) Internet use, sustainable agricultural practices and rural incomes: evidence from China. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 64:1087–1112. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.12390

Ma W, Zhu Z, Zhou X (2021) Agricultural mechanization and cropland abandonment in rural China. Appl Econ Lett 00:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2021.1875113

Ma W, Vatsa P, Zhou X, Zheng H (2022a) Happiness and farm productivity: insights from maize farmers in China. Int J Soc Econ 49:97–106. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSE-08-2021-0474

Ma W, Zheng H, Gong B (2022b) Rural income growth, ethnic differences, and household cooking fuel choice: evidence from China. Energy Econ 107:105851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2022.105851

Manda J, Alene AD, Gardebroek C et al (2016) Adoption and impacts of sustainable agricultural practices on maize yields and incomes: evidence from rural Zambia. J Agric Econ 67:130–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12127

Manda J, Gardebroek C, Kuntashula E, Alene AD (2018) Impact of improved maize varieties on food security in Eastern Zambia: a doubly robust analysis. Rev Dev Econ 22:1709–1728. https://doi.org/10.1111/rode.12516

Manda J, Alene AD, Tufa AH et al (2020a) Adoption and ex-post impacts of improved cowpea varieties on productivity and net returns in Nigeria. J Agric Econ 71:165–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12331

Manda J, Khonje MG, Alene AD et al (2020b) Does cooperative membership increase and accelerate agricultural technology adoption? Empirical evidence from Zambia. Technol Forecast Soc Change 158:120160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120160

Marenya PP, Gebremariam G, Jaleta M, Rahut DB (2020) Sustainable intensification among smallholder maize farmers in Ethiopia: adoption and impacts under rainfall and unobserved heterogeneity. Food Policy 95:101941. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101941

Martey E, Etwire PM, Kuwornu JKM (2020) Economic impacts of smallholder farmers’ adoption of drought-tolerant maize varieties. Land Use Policy 94:104524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104524

McFadden D (1973) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Academic Press, New York

Google Scholar  

Nakano Y, Tsusaka TW, Aida T, Pede VO (2018) Is farmer-to-farmer extension effective? The impact of training on technology adoption and rice farming productivity in Tanzania. World Dev 105:336–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.12.013

Ndiritu SW, Kassie M, Shiferaw B (2014) Are there systematic gender differences in the adoption of sustainable agricultural intensification practices? Evidence from Kenya. Food Policy 49:117–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.06.010

Nkegbe P, Shankar B (2014) Adoption intensity of soil and water conservation practices by smallholders: evidence from Northern Ghana. Bio-Based Appl Econ 3:159

Nonvide GMA (2021) Adoption of agricultural technologies among rice farmers in Benin. Rev Dev Econ Rode. https://doi.org/10.1111/rode.12802

Oduniyi OS, Chagwiza C (2021) Impact of adoption of sustainable land management practices on food security of smallholder farmers in Mpumalanga province of South Africa. GeoJournal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-021-10497-0

Ogemah VK (2017) Sustainable agriculture: Developing a common understanding for modernization of agriculture in Africa. Afr J Food Agric Nutr Dev 17:11673–11690. https://doi.org/10.18697/ajfand.77.16560

Ojo TO, Ogundeji AA, Belle JA (2021) Climate change perception and impact of on-farm demonstration on intensity of adoption of adaptation strategies among smallholder farmers in South Africa. Technol Forecast Soc Change 172:121031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121031

Onyeneke RU (2021) Does climate change adaptation lead to increased productivity of rice production? Lessons from Ebonyi State, Nigeria. Renew Agric Food Syst 36:54–68. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170519000486

Oparinde LO (2021) Fish farmers’ welfare and climate change adaptation strategies in southwest, Nigeria: application of multinomial endogenous switching regression model. Aquac Econ Manag 25:450–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/13657305.2021.1893863

Oyetunde Usman Z, Oluseyi Olagunju K, Rafiat Ogunpaimo O (2020) Determinants of adoption of multiple sustainable agricultural practices among smallholder farmers in Nigeria. Int Soil Water Conserv Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2020.10.007

Paudel GP, Gartaula H, Rahut DB, Craufurd P (2020) Gender differentiated small-scale farm mechanization in Nepal hills: an application of exogenous switching treatment regression. Technol Soc 61:101250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101250

Pham H, Chuah S, Feeny S (2021) Factors affecting the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices: findings from panel data for Vietnam. Ecol Econ 184:107000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107000

Pizer SD (2016) Falsification testing of instrumental variables methods for comparative effectiveness research. Health Serv Res 51:790–811. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12355

Rose DC, Sutherland WJ, Barnes AP et al (2019) Integrated farm management for sustainable agriculture: lessons for knowledge exchange and policy. Land Use Policy 81:834–842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.001

Sarr M, Bezabih Ayele M, Kimani ME, Ruhinduka R (2021) Who benefits from climate-friendly agriculture? The marginal returns to a rainfed system of rice intensification in Tanzania. World Dev 138:105160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105160

Smale M, Assima A, Kergna A et al (2018) Farm family effects of adopting improved and hybrid sorghum seed in the Sudan Savanna of West Africa. Food Policy 74:162–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2018.01.001

Struik PC, Klerkx L, van Huis A, Röling NG (2014) Institutional change towards sustainable agriculture in West Africa. Int J Agric Sustain 12:203–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2014.909641

Suvedi M, Ghimire R, Kaplowitz M (2017) Farmers’ participation in extension programs and technology adoption in rural Nepal: a logistic regression analysis. J Agric Educ Ext 23:351–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2017.1323653

Tambo JA, Matimelo M, Ndhlovu M et al (2021) Gender-differentiated impacts of plant clinics on maize productivity and food security: evidence from Zambia. World Dev 145:105519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105519

Teklewold H, Kassie M, Shiferaw B (2013a) Adoption of multiple sustainable agricultural practices in rural Ethiopia. J Agric Econ 64:597–623. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12011

Teklewold H, Kassie M, Shiferaw B, Köhlin G (2013b) Cropping system diversification, conservation tillage and modern seed adoption in Ethiopia: impacts on household income, agrochemical use and demand for labor. Ecol Econ 93:85–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.05.002

Thinda KT, Ogundeji AA, Belle JA, Ojo TO (2021) Determinants of relevant constraints inhibiting farmers’ adoption of climate change adaptation strategies in South Africa. J Asian Afr Stud 56:610–627. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021909620934836

Tinonin C, Azzarri C, Haile B et al (2016) Africa RISING Baseline Evaluation Survey (ARBES) report for Ghana

World Bank (2010) Economics of adaptation to climate change: Ghana country study. Washington, DC

Yang Q, Zhu Y, Liu L, Wang F (2022) Land tenure stability and adoption intensity of sustainable agricultural practices in banana production in China. J Clean Prod 338:130553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130553

Yu L, Chen C, Niu Z et al (2021) Risk aversion, cooperative membership and the adoption of green control techniques: Evidence from China. J Clean Prod 279:123288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123288

Zeweld W, Van Huylenbroeck G, Tesfay G et al (2020) Sustainable agricultural practices, environmental risk mitigation and livelihood improvements: empirical evidence from Northern Ethiopia. Land Use Policy 95:103799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.01.002

Zhang S, Sun Z, Ma W, Valentinov V (2020) The effect of cooperative membership on agricultural technology adoption in Sichuan, China. China Econ Rev 62:101334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2019.101334

Zheng H, Ma W, Li G (2021) Learning from neighboring farmers: Does spatial dependence affect adoption of drought-tolerant wheat varieties in China? Can J Agric Econ Can D’agroeconomie 69:519–537. https://doi.org/10.1111/cjag.12294

Zhou X, Ma W, Li G (2018) Draft animals, farm machines and sustainable agricultural production: insight from China. Sustainability 10:3015. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093015

Zhou X, Ma W, Renwick A, Li G (2020) Off-farm work decisions of farm couples and land transfer choices in rural China. Appl Econ 52:6229–6247. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2020.1788709

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support from NZAID scholarship from MFAT and Lincoln university research fund. We want to thank IITA and IFPRI for making the data from the Africa RISING Project readily accessible. We also want to thank Dr. Gideon Danso-Abbeam for his helpful comments and suggestions.

No funding was received in the carrying out of this research.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Global Value Chains and Trade, Faculty of Agribusiness and Commerce, Lincoln University, Christchurch, New Zealand

Edinam Dope Setsoafia, Wanglin Ma & Alan Renwick

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edinam Dope Setsoafia .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Setsoafia, E.D., Ma, W. & Renwick, A. Effects of sustainable agricultural practices on farm income and food security in northern Ghana. Agric Econ 10 , 9 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-022-00216-9

Download citation

Received : 07 September 2021

Revised : 05 February 2022

Accepted : 04 March 2022

Published : 15 March 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-022-00216-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Sustainable agriculture practices
• Farm income
• Food security

JEL Classification

Sustainable Agriculture: a necessary alternative to industrial

agriculture in the twenty-first century.

By: Debra J. Brubaker

Biology Senior Seminar

Goshen College

Dr. Stan Grove

November 18, 2002

Thesis Statement: Sustainable agriculture, while differing in its application, represents a logical, realistic, and necessary alternative to industrial agriculture given the reality of limited resources and anticipated food shortages in the 21 st century

I.     Introduction

A.      Background

B.      Thesis

II. Industrial Agriculture: can the trend continue

A.       Its contributions

1.       Increase yield

2.       establishment of industrial economy

B.      Environmental Problems

1.       Contamination of water, air, etc.

2.       Depletion of Natural Resource Base

3.       Soil Erosion

C.      Decline of Rural Communities

D.      The Outlook

III.   Sustainable Agriculture: a necessary alternative

A.      Sustaining our resources

1.       Decreasing external inputs

2.       Soil conservation

3.       Fossil Fuel conservation

B.      Sustaining the farmer and community

1.       Value vs. Cost

2.       CSA

IV. Conclusion: Sustaining the Future

Introduction

Agriculture has been a fundamental component of human societies for centuries. It is so fundamental in fact that it is often forgotten by those dependent on its products, but not directly involved in the production. As we enter the 21 st century, agriculture is beginning to receive more attention from the general public as the implications of farming are realized and the problem of potential world wide food shortage is addressed. With the future in focus, much of agricultural establishment uses words like biotech, and high-tech to describe their goals for U.S. agriculture. With few exceptions, traditional agriculturalists see a continuing trend of industrial agricultural practices that continue to drive production to fewer, larger, and more specialized production units which are virtually responsible for all stages of the production globally. This increased specialization is dependent on new biological technologies and information technologies at all levels from farms on which the food is produced to the markets where it is distributed.

While these forecasts are legitimate, a growing number of agriculturalists, concerned public, and educators envision a very different future for agriculture. Such a view is represented in the writings of John E. Ikerd , an agricultural economist and Professor Emeritus at the University of Missouri . In his paper, " Sustainable Agriculture: a necessary alternative to industrial agriculture ", Ikerd questions whether the guiding trends of agriculture in the past hundred years can continue to be the guiding force of agriculture. He argues the while the tools of the "high-tech" future may be different from the tools of the industrial age, the objectives to specialize, mechanize, and control all aspects of production are the same. Persons like Ikerd do not hesitate to acknowledge that the industrialization of agriculture fulfilled a purpose, and some industrialization will continue, but they stress that there are logical reasons to question further industrialization given the increasing problems associated with its effects on the environment, rural economy, and dependence on external inputs which are not renewable ( Sustainable Agriculture ·). Those that oppose the industrial model for the future of agriculture have adopted a different paradigm which falls under the concept of "Sustainable Agriculture." Like industrial agriculture, sustainable agriculture has many different tools and applications, but is defined by its attempts to make agricultural decisions which are environmentally sound, economically viable, and socially just for all sectors of society ( Hassanein 3 ). This concept of Sustainable agriculture, while differing in its application, represents a logical, realistic, and necessary alternative to industrial agriculture given the reality of limited resources and anticipated food shortages in the 21 st century.

Industrial Agriculture: Can the trend continue?

Contributions in the Past

At the start of the 20 th century, the gains from industrializing agriculture were undeniable. As an agrarian society, much of the time, money, energy, and resources of farming went to support the farming community themselves. At the same time, the opportunities of the industrial revolution were becoming evident. In order to harness such opportunities, it was necessary to free up individuals to work in manufacturing as well to make it possible for the public to have the economic resources to buy the products of the new industries. These two things were achieved by applying concept of industry to agriculture. Through specialization, mechanization, and well developed process, it was possible to produce more food more quickly and cheaply with a smaller manual labor force. This new industrial agriculture was so efficient in regards to dollars and cents that it resulted in great economic gains for individuals and the United States as a whole ( Rethinking ·).

While the industrial agriculture movement was beneficial in the past, many feel like the objectives of the movement have been achieved and the continuation of such practices result in more harm than benefits at the beginning of the 21 st century. At the same time that industrial practices increased production, they have also resulted in the requirement of external inputs (such as chemical fertilizers and pesticides), increasing environmental concerns, and weakening of rural economies. According Jules N. Pretty's book Regenerating Agriculture pesticide and fertilizer consumption has increased drastically with nitrogen use increasing from 2 to 75 million tons in the past 45 years. Additionally pesticide use in many individual countries has increased 10 to 30% since the 1980's ( 3 ). Dependence on external inputs to keep production rates high results in farmers reliance on agrochemical companies which can keep prices of their product high while farmers get less and less for their product because of increasing production nationwide.

Environmental Concerns

The increased use of synthetic chemical and pesticides is not only a concern for the sustainability of the farmer but also of the natural world. The uses of these chemicals in addition to other conventional agriculture practices have resulted in concerns with the chemical contamination of drinking water, food, and atmosphere ( Pretty 4 ). For example, heavy use of synthetic fertilizer and livestock confinement has resulted in large levels of nitrate entering the groundwater. High concentration of nitrates has been proven to be harmful to infants, and sometimes even fatal ( Gardner 8 ). Residue of pesticides on farm products has been of increasing concern, and increased levels of ammonia, methane, and other gases has been linked to ozone depletion ( Pretty 60 ).

Other environmental concerns include depletion of the natural resource base including water and energy fuels. Industrial practices require more water than the commercial, industrial, and residential sectors combined. This has lead to ground water depletion, conflict over water rights, and increased threats to fish and other aquatic organisms ( Gardner 9 ). As human workers are replaced by increased mechanization, and markets span more and more of the globe, agriculture also requires large amounts of fossil energy to produce and transport the product. Ikerd comments that "industrialization has transformed an agriculture created for the purpose of converting solar energy to a human-useful form, into agriculture that uses more non renewable fossil energy than it captures in solar energy from the sun"( Sustainable Agriculture ·).

The area of environmental concern that has been addressed the most thoroughly in the past has been the issue of soil erosion. Large scale farming most often involves large mono-cropped fields which are used year after year. Such use results in the depletion of crop residue and soil infrastructure making the land more vulnerable to loss of topsoil. Industrial agricultural practices have attempted to address this issue through conservation programs and encouraging no-till farming practices. These have been successful to a certain extent. Conservation, or land set aside programs have encouraged many farmers to reduce the acreage they farm and leaving a certain proportion of the land in cover year around. The relatively new concept of no till farming which involves planting crops directly in a field with crop residue still on the surface rather than plowing has decreased topsoil erosion effectively, but has also resulted in higher herbicide and fertilizer runoff ( USDA ). Many other attempts have been made, but few have been proven effective despite the large amount of funding that has been aimed at achieving them ( Pretty 35 ).

Decline of rural communities

An area of concern equal to the impact of industrial agriculture on the environment is its effect on rural farmers and communities. From the start of the industrial movement, specialization and mechanization has required fewer and fewer people to produce the same amount of food. In the beginning this freed people to work in factories and other town or city jobs, but now such efficiency in production pushing persons from the farming lifestyle because they are no longer able to support themselves. In order to survive as a farm, farmers need to become larger to compete, but with a limited number of people to feed and limited land, some farmers must lose in order for others to succeed. Additionally large farms need to bypass local suppliers of chemicals, seed, and equipment in order to be able to compete. Because of this, local businesses lose out. With failing local businesses and farms, persons are leaving rural areas so grocery stores, drugstores, and even schools are failing. This dilemma is resulting in desolate towns. The picture looks bleak for rural America according to John E Ikerd's paper " Rethinking the Role of Agriculture in the Future of Rural Communities ." He reports that today less then two percent of the U.S. population is farmers. More than half of these ãfarmersä report a ãprincipal occupationä other than farming and farm households earn about 90 percent of their incomes from something other than farming. As a nation we spend only ten percent or ten cents for every dollar, of our disposable income on farm products. Only a penny of the ten cents goes to the farmer while the other nine cents goes to marketing and input firms. Increased industrialization will only result in the farmer receiving smaller portions of that penny ( Rethinking ·).

The Outlook for Industrial Agriculture

The negative impacts of industrial agriculture are evident, but many believe that it still represents the best path for agricultural development. Others believe that industrialization has very little left to offer, especially in the United States . While yield levels for cereal grains have increased since the onset of the industrial revolution, yields since the 1980's have remained steady or even fell. While it seems like the climax of production has been achieved in the United States , it is possible that advances in bio technology and genetic engineering could again create an upward trend in production. Production in the United States already exceeds use, but supporters of increased technology claim that new technology is needed to fight food shortage world wide.

Such justification has its flaws. First of all, industrial practices that result in increase yield are already developed and unavailable to farmers of the developing countries because of the requirement of large amount of external input to maintain soil fertility. Such products are expensive and therefore unattainable by a large percentage of the agrarian population. Those that oppose increased industrialization and use of controversial biotechnology argue increased industrialization has never been effectively innovated in developing countries in its many years of existence so there is little hope that increased technology will make a difference soon enough ( Pretty 7 ).

Sustainable Agriculture: a necessary alternative to industrial agriculture

So what is the alternative? With increased environmental problems, dying rural communities, and concern of world wide food shortage, some changes must occur in the way agriculture is carried out. There is more than one way to farm the land. While large numbers of people have been involved in industrial or conventional farming, a growing number of people have been moving in the direction of sustainable agriculture. Sustainable agriculture emerged in the early 1980's to try and counteract many of the problems associated with conventional agriculture. Sustainable Agricultural is a goal rather than a set of well defined practices. Nearly the only consensus is that sustainable agriculture must be environmentally sound, economically viable, and socially just. Generally the picture of a sustainable agriculture practice is one that is "highly diversified, flexible, environmentally sound family farming that replaces chemical-intensive practices with on farm resources, renewable energy, conservation, and skillful management of natural processes ( Gardner 10 )."

While the concept of sustainable agriculture is understood by larger and larger numbers of the population, it is difficult to translate the defining principles into practices. The question is how can farmers develop operations that will fulfill the goals? Many skeptics of this alternative say the there is no way farmers will be able to implement sustainable practices and be able to compete with large scale corporate agriculture. As John E. Ikerd responds in his paper, " Sustainable Agriculture: A positive alternative to Industrial Agriculture ," by saying, "They are not going to compete with industrial agriculture." One example that shows that sustainable farms are succeeding is in the North Western States in Europe where 2800 farmers who produce twice as many crops as conventional farmers use 60 to 70% less fertilizers, pesticides, and energy, and yet their yields are roughly comparable. Additionally these farms contributed more to the local economy with each farm contributing more than £13500 for local goods and services ( Supporting... 28 ). Opportunities for farmers of the future will come from farming in ways that are fundamentally different from both ways of the past and the present.

Sustaining our Resources

Sustainable agriculturalists have a deep regard for sustaining the integrity of our environment. Sustainable agricultural practices attempt to respond directly to pesticide contamination of land, air, water, and wildlife, high rates of soil erosion and degradation, dependence on fossil fuels, as well as other environmental issues. These practices focus on significantly reducing or eliminating the use of synthetic chemical and fertilizers. Instead of using large amounts of pesticides to minimize crop loss by insects, weeds, or disease, alternatives such as biological pest control, resistant crop varieties, crop rotation, and the use of beneficial insects are applied. Sustainable farmers work to develop healthy soil structure through cover cropping and application of composted manure. By doing so farmers are able to drastically reduce the need for fertilizers ( Hassanein 5 ).

A farmer worried about maintaining soil fertility must also be concerned with eliminating top soil erosion since it is the top soil that is the most productive layer. There are many different soil conservation technique that are used together to maintain a healthy topsoil. Some of these practices are contour farming, conservation tillage, mulching and cover crops, as well as others. Contour farming involves farming across the slope rather than up and down a slope. Sometimes physical structures such as terraces are used to hold back ground. Other times fields are alternated so that a farming field is up hill from one that remains in sod or other vegetation. Each sod strip than serves as a silt trap for the field above it. Conservation tillage basically means that the soil is disturbed as little as possible. Such practices can range from no tillage farming to cultivation which only disturbs the surface. The less the soil is disturbed the less likely it is to be eroded. Mulching and cover cropping are practices used to increase crop residue in the soil. Cover-crops often serve as a "green mulch" and are a positive alternative to leaving a barren field fallow. In addition to conserving soil, cover crops often are able to add nutrients to the soil. Mulching is a process of covering bare soil with dead or dying plants to reduce exposure to hard rain and wind. Such practices when used in combination are very effective at conserving top soil ( Pretty 120-122 ).

Sustainable agriculture advocates for the decreased reliance on fossil fuels both on the farm as well as by stressing the need for local food systems. Many sustainable farmers aim to market their products as close to their farm as possible rather than depending on fossil fuels to transport their goods from one side of the country to the other.

These examples of resource conserving practices only represent a few of the numerous practices used to insure the sustainability of our finite resources for years to come. These practices do two important things: they conserve existing farm resources, and introduce new elements into the farming system that add more of the resources for years to come. In the process, they are able to substitute for some or all of external inputs that are often required in the conventional system ( Pretty 129 ).

Sustaining the farmer and the community

While industrial agriculture has driven many farmers to bigger productions or out of farming all together, many small family farmers have found hope in the area of sustainable agriculture. Opportunities for small farmers lie in their ability to exploit the weaknesses of industrialization and focus on the strengths of the sustainable alternative. Sustainable farmers have been able to create a market for their product without competing with the conventional farmers by focusing on value rather than cost. In the United States , most everyone can afford to pay more for the food they value. Marketing to these niches means that the farmer is both producer and marketer. As a farmer it is possible to make more money for the product by not allowing the middlemen to claim his/her share.

Neva Hassanein in her book Changing the way America Farms quotes Harriet Freedman, an advocate of community food security saying "the sustainable agriculture must reconnect consumers and producers to forge new relationships around more locally responsive food systems rather than around commodity markets," ( Hassenein 4 ). This relationship between the farmer and the community is one of the main strengths of the sustainable agriculture movement. Farmers are able to market their product by building relationship with customers that have been neglected by the mass marketing technique of large corporations. A growing initiative under the sustainable agriculture umbrella, referred to as Community Supported Agriculture represents the extreme of community involvement. In this type of program, a community member will pay at the beginning of the season for a weekly allotment of produce. By paying at the beginning of the season customers share some of the risk of farming which is affected by natural systems uncontrollable by the farmer. They also can benefit by sharing in the bounty of harvest. In addition to paying for the produce, CSA members are encouraged to participate in the farming when they are able. Often farmers offer field days in which farmers and customers work side by side to produce the food they are all eating. While it is unlikely that such relationships will occur on a large scale, they guarantee a place for the small farmer in rural America .

Sustainable Agriculture: Sustaining the future

Industrial agriculture has been beneficial in the past by increasing yield and enabling the establishment of a solid economy, but growing problems with industrial agriculture show the system needs to be evaluated, and new alternatives must be explored. Sustainable agriculture with its range of practices offers a necessary alternative which improves on aspects in which industrialization has failed. Sustainable agriculture does not require a rejection of all new technologies, but instead incorporates new technology into a system that attempts to evaluate the impact of new technologies on the environment, farmer, and community. It steps back from the industrial drive to mechanize and specialize and recognizes that long term sustainability of agriculture depends on land that is constantly renewed by good management rather than external inputs. It depends on farms that are economically viable and communities that can differentiate between value and cost of a product. In the words of Wendell Berry is his book What are People For?, "if agriculture is to remain productive, it must preserve the land and the fertility and ecological health of the land; the land, that is, must be used well. A further requirement, therefore, is that if the land is to be used well, the people who use it must know it well, must be highly motivated to use it well, must know how to use it well, must have time to use it well, and must be able to afford to use it well" ( Healthy Farms Healthy Communities ).

Works Cited

Gardner, John C. et al Planting the Future: developing an agriculture that sustains land and community. Ames : University of Iowa Press. 1995.

Hassanein , Neva . Changing the Way America Farms: Knowledge and Community in the Sustainable Agriculture Movement. Lincoln : University of Nebraska Press, 1999.

Ikerd , John "Healthy Farms Healthy Communities"9. February 2002. October 4, 2002 .

< http://www.ssu.missouri.edu/faculty/JIkerd/papers/SustainableLink.html >.

--- "Sustainable Agriculture: A Positive Alternative to Industrial Agriculture" 7 December, 1996 . October 4, 2002 < http://www.ssu.missouri.edu/faculty/jikerd/papers/ks-hrtld.htm >.

--- "Rethinking the Role of Agriculture in the Future of Rural Communities" 25, January 2002. October 4, 2002 . < http://www.ssu.missouri.edu/faculty/JIkerd/papers/YaleRural%20Studies.html >.

Pretty, Jules N. Regenerating Agriculture: Policies and Practice for Sustainability and Self-reliance. Washington , D.C. : Joseph Henry Press, 1995.

--- "Supporting Policies and Practice." Facilitating Sustainable Agriculture. ed . N. G. Roling and M.A.E. Wagemakers . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. 1998.

USDA Press Release. "Fitting Farming Practices to Minimize Water Pollutionä 17 November 2000 . November 10, 2002 < http://www.pestlaw.com/x/press/2000/USDA-20001117A.html >.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 26 March 2024

Empowering women in sustainable agriculture

• Imre Fertő 1 , 2 , 3 &
• Štefan Bojnec 4  

Scientific Reports volume  14 , Article number:  7110 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

454 Accesses

8 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Environmental sciences
• Environmental social sciences

The agricultural and rural development policy seeks to facilitate the transition towards environmentally sustainable and climate-neutral agricultural practices, with a focus on human capital, knowledge, and innovation. Gender equality can play a significant role in promoting environmentally sustainable practices in the agricultural sector, particularly through the adoption and implementation of agri-environment-climate schemes (AECS) in the context of farm, agricultural, and rural development. We examine the presence of gender bias in the adoption intensity of AECS by utilising farm-level data from Slovenia. We find that women on Slovenian farms engage in the adoption of AECS and receive subsidies, despite the presence of a gender gap in various agricultural factor endowment variables that typically favour men. The results of this study provide evidence in favour of promoting greater involvement and empowerment of women in the fields of green technology applications and green entrepreneurship, particularly with AECS practices.

Similar content being viewed by others

Sustainability transition for Indian agriculture

Bino Paul, Kamal Kumar Murari, … Subash Sasidharan

A scoping review on incentives for adoption of sustainable agricultural practices and their outcomes

Valeria Piñeiro, Joaquín Arias, … Maximo Torero

Behavioural factors matter for the adoption of climate-smart agriculture

Martin Paul Jr Tabe-Ojong, Marvin Ebot Kedinga & Bisrat Haile Gebrekidan

Introduction

The application of green agricultural technologies and farming practices can play an important role in the mitigation of climate change with impacts on the rural economy, environment and society 1 , 2 , 3 . Tackling climate change action with the adoption of sustainability of farming practices to accelerate sustainable development gains importance in interdisciplinary research, policy and society responses 4 , 5 , 6 .

The policy response to climate change in agriculture is through measures of agricultural policy 7 , 8 . In the European Union (EU) countries, the agri-environment-climate scheme (AECS) measures are introduced within the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) 9 , 10 . While there are studies to investigate the impacts of AECS such as on farmland biodiversity 11 , farm performance 12 , farm employment 13 , groundwater quality 14 , and adoption of the AECS in EU agriculture and policy modelling of economic, sustainability and development effects 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , there is no study to investigate drivers of adoption and intensity of AECS concerning the gender 19 , 20 . This gap in the literature has motivated our research 21 .

Gender equality is one of the objectives for sustainable rural development relevant to policy and governance with wider implications for the rural economy, green entrepreneurship and society 19 , 20 , 22 . We shed light on drivers of AECS adoption and its intensity in the EU country focusing on the role of women-headed farms in green farming practices.

Gender equality and rural women’s empowerment can drive farm and rural entrepreneurship in green transitions from peasants to more entrepreneurial and resilient farming and rural society. Women-led green entrepreneurship in farming and the rural economy can develop in different economic activities 23 . Women’s participation in green farming and rural entrepreneurship is a relatively new phenomenon. The green on-farming activities can be measured in different ways, often with the voluntary participation of farms in AECS 15 , 24 .

Agricultural policy plays a key role in shaping the pro-environment-climate behaviour of farmers, which includes such basic mechanisms as regulations and economic instruments which pay farmers directly for adopting environmentally friendly practices. Recognition of the motives and factors encouraging farmers to participate in AECS is particularly important in the context of voluntary adoption of conservation practices in most of these programmes 7 , 16 . The willingness of farmers to participate in such programmes is a necessary condition, although it does not guarantee success in achieving the assumed resilience and sustainability goals.

A body of literature on the determinants of participation in AECS in different countries has developed 17 , 25 , but results from various countries remain ambiguous. This indicates that many conditions are not only country but local-specific and require more detailed recognition in different geographical or spatial contexts. More recently, they 26 emphasize the role of non-cognitive skills, namely self-efficacy, and locus of control, in farmers’ uptake of mitigation measures. However, there is no research on gender-driven participation in the AECS in the Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries.

The main objective of this paper is to analyse the differences in the AECS adoption and intensity between male- and female-headed Slovenian FADN farmers. Slovenia belongs to the group of the CEE countries, which are the members of the EU and its CAP. Therefore, the results and findings can be relevant and important also for some other EU member states. Unlike any previous studies, we employ the Blinder–Oaxaca (B–O) decomposition panel model econometric approach 27 , 28 . Finally, the study is relevant for science, policy and practice on the gender-driven participation and intensity in the AECS that can contribute to farm and agricultural sustainability.

Methodology

Blinder-oaxaca decomposition.

The Blinder-Oaxaca (B–O) decomposition model has been predominantly used in labour economics literature to study gaps in wages and employment 27 , 28 , which has later been applied in agricultural productivity gap studies 29 , 30 . B–O decomposition is not path-dependent and quantifies the relative contribution of factors to the gap. We employ a threefold decomposition, namely, the AECS intensity gap is divided into three parts. First, the endowment effect reflects the mean increase in women’s AECS intensity if they had the same characteristics as men. Second, the coefficient effect quantifies the change in women’s AECS intensity when applying the men’s coefficients to the women’s characteristics. Third, the interaction effect measures the simultaneous effect of differences in endowments and coefficients. However, the AECS subsidies are observed only for farmers who are participating in the AECS programme, and this might be a selective group. Thus, we estimate the B-O model with the selectivity bias 31 , 32 , 33 .

We use the Slovenian Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) panel datasets between 2014 and 2021. The FADN is used as an informative source to monitor farms' income and business activities in EU countries and to understand the impact of the CAP measures. FADN provides farm-level data based on national surveys for agricultural holdings above the size threshold that can be considered commercial 34 . The farm-level data are provided according to regional farm location, the economic size of the farm, and its type of farming.

As a dependent variable in our regression models, we use three farm-level outcome variables linked to AECS subsidy: AECS subsidy, AECS subsidy/total CAP subsidy, and AECS subsidy/total utilized agricultural land. Explanatory variables at the farm-level are human capital variables, farm input variables (land, labour, and total assets), and total CAP subsidy. The type of farming activity is used to control for fixed effects in the regression models.

Outcome variables for AECS adoption and AECS intensity

The descriptive statistics are presented for the four outcome variables linked to AECS subsidy at the farm-level separately for female- and male-headed farms: AECS adoption by the number of farms (in %), AECS subsidies (in euro), AECS subsidies/total CAP subsidies (in %), and AECS subsidies/total utilized agricultural land (in euro) (Table 1 ).

The AECS measures are adopted by 64.1% of the Slovenian FADN farms, 67.2% by female-headed farms and 63.3% by male-headed farms. The voluntarily implemented AECS measures and the related AECS subsidies are constituent parts of CAP measures and subsidies. The share of AECS subsidies in total CAP subsidies is 17.6%, 18.8% for female-headed farms and 17.4% for male-headed farms. Other CAP subsidies for farms are still much more important than AECS subsidies for voluntarily implemented agri-environmental-climate measures.

Except for the AECS subsidy, female-headed farms received a higher AECS subsidy per hectare of agricultural land use (157.59 euro) than male-headed farms (143.93 euro). Female-headed farms experienced higher AECS adoption and higher intensity of AECS subsidies than male-headed farms.

The Kruskal–Wallis test confirms that except for AECS subsidy, the higher AECS adoption and intensity values for female-headed farms than for male-headed farms are statistically significant. Therefore, female-headed farms have more AECS adoption and have greater AECS intensity, as they received more AECS subsidy per hectare of agricultural land use and had a greater share of AECS subsidies in total CAP subsidies than men-headed farms. These findings are consistent with previous research 19 arguing that farms run and operated by farm women are more agri-environmentally oriented than other farms.

Explanatory variables

The descriptive statistics are presented for explanatory variables for human capital variables (gender, age, and education), farm input variables (land, labour, and total fixed assets), total output, and total CAP subsidies,—excluding investments. Farm size measured by total utilized agricultural land is 14.8 ha, 11.4 for females, and 15.6 ha for male-headed farms. There is observed a significant shift from traditional peasant farming to entrepreneurial and commercial farming. Namely, the percentage of the rented land is 27.8%, with variation from no rented land to completely or 100% rented land.

On average, farms employed 1.5 annual working units (AWU) of labour both on female- and male-headed farms mostly as unpaid family labour (1.4 AWU). These results and findings clearly confirmed the family-based nature of labour on the Slovenian farms.

Female-headed farms are significantly smaller than male-headed farms for total output, total fixed assets, and received total CAP subsidies per year. On average farms received 10,474.31 euros of total CAP subsidies per year, 8101.49 euros female-headed farms and 11,067.84 euros male-headed farms.

Gender inequality is also evident in Slovenian FADN farms, similar to other countries in the CEE region. The FADN sample is dominated by men with women representing only 20% of the sample. The average age is 44.3 years, 46.2 years for women and 43.8 years for men. Training is the medium magnitude on the scale between 0 and 3: 1.69 for all farms, 1.59 for females and 1.71 for male-headed farms.

According to the distribution of farms, female-headed farms are significantly more oriented in granivores and mixed farming, while male-headed farms in horticulture and dairy. Differences for other types of farming are not significant.

Econometric results

The econometric results are presented for three outcome variables estimated by the B–O decomposition selection models: AECS adoption, AECS/total utilized agricultural land, and share of AECS in total CAP subsidies. We use these three dependent model variables to conduct a robustness check for both aggregate decomposition (Table 2 ) and detailed decomposition (Table 3 ).

While the gender gap in most studied agricultural factor endowment variables is in favour of men, women do make the difference in the adoption of ACES measures and received AECS subsidies on Slovenian farms. The B–O decomposition confirmed the gender gap in the received AECS subsidies (Table 2 ). The robustness tests confirmed that women received more AECS subsidies/total utilized agricultural land. Women received also the greater share of AECS subsidies in total CAP subsidies.

The B-O aggregate decomposition analysis shows that endowment effects play an important role in the received AECS subsidies, while the coefficients effect is dominant for the normalised outcome indicators: AECS subsidies/total CAP subsidies and AECS subsidies/total utilized agricultural land, respectively.

The B–O detailed decomposition confirmed that the increase in gender gap between women- and men-headed farms in received AECS subsidies is driven by total fixed assets and deteriorated by the dairy type of farming within the endowments effect. The change in women’s intensity within the coefficients effect is driven by total CAP subsidies and deteriorated by rented agricultural land and total fixed assets, as well as by dairy, other grazing, and granivore types of farming. Within the simultaneous interaction effect, the gender gap is driven by total CAP subsidies and deteriorated by rented agricultural land, total fixed assets and dairy type of farming.

Unlike our expectations, age and education with training are less important for receiving AECS subsidies. This finding can be related to the persistence of existing farming practices that can be less focused on the implementation of AECS measures.

The robustness tests confirmed that women’s increase in intensity of AECS subsidies per total CAP subsidies is due to total fixed assets, which is deteriorated by total CAP subsidies and dairy type of farming within the endowments effect. The change in women’s intensity within the coefficients effect is driven by total CAP subsidies and education and deteriorated by total output and total fixed assets as well as by field crops and granivores type of farming. Within the simultaneous interaction effect, the gender gap in AECS subsidies per total CAP subsidies is explained by total CAP subsidies and deteriorated by total output and total fixed assets.

The increase in women’s intensity vis-à-vis men in AECS subsidies per total utilized agricultural land is explained by total fixed assets, which is deteriorated by total utilized agricultural land. Within the coefficients effect, the change in women’s intensity in AECS subsidies per total utilized agricultural land is explained by total CAP subsidies, total utilised agricultural land and education, but deteriorated by total fixed assets and granivores type of farming. Within the simultaneous interaction effect, women vis-à-vis men intensity in AECS subsidies per total utilized agricultural land is driven by cultivation of total utilized agricultural land and deteriorated by total fixed assets.

The size of farms in terms of cultivation of total agricultural land and rented utilized agricultural land do matter for women’s increase/change in AECS intensity. The farm size reduces in women’s intensity gap in AECS subsidies per total utilized agricultural land intensity but increases the change in women’s intensity within the coefficients effect. Interestingly, a greater share of rented land reduces the change in women’s intensity in received AECS subsidies in the coefficients effect.

Age and both total labour and unpaid labour are insignificantly associated with AECS subsidies, AECS subsidies per total utilized agricultural land, and the share of AECS subsidies in total CAP subsidies. This finding is inconsistent with the previous research 13 on green job creation in agriculture and in rural areas.

As the most striking finding, more capital-intensive farms with more total fixed assets and received more total CAP subsidies are significantly associated with received AECS subsidies, AECS subsidies per total utilized agricultural land, and the share of AECS subsidies in total CAP subsidies. This finding can be related to technological adjustments towards green AECS practices 35 . These results and findings can be important for the monitoring of CAP policies and the implementation of practices with raising awareness on the importance of green farming activities 36 .

Our results clearly confirmed that farms led by women exhibit a higher degree of environmental friendliness compared to farms led by men, both in terms of adoption and intensity of AECS measures. Therefore, it is important to prioritise the mitigation of gender disparities in farm leadership roles to promote climate-resilient development 37 . Additionally, it is crucial to emphasise the significance of educating and training rural women to empower them in pursue green entrepreneurship.

Furthermore, the adoption of AECS measures on farms should be encouraged. To implement these changes, technological advancements would need to be made, necessitating investments to enhance the overall infrastructure and fixed asset base within agricultural operations. The implementation of farm structural changes and the adoption of environmentally-friendly farming technologies, activities, and practices can be facilitated through the utilisation of existing CAP subsidies.

Enhanced gender equality within the agricultural sector in the CEE countries has the potential to yield numerous benefits. In addition to promoting environmentally friendly farming techniques in the cultivation of agricultural land, it has the potential to generate positive externalities that have yet to be thoroughly examined. These include advancements in demographic structures, mitigating depopulation, and fostering economic and social sustainability within farms and rural areas.

Conclusions

Green agricultural technologies can mitigate climate change in the benefit of rural economies, environments, and societies. Sustainable farming practices are essential to interdisciplinary research, policymaking, and social action for mitigating climate change. To address climate change, the EU has implemented the AECS as part of the CAP, but gender dynamics in AECS adoption are poorly understood. The research aims to bridge this gap and offers insights into the role of women-headed farms in green farming practices within the context of the EU, specifically focusing on Slovenia.

The policy implications of this study are complex. The research emphasises gender equality as a key goal for sustainable farm and rural development. Rural women's empowerment may stimulate farm and rural entrepreneurship and promote environmentally friendly and resilient farming. Gender equality initiatives should be supported by policymakers to diversify and increase women's participation in green farming and rural entrepreneurship.

The findings highlight the importance of agricultural policies in shaping farmers' pro-environment and climate-friendly behaviour. AECS measures in the CAP encourage farmers to adopt green practices. Policymakers should focus on understanding the motives and factors that encourage farmers, particularly women-headed farms, to participate in AECS. To promote resilience and sustainability, farmers can be encouraged to participate in such programmes with tailored policy interventions and incentives.

The study also emphasises the importance of considering geographical and local contexts when studying AECS participation. Policymakers should consider local conditions and factors when creating AECS adoption policies. Education and training for rural women can boost their green farming participation, helping AECS initiatives succeed.

The study recommends monitoring and adjusting CAP policies. As farm size and type of farming activities affect AECS adoption and intensity, policymakers should periodically evaluate and adapt policies to address changing challenges and opportunities. This adaptive approach can improve the sustainability benefits of agricultural policies.

Although this research offers insightful information, it is important to recognise its limitations. The research is mainly focused on Slovenia, a nation located in CEE, and it is possible that the conclusions cannot be fully applied to other EU members. Extrapolating the results should be done with caution because different countries may have very different natural, agricultural structures, and factor endowment contexts, socioeconomic situations, and policy environments.

The BO decomposition model, while effective in labour economics, is applied to AECS in this study, and its suitability may be subject to scrutiny. Future research should take into account the effectiveness of the model in capturing the complex nature of AECS adoption and intensity, and alternative methodologies could be investigated for a more thorough understanding.

Even though FADN offers useful data, the outcomes could be impacted by biases or shifts in the agricultural environment over time. For a more thorough examination of trends and patterns, researchers and policymakers should consider longitudinal studies and be aware of the temporal limitations of the data.

In sum, the research adds to a contribution to the literature on gender-driven participation and intensity in AECS in the EU country. The policy implications and acknowledgement of limitations provide a foundation for future studies to broaden and improve methodologies, explore various geographical contexts, and contribute to the continuous effort of sustainable and gender-inclusive agricultural practices.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food of the Republic of Slovenia but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for the current study, and so are not publicly available. The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Stuart, D., Schewe, R. L. & McDermott, M. Reducing nitrogen fertilizer application as a climate change mitigation strategy: Understanding farmer decision-making and potential barriers to change in the US. Land Use Pol. 36 , 210–218 (2014).

Article   Google Scholar  

Barnes, A. P. et al. Exploring the adoption of precision agricultural technologies: A cross regional study of EU farmers. Land Use Pol. 80 , 163–174 (2019).

Xu, X. et al. Global greenhouse gas emissions from animal-based foods are twice those of plant-based foods. Nat. Food 2 (9), 724–732 (2021).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Zhenmin, L. & Espinosa, P. Tackling climate change to accelerate sustainable development. Nat. Clim. Change 9 , 494–496 (2019).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Fuso, F. et al. Sustainable development through climate action. Nat. Clim. Change 9 , 491 (2019).

Soergel, B. et al. A sustainable development pathway for climate action within the UN 2030 Agenda. Nat. Clim. Change 11 , 656–664 (2021).

Batáry, P., Dicks, L. V., Kleijn, D. & Sutherland, W. J. The role of agri-environment schemes in conservation and environmental management. Conserv. Biol. 29 (4), 1006–1016 (2015).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Haines, A. et al. Short-lived climate pollutant mitigation and the Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. Clim. Change 7 (12), 863–869 (2017).

Navarro, A. & López-Bao, J. V. Towards a greener Common Agricultural Policy. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2 , 1830–1833 (2018).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Pe’er, G. et al. A greener path for the EU Common Agricultural Policy. Science 365 , 449–451 (2019).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Feehan, J., Gillmor, D. A. & Culleton, N. Effects of an agri-environment scheme on farmland biodiversity in Ireland. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 107 , 275–286 (2005).

Arata, L. & Sckokai, P. The impact of agri-environmental schemes on farm performance in five EU member states: A DID-matching approach. Land Econ. 92 , 167–186 (2016).

Unay-Gailhard, I. & Bojnec, Š. The impact of green economy measures on rural employment: Green jobs in farms. J. Clean. Prod. 208 , 541–551 (2019).

Tzemi, D. & Mennig, P. Effect of agri-environment schemes (2007–2014) on groundwater quality; spatial analysis in Bavaria, Germany. J. Rural Stud. 91 (2022), 136–147 (2022).

Unay-Gailhard, I. & Bojnec, Š. Farm size and participation in agri-environmental measures: Farm-level evidence from Slovenia. Land Use Pol. 46 , 273–282 (2015).

Dessart, F. J., Barreiro-Hurle, J. & van Bavel, R. Behavioural factors affecting the adoption of sustainable farming practices: A policy-oriented review. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 46 , 417–471 (2019).

Uehleke, R., Petrick, M. & Huttel, S. Agricultural policy evaluation with large-scale observational farm data: Environmental impacts of agri-environmental schemes. Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin (2019).

Gholamrezai, S., Aliabadi, V. & Ataei, P. Understanding the pro-environmental behavior among green poultry farmers: Application of behavioral theories. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 23 , 16100–16118 (2021).

Unay-Gailhard, İ & Bojnec, Š. Gender and the environmental concerns of young farmers: Do young women farmers make a difference on family farms?. J. Rural Stud. 88 , 71–82 (2021).

Tourtelier, C., Gorman, M. & Tracy, S. Influence of gender on the development of sustainable agriculture in France. J. Rural Stud. 101 , 103068 (2023).

Davidson, D. Gaps in agricultural climate adaptation research. Nat. Clim. Change 6 , 433–435 (2016).

Duflo, E. Women empowerment and economic development. J. Econ. Lit. 50 , 1051–1079 (2012).

Gülsoy, T. & Ustabaş, A. Corporate sustainability initiatives in gender equality: Organizational practices fostering inclusiveness at work in an emerging market context. Int. J. Innov. Technol. Manag. 16 , 1940005 (2019).

Google Scholar  

Unay-Gailhard, I. & Bojnec, Š. Sustainable participation behaviour in agri-environmental measures. J. Clean. Prod. 138 , 47–58 (2016).

Defrancesco, E., Gatto, P. & Mozzato, D. To leave or not to leave? Understanding determinants of farmers’ choices to remain in or abandon agri-environmental schemes. Land Use Pol. 76 , 460–470 (2018).

Kreft, C., Huber, R., Wuepper, D. & Finger, R. The role of non-cognitive skills in farmers’ adoption of climate change mitigation measures. Ecol. Econ. 189 , 107169 (2021).

Blinder, A. S. Wage discrimination: Reduced form and structural estimates. J. Hum. Resour. 8 , 436–455 (1973).

Oaxaca, R. Male-female wage differentials in urban labor markets. Int. Econ. Rev. 14 , 693–709 (1973).

Kilic, T., Palacios-Lopez, A. & Goldstein, M. Caught in a productivity trap: A distributional perspective on gender differences in Malawian agriculture. World Dev. 70 , 416–463 (2015).

Ali, D., Bowen, D., Deininger, K. & Duponchel, M. Investigating the gender gap in agricultural productivity: Evidence from Uganda. World Dev. 87 , 152–170 (2016).

Neuman, S. & Oaxaca, R. L. Wage decompositions with selectivity-corrected wage equations: A methodological note. J. Econ. Inequal. 2 , 3–10 (2004).

Slavchevska, V. Gender differences in agricultural productivity: The case of Tanzania. Agric. Econ. 46 , 335–355 (2015).

Gelbach, J. B. When do covariates matter? And which ones, and how much?. J. Labor Econ. 34 , 509–543 (2016).

EC. Farm accountancy data network. European Commision, Brussels (2023, accessed 8 Oct 2023). https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/data-and-analysis/farm-structures-and-economics/fadn_en .

Morris, W., Henley, A. & Dowell, D. Farm diversification, entrepreneurship and technology adoption: Analysis of upland farmers in Wales. J. Rural Stud. 53 , 132–143 (2017).

Tom, H. O. et al. Empowering citizen-led adaptation to systemic climate change risks. Nat. Clim. Change 13 , 671–678 (2023).

Andrijevic, M. et al. Overcoming gender inequality for climate resilient development. Nat. Commun. 11 , 6261 (2020).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by NKFIH—Nemzeti Kutatási Fejlesztési és Innovációs Hivatal = National Research Development and Innovation Office [grant number: NKFI-1 142441] and by ARIS—Javna agencija za znanstvenoraziskovalno in inovacijsko dejavnost Republike Slovenije = Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency [grant number: N5-0312]. The usual disclaimer applies.

Open access funding provided by HUN-REN Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

HUN-REN Centre for Economic and Regional Studies, Tóth K. u. 4, 1112, Budapest, Hungary

Corvinus University of Budapest, Fővám tér 8, 1097, Budapest, Hungary

Czech University of Life Sciences, Kamycka 129, Prague, Czech Republic

University of Primorska, Izolska vrata 2, 6000, Koper, Slovenia

Štefan Bojnec

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

IF developed the theoretical and empirical framework, estimated the empirical models and contributed to the writing of the manuscript. SB provided the data, developed the theoretical and empirical framework, and contributed to the writing of the manuscript. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Imre Fertő .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Fertő, I., Bojnec, Š. Empowering women in sustainable agriculture. Sci Rep 14 , 7110 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-57933-y

Download citation

Received : 07 December 2023

Accepted : 22 March 2024

Published : 26 March 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-57933-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Climate change
• Agri-environment-climate measures
• Decomposition models
• European Union

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education Program

• What is Sustainable Agriculture?

The goal of sustainable agriculture is to meet society’s food and textile needs in the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

Practitioners of sustainable agriculture seek to integrate three main objectives into their work: a healthy environment, economic profitability, and social and economic equity. Every person involved in the food system—growers, food processors, distributors, retailers, consumers, and waste managers—can play a role in ensuring a sustainable agricultural system.

There are many practices commonly used by people working in sustainable agriculture and sustainable food systems. Growers may use methods to promote  soil health , minimize  water use , and lower  pollution levels  on the farm. Consumers and retailers concerned with sustainability can look for “ values-based ” foods that are grown using methods promoting  farmworker wellbeing , that are  environmentally friendly , or that strengthen the local economy. And researchers in sustainable agriculture often cross disciplinary lines with their work: combining biology, economics, engineering, chemistry, community development, and many others. However, sustainable agriculture is more than a collection of practices. It is also process of negotiation: a push and pull between the sometimes competing interests of an individual farmer or of people in a community as they work to solve complex problems about how we grow our food and fiber.

Topics in sustainable agriculture

• Addressing Food Insecurity
• Agritourism
• Agroforestry
• Conservation Tillage
• Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA)
• Cooperatives
• Cover Crops
• Dairy Waste Management
• Direct Marketing
• Energy Efficiency & Conservation
• Food and Agricultural Employment
• Food Labeling/Certifications
• Food Waste Management
• Genetically Modified Crops
• Global Sustainable Sourcing of Commodities
• Institutional Sustainable Food Procurement
• Biologically Integrated Farming Systems
• Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
• Nutrition & Food Systems Education
• Organic Farming
• Precision Agriculture (SSM)
• Soil Nutrient Management
• Postharvest Management Practices
• Technological Innovation in Agriculture
• Urban Agriculture
• Value-Based Supply Chains
• Water Use Efficiency
• Water Quality Management
• Zero-Emissions Freight Transport

Directory of UC Programs in Sustainable Agriculture

This directory is a catalog of UC's programmatic activities in sustainable agriculture and food systems. All programs are sorted by activities and topic areas.

The Philosophy & Practices of Sustainable Agriculture

Agriculture has changed dramatically, especially since the end of World War II. Food and fiber productivity soared due to new technologies, mechanization, increased chemical use, specialization and government policies that favored maximizing production. These changes allowed fewer farmers with reduced labor demands to produce the majority of the food and fiber in the U.S.

Although these changes have had many positive effects and reduced many risks in farming, there have also been significant costs. Prominent among these are topsoil depletion, groundwater contamination, the decline of family farms, continued neglect of the living and working conditions for farm laborers, increasing costs of production, and the disintegration of economic and social conditions in rural communities.

Potential Costs of Modern Agricultural Techniques

A growing movement has emerged during the past two decades to question the role of the agricultural establishment in promoting practices that contribute to these social problems. Today this movement for sustainable agriculture is garnering increasing support and acceptance within mainstream agriculture. Not only does sustainable agriculture address many environmental and social concerns, but it offers innovative and economically viable opportunities for growers, laborers, consumers, policymakers and many others in the entire food system.

This page is an effort to identify the ideas, practices and policies that constitute our concept of sustainable agriculture. We do so for two reasons: 1) to clarify the research agenda and priorities of our program, and 2) to suggest to others practical steps that may be appropriate for them in moving toward sustainable agriculture. Because the concept of sustainable agriculture is still evolving, we intend this page not as a definitive or final statement, but as an invitation to continue the dialogue

Despite the diversity of people and perspectives, the following themes commonly weave through definitions of sustainable agriculture:

Sustainability rests on the principle that we must meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Therefore,  stewardship of both natural and human resources  is of prime importance.  Stewardship of human resources  includes consideration of social responsibilities such as working and living conditions of laborers, the needs of rural communities, and consumer health and safety both in the present and the future.  Stewardship of land and natural resources  involves maintaining or enhancing this vital resource base for the long term.

A  systems perspective  is essential to understanding sustainability. The system is envisioned in its broadest sense, from the individual farm, to the local ecosystem,  and  to communities affected by this farming system both locally and globally. An emphasis on the system allows a larger and more thorough view of the consequences of farming practices on both human communities and the environment. A systems approach gives us the tools to explore the interconnections between farming and other aspects of our environment.

Everyone plays a role in creating a sustainable food system.

Making the transition to sustainable agriculture is a process.   For farmers, the transition to sustainable agriculture normally requires  a series of small ,  realistic   steps . Family economics and personal goals influence how fast or how far participants can go in the transition. It is important to realize that each small decision can make a difference and contribute to advancing the entire system further on the "sustainable agriculture continuum." The key to moving forward is the will to take the next step. Finally, it is important to point out that   reaching toward the goal of sustainable agriculture is the responsibility of all participants in the system ,  including farmers, laborers, policymakers, researchers, retailers, and consumers. Each group has its own part to play, its own unique contribution to make to strengthen the sustainable agriculture community. The remainder of this page considers specific strategies for realizing these broad themes or goals. The strategies are grouped according to three separate though related areas of concern:  Farming and Natural Resources ,  Plant and Animal Production Practices , and the  Economic, Social and Political Context . They represent a range of potential ideas for individuals committed to interpreting the vision of sustainable agriculture within their own circumstances.

• Farming and Natural Resources

When the production of food and fiber degrades the natural resource base, the ability of future generations to produce and flourish decreases. The decline of ancient civilizations in Mesopotamia, the Mediterranean region, Pre-Columbian southwest U.S. and Central America is believed to have been strongly influenced by natural resource degradation from non-sustainable farming and forestry practices. 

Water is the principal resource that has helped agriculture and society to prosper, and it has been a major limiting factor when mismanaged.

Water supply and use.  In California, an extensive  water storage and transfer system  has been established which has allowed crop production to expand to very arid regions. In drought years, limited surface water supplies have prompted overdraft of groundwater and consequent intrusion of salt water, or permanent collapse of aquifers. Periodic droughts, some lasting up to 50 years, have occurred in California.

Several steps should be taken to develop drought-resistant farming systems even in "normal" years, including both policy and management actions:

1) improving  water conservation  and storage measures,

2) providing incentives for selection of drought-tolerant crop species,

3) using  reduced-volume irrigation  systems,

4) managing crops to reduce water loss, or

5) not planting at all.

Water quality.  The most important issues related to water quality involve salinization and contamination of ground and surface waters by pesticides, nitrates and selenium. Salinity has become a problem wherever water of even relatively low salt content is used on shallow soils in arid regions and/or where the water table is near the root zone of crops. Tile drainage can remove the water and salts, but the disposal of the salts and other contaminants may negatively affect the environment depending upon where they are deposited. Temporary solutions include the use of salt-tolerant crops, low-volume irrigation, and various management techniques to minimize the effects of salts on crops. In the long-term, some farmland may need to be removed from production or converted to other uses. Other uses include conversion of row crop land to production of drought-tolerant forages, the restoration of wildlife habitat or the use of agroforestry to minimize the impacts of salinity and high water tables. Pesticide and nitrate contamination of water can be reduced using many of the practices discussed later in the  Plant Production Practices  and  Animal Production Practices  sections.

Wildlife . Another way in which agriculture affects water resources is through the destruction of riparian habitats within watersheds. The conversion of wild habitat to agricultural land reduces fish and wildlife through erosion and sedimentation, the effects of pesticides, removal of riparian plants, and the diversion of water. The plant diversity in and around both riparian and agricultural areas should be maintained in order to support a diversity of wildlife. This diversity will enhance natural ecosystems and could aid in agricultural pest management.

Modern agriculture is heavily dependent on non-renewable energy sources, especially petroleum. The continued use of these energy sources cannot be sustained indefinitely, yet to abruptly abandon our reliance on them would be economically catastrophic. However, a sudden cutoff in energy supply would be equally disruptive. In sustainable agricultural systems, there is reduced reliance on non-renewable energy sources and a substitution of renewable sources or labor to the extent that is economically feasible.

Many agricultural activities affect air quality. These include smoke from agricultural burning; dust from tillage, traffic and harvest; pesticide drift from spraying; and nitrous oxide emissions from the use of nitrogen fertilizer. Options to improve air quality include:

      - incorporating crop residue into the soil       - using appropriate levels of tillage       - and planting wind breaks, cover crops or strips of native perennial grasses to reduce dust.

Soil erosion continues to be a serious threat to our continued ability to produce adequate food. Numerous practices have been developed to keep soil in place, which include:

      - reducing or eliminating tillage       - managing irrigation to reduce runoff       - and keeping the soil covered with plants or mulch. 

Enhancement of soil quality is discussed in the next section.

• Plant Production Practices

Sustainable production practices involve a variety of approaches. Specific strategies must take into account topography, soil characteristics, climate, pests, local availability of inputs and the individual grower's goals.  Despite the site-specific and individual nature of sustainable agriculture, several general principles can be applied to help growers select appropriate management practices:

      - Selection of species and varieties that are well suited to the site and to conditions on the farm;       - Diversification of crops (including livestock) and cultural practices to enhance the biological and economic stability of the farm;       - Management of the soil to enhance and protect soil quality;       - Efficient and humane use of inputs; and       - Consideration of farmers' goals and lifestyle choices.

Selection of site, species and variety

Preventive strategies, adopted early, can reduce inputs and help establish a sustainable production system. When possible, pest-resistant crops should be selected which are tolerant of existing soil or site conditions. When site selection is an option, factors such as soil type and depth, previous crop history, and location (e.g. climate, topography) should be taken into account before planting.

Diversified farms are usually more economically and ecologically resilient.  While monoculture farming has advantages in terms of efficiency and ease of management, the loss of the crop in any one year could put a farm out of business and/or seriously disrupt the stability of a community dependent on that crop. By growing a variety of crops, farmers spread economic risk and are less susceptible to the radical price fluctuations associated with changes in supply and demand.

Properly managed, diversity can also buffer a farm in a biological sense. For example, in annual cropping systems,  crop rotation can be used to suppress weeds, pathogens and insect pests. Also, cover crops can have stabilizing effects on the agroecosystem by holding soil and nutrients in place, conserving soil moisture with mowed or standing dead mulches, and by increasing the water infiltration rate and soil water holding capacity.  Cover crops  in orchards and vineyards can buffer the system against pest infestations by increasing beneficial arthropod populations and can therefore reduce the need for chemical inputs. Using a variety of cover crops is also important in order to protect against the failure of a particular species to grow and to attract and sustain a wide range of beneficial arthropods.

Optimum diversity may be obtained by integrating both crops and livestock in the same farming operation. This was the common practice for centuries until the mid-1900s when technology, government policy and economics compelled farms to become more specialized. Mixed crop and livestock operations have several advantages. First, growing row crops only on more level land and pasture or forages on steeper slopes will reduce soil erosion. Second, pasture and forage crops in rotation enhance soil quality and reduce erosion; livestock manure, in turn, contributes to soil fertility. Third, livestock can buffer the negative impacts of low rainfall periods by consuming crop residue that in "plant only" systems would have been considered crop failures. Finally, feeding and marketing are flexible in animal production systems. This can help cushion farmers against trade and price fluctuations and, in conjunction with cropping operations, make more efficient use of farm labor.

Soil management

A common philosophy among sustainable agriculture practitioners is that a "healthy" soil is a key component of sustainability; that is, a healthy soil will produce healthy crop plants that have optimum vigor and are less susceptible to pests. While many crops have key pests that attack even the healthiest of plants, proper soil, water and nutrient management can help prevent some pest problems brought on by crop stress or nutrient imbalance. Furthermore, crop management systems that impair soil quality often result in greater inputs of water, nutrients, pesticides, and/or energy for tillage to maintain yields.

In sustainable systems, the soil is viewed as a fragile and living medium that must be protected and nurtured to ensure its long-term productivity and stability.   Methods to protect and enhance the productivity of the soil include:

      - using cover crops, compost and/or manures       - reducing tillage       - avoiding traffic on wet soils       - maintaining soil cover with plants and/or mulches

Conditions in most California soils (warm, irrigated, and tilled) do not favor the buildup of organic matter. Regular additions of organic matter or the use of cover crops can increase soil aggregate stability, soil tilth, and diversity of soil microbial life.

Efficient use of inputs

Many inputs and practices used by conventional farmers are also used in sustainable agriculture. Sustainable farmers, however, maximize reliance on natural, renewable, and on-farm inputs.  Equally important are the environmental, social, and economic impacts of a particular strategy. Converting to sustainable practices does not mean simple input substitution. Frequently, it substitutes enhanced management and scientific knowledge for conventional inputs, especially chemical inputs that harm the environment on farms and in rural communities. The goal is to develop efficient, biological systems which do not need high levels of material inputs.

Growers frequently ask if synthetic chemicals are appropriate in a sustainable farming system. Sustainable approaches are those that are the least toxic and least energy intensive, and yet maintain productivity and profitability. Preventive strategies and other alternatives should be employed before using chemical inputs from any source. However, there may be situations where the use of synthetic chemicals would be more "sustainable" than a strictly non-chemical approach or an approach using toxic "organic" chemicals. For example, one grape grower switched from tillage to a few applications of a broad spectrum contact herbicide in the vine row. This approach may use less energy and may compact the soil less than numerous passes with a cultivator or mower.

Consideration of farmer goals and lifestyle choices

Management decisions should reflect not only environmental and broad social considerations, but also individual goals and lifestyle choices. For example, adoption of some technologies or practices that promise profitability may also require such intensive management that one's lifestyle actually deteriorates. Management decisions that promote sustainability, nourish the environment, the community and the individual.

• Animal Production Practices

In the early part of this century, most farms integrated both crop and livestock operations. Indeed, the two were highly complementary both biologically and economically. The current picture has changed quite drastically since then. Crop and animal producers now are still dependent on one another to some degree, but the integration now most commonly takes place at a higher level-- between  farmers, through intermediaries, rather than  within  the farm itself. This is the result of a trend toward separation and specialization of crop and animal production systems. Despite this trend, there are still many farmers, particularly in the Midwest and Northeastern U.S. that integrate crop and animal systems--either on dairy farms, or with range cattle, sheep or hog operations.

Even with the growing specialization of livestock and crop producers, many of the principles outlined in the crop production section apply to both groups. The actual management practices will, of course, be quite different. Some of the specific points that livestock producers need to address are listed below.

Management Planning

Including livestock in the farming system increases the complexity of biological and economic relationships. The mobility of the stock, daily feeding, health concerns, breeding operations, seasonal feed and forage sources, and complex marketing are sources of this complexity. Therefore, a successful ranch plan should include enterprise calendars of operations, stock flows, forage flows, labor needs, herd production records and land use plans to give the manager control and a means of monitoring progress toward goals.

Animal Selection

The animal enterprise must be appropriate for the farm or ranch resources. Farm capabilities and constraints such as feed and forage sources, landscape, climate and skill of the manager must be considered in selecting which animals to produce. For example, ruminant animals can be raised on a variety of feed sources including range and pasture, cultivated forage, cover crops, shrubs, weeds, and crop residues. There is a wide range of breeds available in each of the major ruminant species, i.e., cattle, sheep and goats. Hardier breeds that, in general, have lower growth and milk production potential, are better adapted to less favorable environments with sparse or highly seasonal forage growth.

Animal nutrition

Feed costs are the largest single variable cost in any livestock operation. While most of the feed may come from other enterprises on the ranch, some purchased feed is usually imported from off the farm. Feed costs can be kept to a minimum by monitoring animal condition and performance and understanding seasonal variations in feed and forage quality on the farm. Determining the optimal use of farm-generated by-products is an important challenge of diversified farming.

Reproduction

Use of quality germplasm to improve herd performance is another key to sustainability. In combination with good genetic stock, adapting the reproduction season to fit the climate and sources of feed and forage reduce health problems and feed costs.

Herd Health

Animal health greatly influences reproductive success and weight gains, two key aspects of successful livestock production. Unhealthy stock waste feed and require additional labor. A herd health program is critical to sustainable livestock production.

Grazing Management

Most adverse environmental impacts associated with grazing can be prevented or mitigated with proper grazing management. First, the number of stock per unit area (stocking rate) must be correct for the landscape and the forage sources. There will need to be compromises between the convenience of tilling large, unfenced fields and the fencing needs of livestock operations. Use of modern, temporary fencing may provide one practical solution to this dilemma. Second, the long term carrying capacity and the stocking rate must take into account short and long-term droughts. Especially in Mediterranean climates such as in California, properly managed grazing significantly reduces fire hazards by reducing fuel build-up in grasslands and brushlands. Finally, the manager must achieve sufficient control to reduce overuse in some areas while other areas go unused. Prolonged concentration of stock that results in permanent loss of vegetative cover on uplands or in riparian zones should be avoided. However, small scale loss of vegetative cover around water or feed troughs may be tolerated if surrounding vegetative cover is adequate.

Confined Livestock Production

Animal health and waste management are key issues in confined livestock operations. The moral and ethical debate taking place today regarding animal welfare is particularly intense for confined livestock production systems. The issues raised in this debate need to be addressed.

Confinement livestock production is increasingly a source of surface and ground water pollutants, particularly where there are large numbers of animals per unit area. Expensive waste management facilities are now a necessary cost of confined production systems. Waste is a problem of almost all operations and must be managed with respect to both the environment and the quality of life in nearby communities. Livestock production systems that disperse stock in pastures so the wastes are not concentrated and do not overwhelm natural nutrient cycling processes have become a subject of renewed interest.

• The Economic, Social & Political Context

In addition to strategies for preserving natural resources and changing production practices, sustainable agriculture requires a commitment to changing public policies, economic institutions, and social values.  Strategies for change must take into account the complex, reciprocal and ever-changing relationship between agricultural production and the broader society.

The "food system" extends far beyond the farm and involves the interaction of individuals and institutions with contrasting and often competing goals including farmers, researchers, input suppliers, farmworkers, unions, farm advisors, processors, retailers, consumers, and policymakers. Relationships among these actors shift over time as new technologies spawn economic, social and political changes.

A wide diversity of strategies and approaches are necessary to create a more sustainable food system. These will range from specific and concentrated efforts to alter specific policies or practices, to the longer-term tasks of reforming key institutions, rethinking economic priorities, and challenging widely-held social values. Areas of concern where change is most needed include the following:

Food and agricultural policy

Existing federal, state and local government policies often impede the goals of sustainable agriculture. New policies are needed to simultaneously promote environmental health, economic profitability, and social and economic equity. For example, commodity and price support programs could be restructured to allow farmers to realize the full benefits of the productivity gains made possible through alternative practices. Tax and credit policies could be modified to encourage a diverse and decentralized system of family farms rather than corporate concentration and absentee ownership. Government and land grant university research policies could be modified to emphasize the development of sustainable alternatives. Marketing orders and cosmetic standards could be amended to encourage reduced pesticide use. Coalitions must be created to address these policy concerns at the local, regional, and national level.

Conversion of agricultural land to urban uses is a particular concern in California, as rapid growth and escalating land values threaten farming on prime soils. Existing farmland conversion patterns often discourage farmers from adopting sustainable practices and a long-term perspective on the value of land. At the same time, the close proximity of newly developed residential areas to farms is increasing the public demand for environmentally safe farming practices. Comprehensive new policies to protect prime soils and regulate development are needed, particularly in California's Central Valley. By helping farmers to adopt practices that reduce chemical use and conserve scarce resources, sustainable agriculture research and education can play a key role in building public support for agricultural land preservation. Educating land use planners and decision-makers about sustainable agriculture is an important priority.

In California, the conditions of agricultural labor are generally far below accepted social standards and legal protections in other forms of employment. Policies and programs are needed to address this problem, working toward socially just and safe employment that provides adequate wages, working conditions, health benefits, and chances for economic stability. The needs of migrant labor for year-around employment and adequate housing are a particularly crucial problem needing immediate attention. To be more sustainable over the long-term, labor must be acknowledged and supported by government policies, recognized as important constituents of land grant universities, and carefully considered when assessing the impacts of new technologies and practices.

Rural Community Development

Rural communities in California are currently characterized by economic and environmental deterioration. Many are among the poorest locations in the nation. The reasons for the decline are complex, but changes in farm structure have played a significant role. Sustainable agriculture presents an opportunity to rethink the importance of family farms and rural communities. Economic development policies are needed that encourage more diversified agricultural production on family farms as a foundation for healthy economies in rural communities. In combination with other strategies, sustainable agriculture practices and policies can help foster community institutions that meet employment, educational, health, cultural and spiritual needs.

Consumers and the Food System

Consumers can play a critical role in creating a sustainable food system. Through their purchases, they send strong messages to producers, retailers and others in the system about what they think is important.  Food cost and nutritional quality have always influenced consumer choices. The challenge now is to find strategies that broaden consumer perspectives, so that environmental quality, resource use, and social equity issues are also considered in shopping decisions. At the same time, new policies and institutions must be created to enable producers using sustainable practices to market their goods to a wider public. Coalitions organized around improving the food system are one specific method of creating a dialogue among consumers, retailers, producers and others. These coalitions or other public forums can be important vehicles for clarifying issues, suggesting new policies, increasing mutual trust, and encouraging a long-term view of food production, distribution and consumption.  

Contributors : Written by  Gail Feenstra , Writer; Chuck Ingels, Perennial Cropping Systems Analyst; and David Campbell, Economic and Public Policy Analyst with contributions from David Chaney, Melvin R. George, Eric Bradford, the staff and advisory committees of the UC Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program.

How to cite this page UC Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program. 2021. "What is Sustainable Agriculture?" UC Agriculture and Natural Resources. <https://sarep.ucdavis.edu/sustainable-ag>

This page was last updated August 3, 2021.

Essay on Sustainable Agriculture

Introduction: what is sustainable agriculture, importance of sustainable agriculture, population growth, per capita food consumption, sustainable agriculture and technology, green politics, conclusion of sustainable agriculture.

Bibliography

Sustainable agriculture has dominated the sociological understanding of the rural world largely. Following the enthusiasm around the concept as a means of eradication of poverty and turning the economy to a “resource-efficient, low carbon Green Economy” 1 . Global population, and consequently consumption has increased.

However, technology development has matched the demand for food in terms of food production, but the distribution of food is not evenly distributed. This has brought forth the question of the possibility of supplying adequate food to the ever-growing global population.

Further, the challenges posed by depleting non-renewable sources of energy, rising costs, and climate change has brought the issue related to sustainability of food production and the related social and economic impact of the food production into forefront. This paper outlines the meaning and technology related to sustainable agriculture and tries to gauge its impact as a possible solution to the impending food crisis.

Sustainable agriculture is a process of farming using eco-friendly methods understanding and maintaining the relationship between the organisms and environment. In this process of agriculture and animal husbandry are combined to form a simultaneous process and practice. In other words, sustainable agriculture is an amalgamation of three main elements viz. ecological health, profitability, and propagating equality.

The concept of sustainability rests on the principle of not wasting any resources that may become useful to the future generation. Therefore, the main idea of sustainability rests on stewardship of individual and natural resources. Before understanding the technology involved in sustainable agriculture, it is important to know why we need it in the first place.

The rise in population growth and urbanization of people has led to a dietary change of the world population, which now rests more on animal protein 2 . Therefore understanding the demographic changes in the world population has become an important parameter to judge the future demand for food.

As population growth rate is the key variable that affects the demand for food, therefore understanding the number of people increasing worldwide is important. According to the UNDP results, the annual population growth rate had declined from 2.2% in 1962 to 1.1% in 2010, however, this increase to indicate an increase of 75 million people 3 .

However, this increase in population is not equitably distributed as some areas such as Africa, Latin America, and Asia face a growth rate of 2% while others such as the erstwhile Soviet bloc countries have a negative rate.

According to the UNDP predictions, population worldwide is expected to increase to 9 billion in 2050 from the present 7 billion 4 . Therefore, the uncertain growth in population is expected to affect food demand and therefore food production.

Undernourishment is a prevalent problem in the developing world, wherein almost 20% of the developing world that is more than 5 billion people is undernourished.

Further, in emerging economies, food consumption is increasing with increased preference for animal protein such as meat, dairy products, and egg. Therefore, the growth of consumption of animal protein has increased the necessity of grazing of livestock, therefore, increasing further pressure on the food supply.

It is believed that the increase in the demand for food due to the increase in global population and change in dietary habit of the population. In the past, the demand for food and the rate of production has remained at par, but the unequal distribution of food has led to the major problem in food supply and starvation in various parts of the world.

Another problem that food production in the future faces is the constraint of non-renewable natural resources. The most critical resources, which are becoming scant for the future generations are –

• Land : Availability of land globally to cultivate food has grown marginally due to the increase in global population. The availability of land available per person to grow food has declined from 1.30 hectares in 1967 to 0.72 hectares in 2007 5 . Therefore, a clear dearth in agricultural land is a deterrent to future agriculture.
• Water : The world comprises of 70% freshwater resources, available from river and groundwater. Deficiency of freshwater has been growing as usage of water has increased more than twice the rate of population growth 6 . As water is required for irrigation purposes, water availability to is not equally distributed around the world. Therefore, reduced water supply would limit the per capita production of food.
• Energy : Globally, the scarcity of the non-renewable resources of energy is another concern. The global demand for energy is expected to double by 2050, consequently increasing energy prices 7 . Therefore, food production for the future will have to devise a technology based on renewable sources of energy.

The question of sustainability in agriculture arose due to some pressing issues that have limited the utilization of erstwhile processes and technologies for food production. However, it should be noted that sustainable agriculture does not prescribe any set rule or technology for the production process, rather shows a way towards sustainability 8 .

Sustainable agriculture uses best management practice by adhering to target-oriented cultivation. The agriculture process looks at disease-oriented hybrid, pest control through use of biological insecticides and low usage of chemical pesticide and fertilizer. Usually, insect-specific pest control is used, which is biological in nature.

Water given to the crops is through micro-sprinklers which help is directly watering the roots of the plants, and not flooding the field completely. The idea is to manage the agricultural land for both plants and animal husbandry.

For instance, in many southwestern parts of Florida’s citrus orchards, areas meant for water retention and forest areas become a natural habitat for birds and other animals 9 . The process uses integrated pest management that helps in reducing the amount of pesticide used in cultivation.

Sustainable agriculture adopts green technology as a means of reducing wastage of non-renewable energy and increase production. In this respect, the sustainable agricultural technology is linked to the overall developmental objective of the nation and is directly related to solving socio-economic problems of the nation 10 .

The UN report states, “The productivity increases in possible through environment-friendly and profitable technologies.” 11 In order to understand the technology better, one must realize that the soil’s health is crucial for cultivation of crops.

Soil is not just another ingredient for cultivation like pesticides or fertilizers; rather, it is a complex and fragile medium that must be nurtured to ensure higher productivity 12 . Therefore, the health of the soil can be maintained using eco-friendly methods:

Healthy soil, essential to agriculture, is a complex, living medium. The loose but coherent structure of good soil holds moisture and invites airflow. Ants (a) and earthworms (b) mix the soil naturally. Rhizobium bacteria (c) living in the root nodules of legumes (such as soybeans) create fixed nitrogen, an essential plant nutrient.

Other soil microorganisms, including fungi (d), actinomycetes (e) and bacteria (f), decompose organic matter, thereby releasing more nutrients. Microorganisms also produce substances that help soil particles adhere to one another. To remain healthy, soil must be fed organic materials such as various manures and crop residues. 13

This is nothing but a broader term to denote environment-friendly solutions to agricultural production. Therefore, the technology-related issue of sustainable agriculture is that it should use such technology that allows usage of renewable sources of energy and is not deterrent to the overall environment.

The politics around sustainable agriculture lies in the usage of the renewable sources of energy and disciplining of the current consumption rates 14 . The politics related to the sustainable agriculture is also related to the politics of sustainable consumption.

Though there is a growing concern over depleting food for the future and other resources, there is hardly any measure imposed by the governments of developed and emerging economies to sustain the consumption pattern of the population 15 .

The advocates of green politics believe that a radical change of the conventional agricultural process is required for bringing forth sustainable agriculture 16 . Green politics lobbies for an integrated farming system that can be the only way to usher in sustainable agricultural program 17 .

Sustainable agriculture is the way to maintain a parity between the increasing pressure of food demand and food production in the future. As population growth, change in income demographics, and food preference changes, there are changes in the demand of food of the future population.

Further, changes in climate and increasing concern regarding the depletion of non-renewable sources of energy has forced policymakers and scientists to device another way to sustain the available resources as well as continue meeting the increased demand of food.

Sustainable agriculture is the method through which these problems can be overlooked, bringing forth a new integrated form of agriculture that looks at food production in a holistic way.

Batie, S. S., ‘Sustainable Development: Challenges to Profession of Agricultural Economics’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 71, no. 5, 1989: 1083-1101.

Dobson, A., The Politics of Nature: Explorations in Green Political Theory, Psychology Press, London, 1993.

Leaver, J. D., ‘Global food supply: a challenge for sustainable agriculture’, Nutrition Bulletin, vol. 36 , 2011: 416-421.

Martens, S., & G. Spaargaren, ‘The politics of sustainable consumption: the case of the Netherlands’, Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy, vol.1 no. 1, 2005: 29-42.

Morris, C., & M. Winter, ‘Integrated farming systems: the third way for European agriculture?’, Land Use Policy, vol. 16, no. 4, 1999: 193–205.

Reganold, J. P., R. I. Papendick, & J. F. Parr, ‘Sustainable Agriculture’, Scientific American , 1990: 112-120.

Townsend, C., ‘ Technology for Sustainable Agriculture. ‘ Florida Gulf Coast University, 1998. Web.

United Nations, ‘ Green technology for sustainable agriculture development ‘, United Nations Asian And Pacific Centre For Agricultural Engineering And Machinery, 2010. Web.

—, ‘ Sustainable agriculture key to green growth, poverty reduction – UN officials ‘, United Nations, 2011. Web.

1 United Nations, Sustainable agriculture key to green growth, poverty reduction – UN officials, UN News Centre, 2011.

2 J. D. Leaver, ‘Global food supply: a challenge for sustainable agriculture’, Nutrition Bulletin , vol. 36, 2011, pp. 416-421.

3 Leaver, p. 417.

5 Leaver, p. 418.

7 Leaver, p. 419.

8 J. N. Pretty, ‘Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture’, World Development , vol. 23, no. 8, 1995, pp. 1247-1263.

9 Chet Townsend, ‘Technology for Sustainable Agriculture’, Florida Gulf Coast University , 1998.

10 United Nations, ‘Green technology for sustainable agriculture development’, United Nations Asian And Pacific Centre For Agricultural Engineering And Machinery , 2010.

11 United Nations, p. 17.

12 J. P. Reganold, R. I. Papendick, & J. F. Parr, ‘Sustainable Agriculture’, Scientific American , 1990, pp. 112-120.

13 Regnold et al., p. 112.

14 S. S. Batie, ‘Sustainable Development: Challenges to Profession of Agricultural Economics’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 71, no. 5, 1989, pp. 1083-1101.

15 S. Martens & G. Spaargaren, ‘The politics of sustainable consumption: the case of the Netherlands’, Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy , vol.1 no. 1, 2005, pp. 29-42.

16 A. Dobson, The Politics of Nature: Explorations in Green Political Theory , Psychology Press, London, 1993, p. 82.

17 C .Morris & M. Winter, ‘Integrated farming systems: the third way for European agriculture?’, Land Use Policy , vol. 16, no. 4, 1999, pp. 193–205.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, October 29). Essay on Sustainable Agriculture. https://ivypanda.com/essays/sustainable-agriculture-essay/

"Essay on Sustainable Agriculture." IvyPanda , 29 Oct. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/sustainable-agriculture-essay/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Essay on Sustainable Agriculture'. 29 October.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Essay on Sustainable Agriculture." October 29, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/sustainable-agriculture-essay/.

1. IvyPanda . "Essay on Sustainable Agriculture." October 29, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/sustainable-agriculture-essay/.

IvyPanda . "Essay on Sustainable Agriculture." October 29, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/sustainable-agriculture-essay/.

• Science and the Use of Non-Renewable Energy Resources
• The Benefits of Renewable and Non-Renewable Energy
• Non-Renewable Energy and Gross Domestic Product of China
• Non-renewable Natural Sources
• The Renewable and Non-renewable Electricity Sources
• Energy Resource Plan - Physics
• Renewable Energy Sources
• Natural Resources, Their Classification and Impacts
• Smart Farming and Sustainable Agriculture
• Cannabis Technological Advancement in Cultivation
• Irrigation System Strategy
• Irrigation Systems in Farming
• Swidden Agriculture: Shift Farming
• Whaling in Japan: Justifiable by Culture?
• Essential Foods Price: Basics Foods and High Increase in Prices