Summary of literature review
| Researches on CAP | Methodology adopted | Findings | Future research direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hermans et al., 2020 | Systematic study | The findings on review of published studies reveal that there exist two distinct approaches on understanding, “what forms the conservational agriculture practices” | Because the adoption rate of CAP are reported low, there is a need to develop improved understanding of farmer CAP adoption and decision-making |
| Yoder et al., 2019 | Systematic study | These findings revealed that CAP adoption researches seldom situates farmers in their institutional contexts | This study recommends that future research may track how knowledge about adoption feedbacks into farmer’s perception, beliefs and social norms towards adoption |
| Findlater et al., 2019 | Quantitative survey approach | The findings showed that the implementation of CAP is highly variable among farmers in South Africa | There is a serious risk of misunderstanding of concept of CAP at farmer’s level of South Africa, which is also a serious concern for CAP researchers |
| Olum et al., 2020 | Systematic study | The findings revealed that the determinants of farmer’s willingness to accept CAP can be grouped into sociodemographic, biophysical, technological, institutional and behavioural factors | A number of consistent factors have been identified through this review that needs to be empirically explored in relation to the adoption of CAP practices |
| Syan et al., 2019 | Quantitative survey approach | The results of the study confirmed that perceived usefulness, self-efficacy and extension services play a significant role, whereas social capital, facilitating conditions and compatibility have no significant impact on the decisions to implement CAP | Future study can be further extended to examine the effect of sociocultural and other attitudinal factors on farmers’ intention towards CAP |
| Ward et al., 2018 | Observational and experimental analysis | This study finds a find strong evidence of interrelated decisions, particularly among mulching crop residues and practicing zero tillage, suggesting that mulching residues and intercropping or rotating with legumes introduces a multiplier effect on the adoption of zero tillage | This study suggests that there is a range of factors that are correlated with CAP adoption, thus needs to be empirically explored |
| Chandra et al., 2017 | Systematic Analysis | The findings of study suggests that climate-smart agriculture such as conservational agriculture practices is a fairly new concept framed around three pillars at global, developed and developing countries level | Study suggests that the new researches are required to understand the differences in both developing and developed countries |
| Kassam et al., 2018 | Survey approach | The findings suggest that CAP was practised globally, corresponding to about 12.5% of the total global cropland. In 2008/2009, the spread of CAP was reported to an increase of some 69% globally. In 2015/2016, CAP adoption was reported by 78 countries, an increase in adoption by 42 more countries since 2008/2009, respectively. The largest extents of adoption are in South and North America, followed by Australia and New Zealand, Asia, Russia and Ukraine, Europe and Africa | This study suggests that CAP is the future sustainable agriculture. Thus, more empirical research on CAP are suggested for new researches |
| Daxini et al., 2018 | Quantitative survey approach | The results showed that the farmer’s attitudes, subjective norms (social pressure), perceived behavioural control (ease/difficulty) and perceived resources are significant and positively associated with farmers' intentions to adopt CAP | Future research are suggested to empirically explore the other possible factors that may affect the intention of farmers. Furthermore, the actual adoption level of farmers may also be explored in future research |
| Researches on CAP | Methodology adopted | Findings | Future research direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Systematic study | The findings on review of published studies reveal that there exist two distinct approaches on understanding, “what forms the conservational agriculture practices” | Because the adoption rate of CAP are reported low, there is a need to develop improved understanding of farmer CAP adoption and decision-making | |
| Systematic study | These findings revealed that CAP adoption researches seldom situates farmers in their institutional contexts | This study recommends that future research may track how knowledge about adoption feedbacks into farmer’s perception, beliefs and social norms towards adoption | |
| Quantitative survey approach | The findings showed that the implementation of CAP is highly variable among farmers in South Africa | There is a serious risk of misunderstanding of concept of CAP at farmer’s level of South Africa, which is also a serious concern for CAP researchers | |
| Systematic study | The findings revealed that the determinants of farmer’s willingness to accept CAP can be grouped into sociodemographic, biophysical, technological, institutional and behavioural factors | A number of consistent factors have been identified through this review that needs to be empirically explored in relation to the adoption of CAP practices | |
| Quantitative survey approach | The results of the study confirmed that perceived usefulness, self-efficacy and extension services play a significant role, whereas social capital, facilitating conditions and compatibility have no significant impact on the decisions to implement CAP | Future study can be further extended to examine the effect of sociocultural and other attitudinal factors on farmers’ intention towards CAP | |
| Observational and experimental analysis | This study finds a find strong evidence of interrelated decisions, particularly among mulching crop residues and practicing zero tillage, suggesting that mulching residues and intercropping or rotating with legumes introduces a multiplier effect on the adoption of zero tillage | This study suggests that there is a range of factors that are correlated with CAP adoption, thus needs to be empirically explored | |
| Systematic Analysis | The findings of study suggests that climate-smart agriculture such as conservational agriculture practices is a fairly new concept framed around three pillars at global, developed and developing countries level | Study suggests that the new researches are required to understand the differences in both developing and developed countries | |
| Survey approach | The findings suggest that CAP was practised globally, corresponding to about 12.5% of the total global cropland. In 2008/2009, the spread of CAP was reported to an increase of some 69% globally. In 2015/2016, CAP adoption was reported by 78 countries, an increase in adoption by 42 more countries since 2008/2009, respectively. The largest extents of adoption are in South and North America, followed by Australia and New Zealand, Asia, Russia and Ukraine, Europe and Africa | This study suggests that CAP is the future sustainable agriculture. Thus, more empirical research on CAP are suggested for new researches | |
| Quantitative survey approach | The results showed that the farmer’s attitudes, subjective norms (social pressure), perceived behavioural control (ease/difficulty) and perceived resources are significant and positively associated with farmers' intentions to adopt CAP | Future research are suggested to empirically explore the other possible factors that may affect the intention of farmers. Furthermore, the actual adoption level of farmers may also be explored in future research |
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.