Value chain extension services for climate-smart agriculture adoption: evidence from Burkina Faso's cotton farming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study assesses the extent to which integrated extension services contribute to the adoption of climate-smart agriculture (CSA) innovations within the cotton value chain in Burkina Faso. Design/methodology/approach To address the research question, a probit multivariate econometric model with sample selection is utilized. The model is applied to a random sample of farmers (n = 510), and the endogeneity is addressed through a control function approach. Findings The study highlights the central role of value chains, particularly in the cotton sector, in overcoming resource scarcity through integrated extension services. Findings show that smallholder farmers who benefit from sound extension services are more willing to adopt and diversify CSA technologies. These include improved seeds, conservation techniques, adapted planting dates and mechanization. This study confirms the synergistic nature of these technologies and emphasizes that effective climate risk mitigation depends on the combined adoption of CSA technologies. Research limitations/implications The use of cross-sectional data limits the analysis of long-term farmer behavior, and due to data limitations, the focus was primarily on the contributions of cotton companies and farmers to climate risk mitigation. Future research using panel data across the value chain could provide a more robust insights for policy decision-making. Originality/value The study contributes to the existing body of knowledge by emphasizing the crucial role of integrated extension services within the cotton value chain in developing countries. This highlights the critical benefits for farmers and emphasizes the need to diversify modern technologies to effectively combat climate change and its variability in agriculture.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".