Abstract
Although policy and advisory communities have promoted the use of digital advisory services (DAS) to stimulate technology adoption among smallholder farmers, little is known about whether DAS use encourages farmers to adopt climate-smart agricultural (CSA) technologies. This study addresses the gap by estimating data collected from 3197 maize-producing households in rural Ghana and considering three CSA technologies: row planting, zero tillage, and drought-tolerant seeds. A recursive bivariate probit model is utilized to mitigate selection bias issues. The results show that DAS use significantly increases the probabilities of adopting row planting, zero tillage, and drought-tolerant seeds by 12.4%, 4.2%, and 4.6%, respectively. Maize farmers’ decisions to use DAS are influenced by their age, gender, education, family size, asset value, distance to farm, perceived incidence of pest and disease, perceived drought stress, and membership in farmer-based organizations (FBO). Furthermore, the disaggregated analysis reveals that DAS use has a larger impact on the row planting adoption of female farmers than males.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Small-scale farming in developing countries is highly vulnerable to weather variability, droughts, and unpredictable precipitation, influencing agricultural production and many households’ welfare (Olagunju et al. 2020; Dhanya et al. 2022). To address the climate change-induced challenges, policymakers and advisory communities are promoting various technologies such as climate-smart agricultural (CSA) technologies. CSA technologies include a variety of technologies, practices, and services that have the potential to reduce the effects of climate change on agricultural systems (Khatri-Chhetri et al. 2017). They include water-smart technologies (e.g., rainwater harvesting), energy-smart technologies (e.g., zero tillage), nutrient-smart technologies (e.g., intercropping with legumes), weather-smart technologies (e.g., climate-smart housing for livestock), and knowledge-smart technologies (e.g., improved crop varieties) (Khatri-Chhetri et al. 2017; Jones et al. 2023; Tadesse and Ahmed 2023; Li et al. 2024; Vishnoi and Kumar 2024).
CSA technologies are linked to many outcomes, including enhancing farm productivity (Mossie 2022; Balasundram et al. 2023), boosting rural incomes (Dhaoui et al. 2020; Khoza et al. 2021; Awotide et al. 2022), alleviating poverty (Azzarri and Signorelli 2020; Kilombele et al. 2023), enhancing soil fertility (Ogieriakhi and Woodward 2022), and mitigating the negative environmental impacts of agriculture (Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO] 2018). Several empirical studies have analyzed the effects of CSA technologies on various economic and environmental outcomes. For example, Tabe-Ojong et al. (2023) found that CSA adoption increases crop yields and food security for farmers in Ghana, Mali, and Nigeria. Tadesse and Ahmed (2023) found that CSA adoption improves soil fertility and dietary diversity in Ethiopia. Similarly, the use of drought-tolerant seeds has been found to enhance maize productivity (Simtowe et al. 2019; Olagunju et al. 2020), increase farm income (Fentie and Beyene 2019; Abebe et al. 2023), and improve food security (Khoza et al. 2021; Awotide et al. 2022). Adopting row planting and zero tillage technologies has increased farm output and income (Fentie and Beyene 2019; Tamirat 2020; Mossie 2022) and lowered global warming in Africa (Keil et al. 2020).
While significant progress has been made in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) towards the adoption of CSA technologies such as drought-tolerant seeds, row planting, and zero tillage, there is little information on how CSA technologies should be promoted and disseminated in African countries such as Ghana (Ehiakpor et al. 2021; Balasundram et al. 2023). One of the impediments to the effective dissemination and adoption of CSA technologies is a lack of communication infrastructure. Only 30% of the SSA population is estimated to be active users of information and communication technologies (ICTs) (Goedde et al. 2021; Onyeneke et al. 2023). This low ICT usage is attributed to a lack of institutional support, communication infrastructure development, high technology costs, and a lack of digital skills (Cariolle 2021; Klerkx et al. 2019; Li et al. 2021). Nonetheless, the growth of mobile phones in the last decade has been a positive story in ICT, particularly in SSA (Adenubi et al. 2021).
Leveraging the growth of mobile phones and other ICTs, research and policy on digital advisory services (DAS) are gaining traction in SSA to reduce information asymmetry and provide climate-smart information to smallholder farmers (Adenubi et al. 2021; Asongu et al. 2019; Tchamyou et al. 2018). DASs are tools and platforms that integrate climate information into agricultural decision-making processes, including mobile applications, radios, online platforms, and extension services to promote knowledge exchange and aid farmers in adopting CSA technologies (FAO 2023). Thus, encouraging farmers to adopt new agricultural technologies, including CSA, through DAS remains a top priority for the government and non-governmental organizations in many developing countries, including Ghana (Khoza et al. 2021; Ngigi and Muange 2022). For example, policies promoting DAS include the IFAD’s Rural Poverty Stimulus Facility, which provided personalized agricultural advice to 1.7 million small-scale producers in Kenya, Nigeria, and Pakistan, including women and youth, to improve productivity, profitability, and environmental sustainability during COVID-19. Several studies have shown that adopting information technologies can improve crop performance (Ogutu et al. 2014; Khan et al. 2022), increase farm income (Ma et al. 2020; Khan et al. 2022), and aid rural advancement (Ma et al. 2022; Spielman et al. 2021). Mobile phones and emails have also improved peasant crop production (Otter and Theuvsen 2014; Deng et al. 2019; Spielman et al. 2021). Implementing ICT-based market information systems has also increased resource utilization (Ogutu et al. 2014).
However, empirical evidence linking DAS use and CSA technology adoption by smallholder farmers is scarce. Only a few studies have focused on this area; these include Singh et al. (2019, who found that Agro-Advisory Services, a type of DAS, aided farmers’ adoption of climate-smart practices in India, whereas Amith et al. (2022) found that Agromet Advisory Services aided farmers’ adoption of climate-smart practices in India. Aside from the studies in India, there is a lack of studies in other countries, particularly Ghana, that assess the linkage between DSA and CSA.
This study, therefore, aims to contribute to the literature by (i) investigating the impacts of DAS use on CSA technology adoption in Ghana and (ii) estimating the disaggregated impacts of DAS use, taking gender and geographical location into consideration. The research specifically contributes to the literature in three ways. First, it examines the impact of DAS use on CSA technology adoption in Ghana, the first to do so. We use a recursive bivariate probit (RBP) model to address the self-selection bias issues when farmers choose to use DAS. Second, we investigate the average treatment effect of DAS use on CSA technology adoption and estimate the disaggregated impacts of DAS use, taking gender and geographical location into account. As shown in the previous studies (Taylor and Silver 2019; Leng et al. 2020; Nikam et al. 2022), gender gaps and geographical differences exist in the use of DAS and are likely to impact the adoption of CSA technology adoption differently. Given the significant differences in demographic and institutional conditions and information technology infrastructure across Ghanaian regions, we hypothesize that these differences will influence DAS use and CSA technology adoption. The findings of this study can provide decision-makers and policymakers with information and insights into how farmers in various regions use DAS to adopt CSA technologies. It can inform the development of strategies to improve farmers’ use of DAS, encouraging the adoption of CSA technologies and ensuring food security.
We focus on maize production because it is one of the most important cereal crops globally, alongside rice and wheat (Ranum et al. 2014; Pauw 2022; Ankrah et al. 2023). In Ghana, maize is important as a staple food, being widely consumed across various regions (Ankrah et al. 2023; Prah et al. 2023). Maize cultivation covers over 14% of the total cultivated land in the country, playing a vital role in improving rural livelihoods (Pauw 2022; Ankrah et al. 2023). In 2021, the country achieved a record high production of 3.5 million metric tons, marking the highest output since 2010 (Ankrah et al. 2023; Prah et al. 2023). Ghana’s maize yield is among the lowest globally, with estimates ranging from 1.2 to 1.8 tonnes per hectare (Asante et al. 2019; Obour et al. 2022; Prah et al. 2023). However, it is estimated that Ghana could yield 4 to 6 tonnes per hectare (MoFA 2015; Wongnaa et al. 2019; Obour et al. 2022). Adopting improved practices and techniques, such as CSA technologies (drought-tolerant seeds, row planting, and zero tillage) via DAS, could contribute to such yield targets.
This paper is organized in the following ways: Conceptual framework is the next section. Section 3 presents the methodology comprised of the study sites, data and descriptive statistics, and analytical strategy. Section 4 presents empirical results and discussion, whereas Section 5 encompasses the conclusion and policy implications.
2 Conceptual framework
Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between the use of DAS and CSA technologies, highlighting how farmers’ decisions can conceptually influence the adoption of CSA technologies. DAS use can reduce the information asymmetry associated with CSA technologies and encourage farmers to adopt climate-smart practices and technologies (Amith et al. 2022; Fernando 2021; Kumar et al. 2022). Given the vulnerability of farming systems to climate change, such as changes in temperature and rainfall patterns, as well as the occurrence of droughts, farmers frequently seek advice to mitigate these risks, as these factors can have a negative impact on crop yields (Makate et al. 2019a; Antwi-Agyei and Stringer 2021). This shapes farmers’ information needs and information-seeking behavior, motivating them to seek advisory services to implement certain climate-smart technologies (Amadu et al. 2020; Khoza et al. 2021). Such information is commonly facilitated through traditional agricultural extension agencies and diverse information technologies, including television, radio, smartphones, computers, and the internet (Ma et al. 2020; Ngigi and Muange 2022).
DAS can significantly increase CSA technology adoption by providing critical information, fostering social capital, and promoting stakeholder communication, thereby improving learning opportunities and the adoption process (Eakin et al. 2015; Aldosari et al. 2019). Thus, access to appropriate advisory services, enabled by smartphones and computers, is crucial for farmers to incorporate CSA technologies and improve crop yields effectively.
Farmers’ utilization of DAS is determined by various factors, including farmers’ characteristics, farm level, institutional and location factors, and communication infrastructure (Spielman et al. 2021; Dhanya et al. 2022; Khan et al. 2022). Empirical studies indicate that farmers with higher levels of literacy, income, farming experience, family size, credit access, asset value, farm size, and membership in farmer-based groups are more likely to access farming-related information through ICTs (Raza et al. 2020; Nikam et al. 2022). Digital literacy is crucial for farmers to use ICT tools in agriculture effectively (Khan et al. 2022). Farmers who lack essential reading and writing skills may struggle to access and utilize information provided through advanced DAS, such as smartphone applications and social media (Khan et al. 2022; Leng et al. 2020; Singh et al. 2019). As shown by studies in Africa, access to information through DAS can also improve smallholder farmers’ awareness of weather and production shocks, leading to increased adoption of CSA technologies (Weniga et al. 2019; Antwi-Agyei and Stringer 2021; Kumar et al. 2022).
In addition to the factors influencing farmers’ decisions to use DAS, farmers’ socioeconomic, institutional, and location attributes can also affect their adoption of CSA technologies. Farmers’ characteristics such as age, gender, household size, plot size, income, experience, and education level have been found to influence their decision to adopt CSA technologies (Makate et al. 2019a; Simtowe et al. 2019; Weniga et al. 2019). Furthermore, institutional factors (i.e., access to credit, farmer-based groups, extension services, and road accessibility) play a crucial role in the adoption of CSA technologies (Makate et al. 2019a; Amadu et al. 2020; Khoza et al. 2021; Ma et al. 2022; Ngigi and Muange 2022). For instance, access to credit can ease the financial burden associated with adopting CSA technologies, as farmers may use the obtained credit to purchase ICTs such as smartphones and computers (Ma et al. 2022). As a network, farmer groups may facilitate known externalities, such as interactions among network members that can influence individual behavior to adopt CSA technologies (Khoza et al. 2021; Addai et al. 2021). Moreover, farmer groups may assist farmers in making informed decisions concerning crop management, technology choice, and marketing (Gangopadhyay et al. 2019; Nikam et al. 2022).
3 Methodology
3.1 Study area and sampling methods
The data used for analysis in this study were collected between August and December 2021, focusing on maize farmers in Ghana’s Brong Ahafo, Ashanti, and Northern regions. Figure 2 shows the map of the study area. The study considered three agroecological zones: Transition (Nkoranza, Ejura-Sekyeredumasi, and Kintampo South districts), Guinea Savannah (Zabzugu and East Gonja districts), and semi-deciduous forest zones (Ejisu-Juaben district). Farmers were selected using a multistage sampling technique, starting with a purposive selection of the three regions with high maize production in Ghana. Two high-producing maize districts were selected from each region, including Nkoranza and Kintampo South from Bono East, Ejisu-Juaben and Ejura-Sekyeredumasi from Ashanti, Zabzugu and East Gonja from the Northern region (MoFA 2015), and eight purposefully selected communities from each district. Between 60 and 70 maize farmers were randomly selected from each community, resulting in a sample size of 3197 maize farmers, with 2765 male-headed households and 432 female-headed households.
We employed positivism and quantitative research design. We used a structured questionnaire to gather data on farmer and farm-level characteristics, institutional and CSA technologies, production and weather shocks, and location variables in the study area. Before the formal survey, 50 maize farmers were interviewed in two selected communities, Ejura and Onwe (see Appendix Table 5). Based on the feedback from the pre-test survey, we improved the questionnaire. Enumerators fluent in both English and regional dialects were hired to assist with data collection.
3.2 Analytical strategy
The study estimates the impact of DAS use on the adoption of CSA technologies while accounting for personal and farm-level factors. DAS is not a random assignment but a self-selection case (Rajkhowa and Qaim 2021; Bonou-Zin et al. 2022). Various personal and household characteristics and socioeconomic and institutional factors influence maize farmers’ decisions. The non-randomness generates the potential endogeneity issue of the DAS use variable. Failing to address the endogeneity issue when estimating the impact of DAS use on adopting CSA technologies would generate biased estimates.
Earlier studies have suggested various methods for analyzing the impact of a binary endogenous variable (e.g., DAS use in the present study) on farmers’ binary decisions about technology adoption. These include the propensity score matching (PSM) model (Garcia Iglesias 2022; Zwane et al. 2022; Abebe et al. 2023), endogenous switching probit (ESP) model (Lokshin and Sajaia 2011; Li et al. 2020; Wu et al. 2023), and recursive bivariate probit (RBP) model (Li et al. 2019; Addai et al. 2021; Ma and Zhu 2021; Ngigi and Muange 2022). The PSM technique fails to account for endogeneity issues emanating from unobserved factors. At the same time, the ESP model cannot estimate the direct effect of DAS use on the adoption of CSA technologies. In comparison, the RBP model is an effective approach that addresses endogeneity issues from both observed and unobserved factors and can estimate a direct marginal effect of DAS use on the adoption of CSA technologies (i.e., row planting, drought-tolerant seed, and zero tillage). In addition, it is appropriate for such estimations where both treatment and outcome variables are binary. Therefore, the RBP model is employed.
Following previous studies (Thuo et al. 2014; Ma et al. 2018; Li et al. 2019; Ma and Zhu 2021), the two empirical specifications of the RBP model can be written as follows:
where \({DAS\left(\varphi \right)}_{i}^{*}\) and \({CSAT\left(\varphi \right)}_{i}^{*}\) are the latent variables that ith farmer uses DAS through a mobile phone or computer and adopts the CSA technologies such as row planting, respectively. Also, the latent variables are observed by \({DAS}_{i}\) (1 if a farmer uses DAS and 0 for not using DAS) and \({CSA}_{i}\) (1 if the farmer adopts an identified CSA technology and 0 for not adopting any). \({W}_{i}\) denotes a set of explanatory factors such as socioeconomic variables (gender, age, education, marital status, household size and asset value), farm-level factors (farm size, perceived drought stress, perceived pest and disease), institutional factors (farmer-based organization and farm distance) and location variables. \({I}_{i}\) is the instrumental variable for the identification of the RBP model. The parameters to be estimated are \(\beta_i,\;\eta_i,\;\iota_i,\;\mathrm{and}\;\mu_i\;\;\)\(\;\varepsilon_i\;\mathrm{and}\;\varpi_i\) are the disturbance terms. Our explanatory variables are selected based on the theoretical and empirical literature of previous studies (Makate et al. 2019b; Weniga et al. 2019; Oyetunde Usman et al. 2020; Addai et al. 2021; Awotide et al. 2022; Damota et al. 2022; Mossie 2022).
In Eq. (1), we used the perceived high costs of DAS in the community as an instrumental variable (IV). The employed IV is measured as a dummy, which equals 1 if farmers perceive DAS in the community as a high cost and 0 for those who perceive it as a low cost. We expect that the IV influences the farmers’ decisions to use DAS directly; however, we do not expect the adoption of CSA technologies. Following Ma and Zhu (2021), we estimated individual probit models for Eqs. (1) and (2) and verified that the employed IV was statistically significant only in the DAS use equation and not in the CAS adoption equation.
We estimated Eqs. (1) and (2) simultaneously using the full information maximum likelihood estimator (FIMLE). This estimation procedure generates a correlation term between the two disturbance terms, \(\rho_{\varepsilon\varpi}=\mathrm{corr}\left(\varepsilon_i,\varpi_i\right)\). Based on Ma and Zhu (2021), the DAS variable is endogenous when the coefficient of \({\rho }_{\varepsilon \varpi }\) is statistically significant. The significance of \({\rho }_{\varepsilon \varpi }\) also suggests that farmers’ decisions to use of DAS and their decisions to adopt CSA technologies are simultaneously affected by the same unobserved factors (e.g., innate ability, motivations and aspirations) captured by the error terms.
Subsequently, we estimate the average treatment effect on the treated (ATT) to illustrate further how using DAS influences the adoption of CSA technologies (i.e., row planting, drought-tolerant seeds, and zero tillage). We specify the ATT as follows:
where \({N}_{{DAS}_{i}}\) is the treated sample size. \({Pr}\left({H}_{ik}=1\right)\left|{DAS}_{i}=1\right)\) is the predicted CSA adoption probability for CSA technologies users in an observed context, and \(Pr({H}_{ik}=0|{DAS}_{i}=1)\) is the predicted probability that a farmer uses a CSA technology in a counterfactual context. Furthermore, the disaggregated impacts were obtained through a post-estimation from the RBP model.
4 Results and discussion
4.1 Descriptive results
Table 1 presents the measurements and summary statistics of the variables used in the analysis. It can be observed that 64% of the farmers in our sample used DAS. Adoption rates of drought-tolerant seeds, zero tillage, and row planting were 61.3%, 63.9%, and 58.3%, respectively. The average age of farmers was 47.49 years, with most of them being males (86.5%). On average, farmers spent 8.91 years of schooling. About 86.6% of farmers were married, while 55% belonged to farmer-based organizations (FBOs). The average family size was 6.67. Farmers cultivated less than 4.87 acres of land on average, and the distance from residence to the nearest farm was 6.74 km. The average asset value was 4963.78 Ghanaian cedi (GHS). Furthermore, 48.5% of the farmers perceived drought stress, while 56.2% perceived pest and disease occurrence during maize production.
Table 2 presents the mean differences in the observed characteristics between DAS users and non-users. There is a statistically significant difference between the two groups. Compared to non-users, DAS users were more likely to adopt drought-tolerant seeds, zero tillage, and row planting. The average age of DAS users was 46.18 years, significantly lower than the 48.23 years of non-users. Most non-users of DAS (89.3%) were males, and 86.7% of DAS users were married. Compared to non-users, DAS users operated on a smaller farmland acreage. Regarding education, DAS users have 0.318 years more of schooling than non-users. The difference in asset value between the two groups was statistically significant, with DAS users having a higher asset value than non-users. Drought stress was perceived by less than half of DAS users (49.6%), which is insignificant when compared to non-users (44.6%). However, non-users (71.7%) perceived higher pest and disease incidence than DAS users (47.5%). Most DAS users (59.8%) belonged to farmer-based organizations and perceived DAS in their communities to be expensive compared to non-users. According to the regional dummies, most farmers were from Brong Ahafo and Ashanti and primarily used the DAS.
4.2 Empirical results
Table 3 shows the determinants of DAS use and CSA technology adoption, estimated using the RBP model. The significance of \({\rho }_{\epsilon \varpi }\) presented in the lower parts of Table 3 verify the appropriateness of using the RBP model. Because the estimation of the coefficients in the RBP model (see Table 6 in the Appendix for reference) is not straightforward in interpretation, we calculate and present the marginal effects results in Table 3 to improve our understanding. In the next section, we first discuss the determinants of DAS use and CSA technology adoption. Finally, we explore disaggregated results regarding the impact of DAS use on CSA technology adoption by gender and location.
4.2.1 Determinants of DAS use
Columns 2, 4, and 6 of Table 3 present the results reporting the factors influencing farmers’ decisions to use DAS. The age of the farmers has a negative and significant effect on the likelihood of using DAS. The marginal effects estimate suggests that a 1-year increase in age would reduce the probability of using DAS by 6.9–9.1%. Compared with their younger counterparts, older farmers are more conservative regarding the adoption of innovative technologies such as digital services. This is consistent with the findings of Onyeneke et al. (2023). Education significantly increases the likelihood of using DAS by 4.1–4.5%. Education improves farmers’ understanding of the benefits of new technologies such as DAS, motivating them to adopt it. This is consistent with the findings of Ma and Zhu (2021), who found a positive relationship between education and internet use in China.
The size of the household had a positive and significant impact on the likelihood of using DAS. The estimates show that an extra increase in household members would increase the probability of adopting DAS by 7.4–8.6%. A larger household also means a richer labor endowment and better income gains, allowing more members to be exposed to smartphone or computer use than small households. Besides, larger households have more diverse information needs and can benefit from the tailored advice provided by DAS (Ainembabazi and Mugisha 2014). A 1-km increase in the distance from farmers’ residences to the nearest farm reduces the probability of their DAS use by 3.2–4.2%. This is because longer distances are associated with higher transaction costs, making them less likely to use DAS (Fryer Jr and Levitt 2004; Fernando 2021). Farmers’ asset value positively and significantly influences their decision to use DAS. Assets serve as a proxy for resource endowment and wealth. This finding is consistent with Meier zu Selhausen (2016), who discovered that farmers with more resources, such as land and livestock, could easily convert them into cash to obtain DAS. This is typical in rural areas of African countries, where assets serve as a means to an end in the event of production failures (Addai et al. 2021). This finding is consistent with the findings of Wossen et al. (2017), who claimed that assets allow farmers to adopt new agricultural technologies.
Furthermore, the results suggest that farmers who perceive the occurrence of pests and diseases are more likely to use DAS. These results are similar to the findings of Teklewold et al. (2013), who found that the presence of pests and diseases increases the adoption of agricultural technologies in Ethiopia. Furthermore, weather shocks such as drought stress increase the likelihood of utilizing DAS. Specifically, farmers who experience drought stress during maize production are more likely to seek advisory services. This supports previous research that droughts positively influence the adoption of agricultural technologies (Teklewold et al. 2013; Wainaina et al. 2016; Makate et al. 2019a; Jha et al. 2020). Being a member of a farmer-based organization has a significant and positive influence on the likelihood of using DAS. FBOs, which are regarded as crucial institutional advancements, have the potential to alleviate the constraints that prevent smallholder farmers from accessing novel agricultural technologies (Ma and Abdulai 2016; Zhou et al. 2023). Compared to the base Northern region, farmers in Ghana’s Brong Ahafo and Ashanti regions have a higher tendency to utilize DAS. However, the perceived high cost associated with such services negatively and significantly affects their utilization. This suggests that when DAS is more affordable and accessible, farmers are more likely to use it. Similar results have been observed in Nigeria (Wossen et al. 2017) and India (Rajkhowa and Qaim 2021).
4.2.2 Determinants of CSA technology adoption
The estimated impacts of DAS use and control variables on the adoption of CSA technology are presented in columns 3, 5, and 7 of Table 3. DAS use positively impacts farmers’ decisions to adopt all three CSA technologies. Specifically, using DAS increases the probabilities of adopting row planting, zero tillage, and drought-tolerant seeds by 12.4%, 4.2%, and 4.6%, respectively. This confirms the findings of Singh et al. (2019) and Jha et al. (2020). Furthermore, because of the ease of access to information and resources through the internet, people in the digital era are more aware of the benefits and importance of using DAS, increasing the likelihood of CSA technology adoption. Prior studies have also highlighted the numerous benefits of using DAS for agricultural development (Amith et al. 2022; Kumar et al. 2022; Singh et al. 2019, 2020; Vrain et al. 2022). For instance, Singh et al. (2020) opined that DAS offers data-driven insights and analysis that support farmers in making more informed decisions. By utilizing DAS, farmers become aware of CAS technologies to respond proactively to climate variability and extreme weather events. Farmers can better anticipate and mitigate potential risks, thereby increasing the likelihood of successfully adopting and implementing CSA technologies. Vrain et al. (2022) indicated that DAS enhances farmers’ knowledge and skills related to CSA technologies. It allows them to access expert advice and peer-to-peer learning platforms and facilitates knowledge transfer and capacity building in CSA practices.
The results also suggest that the adoption of drought-tolerant seeds, zero tillage, and row planting by farmers is positively influenced by a variety of factors, including age, education, household size, FBO membership, farm size, perceived drought stress, perceived pest and disease incidence, and location. For instance, the last column of Table 3 shows that farmers with higher levels of education are 9% more likely to adopt drought-tolerant seeds. This result is consistent with the findings of Makate et al. (2019a) and Amadu et al. (2020). Furthermore, membership in a farmer-based organization increases the probability of adopting zero tillage and drought-tolerant seeds by 10.2% and 8.6%, respectively, which is consistent with the results of previous studies (Addai et al. 2021; Manda et al. 2020; Ma et al. 2018). The farm size significantly and positively impacts the adoption of CSA technologies during maize production. Specifically, farmers cultivating larger farms are 3.5% and 3.3% more likely to adopt row planting and drought-tolerant seeds. However, the adoption of zero tillage decreases as the size of the farmland increases. This finding is consistent with the results of a study by Ma and Abdulai (2019), which suggested that the adoption of new technology involves risks that may result in productivity loss in the absence of technical assistance. As a result, the possibility of adoption decreases as farm size increases. Additionally, the cost of adopting new technologies may be a factor, as farmers may struggle to invest the necessary capital to develop new farm acres and acquire new technologies (Meena et al. 2016; Brown et al. 2019).
Moreover, the results reveal that farmers who face greater weather-related challenges, such as drought stress and pest and disease outbreaks, are more likely to adopt climate-smart technologies such as row planting, zero tillage, and drought-tolerant seeds. Specifically, farmers are 24.1% more likely to adopt drought-tolerant seeds when under severe drought stress. In addition, when there are high pest and disease outbreaks, farmers are 7.2% and 9.1% more likely to adopt drought-tolerant seeds and row planting, respectively. The distance between the farmer’s homestead and the nearest farm negatively and significantly influenced the adoption of only zero-tollage technologies. This could be attributed to the labor-intensive nature of land preparation, which could increase production costs and the likelihood of adopting zero tillage. Farmers in the Ashanti and Brong Ahafo regions are more likely to adopt row planting and drought-tolerant seeds relative to the Northern region. On the other hand, farmers in the Brong Ahafo region were found to be less likely to adopt zero tillage, possibly because they in Brong Ahafo prefer no-tillage of their lands for crop production.
The marginal effects in Table 3 only show how farmers’ decisions to use DAS affect the adoption of drought-tolerant seeds, zero tillage, and row planting if they were previously non-users but became users. We used Chiburis et al. (2012) approach to estimate the impact of DAS on the adoption of CSA technologies and gain a better understanding. The approach uses bootstrapping to reduce sampling noise in the sample, resulting in a more accurate average treatment effect on the treated (ATT) estimates. It also considers selection bias between users and non-users of DAS, as they differ significantly in observed and unobserved factors. Based on the results in Table 3, farmers who use DAS are more likely to adopt row planting, zero tillage, and drought-tolerant seeds by 38.8%, 24.9%, and 47.2%, respectively. The marginal effects, which examine the likelihood of farmers adopting these practices upon using DAS, are distinct from the ATT estimates, which measure the causal relationship between adopting and utilizing CSA technologies. Similar findings were made by Lanfranchi and Pekovic (2014) and Ma et al. (2018).
Our findings demonstrate the significant influence of DAS in the adoption of CSA technologies, specifically row planting, zero tillage, and drought-tolerant seeds. These adaptation options are highlighted in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) in 2023 (IPCC 2023). The report proposes that smallholder farmers can enhance their agricultural output and welfare by adopting improved cultivars, implementing on-farm water management and storage systems, conserving soil moisture, utilizing irrigation techniques, practising agroforestry, implementing community-based adaptation strategies, diversifying agriculture at the farm and landscape level, and adopting sustainable land management approaches, among other options (IPCC 2023). Hence, our study adds to the increasing body of evidence regarding the significance of these adaptation strategies in addressing climate change.
4.3 Disaggregated analyses by gender and location
Previous studies have shown that males and females have different decision-making when adopting improved agricultural technologies (Doss 2018; Paudel et al. 2020; Tambo et al. 2021). In addition, location-based spatial effects exist in technology adoption (Fang and Richards 2018; Zheng et al. 2021). Therefore, we further looked at the impact of DAS use on the adoption of CSA technologies, disaggregated by gender and location. This helps enrich our understanding of the relationship between DAS use and CSA technology adoption.
Columns 2 and 3 of Table 4 present the gendered differentials in the impact of DAS use on CSA technology adoption. Compared to previous studies (Ma and Zhu 2021; Vatsa et al. 2022), our results show a minimal difference in the marginal effect of both male and female farmers. However, these differences are significant. Hence, we need to appreciate these differences to deepen our understanding of the relationship between DAS use and CSA technology adoption. Subsequently, the results reveal that DAS use by male farmers has a greater impact on the adoption of zero tillage and drought-tolerant seeds, increasing the probabilities of their adoption by 2.5 and 3.6%, respectively. However, DAS use by female farmers has a greater impact on the adoption of row planting, with a probability value of 2.4%, against the male counterparts, with a probability of 1.5%. In Ghana, men are more involved in agricultural activities than women, which may explain why they are more likely to adopt CSA technologies after using DAS.
The last three columns of Table 4 show the location-based effects of DSA use on CSA technology adoption. The results show that DAS use has the largest impact on row planting adoption and tolerant seed adoption for farmers in the Brong Ahafo region, while DAS use’s impact on zero tillage adoption is the largest for farmers in the Northern region. Specifically, farmers in the Brong Ahafo region are 26.1% and 27% more likely to adopt row planting and tolerant seeds, respectively. Farmers in the Northern region are 34% more likely to adopt zero tillage.
5 Conclusions and policy implications
This paper evaluates the impact of DAS use on the adoption of CSA technologies using a random sample of 3197 maize farmers in Ghana. Since maize farmers self-select and their decision to use DAS may be influenced by both observed and unobserved variables, an RBP model was used to mitigate selection bias and to obtain unbiased estimates.
The adoption of CSA technologies (i.e., drought-tolerant seeds, zero tillage, and row planting) was significant between DAS users and non-users without accounting for other factors. The empirical RBP model results show an inverse selection bias due to unobserved factors. The results show that the main factors influencing the decision to use DAS are age, gender, education, family size, asset value, distance to farm, the perceived incidence of pests and disease, drought stress, farmer-based organization, and locations. After controlling for selection bias, the results show that DAS increases the likelihood of adopting drought-tolerant seeds, zero tillage, and row planting by 4.6, 4.2, and 12.4%, respectively. Furthermore, age, education, household size, FBO membership, farm size, perceived drought stress, perceived pest and disease incidence, and location significantly impacted the adoption of row planting, drought-tolerant seeds, and zero tillage. The average treatment effect on the treated confirms that maize farmers who use DAS are 38.8, 24.9, and 47.2% more likely to adopt row planting, zero tillage, and drought-tolerant seeds, respectively. The disaggregated estimates confirm that the impacts of DAS use on adopting row planting, drought-tolerant seeds, and zero tillage are heterogeneous between male and female maize farmers and geographical locations. Furthermore, the estimates show that the use of DAS encourages the adoption of CSA technologies among rural maize farmers in Ghana.
Our research highlights the significance of using DAS via smartphones in agriculture. Our findings suggest that agricultural stakeholders, including government and non-governmental organizations, should encourage and promote the use of DAS among maize farmers. This would contribute positively to the development of rural agriculture and improve the livelihoods of maize farmers by enabling them to access up-to-date information on maize production, as well as adopt CSA technologies such as drought-tolerant seeds, row planting, and zero tillage, all of which can enhance maize productivity. Furthermore, our study shows that the use of DAS substantially impacts the adoption of selected CSA technologies. Therefore, extension officers and farmer-based groups should encourage farmers to use DAS and help identify the challenges that impede farmers from using this service. They should also educate farmers on the benefits of using DAS as a reliable source of information on climate-smart technologies, which can help to spur adoption. The government should set up and improve existing digital hubs/infrastructure and demonstration centers in rural areas where farmers can access and experience DAS technologies firsthand.
The limitation of the study is that empirical analyses are based on 1-year cross-sectional data. This precludes us from investigating the dynamic relationships between DAS use and adoption of CSA technologies over time. Furthermore, the study does not examine the impact of DAS use on the intensity of CSA technology adoption. Little is known about the cost and revenue of DAS users in adopting CSA technologies compared to non-users. Finally, the RBP model does not give the determinants of the impact of DAS on the adoption of CSA technologies among users and non-users.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from Bright Asante upon request.
References
Abebe F, Wheeler SA, Zuo A et al (2023) The welfare enhancing effects of agricultural innovation platforms and soil monitoring tools on farming household outcomes in southeastern Africa. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2023.2184586
Addai KN, Temoso O, Ng’ombe JN (2021) Participation in farmer organizations and adoption of farming technologies among rice farmers in Ghana. Int J Soc Econ 49:529–545. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSE-06-2021-0337
Adenubi O, Temoso O, Abdulaleem I (2021) Has mobile phone technology aided the growth of agricultural productivity in sub-Saharan Africa? South Afr J Econ Manag Sci 24:1–9. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajems.v24i1.3744
Ainembabazi JH, Mugisha J (2014) The role of farming experience on the adoption of agricultural technologies: evidence from smallholder farmers in Uganda. J Dev Stud 50:666–679. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2013.874556
Aldosari F, Al Shunaifi MS, Ullah MA et al (2019) Farmers’ perceptions regarding the use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, northern Pakistan. J Saudi Soc Agric Sci 18:211–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jssas.2017.05.004
Amadu FO, Mcnamara PE, Miller DC (2020) Understanding the adoption of climate-smart agriculture: a farm-level typology with empirical evidence from southern Malawi. World Dev 126:104692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104692
Amith G, Ramesh., Avinash G et al (2022) Agromet advisory services for climate smart agriculture. J Exp Agric Int 44:1–7. https://doi.org/10.9734/jeai/2022/v44i430810
Ankrah DA, Kwapong NA, Manteaw SA, Agyarko FF (2023) Sustainable cereal production: a spatial analytical approach using the Ghana living standards survey. Heliyon 9:e17831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17831
Antwi-Agyei P, Stringer LC (2021) Improving the effectiveness of agricultural extension services in supporting farmers to adapt to climate change: insights from northeastern Ghana. Clim Risk Manag 32:100304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2021.100304
Asante BO, Temoso O, Addai KN, Villano RA (2019) Evaluating productivity gaps in maize production across different agroecological zones in Ghana. Agric Syst 176:102650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102650
Asongu S, le Roux S, Nwachukwu J, Pyke C (2019) Reducing information asymmetry with ICT: a critical review of loan price and quantity effects in Africa. Int J Manag Financ 15:130–163. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMF-01-2018-0027
Awotide BA, Ogunniyi A, Olagunju KO et al (2022) Evaluating the heterogeneous impacts of adoption of climate-smart agricultural technologies on rural households’ welfare in Mali. Agriculture 12:1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12111853
Azzarri C, Signorelli S (2020) Climate and poverty in Africa South of the Sahara. World Dev 125:104691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104691
Balasundram SK, Shamshiri RR, Sridhara S, Rizan N (2023) The role of digital agriculture in mitigating climate change and ensuring food security: an overview. Sustainability 15:5325. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065325
Bonou-Zin RDC, Hinnoul LC, Ayedoun AO, Obossou EAR (2022) Impact of the agricultural advisory service on the productivity of maize and cotton in the cotton-growing zone of North Benin. J Agric Ext Rural Dev 14:120–131. https://doi.org/10.5897/jaerd2022.1316
Brown B, Nuberg I, Llewellyn R (2019) From interest to implementation: exploring farmer progression of conservation agriculture in Eastern and Southern Africa. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-019-00340-5
Cariolle J (2021) International connectivity and the digital divide in Sub-Saharan Africa. Inf Econ Policy 55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoecopol.2020.100901
Chiburis RC, Das J, Lokshin M (2012) A practical comparison of the bivariate probit and linear IV estimators. Econ Lett 117:762–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2012.08.037
Damota DD, Zone D, Gelu DG, Orkaido K (2022) Determinants of smallholder farmers participation on wheat row planting and its impact on wheat yield: the case in Mari Mansa Woreda. Recent Trends Data Min Bus 3:1–13
Deng X, Xu D, Zeng M, Qi Y (2019) Does internet use help reduce rural cropland abandonment? Evidence from China. Land Use Policy 89:104243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104243
Dhanya P, Geethalakshmi V, Ramanathan S et al (2022) Impacts and climate change adaptation of agrometeorological services among the maize farmers of West Tamil Nadu. AgriEngineering 4:1030–1053. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriengineering4040065
Dhaoui O, Nikolaou K, Mattas K, Baourakis G (2020) Consumers’ attitude towards alternative distribution channels of fresh fruits and vegetables in Crete. Br Food J 122:2823–2840. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-05-2019-0342
Doss CR (2018) Women and agricultural productivity: reframing the issues. Dev Policy Rev 36:35–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12243
Eakin H, Wightman PM, Hsu D et al (2015) Information and communication technologies and climate change adaptation in Latin America and the Caribbean: a framework for action. Clim Dev 7:208–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2014.951021
Ehiakpor DS, Danso-Abbeam G, Mubashiru Y (2021) Adoption of interrelated sustainable agricultural practices among smallholder farmers in Ghana. Land Use Policy 101:105142
Fang D, Richards TJ (2018) New maize variety adoption in Mozambique: a spatial approach. Can J Agric Econ 66:469–488. https://doi.org/10.1111/cjag.12166
Fentie A, Beyene AD (2019) Climate-smart agricultural practices and welfare of rural smallholders in Ethiopia: does planting method matter? Land Use Policy 85:387–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.04.020
FAO (2018) Climate smart agriculture -building resilient to climate change. In Springer. Retrieved from: http://www.our-africa.org/mali/climate-agriculture. Accessed Aug 2023
Fernando AN (2021) Seeking the treated: the impact of mobile extension on farmer information exchange in India. J Dev Econ 153:102713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2021.102713
Food and Agriculture Organization (2023) Guide on digital agricultural extension and advisory services – use of smartphone applications by smallholder farmers. Rome. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.4060/cc4022en. Accessed Aug 2023
Fryer RG Jr, Levitt SD (2004) The causes and consequences of distinctively black names. Q J Econ CV(4):829–850. http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/FryerLevitt2004.pdf
Gangopadhyay PK, Khatri-Chhetri A, Shirsath PB, Aggarwal PK (2019) Spatial targeting of ICT-based weather and agro-advisory services for climate risk management in agriculture. Clim Change 154:241–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02426-5
Garcia Iglesias D (2022) Propensity score matching underestimates real treatment effect, in a simulated theoretical multivariate model. Mathematics 10:1–8. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10091547
Goedde L, McCullough R (2021) How digital tools can help transform African agri-food systems. McKinsey. Retrieved from: https://nourishingafrica.com/documents/1611833593How-digital-tools-can-help-transform-African-agri-food-systems-v2.pdf. Accessed Jan 2023
IPCC (2023) Intergovernmental panel on climate change, AR6 synthesis report: climate change 2023. Retrieved from: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-cycle/. Accessed Jul 2023
Jha S, Kaechele H, Lana M et al (2020) Exploring farmers’ perceptions of agricultural technologies: a case study from Tanzania. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030998
Jones K, Nowak A, Berglund E et al (2023) Evidence supports the potential for climate-smart agriculture in Tanzania. Glob Food Sec 36:100666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2022.100666
Keil A, Mitra A, McDonald A, Malik RK (2020) Zero-tillage wheat provides stable yield and economic benefits under diverse growing season climates in the Eastern Indo-Gangetic plains. Int J Agric Sustain 567–593. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2020.1794490
Khan NA, Ma W, Owusu V, Shah AA (2022) Does ICT-based farm advisory improve farmers’ adaptation to climate change? Evidence from Pakistan. Clim Dev 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2022.2143232
Khatri-Chhetri A, Aggarwal PK, Joshi PK, Vyas S (2017) Farmers’ prioritization of climate-smart agriculture (CSA) technologies. Agric Syst 151:184–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.10.005
Khoza S, de Beer LT, van Niekerk D, Nemakonde L (2021) A gender-differentiated analysis of climate-smart agriculture adoption by smallholder farmers: application of the extended technology acceptance model. Gend Technol Dev 25:1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09718524.2020.1830338
Kilombele H, Feleke S, Abdoulaye T et al (2023) Maize productivity and household welfare impacts of mobile money usage in Tanzania. Int J Financ Stud 11:27. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijfs11010027
Klerkx L, Jakku E, Labarthe P (2019) A review of social science on digital agriculture, smart farming and agriculture 4.0: new contributions and a future research agenda. NJAS - Wageningen J Life Sci 90–91:100315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2019.100315
Kumar A, Malik JS, Kamboj M (2022) Relevance of extension advisory services in climate smart agriculture: a review. Mausam 73:695–705. https://doi.org/10.54302/mausam.v73i3.5937
Lanfranchi J, Pekovic S (2014) How green is my firm? Workers’ attitudes and behaviors towards job in environmentally-related firms. Ecol Econ 100:16–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.12.019
Leng C, Ma W, Tang J, Zhu Z (2020) ICT adoption and income diversification among rural households in China. Appl Econ 52:3614–3628. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2020.1715338
Li C, Poskitt DS, Zhao X (2019) The bivariate probit model, maximum likelihood estimation, pseudo true parameters and partial identification. J Econom 209:94–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2018.07.009
Li C, Ma W, Mishra AK, Gao L (2020) Access to credit and farmland rental market participation: evidence from rural China. China Econ Rev 63:101523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2020.101523
Li X, Guo H, Jin S et al (2021) Do farmers gain internet dividends from E-commerce adoption? Evidence from China. Food Policy 101:102024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102024
Li J, Ma W, Zhu H (2024) A systematic literature review of factors influencing the adoption of climate-smart agricultural practices. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht
Lokshin M, Sajaia Z (2011) Impact of interventions on discrete outcomes: maximum likelihood estimation of the binary choice models with binary endogenous regressors. Stata J 11:368–385. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867x1101100303
Ma W, Abdulai A (2016) Does cooperative membership improve household welfare? Evidence from apple farmers in China. Food Policy 58:94–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.12.002
Ma W, Abdulai A (2019) IPM adoption, cooperative membership and farm economic performance: insight from apple farmers in China. China Agric Econ Rev 11:218–236. https://doi.org/10.1108/CAER-12-2017-0251
Ma W, Zhu Z (2021) Internet use and willingness to participate in garbage classification: an investigation of Chinese residents. Appl Econ Lett 28:788–793. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2020.1781766
Ma W, Abdulai A, Goetz R (2018) Agricultural cooperatives and investment in organic soil amendments and chemical fertilizer in China. Am J Agric Econ 100:502–520. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aax079
Ma W, Grafton RQ, Renwick A (2020) Smartphone use and income growth in rural China: empirical results and policy implications. Electron Commer Res 20:713–736. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-018-9323-x
Ma W, Qiu H, Rahut DB (2022) Rural development in the digital age: does information and communication technology adoption contribute to credit access and income growth in rural China? Rev Dev Econ 1421–1444. https://doi.org/10.1111/rode.12943
Makate C, Makate M, Mango N, Siziba S (2019a) Increasing resilience of smallholder farmers to climate change through multiple adoption of proven climate-smart agriculture innovations. Lessons from Southern Africa. J Environ Manage 231:858–868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.10.069
Makate C, Makate M, Mutenje M et al (2019b) Synergistic impacts of agricultural credit and extension on adoption of climate-smart agricultural technologies in southern Africa. Environ Dev 32:100458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2019.100458
Manda J, Khonje MG, Alene AD et al (2020) Does cooperative membership increase and accelerate agricultural technology adoption? Empirical evidence from Zambia. Technol Forecast Soc Change 158:120160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120160
Meena M, Rajesh T, Beer K (2016) Adoption and impact of zero tillage in the rice-wheat production system of Haryana. Indian J Agric Res 50:584–588. https://doi.org/10.18805/ijare.v50i6.6677
Meier zu Selhausen F (2016) What determines women’s participation in collective action? Evidence from a western Ugandan Coffee Cooperative. Fem Econ 22:130–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2015.1088960
MoFA (2015) Agriculture in Ghana. Facts and figures. Statistical Research and Information Directorate (SRID) 121. Retrieved from: https://mofa.gov.gh/site/images/pdf/AGRICULTURE-IN-GHANA-Facts-and-Figures-2015.pdf . Accessed Jul 2023
Mossie WA (2022) The impact of climate-smart agriculture technology on productivity: does row planting matter? Evidence from Southern Ethiopia. Sci World J 2022. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/3218287
Ngigi MW, Muange EN (2022) Access to climate information services and climate-smart agriculture in Kenya: a gender-based analysis. Clim Change. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-022-03445-5
Nikam V, Ashok A, Pal S (2022) Farmers’ information needs, access and its impact: evidence from different cotton producing regions in the Maharashtra state of India. Agric Syst 196:103317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103317
Obour PB, Arthur IK, Owusu K (2022) The 2020 maize production failure in Ghana: a case study of Ejura-Sekyedumase municipality. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063514
Ogieriakhi MO, Woodward RT (2022) Understanding why farmers adopt soil conservation tillage: a systematic review. Soil Secur 9:100077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soisec.2022.100077
Ogutu SO, Okello JJ, Otieno DJ (2014) Impact of information and communication technology-based market information services on smallholder farm input use and productivity: the case of Kenya. World Dev 64:311–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.06.011
Olagunju KO, Ogunniyi AI, Awotide BA et al (2020) Evaluating the distributional impacts of drought- tolerant maize varieties on productivity and welfare outcomes: an instrumental variable quantile treatment effects approach. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2019.1701401
Onyeneke RU, Ankrah DA, Atta-Ankomah R, Agyarko FF, Onyeneke CJ, Nejad JG (2023) Information and communication technologies and agricultural production: New Evidence from Africa. Appl Sci 13:3918. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13063918
Otter V, Theuvsen L (2014) ICT and farm productivity: evidence from the Chilean agricultural export sector. Proc - Ser Gesellschaft fur Inf P 226:113–116
Oyetunde Usman Z, Oluseyi Olagunju K, Rafiat Ogunpaimo O (2020) Determinants of adoption of multiple sustainable agricultural practices among smallholder farmers in Nigeria. Int Soil Water Conserv Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2020.10.007
Paudel GP, Gartaula H, Rahut DB, Craufurd P (2020) Gender differentiated small-scale farm mechanization in Nepal hills: an application of exogenous switching treatment regression. Technol Soc 61:101250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101250
Pauw K (2022) A review of Ghana’s planting for food and jobs program: implementation, impacts, benefits, and costs. Food Secur. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-022-01287-8
Prah S, Asante BO, Aidoo R et al (2023) Cogent Food & Agriculture Impact of agricultural policy intervention on yield and profitability of maize farmers: the case of Planting for Food and Jobs (PFJ) programme in Ghana. Cogent Food Agric 9. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2023.2249928
Rajkhowa P, Qaim M (2021) Personalized digital extension services and agricultural performance: evidence from smallholder farmers in India. PLoS ONE 16:1–23. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259319
Ranum P, Peña-Rosas JP, Garcia-Casal MN (2014) Global maize production, utilization, and consumption. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1312:105–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.12396
Raza MH, Khan GA, Shahbaz B, Saleem MF (2020) Effectiveness of information and communication technologies as information source among farmers in Pakistan. Pakistan J Agric Sci 57:281–288. https://doi.org/10.21162/PAKJAS/19.8292
Simtowe F, Marenya P, Amondo E et al (2019) Heterogeneous seed access and information exposure: implications for the adoption of drought-tolerant maize varieties in Uganda. Agric Food Econ 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-019-0135-7
Singh RJ, Chauhan JK, Singh R et al (2019) Application of mobile phone agro-advisory services in climate-smart agriculture: an empirical study with structural equation modelling. 19:75–81
Singh R, Singh R, Singh N et al (2020) Application of smart phone agro-advisory services of m4agriNEI in climate smart natural resource management in agriculture by tribal farmers of Meghalaya: an empirical study with structural equation modeling. J Agric Ecol 09:67–77. https://doi.org/10.53911/jae.2020.9108
Spielman D, Lecoutere E, Makhija S, Van Campenhout B (2021) Information and Communications Technology (ICT) and agricultural extension in developing countries. Annu Rev Resour Econ 13:177–201. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-101520-080657
Tabe-Ojong MP, Aihounton GBD, Lokossou JC (2023) Climate-smart agriculture and food security: cross-country evidence from West Africa. Glob Environ Chang 81:102697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2023.102697
Tadesse B, Ahmed M (2023) Impact of adoption of climate smart agricultural practices to minimize production risk in Ethiopia: a systematic review. J Agric Food Res 13:100655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2023.100655
Tambo JA, Matimelo M, Ndhlovu M et al (2021) Gender-differentiated impacts of plant clinics on maize productivity and food security: evidence from Zambia. World Dev 145:105519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105519
Tamirat N (2020) Impact Analysis of Row Planting Teff Crop Technology on Household Welfare:a case study of Smallholder Farmers of Duna District in Hadiya Zone, Ethiopia. J Econ Sustain Dev 11:4–9. https://doi.org/10.7176/jesd/11-5-02
Taylor K, Silver L (2019) Smartphone ownership is growing rapidly around the world, but not always equally. Pew Res Cent 47. Retrieved from: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/02/05/smartphone-ownership-is-growing-rapidlyaround-the-world-but-not-always-equally/%0Ahttp://www.pewglobal.org/2019/02/05/smartphone-ownership-isgrowing-rapidly-around-the-world-but-not-always-equally/. Accessed Aug 2023
Tchamyou VS, Asongu SA, Nwachukwu C (2018) Effects of asymmetric information on market timing in the mutual fund industry. Int J Manag Financ 14:542–557. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMF-09-2017-0187
Teklewold H, Kassie M, Shiferaw B, Köhlin G (2013) Cropping system diversification, conservation tillage and modern seed adoption in Ethiopia: impacts on household income, agrochemical use and demand for labor. Ecol Econ 93:85–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.05.002
Thuo M, Bell AA, Bravo-Ureta BE et al (2014) Effects of social network factors on information acquisition and adoption of improved groundnut varieties: the case of Uganda and Kenya. Agric Hum Values 31:339–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-014-9486-6
Vatsa P, Li J, Luu PQ, Botero-R JC (2022) Internet use and consumption diversity: evidence from rural China. Rev Dev Econ 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/rode.12935
Vishnoi S, Kumar R (2024) Climate smart agriculture for sustainable productivity and healthy landscapes. Environ Sci Policy 151:103600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2023.103600
Vrain E, Wilson C, Kerr L, Wilson M (2022) Social influence in the adoption of digital consumer innovations for climate change. Energy Policy 162:112800. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.112800
Wainaina P, Tongruksawattana S, Qaim M (2016) Tradeoffs and complementarities in the adoption of improved seeds, fertilizer, and natural resource management technologies in Kenya. Agric Econ (United Kingdom) 47:351–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12235
Weniga AS, Gordon C, Boon E, Musah-Issah Surugu J (2019) Determinants of climate smart agriculture (CSA) adoption among smallholder food crop farmers in the Techiman Municipality, Ghana. Ghana J Geogr 11:124–139
Wongnaa CA, Awunyo-Vitor D, Mensah A, Adams F (2019) Profit efficiency among maize farmers and implications for poverty alleviation and food security in Ghana. Sci Afr 6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2019.e00206
Wossen T, Abdoulaye T, Alene A et al (2017) Impacts of extension access and cooperative membership on technology adoption and household welfare. J Rural Stud 54:223–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.06.022
Wu F, Guo X, Guo X (2023) Cooperative membership and new technology adoption of family farms: evidence from China. Ann Public Coop Econ 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/apce.12433
Zheng H, Ma W, Li G (2021) Learning from neighboring farmers: does spatial dependence affect adoption of drought-tolerant wheat varieties in China? Can J Agric Econ Can D’agroeconomie 69:519–537. https://doi.org/10.1111/cjag.12294
Zhou X, Ma W, Zheng H et al (2023) Promoting banana farmers’ adoption of climate-smart agricultural practices: the role of agricultural cooperatives. Clim Dev 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2023.2218333
Zwane T, Biyase M, Rooderick S (2022) Assessing the impact of social grants on household welfare using propensity score matching approach. Int J Dev Issues. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJDI-01-2022-0024
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the extension staff of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture in the study districts for their delightful support during the data collection. In addition, the authors would like to acknowledge the Asian Development Bank Institute (ADBI) Virtual Conference on “Climate-smart Agriculture: Adoption, Impacts, and Implications for Sustainable Development” held on 10–11 October 2023.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Asante, B.O., Ma, W., Prah, S. et al. Promoting the adoption of climate-smart agricultural technologies among maize farmers in Ghana: using digital advisory services. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 29, 19 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-024-10116-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-024-10116-6