Community-Level Impacts of Climate-Smart Agriculture Interventions on Food Security and Dietary Diversity in Climate-Smart Villages in Myanmar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diversification of production to strengthen resilience is a key tenet of climate-smart agriculture (CSA), which can help to address the complex vulnerabilities of agriculture-dependent rural communities. In this study, we investigated the relationship between the promotion of different CSA practices across four climate-smart villages (CSVs) in Myanmar. To determine the impact of the CSA practices on livelihoods and health, survey data were collected from agricultural households (n = 527) over three years. Within the time period studied, the results indicate that some the CSA practices and technologies adopted were significantly associated with changes in household dietary diversity scores (HDDS), but, in the short-term, these were not associated with improvements in the households’ food insecurity scores (HFIAS). Based on the survey responses, we examined how pathways of CSA practice adoption tailored to different contexts of Myanmar’s four agroecologies could contribute to the observed changes, including possible resulting trade-offs. We highlight that understanding the impacts of CSA adoption on household food security in CSVs will require longer-term monitoring, as most CSA options are medium- to long-cycle interventions. Our further analysis of knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAPs) amongst the households indicated a poor understanding of the household knowledge, attitudes and practices in relation to nutrition, food choices, food preparation, sanitation and hygiene. Our KAP findings indicate that current nutrition education interventions in the Myanmar CSVs are inadequate and will need further improvement for health and nutrition outcomes from the portfolio of CSA interventions.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".