Impact of Social and Institutional Factors on the Uptake of Conservation Agriculture: A Case of Zambia and Zimbabwe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conservation agriculture (CA) involves the practice of three interlinked principles of minimum soil disturbance, a permanent soil cover and crop rotation. Despite the many stated benefits of the technology, its uptake in Africa has been slow. This study applies the theory of planned behaviour to investigate the attitudes, the role of the social system (social influence, by-laws and customs) and the institutional environment in the decision to practice CA principles and on the area under CA in Choma, Zambia and Nkayi, Zimbabwe. The study finds differing attitudes between districts towards CA outcomes. Local by-laws have a positive correlation with the practice of minimum soil disturbance but negative correlations with the practice of soil cover and crop rotation. Social influence and customs have significant relationships with the area under CA. Institutional support is perceived to be necessary for the practice of minimum soil disturbance but not so for the practice of crop rotation or on the area under CA. We conclude that the attitudes towards CA depend on the performance of the CA options promoted to farmers while the effects of the social system components and institutional factors on the uptake of CA depends on how the particular CA principle fits into the social and institutional environment in which it is promoted. We recommend agriculture extension services and policymakers to pay more attention to these issues in the promotion of CA.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".