Next Article in Journal
Interrogating Structural Bias in Language Technology: Focusing on the Case of Voice Chatbots in South Korea
Next Article in Special Issue
Shifts in Food Consumption Practices among Middle-Class Households in Bengaluru, India
Previous Article in Journal
Legal and Socio-Economic Conditions Underlying the Shaping of the Agricultural System in Poland
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effects of Urban Smart Farming on Local Economy and Food Production in Urban Areas in African Cities
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 20
10.3390/su142013176
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Opinion

Adoption Potential of Sustainability-Related Agriculture Technologies for Smallholder Farmers in the Global South

by
Patrick Hatzenbuehler
1,* and
Luis Peña-Lévano
2
1
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, University of Idaho, Twin Falls, ID 83303, USA
2
Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Wisconsin-River Falls, River Falls, WI 54022, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(20), 13176; https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013176
Submission received: 6 September 2022 / Revised: 6 October 2022 / Accepted: 8 October 2022 / Published: 14 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Food Security and Sustainability in the Global South)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This paper describes several sustainability-related agriculture technologies that are being used by farmers in the U.S. and Europe that could plausibly be adopted by smallholder farmers in the Global South. Their unifying attributes are that they do not require capital-intensive complementary technologies and can be used effectively by a single operator. We categorize the technologies related to “soil health and moisture” and “crop production and nutrient management”. After describing the technologies, we discuss several barriers to adoption and strategies to lessen these barriers. Lastly, we propose that there are several food and nutrition security implications of facilitating adoption of the technologies. The main takeaway message of our propositions is that adoption of the technologies would mainly affect food availability and stability, but have little direct impact on utilization. Thus, adoption-enhancing initiatives will need supplementation with other simultaneous ones that facilitate proper utilization (e.g., food safety, food preparation, and nutrition trainings) to achieved nutrition security goals.

1. Introduction

Linkages between climate change and agriculture are being increasingly recognized among stakeholders in the global agricultural community. Particularly, climate change may adversely affect productivity of multiple crops of importance to global food security, which can cause widespread reductions in food consumer and producer welfare [1]. These developments have motivated implementation of mitigation and subsidy programs to enhance farm sustainability under a changing climate. In the U.S., for example, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is investing 1 billion USD in grant funded projects that promote “climate-smart” production of agricultural commodities [2]. These incentives, together with the growing emergence of companies paying farmers to adopt cultivation practices that sequester carbon [3], demonstrate that both public and private entities are increasingly allocating resources to fund agricultural projects that have a sustainability or climate-related purpose.
Despite this increased attention and financial incentives provided by public and private entities, many of the practices, including planting crops without or with limited tillage or planting cover crops are not new, but rather have been implemented by some segments of the agricultural community for decades [3]. Indeed, several emerging “climate smart” practices have long been recognized as “sustainable”; this is because–as a key example–they can be helpful for improving soil structure and moisture retention.
Since many sustainable and climate-smart farming techniques have been practiced in the northern hemisphere (i.e., the U.S. and Europe) for decades, technologies developed to facilitate their implementation fit the existing farming systems in these regions. For example, no-till cultivation requires direct seeding into the soil and through any existing crop residue. To accomplish this, new drills that are pulled behind tractors that can penetrate through residue and successfully deposit seeds have been developed to plant major commodities such as corn, soybeans, and wheat [4]. Since these innovations can be adopted along with widely used complementary technology (e.g., a tractor), farmers in developed countries have low barriers for adoption of these practices, especially with financial incentives.
Despite substantial agricultural development in the “Global South”—a term used to refer to Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Oceania [5], over the past several decades, smallholder farmers in these regions usually undertake traditional nonmechanized cultivation practices [6]. The absence of necessary complementary technologies impedes the adoption of implements used by farmers in the norther regions, which limits associated improvements in soil conditions. This is especially true for capital-intensive technologies. However, not all sustainability-related and climate-smart northern farm practices that have been developed, especially in recent years, require capital-intensive complementary technologies.
Thus, the objectives of this paper are to (1) describe several innovative sustainable agricultural technologies for which there is adoption potential among smallholder farmers in the Global South, (2) identify barriers to adoption of these technologies and alternative strategies for overcoming these barriers, and (3) make propositions regarding the food and nutrition security implications of adoption of these technologies and associated farming practices.
The key contribution of this paper is identifying the set of sustainability-related agricultural technologies that have plausible adoption potential in developing country agricultural systems, which can help to frame future empirical investigations pertaining to issues such as estimating outcomes and quantifying impacts of use of such technologies by smallholder farmers in the Global South.
Critical background information for this investigation is a definition of “sustainability” in agriculture. This is because the definition of what constitutes sustainability can vary based on views from agronomic, economic, political, social, and other viewpoints [7,8]. The definition of sustainability-related agriculture we use draws on that of the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) specifications for practices that farmers can adopt—and receive USDA payments for adoption—and that can help achieve USDA sustainability goals. These include preventing soil erosion, enhancing soil quality, conserving water, reducing pesticide use, and improving plant nutrient uptake [9]. USDA-NRCS describe that there are more than 100 practices that are eligible for sustainability-related agriculture payments, including adjusting irrigation practices, planting cover crops, improving nutrient management, and adopting integrated pest management strategies [9]. For purposes of this article, we focus on three broader practices: irrigation management, nutrient management, and no/reduced tillage. These practices provide comparable soil erosion prevention and weed control benefits as planting cover crops [10,11]. That is, the technologies of focus in this paper are those that either aid with implementation of crop cultivation with no/reduced tillage or improve farmer ability to manage irrigation and nutrients with greater precision.

2. Sustainability-Related Agriculture Technologies with Adoption Potential for Smallholder Farmers in the Global South

While technological innovation is ongoing throughout the world, for purposes of this paper we focus on agricultural technologies that have been developed in the U.S. to be consistent with the sustainability definition by the USDA-NRCS. However, we focused on identifying a subset of technologies that have the potential for adoption among small farmers in the Global South. The adoption potential criteria we propose includes that they do not require substantial complementary equipment, are utilizable by a single operator, and the lowest cost versions are relatively affordable.
Table 1 includes the analyzed sustainability-related agriculture technologies, as well as descriptions of what the technologies are, how they can be used in the crop cycle, approximate cost of the most affordable version, and complementary technologies. We divided the analyzed technologies into of two broader subcategories: “soil health and moisture” and “crop production and nutrient management”. The first group relate to soil conditions and managing growing season soil moisture. The second set are those that pertain to the plant growth cycle (i.e., from initial planting through growing season), monitoring and nutrient management.

2.1. Soil Heath and Moisture Technologies

The soil health and moisture-related technologies are broadly relevant for sustainability-related agriculture practices pertaining to irrigation and nutrient management. Three technologies are discussed:
(1)
Colorimeters, which are devices that identify soil color, an indicator of soil components and nutrient content [12,13]. These devices can be used by producers to analyze the soil components of a new segment of farmland or determine how soils on a familiar farm have changed due to crop rotations, weather, or other factors. Based on determining existing soil mineral content, farmers can design nutrient management plans for the crops that they intend to grow on the evaluated parcel of land.
(2)
Soil moisture sensors, which can be placed in the farm soil to measure the existing water content and track its levels throughout the course of a growing season [15]. Such monitoring can be critical for ensuring that planted crops have adequate water for growth, while also preventing overwatering.
(3)
Irrigation pump flow meters, whose role is to measure the water amount flowing through an irrigation pipe while irrigation is taking place [16,17]. Some functions of these meters may be autonomous to the farmer. Depending on the type, irrigation flow measures can be sent to a controller and then be utilized by the farmer for various purposes such as estimating water supply and demand balances for different time periods, and planning future irrigation flow provisions based on supplementary information such as current water and crop needs within the irrigation area.

2.2. Crop Production and Nutrient Management Technologies

These technologies are associated with the sustainability-related agriculture practices of no/reduced tillage and nutrient management. Among these practices, we discuss the following:
(1)
Direct seeders, of two types: rolling seeders that can be pushed and function like drill seeders pulled behind tractors; and handheld seeders that pierce the ground and directly implant a seed below the soil surface in line with the impact point [18,19,20]. These technologies are essential in no/reduced tillage systems because crop residues that remain when the soil is not tilled can prevent seeds from directly entering the soil using methods such as broadcast seeding by hand.
(2)
Handheld crop sensors, that are used after the plant has emerged to measure plant health and determine potential nutrient requirements. Specifically, handheld crop sensors translate crop light reflectance readings into estimation of an associated normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) measure, which is an indicator of plant growth and health [21,22]. After placing the sensor in the advised manner over a plant, the device provides a NDVI estimate that farmers can use to calculate the amount of supplemental nitrogen needed for the remainder of the growing season [22].
(3)
A remote sensing device, a small drone, for which the more affordable versions are in the form of a multibladed rotary copter, that can be flown over a farm and take either images or pixelated light reflectance sensor recordings over the flown area [23,24]. Drone images and/or reflectance measures of plant growth can be obtained over a wider area and in a more standardized fashion than manual crop monitoring. This information can be useful for forming yield expectations and implementing nutrient and/or pest management interventions in particular farm areas where plant growth is relatively low [23,24].
While distinct, each of these crop production and nutrient management technologies can help farmers more efficiently utilize farm inputs and simultaneously better achieve plant growth goals.

2.3. Aligned Sustainability-Related Agriculture Strategies and Tools

Like many aspects of agriculture, farmers rarely use the technologies analyzed in Table 1 in isolation. Rather, they are commonly used in combination at different periods of the crop year or with additional technologies. This section discusses several further strategies and tools that can be used simultaneously with the technologies in Table 1 to enhance their efficacy.
(1)
Irrigation Scheduler: which is aligned with the use of a soil moisture sensor and/or an irrigation pump flow meter. This web-based platform assists with planning and implementing irrigation activities at specific times based on the readings of soil sensors regarding soil water content [25]. Planning for irrigation activities based on actual and anticipated soil conditions can help preserve water and ensure that soil-based nutrients remain accessible for plants (i.e., reducing runoff and leaching into groundwater and/or surface water) [26].
(2)
Yield Mapping, in which actual farm yields are represented spatially on a map based on current crop conditions [27]. The most typical type of yield map displays whole field yield variation based on harvest data. These maps can be used for such purposes as identifying areas where there may be a problem such as a lack of water drainage. However, once multiple years of yield maps are created and NDVI data are also obtained during the growing season for the same field, then a farmer could combine historical yield data with current NDVI data to produce maps of estimated yields for the current crop year in advance of the harvest. Since NDVI is correlated with plant growth and health, the NDVI value associated with each pixel can be translated into a plant growth/health or yield estimate [18]. Mapping expected yield for an entire farm allows producers to plan for harvest (e.g., necessary equipment and labor), post-harvest (such as crop storage capacity), and marketing.
(3)
Satellite Remote Sensing data, which can be used simultaneously with several of the nutrient management technologies in Table 1—especially small drones. These web-based data are particularly useful because they are typically downloadable in the form of pixelated NDVI sensor maps that can be used in combination with analogous drone-based field level data to potentially extrapolate yield mapping over larger areas [27]. While satellite remote sensing data observation units are much larger than those at the field scale on a small drone, they are available for the entire globe and so are universal regarding their ability to provide information on plant growth in an area of observation. Additionally, much satellite remote sensing data are publicly available for free download, which means the barriers for use are existing computer hardware, internet access, and some training for tasks such as image file conversion and interpretation [27].

3. Barriers to Adoption and Effective Usage of Sustainability-Related Agriculture Technologies in the Global South

Many regions in the Global South are experiencing a technological revolution with aims to implement sustainability-enhancing agricultural practices while meeting the increasing demand of the growing population and reducing environmental externalities and food insecurity [28,29]. However, there are many barriers to adoption of sustainability-related agricultural technologies, including economic and infrastructure constraints, farmers’ attitudes towards technological adoption, and education and information for encompassing new technologies in existing farm systems [29].

3.1. Economic and Infrastructure Constraints

A key limiting factor for adoption of sustainability-related technologies cited in the agricultural economics literature is the increased risk in short-term profitability during the transition and initial implementation periods. These are driven by uncertainty regarding crop yield implications of adopting sustainability-related agriculture technologies and practices—although there are studies that found no difference in productivity using such practices compared to conventional agriculture [30].
Another barrier is that these technologies may be relatively expensive when used on small operations [28,29,31]. While the approximate cost of the lowest cost version makes it seem that the technologies could be affordable in at least some developing country contexts, the extent of affordability and availability of mechanisms that can improve affordability, such as finance, vary widely across developing countries. Despite variation, there is broadly a substantial financing gap between developing and developed countries with lower financing availability in developing countries [32].
In addition to the cost to acquire the technology, the cost of adoption may also rise with the purchasing of additional materials, which is cited as a major adoption constraint for farmers in Africa. Adequate transport and communication infrastructure may also affect the efficient use of these technologies and their associated cost [33].
A lack of communication and information-related technology infrastructure is particularly poignant constraining factor for adoption of the analyzed technologies in this paper because many have associated operational and data management functionalities linked to a smartphone. There are, thus, two related limiting factors worth mentioning, which are the owning of a smartphone by the smallholder farmer and a reliable data network that can facilitate data transmission across technologies. These issues are particularly constraining in rural regions of Africa. For example, as of 2015, only 19-percent of adults in Africa reported owning a smartphone, compared with 72-percent in the U.S. [34]. Additionally, in the same 2015 survey, only 25-percent of adults in Africa reported either using the internet occasionally or owning a smartphone, while 89-percent of adults in the U.S. reported doing so [34].
While the short-run profitability implications are a fundamental consideration, several of the analyzed technologies relate to improving soil health over the longer run. Thus, a lack of land tenure rights, which is common but to varying extents in developing countries [35], is a severe inhibiting factor for adoption of technologies and practices that relate to improving soil conditions over a multi-year time horizon [36].
Another major concern, which varies in extent in different countries in the Global South, is the need for farm labor–particularly in labor-intensive production systems [37,38]. This is cited as a major barrier for adoption of residue management systems [39]. Sustainability-related and climate-smart technologies also need to be adapted to work optimally under extreme weather events (i.e., heat waves, heavy rainfall, thunderstorms) [1]—during which devices such as drones may become inoperable or non-useful—especially since these adverse conditions are becoming more frequent due to climate change.

3.2. Farmers’ Attitude towards Technological Adoption

Farmers’ characteristics such as age, off-farm income, attitudes, and beliefs are attributed as constraints to adoption of sustainability-related agriculture practices [31,40]. For example, in a study evaluating conservation tillage in Canada, farmers expressed reluctance to change in favor of new sustainability-related technologies because they believed that the conventional system yielded higher profits [41]. Farmer’s age can be related to their experience, and, therefore, be a measure of human capital. Since many farmers in the Global South are between 45–60 years old, it is possible that they can be more averse to adoption of new technologies [41]. Gender can also play an important role in the adoption of technologies. In studies from Kenya, for example, research results showed that women are less inclined to implement usage of manure for soil nutrients and reduced-tillage practices than men [42]. Findings in the literature also explain that female farmers may have less access to farm resources such as labor and cash that are necessary to obtain or utilize new technologies effectively [38].

3.3. Education and Information on Sustainability-Related Agriculture Technologies

Information also plays an important role in the adoption of sustainability-related practices. Farmers seem to be more inclined to adopt these technologies when they perceive that conventional agriculture may incur in environment degradation [43]. Lack of knowledge and information regarding the environmental effects of these technologies, thus, also impose additional barriers for adoption [31,40,43]. Information barriers point to the need for implementation of experimental trials for a given technology in local communities to provide empirical results that are relevant for each region [44].
A farmer’s level of education is also positively correlated with technological adoption. More educated farmers tend to have greater access to off-farm income, greater ability to search for information on climate-smart devices, and more adeptness in moving away from labor-intensive practices [43].
External stakeholders can also play an important role in influencing adoption choices. For example, large customers—such as supermarkets—may influence farmers’ engagement in sustainability-related agricultural practices by incentivizing their adoption within marketing contracts [45]. Producer peer networks can also play an important role. The local definition of what is “socially and culturally acceptable” for the community can influence whether a type of technology is suitable for adoption or not [28].
However, the presence of information on the technologies and the human capacity to determine whether a technology would be useful on one’s farm is necessary but not sufficient for adoption and effective use of the technology. This is especially the case for the analyzed technologies that gather types of data that may not be familiar to the user and may also require additional conversion from the primary data gathered into other interpretable formats. Thus, as with other digital technologies, a lack of digital literacy and data management skills among both stakeholders who engage with smallholder farmers, such as agricultural extension staff, and the smallholder farmers is a key limiting factor for adoption of data-intensive sustainability-related technologies in the Global South [43].

4. Strategies for Overcoming Barriers to Adoption and Effective Usage of Sustainability-Related Agriculture Technologies

Two principal groups of strategies have been proposed in the literature to overcome the barriers that impede the adoption of sustainability-related agricultural technologies:
(1)
Governmental support is cited as a key instrument to encourage sustainability efforts. Subsidy policies may help decrease the investment cost on these types of technologies [40], and publicly facilitated access to credit for smallholder farmers can help them to overcome private financial market limitations. Research suggests that collective adoption of sustainability-related agriculture practices can increase overall farm sector profitability as it also leads to stronger market integration [31].
(2)
Dissemination of information on sustainability-related technologies through education and outreach programs can help communicate the advantages and the appropriate uses of sustainability-related agricultural practices. Extension specialists may also meet with local farmers and associations to discuss their potential problems so they can receive instruction regarding how sustainability-related agriculture technologies can be adapted to fit within their existing farm systems [28,39]. Agricultural extension systems can play a particularly key role in implementing experiments that allow for determination of effective usage of the new technologies in the agroecological contexts and farming systems that predominate in a region. A main example is the implementation of field trials using the new technology and then implementing educational dissemination activities to describe the usage requirements and observed effects of the technology on farm outcomes [44].

5. Implications of Adoption of Sustainability-Related Agriculture Technologies on Food and Nutrition Security

Many developing country policymakers have dual goals to both enhance agricultural productivity and improve food and nutrition security. Thus, we now propose that there are food and nutrition security implications of adoption of the examined sustainability-related agriculture technologies. For purposes of this paper, we use the definition of “food and nutrition security” of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). The FAO defines food security as the condition “when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life” [46]. This definition is supplemented with the four pillars of food and nutrition security: “availability, access, utilization, and stability” [47]. “Availability” is the presence of a diverse mix of food items for consumption either through purchase or other acquisition mechanism. “Access” implies that people possess enough resources to obtain the available food. “Utilization” pertains to the actual consumption of food bundles that are safe and prepared in a manner that allows for digestion. “Stability” refers to the condition that there are mechanisms in place to ensure that current food system availability and access will be maintained over time and is resilient to intermittent shocks.
Given these definitions, we propose how each of the analyzed sustainability-related agriculture technologies influence directly or indirectly the four pillars of food and nutrition security (Table 2). Direct effects lead to outcomes that can be clearly traced back to usage of the technology. Indirect effects–which are the most prominent in Table 2–are those for which supplementary actions along with the use of these technologies are required to occur.
The technologies that have direct effects on food and nutrition security are those that influence food production, and thus, lead to outcomes that directly impact food availability and/or stability. Notably, none of the presented technologies have either a direct or indirect effect on utilization, and all have only an indirect effect on food access. This means that food consumption habits and practices require different knowledge and skills than those involved with agricultural production. Regarding the indirect relationships with food access, the use of a new productivity enhancing technology may allow households to allocate unused resources for other expenditures such as purchases of a more nutritious food basket in the market.
There are several takeaway messages from the propositions pertaining to the food and nutrition security effects of the analyzed sustainability-related agriculture technologies. First, most of the functions of the evaluated technologies are related to food production, and so are directly linked to food availability and stability. Second, the examined relationship between sustainability-related technologies and food access, or affordability, are mostly indirect because they typically affect the use of resources, which can help ensure that adequate income is available to meet both production and consumption related needs. Third, none of the examined technologies have a direct or indirect connection to food utilization or consumption. This implies that governments in the Global South that that implement programs that facilitate adoption of sustainability-related agricultural technology will also need to implement complementary interventions that provide guidance and education related to food safety, food preparation, and nutrition to achieve food and nutrition security goals.

6. Concluding Remarks

The USDA and other developed country agricultural ministries are increasingly promoting sustainability enhancing and climate-smart agricultural practices. These efforts aim to prevent soil erosion, improve soil moisture and nutrient uptake by plants, and prevent excess applications of nutrients and pesticides. Implementation of programs to achieve these objectives have led to technological innovations that have enhanced adoption of such practices by farmers. Some of these sustainability-related practices and associated technologies can plausibly be adopted not only by farmers in developed countries but also by smallholder farmers in the Global South.
In this paper, we described several key types of sustainability-related agriculture technologies with adoption potential in the Global South. The analyzed set of technologies fit into two broader categories of “soil health and moisture” and “crop production and nutrient management”. We focus on sustainability-related agriculture technologies that do not require capital-intensive complementary technology to operate (e.g., a tractor), can be used by a single operator, and for which the least cost versions can be affordable for farmers in the Global South. Despite these attributes, we also discussed several barriers that may impede the adoption of these practices such as access to financial resources, need for additional labor, age and education of farmers, access to information and effective agricultural extension, and engagement of the local agricultural community and other stakeholders.
One potential use for the ideas proposed in this paper is for agricultural policymakers in the Global South to assess these new technologies and/or associated practices, and then determine how promotion of their usage can be encompassed within their food and nutrition security strategies and associated policy documents. The first step is to identify the specific technologies that may fit best for typical existing farming systems in their countries, and that farmers there are most likely to adopt. The second step is to identify supplementary strategies that may be needed to overcome the barriers to adoption and effective usage of the technologies that are relevant in their country context. Some of the main strategies for lowering barriers to adoption and effective usage that we discussed include providing technology specific subsidies, facilitating enhanced access to credit, and dissemination of key information through agricultural extension systems. The third step is to determine how the technologies are most likely to affect smallholder farmer behavior regarding their allocation of farm resources after adoption. We proposed that most of the analyzed technologies are either directly or indirectly related to agricultural production and are at most only indirectly related to food distribution and consumption. Thus, the final step for promoting sustainability-related technologies into a food and nutrition security strategy for a country in the Global South is to identify necessary supplemental initiatives, especially those related to food utilization, such as trainings in food safety, food preparation, and nutrition.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.H. and L.P.-L.; Project administration, P.H.; Writing—original draft, P.H. and L.P.-L.; Writing—review & editing, P.H. and L.P.-L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

Hatzenbuehler appreciates the support of the Idaho Agricultural Experiment Station, and University of Idaho colleague Linda Schott for advice. Peña-Lévano acknowledge the support of the Agricultural Economics department at the University of Wisconsin–River Falls.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Peña-Lévano, L.M.; Taheripour, F.; Tyner, W.E. Climate change interactions with agriculture, forestry sequestration, and food security. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2019, 74, 653–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. USDA. USDA to Invest $1 Billion in Climate Smart Commodities, Expanding Markets, Strengthening Rural America. Press Release No. 0038.22. 2022. Available online: https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2022/02/07/usda-invest-1-billion-climate-smart-commodities-expanding-markets (accessed on 30 August 2022).
  3. Thompson, N.M.; Hughes, M.N.; Nuworsu, E.K.M.; Reeling, C.; Armstrong, S.D.; Mintert, J.R.; Langemeier, M.R.; DeLay, N.D.; Foster, K.A. Opportunities and Challenges Associated with “Carbon Farming” for U.S. Row-Crop Producers. Choices 2022, 37. Available online: https://www.choicesmagazine.org/choices-magazine/submitted-articles/opportunities-and-challenges-associated-with-carbon-farming-for-us-row-crop-producers (accessed on 30 August 2022).
  4. Chen, Y.; Tessier, S.; Irvine, B. Drill and crop performances as affected by different drill configurations for no-till seeding. Soil Till. Res. 2004, 77, 147–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Dados, N.; Connell, R. The Global South. Contexts 2012, 11, 12–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Pingali, P. Agricultural mechanization: Adoption patters and economic impact. Handb. Agric. Econ. 2007, 3, 2779–2805. [Google Scholar]
  7. Keeney, D. Sustainable agriculture: Definition and concepts. J. Prod. Agric. 1990, 3, 281–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wallace, A. Sense with sustainable agriculture. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 1994, 25, 5–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. USDA-NRCS. USDA Assistance for Sustainable Agriculture. Fact Sheet by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2011. Available online: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_017823.pdf (accessed on 16 August 2022).
  10. Alliaume, F.; Rossing, W.A.H.; Tittonell, P.; Jorge, G.; Dogliotti, S. Reduced tillage and cover crops improve water capture and reduce erosion of fine textured soils in raised bed tomato systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2014, 183, 127–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Silva, E.M.; Moore, V.M. Cover crops as an agroecological practice on organic vegetable farms in Wisconsin USA. Sustainability 2017, 9, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. USDA-NRCS Wisconsin. Soil Color. Fact Sheet by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service Wisconsin. 2017. Available online: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/wi/soils/?cid=NRCSEPRD1370419#:~:text=Soil%20color%20can%20indicate%20the,identify%20a%20specific%20soil%20horizon (accessed on 18 August 2022).
  13. Stiglitz, R.; Mikhailova, E.; Post, C.; Schlautman, M.; Sharp, J. Evaluation of an inexpensive sensor to measure soil color. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2016, 121, 141–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Lee, S.Y.; Park, H.J.; Han, C.W.; Kweon, G. Validation of a rapid colorimetric method with field soils. Trans. ASABE 2017, 60, 1271–1278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Leib, B.G.; Jabro, J.D.; Matthews, G.R. Field evaluation and performance comparison of soil moisture sensors. Soil Sci. 2003, 168, 396–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Taghvaeian, S. Irrigation Flow Measurement. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service Report BAE-1502-4. 2017. Available online: https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/print-publications/bae/irrigation-water-flow-measurement-bae-1502.pdf (accessed on 18 August 2022).
  17. Boman, B.; Shukla, S. Water Management for Agricultural Irrigation and Drainage Systems; University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences: Gainesville, FL, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  18. Brennan, E.B. The slide hammer seeder: A novel tool for planting small seeds. HortTechnology 2018, 28, 764–775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Sustainable Market Farming. Haraka No-Till Rolling Punch Planter. 2021. Available online: https://www.sustainablemarketfarming.com/tag/no-till-planter/ (accessed on 18 August 2022).
  20. Earth Tools. Zilli Hand-Held “Jab”-Type Vegetable Seeder. 2020. Available online: https://www.earthtools.com/garden-tools-other/other-brand-jab-seeder/ (accessed on 18 August 2022).
  21. Verhulst, N.; Govaerts, B. The Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) GreenSeekerTM Handheld Sensor: Toward the Integrated Evaluation of Crop Management; Part A: Concepts and Case Studies; CIMMYT: Mexico City, Mexico, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  22. Costa, R. GreenSeeker Tool Might Help You Reduce Your Nitrogen Costs. 2019. Michigan State University Extension Article. Available online: https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/greenseeker-tool-might-help-reduce-your-nitrogen-costs (accessed on 18 August 2022).
  23. Anderson, C. Agricultural Drones. MIT Tech. Rev. 2014. Available online: https://www.technologyreview.com/technology/agricultural-drones/#:~:text=Compared (accessed on 18 August 2022).
  24. Stehr, N.J. Drones: The newest technology for precision agriculture. Nat. Sci. Educ. 2015, 44, 89–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Peters, R.T.; Desta, K.; Nelson, L. Practical Use of Soil Moisture Sensors and Their Data for Irrigation Scheduling. 2013. Washington State University Extension Fact Sheet FS083E. Available online: http://irrigation.wsu.edu/Content/Fact-Sheets/FS083E.pdf (accessed on 18 August 2022).
  26. Stevens, R.G.; Sullivan, D.M.; Cogger, C.G. How Fertilizers and Plant Nutrients Affect Groundwater Quality. 2014. Washington State University Cooperative Extension and the Washington State Department of Ecology bulletin EB1722. Available online: https://s3.wp.wsu.edu/uploads/sites/346/2014/11/eb1722-How-Fertilizers-and-Plant-Nutrients-Affect-Groundwater-Quality.pdf (accessed on 18 August 2022).
  27. Adamchuk, V.I.; Dobermann, A.; Ping, J. Precision Agriculture: Listening to the Story Told by Yield Maps. 2012. University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension Bulletin EC 04-704. Available online: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1707&context=extensionhist (accessed on 18 August 2022).
  28. Adenle, A.A.; Wedig, K.; Azadi, H. Sustainable agriculture and food security in Africa: The role of innovative technologies and international organizations. Technol. Soc. 2019, 58, 101143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Rodriguez, J.M.; Molnar, J.J.; Fazio, R.A.; Sydnor, E.; Lowe, M.J. Barriers to adoption of sustainable agriculture practices: Change agent perspectives. Renew. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2009, 24, 60–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Caswell, M.; Fuglie, K.; Ingram, C.; Jans, S.; Kascak, C. Adoption of Agricultural Production Practices: Lessons Learned from the US Department of Agriculture Area Studies Project. Agricultural Economic Report No. AER792. 2001. Available online: https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/41192/32131_aer792.pdf?v=8538 (accessed on 2 September 2022).
  31. Nowak, P. Farmer adoption of production technologies. In Proceedings of the Soil and Water Conservation Society National Conference, Lexington, KY, USA, 8–9 August 1991; pp. 31–41. [Google Scholar]
  32. OECD. Good Blended Finance Practices Can Scale Up Finance for Agri-SMEs. OECD Report DCD(2021)7. 2021. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=DCD(2021)7&docLanguage=en (accessed on 21 September 2022).
  33. Chhachhar, A.R.; Qureshi, B.; Khushk, G.M.; Ahmed, S. Impact of information and communication technologies in agriculture development. J. Basic Appl. Sci. Res. 2014, 4, 281–288. [Google Scholar]
  34. Poushter, J.; Stewart, R. Smartphone Ownership and Internet Usage Continues to Climb in Emerging Economies. 2016. Pew Research Center Staff Report. Available online: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2016/02/22/smartphone-ownership-and-internet-usage-continues-to-climb-in-emerging-economies/ (accessed on 21 September 2022).
  35. UN-Habitat. Land Tenure in Selected Countries. United Nations Human Settlements Program Report 2/2014 HS/039/14E. 2014. Available online: https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/download-manager-files/Land%20Tenure%20Security%20in%20Selected%20Countries_English_2014.pdf (accessed on 21 September 2022).
  36. IFAD. Land Tenure Security and Poverty Reduction. International Fund for Agricultural Development Report. 2015. Available online: https://www.ifad.org/documents/38714170/39148759/Land+tenure+security+and+poverty+reduction.pdf/c9d0982d-40e4-4e1e-b490-17ea8fef0775 (accessed on 21 September 2022).
  37. Mehrabi, Z.; McDowell, M.J.; Ricciardi, V.; Levers, C.; Martinez, J.D.; Mehrabi, N.; Wittman, H.; Ramankutty, N.; Jarvis, A. The global divide in data-driven farming. Nat. Sustain. 2021, 4, 154–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Akenroye, T.O.; Dora, M.; Kumar, M.; Elbaz, J.; Kah, S.; Jebli, F. A taxonomy of barriers to the adoption of sustainable practices in the coffee farming process. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 312, 127818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Bell, M.M.; Carolan, M.S.; Mayerfeld, D.; Exner, R. Professional Development for the Adoption of Sustainable Agriculture on Rented Land; Final Research Report; Department of Sociology, Iowa State University: Ames, IA, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  40. Norman, D.; Janke, R.; Freyenberger, S.; Schurle, B.; Kok, H. Defining and implementing sustainable agriculture. Kansas Sustain. Agric. Ser. 1997, 1, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  41. Wandel, J.; Smithers, J. Factors affecting the adoption of conservation tillage on clay soils in Southwestern Ontario, Canada. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 2000, 15, 181–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ndiritu, S.W.; Kassie, M.; Shiferaw, B. Are there systematic gender differences in the adoption of sustainable agricultural intensification practices? Evidence from Kenya. Food Policy 2014, 49, 117–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Gamon, J.; Harrold, N.; Creswell, J. Educational delivery methods to encourage adoption of sustainable practices. J. Agric. Educ. 1994, 35, 38–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Henke, C.R. Making a Place for Science: The Field Trial. Soc. Stud. Sci. 2000, 30, 483–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kassie, M.; Jaleta, M.; Shiferaw, B.; Mmbando, F.; Mekuria, M. Adoption of interrelated sustainable agricultural practices in smallholder systems: Evidence from rural Tanzania. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2013, 80, 525–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. FAO. Rome Declaration on World Food Security. In Proceedings of the World Food Summit, Rome, Italy, 13–17 November 1996; Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/w3613e/w3613e00.htm (accessed on 17 August 2022).
  47. FAO. Declaration of the World Summit on Food Security. In Proceedings of the World Food Summit on Food Security, Rome, Italy, 16–18 November 2009; Available online: https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/Summit/Docs/Final_Declaration/WSFS09_Declaration.pdf (accessed on 17 August 2022).
Table
Table 1. Analyzed sustainability-related agriculture technologies with descriptions of attributes and applications.
Table 1. Analyzed sustainability-related agriculture technologies with descriptions of attributes and applications.
TechnologyDescriptionUse in Crop CycleApproximate Cost of Most Affordable Version (USD)Complementary Technologies
Soil health and moisture
ColorimeterDevice that identifies soil color, which is an indicator of soil mineral content [12,13].Assess existing soil minerals to determine nutrient application needs [14]$300Depending on type: computer or Android or Apple smartphone.
Soil moisture sensorDevice placed in the soil that measure the soil water content and transmit measurements to a data logging unit [15].Irrigation management and scheduling [15]. Less than $100Depending on type: soil sensor reader device.
Irrigation pump flow meterDevice that is connected to an irrigation water pipe and measures the volume of water flowing through the pipe and sends information to an irrigation controller [16,17].Management of irrigation water allocations and planning to ensure adequate soil moisture for crop cultivation [17]. $200Irrigation controller. Some compatible with smartphone.
Crop production and nutrient management
Push/rolling or handheld direct seeder Handheld or push rolling device that punches through crop residue (e.g., farm ground with no or reduced tillage) and plants seed directly into the soil [18,19,20]Planting row or specialty crops [18,19,20].$30None.
Handheld crop sensorHandheld device with sensor that measures plant reflectance via estimation of the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) [21,22].Estimate growing season Nitrogen (N) needs for crops [21,22].$500Android or Apple smartphone, if data logging is desired.
Small droneMultibladed small rotary copter with camera and/or sensor and GPS system to capture low altitude images of vegetation [23,24].Monitor crop growing conditions; form yield expectations; plan nutrient or other interventions [23,24].$300Depending on type: computer or Android or Apple smartphone.
Source. The Authors.
Table
Table 2. Analyzed sustainability-related agriculture technologies and the nature of implied effects on the four pillars of food and nutrition security.
Table 2. Analyzed sustainability-related agriculture technologies and the nature of implied effects on the four pillars of food and nutrition security.
Food and Nutrition Security Pillars
TechnologyAvailabilityAccessUtilizationStability
ColorimeterIndirectIndirectN/AIndirect
Soil moisture sensorDirectIndirectN/ADirect
Irrigation pump flow meterIndirectIndirectN/AIndirect
Push/rolling or handheld direct seeder DirectIndirectN/ADirect
Handheld crop sensorDirectIndirectN/ADirect
Small droneDirectIndirectN/ADirect
Source. The Authors.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hatzenbuehler, P.; Peña-Lévano, L. Adoption Potential of Sustainability-Related Agriculture Technologies for Smallholder Farmers in the Global South. Sustainability 2022, 14, 13176. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su142013176

AMA Style

Hatzenbuehler P, Peña-Lévano L. Adoption Potential of Sustainability-Related Agriculture Technologies for Smallholder Farmers in the Global South. Sustainability. 2022; 14(20):13176. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su142013176

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hatzenbuehler, Patrick, and Luis Peña-Lévano. 2022. "Adoption Potential of Sustainability-Related Agriculture Technologies for Smallholder Farmers in the Global South" Sustainability 14, no. 20: 13176. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su142013176

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop