Ammar Redza Ahmad Rizal
Shahrina Md Nordin- 1Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Centre for Research in Media and Communication, National University of Malaysia, Bangi, Malaysia
- 2Institute Self-Sustainable Building, University of Technology PETRONAS, Seri Iskandar, Perak Darul Ridzuan, Malaysia
The imminent threat to food security requires immediate intervention toward ensuring societal sustainability especially in combating the pandemic. The rapid spread of COVID-19 cases has caused concern for food security. A recent outlook report produced by Food Agricultural Organization and World Food Programme (FAO-WTP) highlights that there are at least 20 countries that are faced with a looming threat of food availability between the period of March-July 2021. Other factors that pose a significant threat to food security include climate change and natural disasters which could significantly reduce the yield. It is hence imperative to gain an in-depth understanding of factors that influence farmers’ choices in innovation adoption for increased yield. A line of research has been conducted across the globe on new technology adoption and effect of innovation that aims to increase productivity and yield. This study examined the key factors, that lead farmers to the adoption of new technology and innovation, reported in studies over the past 15 years. PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols) was employed based on the SCOPUS and Web of Science database. In creating the main dataset, a protocol was developed in advance to document the analysis method. Several inclusion (eligibility) and exclusion criteria were set to select related articles from a total of 2,136 papers. The thematic and content analyses were subsequently performed on 392 research articles. The findings indicate 4 over-arching segments, and 12 major determinants, that comprise 62 associate determinants. The paper concludes with the identification of critical factors for innovation adoption amongst farmers.
Introduction
The imminent threat to food security requires immediate intervention toward ensuring societal sustainability. A recent outlook report produced by Food Agricultural Organization and World Food Programme (FAO-WTP) highlights that there are at least 20 countries that are faced with a looming threat of food availability between the period of March–July 2021 (1). FAO further reported that 45 countries are in need of external assistance for food mostly due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which has severely aggravated global food security conditions (2). Despite the arguments that global calorie intake has shifted toward a more diversified diet that includes higher shares of meat, dairy products, fats, sugar, fruit and vegetables (3), staple food crops are still in demand. It is also reported that 50% of daily calorie intake is derived directly from cereal grain and staple food crops consumption (4).
Cereal grain and staple food crops are not only essential for human physiological demand, but they also act as a core economic driver for both society and a country. It is estimated that the annual global trade for cereal grain is pegged at 441 million tonnes (2), approximately 200 billion USD in terms of the crop trade value alone (see Table 1 for the details). There is however, a serious threat of scarcity in staple food supply across many countries that are caused by numerous factors including climate change-related issues instance as water scarcity and natural disaster (5); COVID-19 pandemic (6); and rapid urbanization (7).
Table 1. Basic facts of world cereal grain.
The gap between staple crop production and the demand for human food consumption has widened over the decades (3). There is hence a dire need to increase production that could be made possible through innovations. Green Revolution was previously implemented by several countries such as China, India, Malaysia, and other developing countries in the 1960s and 1970s. In the recent development of innovation in staple food crop farming, attention has expanded to include areas such as green technology, sustainable farming, and conservative agriculture.
There has been a line of studies on the diffusion of innovation and adoption of new technology amongst farmers. For instance, Nordin and colleagues identified that agriculture education is a significant determinant for farmers’ agriculture adoption (8). They also found that social media affordances help farmers to reduce complexity in adopting new innovations (9). There are also several other studies that test various perspectives in explaining farmers’ adoption of new innovations including adopting theories of planned behavior (10), identifying factors other than utility theories (11), government support as determining factors (12) and the usage of intention modeling (13). However, efforts to systematically review these studies are still lacking.
Most of the current systematic reviews found focus on the adaptation of efforts related to climate-resilient crops (14), climate change adaptation (5), climate change policy (15), non-agriculture community (16), and focused on other regions (17). This paper seeks to fill the gap in understanding and identifying the characteristics of innovation as well as the determinants of adopting them among staple food crop farmers. Studies, articles, and reports on adoption and diffusion of innovation in the peer-reviewed literature within the database are used in this study.
The review was guided by the main question of what determinants affect staple food crops farmers around the world to adapt to new technology and innovation in lieu of the recent pandemic crisis? The review primarily focuses factors affecting on farmers’ adoption. Focusing on this aspect is pivotal as the world is currently expected to face several other crises including energy and economic crisis. By understanding this matter, it will help policymakers, innovators and stakeholders develop better strategic approaches to increase farmers adoption to innovation.
Methodology
The method used in this study referred to as PRISMA (18). The review is conducted on peer-reviewed articles found in two of the largest academic databases – SCOPUS and Web of Science (WOS). The approaches to conduct systematic review include identifying eligible and exclusion criteria, steps of the review process (identification, screening, eligibility) and data abstraction analysis.
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was used as a guide for the review due to its three unique advantages. First, it enables the study to define clear research questions that permit systematic research. The PRISMA method has been used extensively for systematic review studies in social science (18–22). Second, the guidelines enable the identification of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Finally, it supports examining a large database in the scientific literature in a defined time. The PRISMA statement allows for a rigorous search of the term related to staple food crops farmers’ adoption to innovation.
Resources
The systematic review was based on two main academic databases – SCOPUS and Web of Science (WOS). Both of the databases consist of more than 33,000 journals across 256 disciplines which include disciplines and subjects related to agronomy, multi-disciplinary agriculture, interdisciplinary social sciences, food technology, social issues as well as development and planning. It includes comprehensive research data and citations, established by Clarivate Analytics and ranks them by three separate measures: citations, papers, and citation per paper. The second database is SCOPUS, a database product owned by Elsevier. It has more than 22,800 journals from around 5,000 publishers worldwide (23). Similar to WOS, the SCOPUS index consists of diverse subject areas which is suitable for this systematic review.
Search protocol – Eligibility and exclusion criteria
To create the main dataset, a protocol was developed in advance to document the analysis method. Several inclusion (eligibility) and exclusion criteria were determined. The first criteria are the literature type, only journal articles with primary data are selected. This means review articles, panel series data, book series, books, and conference proceedings are all excluded. The selection of only journal articles is to ensure only recent findings associated with innovation adoption can be captured in this systematic review. Furthermore, journal articles that are indexed by both databases have been through a rigorous peer review process. This shall ensure the methods used in their study have been validated and thus provide more concrete findings in this systematic review.
Second, to avoid any confusion and loss of meaning in translation, the protocols exclude non-English publication. Thirdly, concerning the timeline, which is sensitive to innovation, a period of 15 years was selected (between 2006 and 2021). This allows recent issues related to innovation adoption to be identified. The next criteria for the search protocol are the areas of research, only research related to staple food crops is selected. Staple food crops in this study include cereal grains (e.g., paddy, wheat, barley, maize, millet, and sorghum) as well as some tuber roots (e.g., yam, potato, and cassava) and plantain. Legumes, beans, and non-food crops are excluded. Finally, the search protocols only focus on adaption by farmers. Table 2 summarizes the inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Table 2. Protocol inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Systemic review process
Based on the guideline in PRISMA, four stages were involved in the systematic review process. The search was performed on 2 March 2021. The first phase identified the keywords used in the search process. Based on terminologies used in the past studies, keywords similar and related to innovation adoption, staple food crops and farming community were used. The search string used for the systematic review process is included as supporting materials in this paper.
The second stage involved screening. At this stage, out of 2,136 articles eligible to be reviewed, a total of 1,396 articles were removed. The third stage examined eligibility, where the full articles were accessed. After careful examination, a total of 348 articles were excluded due to several factors such as not related to the field of study, not a food staple crop, and not discussing adoption factors. The last stage of review resulted in a total of 392 articles that were used for the qualitative analysis. The screening flow is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. PRISMA flow chart. From Moher et al. (24).
Data abstraction and analysis
The final 392 articles were obtained for rigorous analysis and assessment. The analysis focused on the types of crops and innovations adopted by farmers. Then, the determinants for adoption were identified. The data were extracted by analysing the abstracts, prior to examining the full articles (in-depth), which is essential to identify major determinants and the associate determinants. The qualitative analysis was conducted through content analysis and thematic analysis. It allows categorization of themes and associated sub-themes. The findings will be discussed in the following section.
Results
The review identified the determinants of farmers’ decision-making in adopting new technology or innovation in the production of staple food. Generally, a line of studies reported multiple determinants that lead to farmers’ adoption of new technology. The review resulted in 4 segments comprising of 12 main determinants and 62 associated determinants (see Figure 2). Three main determinants were identified in the first segment – the farmers’ attributes. The determinants are – (1) Education and knowledge; (2) Motivation and participation; (3) Gender and demographics. The second segment is information channel attributes where there are 2 main determinants identified – (1) Extension and training; (2) Communication and information. There are 3 main determinants in the ecosystem and innovation attributes segment which are – (1) Farm profile; (2) Infrastructure and access; (3) Technology and innovation attributes. The structural attributes segment comprises of four main determinants, which are (1) Social structure; (2) Resource needs and support; (3) Institutional factor; (4) Association and organisation.
Figure 2. Summary of determinants of new technology adoption by staple food crop farmers.
Table 3 shows main determinants for each segment and the frequency of the determinants being mentioned in the reviewed articles.
Table 3. Segment, main determinant and the frequency mentioned in the study.
Farmers’ individual attributes
This first segment comprises of main determinants and associate determinants identified in the reviewed articles related to the determinants associated with the farmers individually. The first main determinant is “education and knowledge”. The determinant comprises of several associate determinants such as farmer’s background of education which is mentioned 94 times. The other associate determinants are farmers’ awareness (26 times), knowledge (41 times) and experience (40 times). The other main determinant in this segment is “motivation and participation”. The associate determinant is attitude toward innovation (21 times), motivating factors (5 times), perceived financial benefit (25 times), participation in innovation (18 times), perceived benefit (61 times), perception of risk (28 times), self-interest (3 times) and value co-creation (10 times). The final main determinant for this segment is “gender and demographic” which comprises of age (40 times), general gender factor (39 times), gender of household head (7 times), household size and wealth (19 times) and marital status (2 times).
Ecosystem and innovation attributes
The second segment of this study contains determinants related to the farm, infrastructure and the innovation itself. The first main determinants in this segment are “infrastructure and access”. There are 7 associate determinants which are basic farm infrastructure (14 times), farm irrigation (9 times), market accessibility (25 times), farm and plot location (36 times), farm/plot management and condition (18 times), farm system (11 times) and access to technology/innovation (28 times). Besides that, the other main determinant in this segment is “farm profile”. The associate determinants are farm/plot size (71 times), land ownership status (32 times) and soil type (6 times). The final main determinants are “technology and innovation attributes” which are divided into 8 associate determinants – compatibility of innovation (14 times), complexity of innovation (10 times), ease of use (7 times), innovation attributes (10 times), observability of innovation (2 times), trialability of innovation (6 times), relative advantage (7 times) and perceived control of innovation (7 times).
Information channel attributes
This segment comprises determinants associated with diffusing information and technique which lead to farmer’s adoption of new technology. The first main determinant in this segment is “extension and trainings”. The associate determinants are extension services (113 times), farmers school (33 times) and training (50 times). The second main determinant is “communication and information” which comprise communication in general (10 times), communication platform/channel (15 times) and information (32 times).
Structural attributes
The final segment categorized determinants that are related to external factors that are essential and contributed to staple food crop farmers’ adoption of new technology. The first main determinant is “resource need and support”. Associate-determinants under it are cost of innovation (25 times), access to credit facility (45 times), financial capability (29 times), incentive and subsidy for new technology (21 times), availability of labor (61 times) and off-farm income (12 times). The second main determinants are “social structure” which comprises network trust (14 times), social learning (36 times), social network (36 times), social norm (22 times) and social capital (27 times). The third main determinant is “institutional factor”. It consists of need for policy (17 times), need for regulation (7 times) and power structure (2 times). The final main determinant is “association and organization” which the associate determinants are farmers cooperatives (15 times), membership in farmer association/organization (37 times), leadership (5 times) and partnership with other agency (7 times).
This study identified that there are two (2) most frequently reported crops (see Figure 3) which is rice and maize. Drawing on this information, the reported studies and its respected authors based on this categorization is presented in Table 4 for maize and Table 5 for rice.
Figure 3. Types of crops identified in the reviewed articles.
Table 4. Attributes, main determinants and list of reported studies – maize.
Table 5. Attributes, main determinants and list of reported studies – rice.
Types of crops, innovations and locations
The findings indicate that there are 11 types of innovation reported in the reviewed articles. Innovations related to sustainable agriculture are the highest (94 articles). It is followed by crop technology (86 articles), farm management and practices (69 articles), climate smart agriculture (37 articles), conservation agriculture (36 articles), smart and digital farming (22 articles), production intensification (20 articles), precision agriculture (12 articles), green technology (6 articles), soil technology (6 articles) and organic farming (4 articles). More than 80% of the reviewed articles reported that their studies were conducted in either Asia or African region. 7.7% of the studies are in North America, 4.8% in Europe, 2.8% in Australia and 2.6% in South America. Figure 4 shows the types of innovations reported according to the region.
Figure 4. Types of innovation and new technologies according to region.
The types of crops reported in the reviewed articles are mostly cereal grain where 38.6% of the studies investigated the adoption of innovation amongst rice farmers. The second most reported crops are maize (36.1%) and followed by wheat (16.5%). The remaining 8.8% of the crops reported are sorghum and teff (2.5%), potatoes (2.5%), cassava and yam (2%), plantain (1.1%) and millet 0.7%. Figure 3 shows the proportion of crops reported by articles in this study.
Discussion
This paper provides a systematic review on the existing literatures in examining determinants of staple food crops farmers’ adoption of new technology or innovation. A rigorous review sourced from two databases has resulted in 392 articles related to determinants of adoption by the staple food crops farmers. The result indicates 4 over-arching segments, 12 major determinants, that comprise of 62 associate determinants. The four segments are farmers, ecosystem, information and structural attributes.
The findings give emphasis on the importance of extension support in promoting adoption of new technology amongst the staple crop farmers. Farmers usually manage their farms based on their personal experience (160, 163, 164). The experience constructs knowledge of farming and is passed from one generation to another. The introduction of new technology or innovation has a learning curve that needs to be achieved by the farmers. Relying on experience alone would not help the farmers to understand or practice any newly introduced innovation. Hence, extension support helps to disseminate information and technique of the new technology or innovation to the farmers. This is in line with other studies that support both extension and education as key factors in determining farmers’ adoption of new technology (102, 136).
Enhancing farmers knowledge about new technologies and innovations hence should be promoted from time to time. It is also reported that farmers involved in trainings have a better understanding of the uptake of crop protection techniques and practices which are monumental to increasing production (165, 166). However, it is important to understand that farmers’ decision to adopt innovation is also influenced by not only the perceived benefits but also risks. Farmers fear that adopting innovations might increase costs, require more labor or could be detrimental to productivity (163, 167).
Farmers are also seen as learning by observing and imitating peers’ action. Social learning hence is one of the factors in determining farmers’ adoption of innovation (129, 168). The working mechanism of social learning might be beneficial considering that small farming is regarded as community work. This environment creates a system itself where farmers will be depending on each other for the source of labor, information, capital and support.
The symbiotic relation between farmer’s element and social elements can also be seen in the concept of the norm. Interestingly, it is identified that both social norm and gender norm are determinants of farmers’ innovation adoption. The prevalence of social norms is reiterated by Fishbein and Ajzen in their Theory of Planned Behavior (169). Several studies adopted and tested this theory where it is reported that farmers adoption of new technology can be explained by the social norm. Farmers do not want to be seen as deviant in their societal norm especially when the technology requires a shift of paradigm in the current method of knowledge. Organic farming and digital farming can be examples of where farmers could have difficulties in leaving their traditional norms. Therefore, it is important for a farming society where norms are paramount to obtain sanction from designated social leaders or institution. If not, Agriculture technology can always be accessible and available to farmers, but the thinking and mindset oriented by culture and religion inversely affect the application [(153), 5].
However, the concept of norms, especially associated with gender, could be affected by the economic practices of various countries. Agriculture and farming activities are usually associated with males dominating the industry. The country’s division of labor could however, shift this perception. For instance, in a study conducted in Vietnam, due to the mass migration of male labor to the city, farming activity in the rural region is largely performed by female farmers. Consequently, the decision to adopt new technology is also influenced by gender norms (170). The monumental role of women as a decision-maker is also echoed in the other study where it is shown that women play a similar role as men when it comes to deciding in adopting new technology (159).
Besides individual and societal role, government and other authoritative agency play a significant role in farmers’ adoption of new technology. Despite low numbers reported in policy and regulation, multiple studies have reported factors such as access to a credit facility, incentive/subsidy, market accessibility as the important one of important determinants. These factors especially related to support and financial assistance are in the realm of authoritative bodies. However, the significant challenges here is identifying and overcoming the void in the roles of governing bodies. Certain government’s policy enables subsidy and incentive for farmers to adopt innovation especially when it is in line with their national agenda. For instance, the Malaysian government spend more than 300 million USD on rice subsidy (171). The role of NGOs in helping to reduce farmers burden in adopting new technology has also been reported in several studies (172–174).
The findings of the review reported in this paper strongly suggest that farmers’ decision to adopt new technology depends on the availability of basic infrastructure within the farm such as irrigation and accessibility to market (110, 117, 175). Having these basic needs, allow farmers to focus on getting improvement in their production. Another focal point that needs to be highlighted is the ability of farm/plot size as a determinant for farmers’ adoption of new technology. It is reported in several studies that farmers with small plot size or small scale farming tend to be more accepting toward new technology or innovation (124, 176, 177). This could be contributed by the fact that farmers with small plots strive to increase their productivity in order to increase revenue. They are unable to enjoy the effect of the “economy of scale” that could be benefitted other large farms.
The analysis of the review also identifies the minimal impact of technology attributes such as complexity, compatibility and ease of use in determining farmers’ adoption of new technology. One of the main reasons could be due to the high reliance on extension services and training. With the help from extension officers, farmers have a higher chance to learn about technological attributes for adoption.
Conclusion and future studies
Technology adoption at farms producing staple food crops is essential for the food security but also to improve the livelihood of the farmers themselves. This is crucial especially in countries and communities where their socioeconomic largely depends on the local agricultural production. Furthermore, agricultural yields are also essential to ensure a stable household income as well as to achieve daily caloric intake target and balanced nutrition. Understanding the factors contributing to the adoption of new technology or innovation provides opportunities to increase adoption enhance multiple objectives accordingly such as increase productivity, adaptation to climate, sustainable farming and conservation agriculture. The 64 determinants found in this study has been systematically categorized into 12 major determinants and eventually 4 different segments.
This simplification aims to provide both academics and policymakers with the birds-eye view on the current factors that lead to staple food crops farmers adoption of the new technology. The determinants however, also depend on the targeted demographic profiles. A different demographic profile requires a different approach. Future studies hence should examine the process of disseminating new technology, inclusive of participation, information and communications technology-enhanced, and hands-on experience. Future research should also explore fast expanding areas such as digital farming and green technology.
This paper recognizes the importance of examining the determinants for new technology adoption of staple food crop farmers to overcome current global challenges associated with food security especially during the pandemic. This paper presented the outline and summary of past studies related to innovation adoption by farmers of staple food crop for the past 15 years. Based on the systematic review, 12 major determinants of farmers’ adoption have been identified which are education and knowledge, motivation and participation, gender and demographic, farm profile, infrastructure and access, technology and innovation attributes, extension and training, communication and information, social structure, resource needs and support, institutional factors, and association and organization. Types of crops, innovations and locations were also ascertained.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article/Supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
AA: conceptualization, writing – original draft, formal analysis, and methodology. SM: supervision, writing – review and editing, and visualization. Both authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Funding
This research received no external funding and the APC was funded by Faculty of Social Science and Humanities, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2022.986324/full#supplementary-material
References
1. Food Agriculture Organization. Hunger Hotspots FAO-WFP Early Warnings on Acute Food Insecurity. New York, NY: Food Agriculture Organization (2021).
2. Food Agriculture Organization. Crop Prospects and Food Situation. New York, NY: Food Agriculture Organization (2020).
3. Pingali P. Agricultural policy and nutrition outcomes – getting beyond the preoccupation with staple grains. Food Secur. (2015) 7:583–91. doi: 10.1007/s12571-015-0461-x
4. Awika JM. Major cereal grains production and use around the world. Proceedings of the ACS Symposium Series. Washington, DC: (2011). doi: 10.1021/bk-2011-1089.ch001
5. Shaffril HAM, Krauss SE, Samsuddin SF. A systematic review on Asian’s farmers’ adaptation practices towards climate change. Sci Total Environ. (2018) 644:683–95. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.06.349
6. Laborde D, Martin W, Swinnen J, Vos R. COVID-19 risks to global food security. Science. (2020) 369:500–2. doi: 10.1126/science.abc4765
7. Satterthwaite D, McGranahan G, Tacoli C. Urbanization and its implications for food and farming. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. (2010) 365:2809–20. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0136
8. Nordin SM, Zolkepli IA, Ahmad Rizal AR, Tariq R, Mannan S, Ramayah T. Paving the way to paddy food security: a multigroup analysis of agricultural education on Circular Economy Adoption. J Clean Prod. (2022) 375:134089. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134089
9. Md Nordin S, Ahmad Rizal AR, Zolkepli IA. Innovation diffusion: the influence of social media affordances on complexity reduction for decision making. Front Psychol. (2021) 12:705245. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.705245
10. Adnan N, Nordin SM, Redza A. Benefit of one baja fertilizer for attaining agricultural sustainability among malaysian paddy farmers: Agricultural sustainability among Malaysian paddy farmers. In: N Ray editor. Business Infrastructure for Sustainability in Developing Economies. Hershey, PA: IGI Global (2016). doi: 10.4018/978-1-5225-2041-2.ch008
11. Ahmad Rizal AR, Md Nordin S, Hussin SH, Hussin SR. Beyond rational choice theory: multifaceted determinants of participation in palm oil sustainable certification amongst smallholders in Malaysia. Front Sustain Food Syst. (2021) 5:638296. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2021.638296
12. Mandari HE, Chong YL, Wye CK. The influence of government support and awareness on rural farmers’ intention to adopt mobile government services in Tanzania. J Syst Inf Technol. (2017) 19:42–64. doi: 10.1108/JSIT-01-2017-0005
13. Kamarudin S, Alan R, Sahari N, Wahab ANA, Sulaiman R. The development and evaluation on model of intention to use black pepper crops disease advisory mobile application. Jurnal Pengurusan. (2018) 52:207–19. doi: 10.17576/pengurusan-2018-52-17
14. Acevedo M, Pixley K, Zinyengere N, Meng S, Tufan H, Cichy K, et al. A scoping review of adoption of climate-resilient crops by small-scale producers in low- and middle-income countries. Nat Plants. (2020) 6:1231–41. doi: 10.1038/s41477-020-00783-z
15. Sorgho R, Quiñonez CAM, Louis VR, Winkler V, Dambach P, Sauerborn R, et al. Climate change policies in 16 West African countries: a systematic review of adaptation with a focus on agriculture, food security, and nutrition. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2020) 17:1–21. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17238897
16. Babatunde KA, Begum RA, Said FF. Application of computable general equilibrium (CGE) to climate change mitigation policy: a systematic review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. (2017) 78:61–71. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.04.064
17. Warren-Myers G, Hurlimann A, Bush J. Barriers to climate change adaption in the Australian property industry. J Prop Invest Finan. (2020) 38:449–62. doi: 10.1108/JPIF-12-2019-0161
18. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. (2009) 339:42–6. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2700
19. John E, Yunus MM. A systematic review of social media integration to teach speaking. Sustainability. (2021) 13:9047. doi: 10.3390/su13169047
20. Majid NA, Ramli Z, Sum SM, Awang AH. Sustainable palm oil certification scheme frameworks and impacts: a systematic literature review. Sustainability. (2021) 13:3263. doi: 10.3390/su13063263
21. Abas A, Aziz A, Awang A. A systematic review on the local wisdom of indigenous people in nature conservation. Sustainability. (2022) 14:3415. doi: 10.3390/su14063415
22. Zulkepli MI, Siwar NA, Zainol C, Farmers’ MR, Idris M, Diana N, et al. Farmers’ adaptation strategies to climate change in Southeast Asia: a systematic literature review. Sustainability. (2022) 14:3639. doi: 10.3390/su14063639
24. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 6:e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
25. Ajayi OC. User acceptability of sustainable soil fertility technologies: lessons from farmers’ knowledge, attitude and practice in Southern Africa. J Sustain Agric. (2007) 30:21–40. doi: 10.1300/J064v30n03_04
26. Tura M, Aredo D, Tsegaye W, La Rovere R, Tesfahun G, Mwangi W, et al. Adoption and continued use of improved maize seeds: case study of Central Ethiopia. Afr J Agric Res. (2010) 5:2350–8.
27. Rebaudo F, Dangles O. Coupled information Diffusion-Pest dynamics models predict delayed benefits of farmer cooperation in pest management programs. PLoS Comput Biol. (2011) 7:1002222. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002222
28. Visser M, Maughan N, Ouled Belgacem A, Neffati M. Stakeholder views on restoring depleted cereal fallows in arid Tunisia: societal barriers and possible crevices. J Arid Environ. (2011) 75:1191–200. doi: 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2011.04.033
29. Rushemuka NP, Bizoza RA, Mowo JG, Bock L. Farmers’ soil knowledge for effective participatory integrated watershed management in Rwanda: toward soil-specific fertility management and farmers’ judgmental fertilizer use. Agric Ecosyst Environ. (2014) 183:145–59. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2013.10.020
30. Muzangwa L, Mnkeni PNS, Chiduza C. Assessment of Conservation Agriculture Practices by Smallholder Farmers in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. Agronomy. (2017) 7:46. doi: 10.3390/agronomy7030046
31. Mugabi N, State AE, Omona J, Jansson B. Revolutionalizing agriculture extension delivery through mobile telephony: the experience of village enterprise agent model in Greater masaka area, Uganda. WIT Trans Ecol Environ. (2018) 217:963–74. doi: 10.2495/SDP180811
32. Kuria AW, Barrios E, Pagella T, Muthuri CW, Mukuralinda A, Sinclair FL. Farmers’ knowledge of soil quality indicators along a land degradation gradient in Rwanda. Geoderma Region. (2019) 16:e00199. doi: 10.1016/j.geodrs.2018.e00199
33. Uduji JI, Okolo-Obasi EN, Asongu S. Electronic wallet technology and the enabling environment of smallholder farmers in Nigeria. SSRN Electron J. (2019) 79:666–88. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3426738
34. Osewe M, Liu A, Njagi T. Farmer-Led irrigation and its impacts on smallholder farmers’ crop income: evidence from Southern Tanzania. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2020) 17:1512. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17051512
35. Moumouni I, Baco MN, Tovignan S, Gbèdo F, Nouatin GS, Vodouhê SD, et al. What happens between technico-institutional support and adoption of organic farming? A case study from Benin. Organ Agric. (2013) 3:1–8. doi: 10.1007/s13165-013-0039-x
36. Lemos MC, Lo Y-J, Kirchhoff C, Haigh T. Crop advisors as climate information brokers: building the capacity of us farmers to adapt to climate change. Clim Risk Manag. (2014) 4:32–42. doi: 10.1016/j.crm.2014.08.001
37. Derwisch S, Morone P, Tröger K, Kopainsky B. Investigating the drivers of innovation diffusion in a low income country context. The case of adoption of improved maize seed in Malawi. Futures. (2016) 81:161–75. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2015.08.011
38. Kathage J, Kassie M, Shiferaw B, Qaim M. Big constraints or small returns? Explaining nonadoption of hybrid maize in Tanzania. Appl Econ Perspect Policy. (2016) 38:113–31. doi: 10.1093/aepp/ppv009
39. Zeweld W, Van Huylenbroeck G, Tesfay G, Speelman S. Smallholder farmers’ behavioural intentions towards sustainable agricultural practices. J Environ Manage. (2017) 187:71–81. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.11.014
40. Kuntashula E, Nhlane R, Chisola F. Adoption and impact of fertiliser trees on heterogeneous farmer classified soil types in the Chongwe district of Zambia. Agrekon. (2018) 57:137–51. doi: 10.1080/03031853.2018.1471406
41. Cortner O, Garrett RD, Valentim JF, Ferreira J, Niles MT, Reis J, et al. Perceptions of integrated crop-livestock systems for sustainable intensification in the Brazilian Amazon. Land Use Policy. (2019) 82:841–53. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.01.006
42. de Souza Filho HM, Carrer MJ, Saes MSM, Gomes LADV, Nicolella AC. Performance heterogeneity and strategic orientation: an analysis of small farmers of an agrarian reform project in Brazil. Land Use Policy. (2019) 86:23–30. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.04.018
43. Abegunde VO, Sibanda M, Obi A. Mainstreaming climate-smart agriculture in small-scale farming systems: a holistic nonparametric applicability assessment in South Africa. Agriculture. (2020) 10:52. doi: 10.3390/agriculture10030052
44. Bolfe ÉL, de Castro Jorge LA, Sanches ID, Luchiari Júnior A, da Costa CC, de Castro Victoria D, et al. Precision and digital agriculture: adoption of technologies and perception of brazilian farmers. Agriculture. (2020) 10:653. doi: 10.3390/agriculture10120653
45. Olarinde LO, Abdoulaye T, Kamara A, Binam J, Adekunle A. Analysing the prospect of the “IAR4D’s innovation platforms” in improving the productive efficiencies of cereal-legume farmers in the Sudan Savanna of Nigeria. J Food Agric Environ. (2010) 8:813–20.
46. Ndiritu SW, Kassie M, Shiferaw B. Are there systematic gender differences in the adoption of sustainable agricultural intensification practices? Evidence from Kenya. Food Policy. (2014) 49:117–27. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.06.010
47. Christie ME, Van Houweling E, Zseleczky L. Mapping gendered pest management knowledge, practices, and pesticide exposure pathways in Ghana and Mali. Agric Human Values. (2015) 32:761–75. doi: 10.1007/s10460-015-9590-2
48. Murage AW, Midega CAO, Pittchar JO, Pickett JA, Khan ZR. Determinants of adoption of climate-smart push-pull technology for enhanced food security through integrated pest management in eastern Africa. Food Secur. (2015) 7:709–24. doi: 10.1007/s12571-015-0454-9
49. Kondylis F, Mueller V, Sheriff G, Zhu S. Do female instructors reduce gender bias in diffusion of sustainable land management techniques? Experimental evidence from mozambique. World Dev. (2016) 78:436–49. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.10.036
50. Lemken D, Spiller A, von Meyer-Höfer M. The case of legume-cereal crop mixtures in modern agriculture and the transtheoretical model of gradual Adoption. Ecol Econ. (2017) 137:20–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.02.021
51. Shikuku KM, Winowiecki L, Twyman J, Eitzinger A, Perez JG, Mwongera C, et al. Smallholder farmers’ attitudes and determinants of adaptation to climate risks in East Africa. Clim Risk Manag. (2017) 16:234–45. doi: 10.1016/j.crm.2017.03.001
52. Makate C, Makate M, Mango N. Wealth-related inequalities in adoption of drought-tolerant maize and conservation agriculture in Zimbabwe. Food Secur. (2019) 11:881–96. doi: 10.1007/s12571-019-00946-7
53. Sinyolo S. Technology adoption and household food security among rural households in South Africa: The role of improved maize varieties. Technol Soc. (2020) 60:48–56. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.101214
54. Duffy C, Toth G, Cullinan J, Murray U, Spillane C. Climate smart agriculture extension: gender disparities in agroforestry knowledge acquisition. Clim Dev. (2021) 13:21–33. doi: 10.1080/17565529.2020.1715912
55. Mwaura GG, Kiboi MN, Bett EK, Mugwe JN, Muriuki A, Nicolay G, et al. Adoption Intensity of Selected Organic-Based Soil Fertility Management Technologies in the Central Highlands of Kenya. Front Sustain Food Syst. (2021) 4:570190. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2020.570190
56. Kiptot E, Hebinck P, Franzel S, Richards P. Adopters, testers or pseudo-adopters? Dynamics of the use of improved tree fallows by farmers in western Kenya. Agric Syst. (2007) 94:509–19. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2007.01.002
57. Manyati T. Agro-based technological innovation: a critical analysis of the determinants of innovation in the informal sector in Harare, Zimbabwe. Afr J Sci Technol Innov Dev. (2014) 6:553–61. doi: 10.1080/20421338.2014.976992
58. Mengistu TW, Gupta S, Birner R. Analysis of maize biomass use in Ethiopia and its implications for food security and the bioeconomy. Food Secur. (2018) 10:1631–48. doi: 10.1007/s12571-018-0865-5
59. Sime G, Aune JB. Sustainability of improved crop varieties and agricultural practices: a case study in the central rift valley of Ethiopia. Agriculture. (2018) 8:177. doi: 10.3390/agriculture8110177
60. Karanja L, Gakuo S, Kansiime M, Romney D, Mibei H, Watiti J, et al. Impacts and challenges of ICT based scale-up campaigns: Lessons learnt from the use of SMS to support maize farmers in the UPTAKE project. Tanzania. Data Sci J. (2020) 19:7. doi: 10.5334/dsj-2020-007
61. Jha S, Kaechele H, Sieber S. Factors influencing the adoption of agroforestry by smallholder farmer households in Tanzania: case studies from Morogoro and Dodoma. Land Use Policy. (2021) 103:105308. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105308
62. Harhash ME, Sembokuya Y, Fayed AA, El-Feel KT, Abdlluh GA, Higuchi A. Diffusion of corn silage and its prescribing factors in Egyptian agriculture. Indian J Agric Res. (2012) 46:110–8.
63. Segnon AC, Achigan-Dako EG, Gaoue OG, Ahanchédé A. Farmer’s knowledge and perception of diversified farming systems in sub-humid and semi-arid areas in Benin. Sustainability. (2015) 7:6573–92. doi: 10.3390/su7066573
64. Muriu-Ng’ang’a FW, Mucheru-Muna M, Waswa F, Mairura FS. Socio-economic factors influencing utilisation of rain water harvesting and saving technologies in Tharaka South, Eastern Kenya. Agric Water Manag. (2017) 194:150–9. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2017.09.005
65. Ouédraogo M, Zougmoré R, Moussa AS, Partey ST, Thornton PK, Kristjanson P, et al. Markets and climate are driving rapid change in farming practices in Savannah West Africa. Reg Environ Change. (2017) 17:437–49. doi: 10.1007/s10113-016-1029-9
66. Nkomoki W, Bavorova M, Banout J. Adoption of sustainable agricultural practices and food security threats: effects of land tenure in Zambia. Land Use Policy. (2018) 78:532–8. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.07.021
67. Amran FD, Husain TK. The decision in adopting the legowo super planting system on maize in Tonasa Village, South Sulawesi, Indonesia. Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. London (2020). doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/484/1/012117
68. Zhang W, Qian C, Carlson KM, Ge X, Wang X, Chen X. Increasing farm size to improve energy use efficiency and sustainability in maize production. Food Energy Secur. (2021) 10:e271. doi: 10.1002/fes3.271
69. Noga SR, Kolawole OD, Thakadu O, Masunga G. Small farmers’ adoption behaviour: uptake of elephant crop-raiding deterrent innovations in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Afr J Sci Technol Innov Dev. (2015) 7:408–19. doi: 10.1080/20421338.2015.1096511
70. Anders EJ, Zulu LC, Jambo ER. Limits to grain-legume technology integration by smallholder farmers: the case of time-sensitive labor demands and food security primacy in Malawi. Agric Syst. (2020) 184:102879. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102879
71. Wyckhuys KAG, O’Neil RJ. Role of opinion leadership, social connectedness and information sources in the diffusion of IPM in Honduran subsistence maize agriculture. Int J Pest Manag. (2007) 53:35–44. doi: 10.1080/09670870601033331
72. Uduji JI, Okolo-Obasi EN. Adoption of improved crop varieties by involving farmers in the e-wallet program in Nigeria. J Crop Improv. (2018) 32:717–37. doi: 10.1080/15427528.2018.1496216
73. Spurk C, Asule P, Baah-Ofori R, Chikopela L, Diarra B, Koch C. The status of perception, information exposure and knowledge of soil fertility among small-scale farmers in Ghana, Kenya, Mali and Zambia. J Agric Educ Extens. (2020) 26:141–61. doi: 10.1080/1389224X.2019.1656089
74. Jia X, Huang J, Xiang C, Hou L, Zhang F, Chen X, et al. Farmer’s adoption of improved nitrogen management strategies in maize production in china: an experimental knowledge training. J Integr Agric. (2013) 12:364–73. doi: 10.1016/S2095-3119(13)60237-3
75. McCord PF, Cox M, Schmitt-Harsh M, Evans T. Crop diversification as a smallholder livelihood strategy within semi-arid agricultural systems near Mount Kenya. Land Use Policy. (2015) 42:738–50. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.10.012
76. Roxburgh CW, Rodriguez D. Ex-ante analysis of opportunities for the sustainable intensification of maize production in Mozambique. Agric Syst. (2016) 142:9–22. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2015.10.010
77. Moyo R, Salawu A. A survey of communication effectiveness by agricultural extension in the Gweru district of Zimbabwe. J Rural Stud. (2018) 60:32–42. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.03.002
78. Yahaya I, Pokharel KP, Alidu AF, Yamoah FA. Sustainable agricultural intensification practices and rural food security: the case of Northwestern Ghana. Br Food J. (2018) 120:468–82. doi: 10.1108/BFJ-01-2017-0021
79. Anderson JA, Ellsworth PC, Faria JC, Head GP, Owen MDK, Pilcher CD, et al. Genetically engineered crops: importance of diversified integrated pest management for agricultural sustainability. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. (2019) 7:24. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2019.00024
80. Kamara AY, Ajeigbe HA, Ndaghu N, Kamsang L, Ademulegun T, Solomon R. Using a participatory approach and legume integration to increase the productivity of early maturing maize in the Nigerian Sudan Savannas. Int J Agron. (2019) 2019:1–8. doi: 10.1155/2019/5154943
81. Areal FJ, Clarkson G, Garforth C, Barahona C, Dove M, Dorward P. Does TV edutainment lead to farmers changing their agricultural practices aiming at increasing productivity? J Rural Stud. (2020) 76:213–29. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.03.001
82. Ayantunde AA, Oluwatosin BO, Yameogo V, van Wijk M. Perceived benefits, constraints and determinants of sustainable intensification of mixed crop and livestock systems in the Sahelian zone of Burkina Faso. Int J Agric Sustain. (2020) 18:84–98. doi: 10.1080/14735903.2019.1698494
83. Bavorova M, Unay-Gailhard I, Ponkina EV, Pilarova T. How sources of agriculture information shape the adoption of reduced tillage practices? J Rural Stud. (2020) 79:88–101. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.08.034
84. Mellon-Bedi S, Descheemaeker K, Hundie-Kotu B, Frimpong S, Groot JCJ. Motivational factors influencing farming practices in northern Ghana. NJAS – Wagening J Life Sci. (2020) 92:1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.njas.2020.100326
85. Waithaka MM, Thornton PK, Shepherd KD, Ndiwa NN. Factors affecting the use of fertilizers and manure by smallholders: the case of Vihiga, western Kenya. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst. (2007) 78:211–24. doi: 10.1007/s10705-006-9087-x
86. Mabuza ML, Sithole MM, Wale E, Ortmann GF, Darroch MAG. Factors influencing the use of alternative land cultivation technologies in Swaziland: implications for smallholder farming on customary Swazi Nation Land. Land Use Policy. (2013) 33:71–80. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.12.009
87. Gessesse B, Bewket W, Bräuning A. Determinants of farmers’ tree-planting investment decisions as a degraded landscape management strategy in the central highlands of Ethiopia. Solid Earth. (2016) 7:639–50. doi: 10.5194/se-7-639-2016
88. Isgren E. No quick fixes: four interacting constraints to advancing agroecology in Uganda. Int J Agric Sustain. (2016) 14:428–47. doi: 10.1080/14735903.2016.1144699
89. Jamil MH, Musa Y, Tenriawaru AN, Rahayu NE. The innovative characteristics and obstruction of technology adoption for management of integrated plants (PTT) of corn in Gowa Regency Indonesia. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci. (2018) 157:012054. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/157/1/012054
90. Reimer AP, Denny RCH, Stuart D. The Impact of Federal and State Conservation Programs on Farmer Nitrogen Management. Environ Manage. (2018) 62:694–708. doi: 10.1007/s00267-018-1083-9
91. Richardson-Ngwenya P, Höhne M, Kaufmann B. Participatory problem analysis of crop activities in rural Tanzania with attention to gender and wealth: ‘setting the scene’ to enhance relevance and avoid exclusion in pro-poor innovation projects. Food Secur. (2018) 10:859–80. doi: 10.1007/s12571-018-0791-6
92. Adolwa IS, Schwarze S, Waswa B, Buerkert A. Understanding system innovation adoption: a comparative analysis of integrated soil fertility management uptake in Tamale (Ghana) and Kakamega (Kenya). Renew Agric Food Syst. (2019) 34:313–25. doi: 10.1017/S1742170517000485
93. Makate C, Makate M, Mango N, Siziba S. Increasing resilience of smallholder farmers to climate change through multiple adoption of proven climate-smart agriculture innovations. Lessons from Southern Africa. J Environ Manage. (2019) 231:858–68. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.10.069
94. Sadiq MA, Kuwornu JKM, Al-Hassan RM, Alhassan SI. Assessing Maize Farmers’ adaptation strategies to climate change and variability in Ghana. Agriculture. (2019) 9:90. doi: 10.3390/agriculture9050090
95. Kuhl L. Technology transfer and adoption for smallholder climate change adaptation: opportunities and challenges. Clim Dev. (2020) 12:353–68. doi: 10.1080/17565529.2019.1630349
96. Drohan PJ, Bechmann M, Buda A, Djodjic F, Doody D, Duncan JM, et al. A global perspective on phosphorus management decision support in agriculture: lessons learned and future directions. J Environ Qual. (2019) 48:1218–33. doi: 10.2134/jeq2019.03.0107
97. Eidt CM, Hickey GM, Curtis MA. Knowledge integration and the adoption of new agricultural technologies: Kenyan perspectives. Food Secur. (2012) 4:355–67. doi: 10.1007/s12571-012-0175-2
98. Meijer SS, Catacutan D, Sileshi GW, Nieuwenhuis M. Tree planting by smallholder farmers in Malawi: using the theory of planned behaviour to examine the relationship between attitudes and behaviour. J Environ Psychol. (2015) 43:1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.05.008
99. Mwinuka L, Mutabazi KD, Makindara J, Sieber S. Reckoning the risks and rewards of fertilizer micro-dosing in a sub-humid farming system in Tanzania. Afr J Sci Technol Innov Dev. (2016) 8:497–508. doi: 10.1080/20421338.2016.1257537
100. Oremo F, Mulwa R, Oguge N. Knowledge, attitude and practice in water resources management among smallholder irrigators in the Tsavo Sub-Catchment, Kenya. Resources. (2019) 8:130. doi: 10.3390/resources8030130
101. Palis FG, Diaz C, Todcor G, Flor RJ, Tanzo I, Datoon R. Voices from the field: needs of small-scale filipino Rice Farmers. Philipp J Crop Sci. (2015) 40:64–75.
102. Schut M, Rodenburg J, Klerkx L, Hinnou LC, Kayeke J, Bastiaans L. Participatory appraisal of institutional and political constraints and opportunities for innovation to address parasitic weeds in rice. Crop Prot. (2015) 74:158–70. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2015.04.011
103. Abdallah A-H. Does credit market inefficiency affect technology adoption? Evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa. Agric Finan Rev. (2016) 76:494–511. doi: 10.1108/AFR-05-2016-0052
104. Ches S, Yamaji E. Labor requirements of system of rice intensification (SRI) in Cambodia. Paddy Water Environ. (2016) 14:335–42. doi: 10.1007/s10333-015-0503-1
105. Dhakal B. Can we get better information by any alternative to conventional statistical approaches for analysing land allocation decision problems? A case study on lowland rice varieties. Land Use Policy. (2016) 54:522–33. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.03.006
106. Singh VP, Barman KK, Singh PK, Singh R, Dixit A. Managing weeds in rice (Oryza sativa)-wheat (Triticum aestivum)-greengram (Vigna radiata) system under conservation agriculture in black cotton soils. Ind J Agric Sci. (2017) 87:739–45.
107. Bagheri A, Allahyari MS, Ashouri D. Interpretation on biological control adoption of the rice stem borer, Chilo suppressalis (Walker) in North Part of Iran: application for Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Egypt J Biol Pest Control. (2016) 26:27–33.
108. Ashoori D, Allahyari MSS, Damalas CAA, Bagheri A. Challenges for efficient land use in rice production of northern Iran: the use of modern cultivars among small-scale farmers. Land Use Policy. (2018) 76:29–35. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.04.044
109. Wehmeyer H, de Guia AH, Connor M. Reduction of fertilizer use in South China-Impacts and Implications on Smallholder Rice Farmers. Sustainability. (2020) 12:2240. doi: 10.3390/su12062240
110. Lashgarara F. Identification of influencing factors on adoption of sustainable agriculture among wheat farmers of Lorestan Province, Iran. Adv Environ Biol. (2011) 5:967–72.
111. Cai S, Zhou X. Modelling and empirical analysis for outsourcing agricultural services to control pests and diseases. Int J Simul. (2016) 17:1–10. doi: 10.5013/IJSSST.a.17.46.10
112. Ghimire R, Huang WC. Adoption pattern and welfare impact of agricultural technology: empirical evidence from rice farmers in Nepal. J South Asian Dev. (2016) 11:113–37. doi: 10.1177/0973174116629254
113. Sumner D, Christie ME, Boulakia S. Conservation agriculture and gendered livelihoods in Northwestern Cambodia: decision-making, space and access. Agric Human Values. (2017) 34:347–62. doi: 10.1007/s10460-016-9718-z
114. Fauzi MA, Nya-Ling CT, Thursamy R, Ojo AO. Knowledge sharing: Role of academics towards research productivity in higher learning institution. VINE J Inf Knowledge Manage Syst. (2019) 49:136–59. doi: 10.1108/VJIKMS-09-2018-0074
115. Alauddin M, Sarker MAR, Islam Z, Tisdell C. Adoption of alternate wetting and drying (AWD) irrigation as a water-saving technology in Bangladesh: economic and environmental considerations. Land Use Policy. (2020) 91:104430. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104430
116. Bidzakin JK, Fialor SC, Awunyo-Vitor D, Yahaya I. Contract farming and rice production efficiency in Ghana. J Agribus Dev Emerg Econ. (2020) 10:269–84. doi: 10.1108/JADEE-11-2018-0160
117. Chuang J-H, Wang J-H, Liou Y-C. Farmers’ knowledge, attitude, and adoption of smart agriculture technology in Taiwan. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2020) 17:1–8. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17197236
118. Nhat Lam Duyen T, Rañola RF, Sander BO, Wassmann R, Tien ND, Ngoc NNK. A comparative analysis of gender and youth issues in rice production in North, Central, and South Vietnam. Clim Dev. (2021) 13:115–27.
119. Koide J, Masuda M. Small-Scale rice irrigation technology in Southern Ghana: the challenges for sustainable uptake. Afr J Sci Technol Innov Dev. (2015) 7:1–7. doi: 10.1080/20421338.2014.969906
120. Kopytko N. Supporting sustainable innovations: an examination of india farmer agrobiodiversity conservation. J Environ Dev. (2019) 28:386–411. doi: 10.1177/1070496519870299
121. Ezeibe AB, Ifeyinwa OP, Chukwuma UO. Determinants for the adoption of technology and the choice of marketing channel for rice smallholder farmers in southeast Nigeria. J Anim Plant Sci. (2020) 30:1004–12. doi: 10.36899/JAPS.2020.4.0115
122. Abdul-Rahaman A, Issahaku G, Zereyesus YA. Improved rice variety adoption and farm production efficiency: accounting for unobservable selection bias and technology gaps among smallholder farmers in Ghana. Technol Soc. (2021) 64:1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101471
123. Shah MMI, Grant WJ, Stocklmayer S. Farmer innovativeness and hybrid rice diffusion in Bangladesh. Technol Forecast Soc Change. (2016) 108:54–62. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.04.015
124. Tsinigo E, Behrman JR. Technological priorities in rice production among smallholder farmers in Ghana. NJAS – Wagening J Life Sci. (2017) 83:47–56. doi: 10.1016/j.njas.2017.07.004
125. Donkor E, Owusu V, Owusu-Sekyere E, Ogundeji AA. The adoption of farm innovations among rice producers in Northern Ghana: implications for sustainable rice supply. Agriculture. (2018) 8:121. doi: 10.3390/agriculture8080121
126. Nwankwo UM, Bett RC, Peters KJ, Bokelmann W. Need-Based Innovation Motivates Attitude Change in Farmers: Evaluation of PROSAB Approach. Leuven: ISHS (2009). doi: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2009.832.21
127. Friedlander L, Tal A, Lazarovitch N. Technical considerations affecting adoption of drip irrigation in sub-Saharan Africa. Agric Water Manag. (2013) 126:125–32. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2013.04.014
128. Mannan S, Nordin SMSM, Rafik-Galea S, Ahmad Rizal ARAR. The ironies of new innovation and the sunset industry: diffusion and adoption. J Rural Stud. (2017) 55:316–22. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.07.015
129. Sánchez-Reparaz M, De Vente J, Famba S, Rollin D, Dolinska A, Rougier J-E, et al. Innovative Soil Fertility Management by Stakeholder Engagement in the Chókwè Irrigation Scheme (Mozambique)†. Irrig Drain. (2020) 69:49–59. doi: 10.1002/ird.2054
130. Bryant M, Higgins V. Securitising uncertainty: ontological security and cultural scripts in smart farming technology implementation. J Rural Stud. (2021) 81:315–23. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.10.051
131. Connor M, Tuan LA, DeGuia AH, Wehmeyer H. Sustainable rice production in the Mekong River Delta: factors influencing farmers’ adoption of the integrated technology package “One Must Do, Five Reductions” (1M5R). Outlook Agric. (2021) 50:90–104. doi: 10.1177/0030727020960165
132. Alarima CI, Kolawole A, Sodiya CI, Oladele OI, Masunaga T, Wakatsuki T. Factors affecting the adoption of sawah technology system of rice production in Nigeria. J Food Agric Environ. (2011) 9:177–82.
133. Rohila AK, Shehrawat PS, Kumar A, Malik JS. Awareness level of smart agricultural practices (SAPs) in Haryana. Ind J Agric Sci. (2018) 88:1920–5.
134. Singh SN, Sah AK, Prakash O, Singh RK, Singh VK. Assessing the impact of zero tilled wheat growing in rice (Oryza Sativa L.)–wheat (Triticum Aestivum L.) cropping systems: the case of central Uttar Pradesh in the Indo-Gangetic Plain. Outlook Agric. (2010) 39:197–202. doi: 10.5367/oa.2010.0007
135. Jamal K, Kamarulzaman NH, Abdullah AM, Ismail MM, Hashim M. Farmer’s acceptance towards fragrant rice farming: the case of non-granary areas in the East Coast, Malaysia. Int Food Res J. (2013) 20:2895–9.
136. Suvedi M, Ghimire R, Kaplowitz M. Farmers’ participation in extension programs and technology adoption in rural Nepal: a logistic regression analysis. J Agric Educ Extens. (2017) 23:351–71. doi: 10.1080/1389224X.2017.1323653
137. Walisinghe BRR, Ratnasiri S, Rohde N, Guest R. Does agricultural extension promote technology adoption in Sri Lanka. Int J Soc Econ. (2017) 44:2173–86. doi: 10.1108/IJSE-10-2016-0275
138. Perdinan P, Dewi NWS, Dharma AW. Lesson learnt from Smart Rice actions in Indonesia. Future Food. (2018) 6:9–20.
139. Adnan N, Nordin SM, Anwar A. Transition pathways for Malaysian paddy farmers to sustainable agricultural practices: an integrated exhibiting tactics to adopt Green fertilizer. Land Use Policy. (2020) 90:104255. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104255
140. Bulkis S, Rahmadanih R, Nasruddin A. Rice farmers’ adoption and economic benefits of integrated pest management in South Sulawesi province, Indonesia. J Agric Extens. (2020) 24:31–9. doi: 10.4314/jae.v24i2.4
141. Ojo TO, Baiyegunhi LJS. Determinants of climate change adaptation strategies and its impact on the net farm income of rice farmers in south-west Nigeria. Land Use Policy. (2020) 95:103946. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.04.007
142. Shahzad MF, Abdulai A. Adaptation to extreme weather conditions and farm performance in rural Pakistan. Agric Syst. (2020) 180:102772. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102772
143. Lowitt K, Hickey GM, Saint Ville A, Raeburn K, Thompson-Colón T, Laszlo S, et al. Factors affecting the innovation potential of smallholder farmers in the Caribbean Community. Reg Environ Change. (2015) 15:1367–77. doi: 10.1007/s10113-015-0805-2
144. White M, Heros E, Graterol E, Chirinda N, Pittelkow CM. Balancing Economic and Environmental Performance for Small-Scale Rice Farmers in Peru. Front Sustain Food Syst. (2020) 4:564418. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2020.564418
145. Zossou E, Saito K, Assouma-Imorou A, Ahouanton K, Tarfa BD. Participatory diagnostic for scaling a decision support tool for rice crop management in northern Nigeria. Dev Pract. (2020) 31:11–26. doi: 10.1080/09614524.2020.1770699
146. Razafimahatratra HM, Bignebat C, David-Benz H, Belieres JF, Penot E. Tryout and (Dis)adoption of conservation agriculture. Evidence from Western Madagascar. Land Use Policy. (2021) 100:104929. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104929
147. Adnan N, Nordin SM, Ali M. A solution for the sunset industry: adoption of green fertiliser technology amongst Malaysian paddy farmers. Land Use Policy. (2018) 79:575–84. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.08.033
148. Li Q, Yang W, Li K. Role of social learning in the diffusion of environmentally-friendly agricultural technology in China. Sustainability. (2018) 10:1527. doi: 10.3390/su10051527
149. Nyadzi E, Nyamekye AB, Werners SE, Biesbroek RG, Dewulf A, Slobbe EV, et al. Diagnosing the potential of hydro-climatic information services to support rice farming in northern Ghana. NJAS – Wagening J Life Sci. (2018) 86–87:51–63. doi: 10.1016/j.njas.2018.07.002
150. Tran TA, Nguyen TH, Vo TT. Adaptation to flood and salinity environments in the vietnamese mekong delta: empirical analysis of farmer-led innovations. Agric Water Manag. (2019) 216:89–97. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2019.01.020
151. Negi DS, Birthal P, Kumar A, Tripathi G. Farmers’ social networks and the diffusion of modern crop varieties in India. Int J Emerg Mark. (2020) 17:368–85. doi: 10.1108/IJOEM-04-2020-0407
152. Paik S, Le DTP, Nhu LT, Mills BF. Salt-tolerant rice variety adoption in the Mekong River Delta: farmer adaptation to sea-level rise. PLoS One. (2020) 15:e0229464. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229464
153. Tanko M. Is farming a belief in Northern Ghana? Exploring the dual-system theory for commerce, culture, religion and technology. Technol Soc. (2020) 63:101339. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101339
154. Kamruzzaman M, Daniell KA, Chowdhury A, Crimp S. The role of extension and advisory services in strengthening farmers’ innovation networks to adapt to climate extremes. Sustainability. (2021) 13:1941. doi: 10.3390/su13041941
155. Uduji JI, Okolo-Obasi EN, Asongu SA. Does growth enhancement support scheme (GESS) contribute to youth development in informal farm entrepreneurship? Evidence from rural communities in Nigeria. J Enterpris Commun. (2021) 15:451–76. doi: 10.1108/JEC-06-2020-0116
156. Kolade O, Harpham T, Kibreab G. Institutional barriers to successful innovations: perceptions of rural farmers and key stakeholders in southwest Nigeria. Afr J Sci Technol Innov Dev. (2014) 6:339–54. doi: 10.1080/20421338.2014.966039
157. Mazhar R, Ghafoor A, Xuehao B, Wei Z. Fostering sustainable agriculture: do institutional factors impact the adoption of multiple climate-smart agricultural practices among new entry organic farmers in Pakistan? J Clean Prod. (2021) 283:124620. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124620
158. Chekene M, Chancellor T. Factors Affecting the Adoption of Improved Rice Varieties in Borno State, Nigeria. J Agric Extens. (2015) 19:21. doi: 10.4314/jae.v19i2.2
159. Farnworth CR, Ha TT, Sander BO, Wollenberg E, De Haan NC, McGuire S. Incorporating gender into low-emission development: a case study from Vietnam. Gend Technol Dev. (2017) 21:5–30. doi: 10.1080/09718524.2017.1385314
160. Ashoori D, Allahyari MS, Bagheri A, Damalas CA. Adoption determinants of modern rice cultivars among smallholders of Northern Iran. Agriculture. (2019) 9:232. doi: 10.3390/agriculture9110232
161. Kumar A, Takeshima H, Thapa G, Adhikari N, Saroj S, Karkee M, et al. Adoption and diffusion of improved technologies and production practices in agriculture: insights from a donor-led intervention in Nepal. Land Use Policy. (2020) 95:104621. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104621
162. Mardiharini M, Hanifah VW, Dewi YA. Advisory innovation model on Indonesian farmers corporation’s development. Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. London: (2021). doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/644/1/012051
163. Zhou SD, Herzfeld T, Glauben T, Zhang YH, Hu BC. Factors affecting Chinese farmers’ decisions to adopt a water-saving technology. Can J Agric Econ. (2008) 56:51–61. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7976.2007.00116.x
164. Bagheri A, Bondori A, Damalas CA. Modeling cereal farmers’ intended and actual adoption of integrated crop management (ICM) practices. J Rural Stud. (2019) 70:58–65. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.05.009
165. Tambo JA, Uzayisenga B, Mugambi I, Bundi M, Silvestri S. Plant clinics, farm performance and poverty alleviation: panel data evidence from Rwanda. World Dev. (2020) 129:104881. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.104881
166. Tambo JA, Uzayisenga B, Mugambi I, Bundi M. Do Plant Clinics Improve Household Food Security? Evidence from Rwanda. J Agric Econ. (2021) 72:97–116. doi: 10.1111/1477-9552.12391
167. Kwade PC, Lugu BK, Lukman S, Quist CE, Chu J. Farmers’ attitude towards the use of genetically modified crop technology in Southern Ghana: the mediating role of risk perception. AIMS Agric Food. (2019) 4:833–58. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.4.833
168. Stone GD, Flachs A, Diepenbrock C. Rhythms of the herd: long term dynamics in seed choice by Indian farmers. Technol Soc. (2014) 36:26–38. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2013.10.003
169. Ajzen I, Fishbein M, Atomic I, Agency E, Federal T, Commission T. Theory of reasoned action/theory of planned behavior. Soc Psychol. (1980) 2007:67–98. doi: 10.5771/9783845260341_1
170. Duyen TNL, Ranola RF, Sander BO, Wassmann R, Tien ND, Ngoc NNK. A comparative analysis of gender and youth issues in rice production in North Central, and South Vietnam. Clim Dev. (2021) 13:115–27.
171. Redza A, Nordin SM, Saad S, Wahab H. Inter-organization Communication Management between Organizations in a Subsidized Fertilizer Market in Malaysia. UMK Procedia. (2014) 1:33–41. doi: 10.1016/j.umkpro.2014.07.005
172. Egyir IS, Owusu-Benoah E, Anno-Nyako FO, Banful B. Assessing the factors of adoption of agrochemicals by plantain farmers in Ghana. J Enterpris Commun. (2011) 5:83–97. doi: 10.1108/17506201111119617
173. Lindberg J, Palmås K. Winning the hearts and minds of farmers: institutionalized innovation diffusion in Sri Lanka. Geogr Ann Ser B Hum Geogr. (2013) 95:339–53. doi: 10.1111/geob.12029
174. Bentley JW, Van Mele P, Barres NF, Okry F, Wanvoeke J. Smallholders download and share videos from the Internet to learn about sustainable agriculture. Int J Agric Sustain. (2019) 17:92–107. doi: 10.1080/14735903.2019.1567246
175. Cafer AM, Rikoon JS. Adoption of new technologies by smallholder farmers: the contributions of extension, research institutes, cooperatives, and access to cash for improving tef production in Ethiopia. Agric Hum Values. (2018) 35:685–99. doi: 10.1007/s10460-018-9865-5
176. Saka JO, Lawal BO. Determinants of adoption and productivity of improved rice varieties in southwestern Nigeria. Afr J Biotechnol. (2009) 8:4923–32.
Keywords: food crop, innovation, adoption, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), food security, diffusion, farmers
Citation: Ahmad Rizal AR and Md Nordin S (2022) Getting ahead of the pandemic curve: A systematic review of critical determining factors for innovation adoption in ensuring food security. Front. Nutr. 9:986324. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2022.986324
Received: 05 July 2022; Accepted: 03 October 2022;
Published: 03 November 2022.
Edited by:
Arun Jyoti Nath, Assam University, IndiaReviewed by:
Apurbo Sarkar, The University of Queensland, AustraliaShuvasish Choudhury, Assam University, India
Copyright © 2022 Ahmad Rizal and Md Nordin. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Ammar Redza Ahmad Rizal, YXJhcmVkemFAdWttLmVkdS5teQ==