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

Nature Sustainability - Tập 3 Số 10 - Trang 809-820
Valeria Piñeiro1, Joaquín Arias2, J. Dürr3, Pablo Elverdin4, Ana María Ibáñez5, Alison Annet Kinengyere6, Cristián Opazo7, Nkechi S. Owoo8, Jessica Page9, Steven D. Prager10, Máximo Torero7
1International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC, USA
2Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA), Panama City, Panama
3Center for Development Research (ZEF), Bonn, Germany
4Group of Producing Countries from the Southern Cone (GPS), Buenos Aires, Argentina
5Inter-American Development Bank (IADB), Washington DC, USA
6Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda
7Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Rome, Italy
8University of Ghana, ACCRA, Ghana
9Ohio State University (OSU), Columbus, OH, USA
10International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Cali, Colombia

Tóm tắt

AbstractThe increasing pressure on agricultural production systems to achieve global food security and prevent environmental degradation necessitates a transition towards more sustainable practices. The purpose of this scoping review is to understand how the incentives offered to farmers motivate the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices and, ultimately, how and whether they result in measurable outcomes. To this end, this scoping review examines the evidence of nearly 18,000 papers on whether incentive-based programmes lead to the adoption of sustainable practices and their effect on environmental, economic and productivity outcomes. We find that independent of the incentive type, programmes linked to short-term economic benefit have a higher adoption rate than those aimed solely at providing an ecological service. In the long run, one of the strongest motivations for farmers to adopt sustainable practices is perceived benefits for either their farms, the environment or both. Beyond this, the importance of technical assistance and extension services in promoting sustainable practices emerges strongly from this scoping review. Finally, we find that policy instruments are more effective if their design considers the characteristics of the target population, and the associated trade-offs between economic, environmental and social outcomes.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Wheaton, E. & Kulshreshtha, S. Environmental sustainability of agriculture stressed by changing extremes of drought and excess moisture: a conceptual review. Sustainability 9, 970 (2017).

Herrera, H. Resilience for whom? The problem structuring process of the resilience analysis. Sustainability 9, 1196 (2017).

Teklewold, H., Kassie, M. & Shiferaw, B. Adoption of multiple sustainable agricultural practices in rural Ethiopia. J. Agric. Econ. 64, 597–623 (2013).

Barnes, A. et al. Influencing factors and incentives on the intention to adopt precision agricultural technologies within arable farming systems. Environ. Sci. Policy 93, 66–74 (2019).

Schirmer, J., Dovers, S. & Clayton, H. Informing conservation policy design through an examination of landholder preferences: a case study of scattered tree conservation in Australia. Biol. Conserv. 153, 51–63 (2012).

Caviglia-Harris, J. L. Sustainable agricultural practices in Rondônia, Brazil: do local farmer organizations affect adoption rates? Econ. Dev. Cult. Change 52, 23–49 (2003).

Garbach, K., Lubell, M. & DeClerck, F. A. J. Payment for ecosystem services: the roles of positive incentives and information sharing in stimulating adoption of silvopastoral conservation practices. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 156, 27–36 (2012).

Winters, P., Crissman, C. C. & Espinosa, P. Inducing the adoption of conservation technologies: lessons from the Ecuadorian Andes. Environ. Dev. Econ. 9, 695–719 (2004).

Gibbon, P. & Bolwig, S. The Economics of Certified Organic Farming in Tropical Africa: A Preliminary Assessment (DIIS, 2007); https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/84534

Khanna, M., Isik, M. & Zilberman, D. Cost-effectiveness of alternative green payment policies for conservation technology adoption with heterogeneous land quality. Agric. Econ. 27, 157–174 (2002).

Himberg, N., Omoro, L., Pellikka, P. & Luukkanen, O. The benefits and constraints of participation in forest management. The case of Taita Hills, Kenya. Fennia 187, 61–76 (2009).

Zapata, Á., Murgueitio, E., Mejía, C., Zuluaga, A. F. & Ibrahim, M. Effects of payments for environmental services in the adoption of silvopastoral systems in cattle landscape in the middle watershed of Río La Vieja, Colombia. Agroforest. Am. 45, 8 (2007).

Wunder, S., Engel, S. & Pagiola, S. Taking stock: a comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecol. Econ. 65, 834–852 (2008).

Marenya, P., Nkonya, E., Xiong, W., Deustua, J. & Kato, E. Which policy would work better for improved soil fertility management in sub-Saharan Africa, fertilizer subsidies or carbon credits? Agric. Syst. 110, 162–172 (2012).

Cole, R. J. Social and environmental impacts of payments for environmental services for agroforestry on small-scale farms in southern Costa Rica. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 17, 208–216 (2010).

Wünscher, T., Engel, S. & Wunder, S. Spatial targeting of payments for environmental services: a tool for boosting conservation benefits. Ecol. Econ. 65, 822–833 (2008).

Wei, Y., Chen, D., Hu, K., Willett, I. R. & Langford, J. Policy incentives for reducing nitrate leaching from intensive agriculture in desert oases of Alxa, Inner Mongolia, China. Agric. Water Manag. 96, 1114–1119 (2009).

Lungarska, A. & Chakir, R. Climate-induced land use change in France: impacts of agricultural adaptation and climate change mitigation. Ecol. Econ. 147, 134–154 (2018).

Sheng, J., Qiu, H. & Zhang, S. Opportunity cost, income structure, and energy structure for landholders participating in payments for ecosystem services: evidence from Wolong National Nature Reserve, China. World Dev. 117, 230–238 (2019).

Kiem, A. S. Drought and water policy in Australia: challenges for the future illustrated by the issues associated with water trading and climate change adaptation in the Murray–Darling Basin. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 1615–1626 (2013).

Ward, P. S., Bell, A. R., Parkhurst, G. M., Droppelmann, K. & Mapemba, L. Heterogeneous preferences and the effects of incentives in promoting conservation agriculture in Malawi. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 222, 67–79 (2016).

Weltin, M. & Zasada, I. Farmers’ choices of adopting and coupling strategies of sustainable intensification—evidence from European farm level data. In 13th European International Farming Systems Association (IFSA) Symposium, Farming Systems: Facing Uncertainties and Enhancing Opportunities 1–11 (IFSA, 2018).

Reid, G. H. Building resilience to climate change in rain-fed agricultural enterprises: an integrated property planning tool. Agric. Hum. Values 26, 391–397 (2009).

Ariti, A. T., van Vliet, J. & Verburg, P. H. Farmers’ participation in the development of land use policies for the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Land Use Policy 71, 129–137 (2018).

Kingwell, R., John, M. & Robertson, M. A review of a community-based approach to combating land degradation: dryland salinity management in Australia. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 10, 899–912 (2008).

Cotler Ávalos, H., Cram Heydrich, S., Martinez Trinidad, S. & Bunge, V. Conservation practices assessment in forest soils of Mexico: the case of the ditches. Investig. Geográf. https://doi.org/10.14350/rig.47378 (2015).

Nakano, Y., Tanaka, Y. & Otsuka, K. Impact of training on the intensification of rice farming: evidence from rainfed areas in Tanzania. Agric. Econ. 49, 193–202 (2018).

Santiago, T. M. O., Caviglia-Harris, J. & Pereira de Rezende, J. L. Carrots, sticks and the Brazilian Forest Code: the promising response of small landowners in the Amazon. J. For. Econ. 30, 38–51 (2018).

Bremer, L. L., Farley, K. A. & Lopez-Carr, D. What factors influence participation in payment for ecosystem services programs? An evaluation of Ecuador’s SocioPáramo program. Land Use Policy 36, 122–133 (2014).

Kumar, A. et al. Adoption and Diffusion of Improved Technologies and Production Practices in Agriculture: Insights from a Donor-Led Intervention in Nepal (IFPRI, 2018); https://go.nature.com/3i8xusc

Adhikari, R. K., Kindu, M., Pokharel, R., Castro, L. M. & Knoke, T. Financial compensation for biodiversity conservation in Ba Be National Park of Northern Vietnam. J. Nat. Conserv. 35, 92–100 (2017).

Alix-Garcia, J. M., Sims, K. R. E. & Yañez-Pagans, P. Only one tree from each seed? Environmental effectiveness and poverty alleviation in Mexico’s payments for ecosystem services program. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 7, 1–40 (2015).

Vollmer-Sanders, C., Wolf, C. & Batie, S. S. Financial and environmental consequences of a voluntary farm environmental assurance program in Michigan. J. Soil Water Conserv. 66, 122–131 (2011).

Ipe, V. C. A group incentive program for farmer adoption of best practices: an application to the nitrate pollution problem in central Illinois. In American Agricultural Economics Association (AAEA) 1999 Annual Meeting 25 (AAEA, 1999).

Alves-Pinto, H. N., Hawes, J. E., Newton, P., Feltran-Barbieri, R. & Peres, C. A. Economic impacts of payments for environmental services on livelihoods of agro-extractivist communities in the Brazilian Amazon. Ecol. Econ. 152, 378–388 (2018).

Ragasa, C., Lambrecht, I. & Kufoalor, D. S. Limitations of contract farming as a pro-poor strategy: the case of maize outgrower schemes in upper West Ghana. World Dev. 102, 30–56 (2018).

Maffioli, A., Ubfal, D., Vazquez-Bare, G. & Cerdan-Infantes, P. Improving technology adoption in agriculture through extension services: evidence from Uruguay. J. Dev. Effect. 5, 64–81 (2013).

Green, K. M., DeWan, A., Arias, A. B. & Hayden, D. Driving adoption of payments for ecosystem services through social marketing, Veracruz, Mexico. Conserv. Evid. 10, 48–52 (2013).

Giller, K. E., Witter, E., Corbeels, M. & Tittonell, P. Conservation agriculture and smallholder farming in Africa: the heretics’ view. Field Crops Res. 114, 23–34 (2009).

Tricco, A. C. et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann. Intern. Med. 169, 467–473 (2018).

Peters, M. D. J. et al. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int. J. Evid. Based Healthc. 13, 141–146 (2015).

Guidelines for Systematic Review and Evidence Synthesis in Environmental Management (Collaboration for Environmental Evidence, 2013); https://go.nature.com/2Hyd0fD

Arksey, H. & O’Malley, L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 8, 19–32 (2005).

Levac, D., Colquhoun, H. & O’Brien, K. K. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement. Sci. 5, 69 (2010).

Piñiero, V. et al. Market, regulatory and compliance incentives for farmers to adopt environmentally sustainable practices: a protocol for a systematic map. Open Science Framework https://osf.io/cmhuq (2019).

Covidence Systematic Review Software (Veritas Health Innovation); www.covidence.org

Waffenschmidt, S., Knelangen, M., Sieben, W., Bühn, S. & Pieper, D. Single screening versus conventional double screening for study selection in systematic reviews: a methodological systematic review. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 19, 132 (2019).

Ward, J. H. Jr. Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 58, 236–244 (1963).

Demšar, J. et al. Orange: data mining toolbox in python. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 14, 2349–2353 (2013).

Barrett, C., Ghezzi-Kopel, K., Hoddinott, J., Tennant, E. & Upton, J. The state of the literature on individual and household resilience: a scoping review. Open Science Framework https://doi.org/10.17605/osf.io/5rgb7 (2019).

What are Market and Non-Market Mechanisms? (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, accessed 10 August 2020); https://go.nature.com/2S7WgxO

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Nature Sustainability

Tập 3 Số 10

809-820

Thông tin tác giả