Next Article in Journal
Design of a Predictive Digital Twin System for Large-Scale Varroa Management in Honeybee Apiaries
Previous Article in Journal
The Effect of Saponaria officinalis Root Supplementation During the Dry Period on Blood Biochemical Parameters in Cows and Calves and the Biological Quality of Colostrum and Milk
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 15
Issue 20
10.3390/agriculture15202125
agriculture-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

A Review on the Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Practices in Southern Africa: Focus on Smallholder Farmers

by
Jonathan Thobane
1,
Jorine Ndoro
1,
Solly Molepo
2,3,
Batizi Serote
4,
Samkelisiwe Hlophe-Ginindza
5,
Sylvester Mpandeli
5,
Luxon Nhamo
5 and
Salmina Mokgehle
1,*
1
School of Agriculture and Natural Science, University of Mpumalanga, Private Bag X11283, Mbombela 1200, South Africa
2
National Agriculture Marketing Council (NAMC), Markets and Economic Research Centre, Private Bag X935, Pretoria 0001, South Africa
3
Indigenous Knowledge Systems Centre, North West University, Mahikeng Campus, Private Bag X2046, Mmabatho 2745, South Africa
4
Department of Crop Sciences, Tshwane University of Technology, Private Bag X680, Pretoria 0001, South Africa
5
Water Research Commission (WRC), Water Utilization in Agriculture, Lynnwood Manor, Pretoria 0081, South Africa
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2025, 15(20), 2125; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15202125
Submission received: 26 August 2025 / Revised: 30 September 2025 / Accepted: 2 October 2025 / Published: 13 October 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Agricultural Economics, Policies and Rural Management)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Food insecurity, financial loss, and a decline in agricultural output are among the significant challenges to the global food chain caused by extreme climatic events, high variability and change, rapid urbanization, and land degradation. Therefore, it is essential to explore alternative, sustainable agricultural practices to meet the growing population’s food needs. Sustainable agriculture is foundational to farm management, rural development, and water conservation. This includes sustainable practices such as crop rotation, intercropping, and planting crops with varying rooting depths to maximize soil moisture absorption, as well as mulching to improve nutrient recycling and enhance productivity in smallholder cropping systems. The adoption of sustainable agricultural practices has become a priority for smallholder farmers, policymakers, extension agents, and agricultural experts to improve agricultural productivity, contribute to food security, and generate income. However, adoption rates have been slow, especially in Southern Africa, due to a lack of access to technology, financial constraints, limited information, and limited knowledge. This review was conducted using a comprehensive literature search on the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices by legume smallholders, examining various factors that contribute to the failure of legume smallholder farmers to adopt new agricultural practices. The timeframe of the reviewed literature was from 2010 to 2024. The results showed that smallholder farmers face numerous challenges, including limited access to technology, inadequate knowledge, and insufficient financial resources. Research conducted by the Water Research Commission (WRC) indicates that commercial farmers have access to technology, and this group of farmers possesses more substantial financial resources compared to smallholder farmers. In the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices. It is essential to strengthen the linkage between researchers, agricultural extension, and legume smallholder farmers to promote sustainable agricultural practices (SAPs). Smallholder farmers must be informed about such interventions and sustainable agricultural practices to improve rural livelihoods and enhance resilience, adaptation, and responsiveness.

1. Introduction

Climate change poses a serious threat to agricultural production and food security in developing countries. This primarily affects smallholder farmers in Southern Africa, who are not fully exposed to sustainable agricultural practices (SAPs) [1]. Agriculture plays a crucial role in the country; however, it has been impacted by challenges such as land degradation, incorrect agricultural practices, and climate change, resulting in a decline in yields and income. Sustainable agricultural practices are the ideal means for preserving biodiversity, enhancing soil fertility, protecting ecosystems, and improving food security. Most smallholder farmers in Southern Africa rely primarily on rainfall for agricultural production, a pattern similar to that of smallholder farmers in other parts of the country [2]. Roughly 80% of the world’s population is at risk of crop failures and deprivation caused by climate change in Southern Africa, South Asia, and Southeast Asia, since smallholder farmers are impoverished and vulnerable to a harsh environment [3]. A high demand for food production raises concerns about environmental health and food and energy security. The agricultural sector plays a significant role in most developing countries, contributing to economic growth, the gross domestic product (GDP), food security, and poverty reduction [4]. Therefore, it is essential to explore alternative, sustainable agricultural practices to feed the growing population while reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The more smallholder farmers produce food using unsustainable practices, the more food production declines and fails to meet the growing population’s food demands.
The adoption of SAPs has become a top priority for policymakers, extension agents, and agricultural experts, aiming to enhance agricultural productivity, contribute to food security, and generate income [5]. Various sources indicate that the rate of adoption is relatively poor in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) due to several challenges it faces daily [6,7]. Some of the challenges include limited resources, financial constraints, limited knowledge or information, and insecure land tenure [8]. In Southern Africa, sustainable agricultural practices have not been utilized optimally, especially among smallholder farmers of legumes [9].
This study aims to identify the challenges that affect the adoption of SAPs by smallholder farmers who cultivate legumes. To facilitate further research on sustainable agricultural practices (SAPs), this review highlights the critical variables that influence the adoption of sustainable farming practices. In terms of limited resources, the access to roads, distance to the market, and farmers’ access to equipment, transport, and training are key variables that influence the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices (SAPs) [10]. Legume smallholder farmers can reach the market efficiently to sell their various products if they have access to good roads or infrastructure [11]. If market accessibility improves, legume smallholder farmers will be able to adopt sustainable agricultural practices, thereby improving productivity and meeting consumer needs at the market [12]. However, financial constraints in agriculture hinder the progress of smallholder farmers and influence the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices, which affect farm productivity and food insecurity [13]. Financial constraints also affect the purchasing power of legume smallholder farmers in acquiring agricultural inputs and in covering operational expenses on the farm [14]. Financial constraints influence farmers’ willingness to take on risks, which affects the farmers’ choices to select or adopt new farming techniques to improve farm productivity [15].
Additionally, limited knowledge or information can hinder the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices. Access to information creates awareness and influences farmers’ decisions to adopt sustainable farming practices [16]. Food insecurity, economic growth, and agricultural production are all affected by a lack of knowledge or information. Smallholder farmers must actively engage with the technological world, where information is shared, to acquire knowledge about sustainable agricultural practices and their benefits.
Agricultural extension officers play a crucial role in the agricultural sector by imparting skills and knowledge to smallholder farmers, which enables them to improve their farming productivity, generate sufficient profits, and create employment opportunities. Farmers must come together to share their farming experiences and information, fostering sustainable agriculture [17]. Besley and Ghatak [18] stated that having secure land tenure or ownership is one of the crucial ways to adopt sustainable agricultural practices (SAPs). Smallholder farmers tend to invest fully when they are rightful owners of the land; hence, those who do not have access to land fail to adopt sustainable agricultural practices [19]. Smallholder farmers who own the land have enough opportunities to access credit markets or loans by using land as collateral [20]. Therefore, it is essential to understand the benefits of adopting sustainable agricultural practices. Sustainable agricultural practices must be promoted and practiced to improve food security, protect natural resources, and enhance biodiversity [21].
Thus, the study explored the essential factors influencing the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices. The section below outlines sustainable agricultural practices that are considered necessary for adopting sustainable farming practices. The study highlights the critical variables that influence or hinder the adoption of sustainable farming practices by smallholder farmers in Southern Africa. While there is an extensive literature highlighting the impacts of climate change and land degradation on agricultural productivity, there remains a critical gap in understanding how sustainable agricultural practices can be systematically adopted and scaled across diverse agroecological zones. The existing research focuses on either the environmental consequences of unsustainable farming or isolated success stories of conservation practices. However, fewer studies provide integrated, context-specific evidence that links sustainable agricultural practices directly to long-term resilience, soil restoration, and food system transformation. In particular, knowledge gaps persist regarding the socio-economic and institutional barriers that hinder widespread adoption, the role of smallholder farmers in scaling sustainable solutions, and the quantifiable trade-offs between productivity, environmental sustainability, and livelihoods [22]. Addressing these gaps is essential to designing actionable strategies that respond to both the urgent challenges of climate change and the ongoing degradation of agricultural land. The results will inform policy pathways to bridge the gap between smallholder farmers and the adoption of novel and innovative agricultural practices and technologies, thereby enhancing their resilience and adaptation to climate change.

2. Research Problem and Justification of the Study

Climate change, population growth, and soil fertility have a direct impact on food security, posing a more significant threat to both food security and human well-being, as most smallholder farmers in Southern Africa heavily depend on agriculture for their livelihoods [23]. Previous studies have demonstrated that population growth can compromise the effectiveness of natural resource management and reduce resource availability due to conventional farming, land degradation, and overexploitation [24,25]. Therefore, to meet the growing population’s needs, food must be produced through sustainable agriculture. Conventional farming systems have been dominant for quite a long time, causing damage and polluting the environment [26]. These negative impacts affect food security, climate change, and soil fertility. The loss of soil fertility due to heavy machines on the surface negatively affects farmers, resulting in low yields and a loss of income. Using agrochemical inputs, such as fertilizers, can damage the environment. According to [27], plants only utilize 30–50% of the applied fertilizer, with the remaining amount being lost from the soil through leaching and runoff.
Land degradation, loss of soil fertility, and nutrient imbalances in the soil are among the most serious issues that legume smallholder farmers face daily, as they impact their crop production and result in a loss of household income [28]. The global food system is facing numerous challenges due to rapid urbanization, climate change, and population growth, which are leading to uncertainty in agricultural production and threatening both food security and human welfare. Several studies have been conducted to investigate the adoption of SAPs in other sub-Saharan countries [29,30].
In contrast, only a few studies [31,32] have been carried out from a Southern African perspective, specifically in rural areas where many legume smallholder farmers reside. The study aims to bridge a literature gap in the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices by legume smallholder farmers, particularly in the Mbombela Local Municipality. The study aims to identify the challenges that hinder the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices among smallholder farmers of legumes. The study used the following research questions (RQs) to address its objectives.
RQ1: What are the challenges that affect the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices by smallholder farmers?
RQ2: What are the benefits of the adoption of SAPs?

3. Materials and Methods

This study followed a systematic literature review approach to ensure transparency and reproducibility. Relevant articles were retrieved from online search engines, including Google Scholar, Web of Science, and AgEcon. The keyword combination involves “sustainable agricultural practices”, “smallholder farmers”, or “adoption”.
The review was restricted to peer-reviewed journal articles published in English between 2010 and 2024. The period 2010 to 2024 was deliberately chosen due to the increasing urgency of climate change and its direct implications for agriculture. From 2010 onwards, the effects of climate variability and extremes became more evident, prompting a surge in research on resilience, adaptation, and mitigation strategies within farming systems. Concluding the review in 2024 ensured that the most recent and relevant literature was included, particularly studies reflecting lessons from global crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic, rising food prices, and intensifying climate shocks, all of which have profoundly influenced food systems. Moreover, this timeframe is supported by the significant growth in high-quality empirical studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses on sustainable agricultural practices, providing a rich and timely evidence base for analysis.
Titles, abstracts, and keywords were screened for relevance to the study objectives, followed by full-text assessment. The inclusion criteria required that studies focus on (i) sustainable agricultural practices, (ii) adoption by smallholder farmers, and (iii) relevance to food security, extension services, or farming systems in Southern Africa. The exclusion criteria included studies outside the region, non-English publications, and articles focusing exclusively on crops other than legumes. The inclusion and exclusion criteria applied in this review are presented in Table 1 detailing the PRISMA flow diagram [33].
A total of 230 records were initially identified (Figure 1). After removing duplicates (n = 40), 190 articles remained for title and abstract screening. From these, 50 were excluded because they did not meet the inclusion criteria. The remaining 140 underwent full-text review, from which 45 were excluded due to irrelevance. A final set of 95 studies was included for synthesis.
Agriculture 15 02125 g001
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram of article selection process for reviewed studies. Source: [34].
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram of article selection process for reviewed studies. Source: [34].
Agriculture 15 02125 g001

3.1. Summary of Reviewed Studies

The information below has been classified by (a) author(s), (b) countries, (c) sustainable agricultural practices, (d) sample size, (e) method of analysis, and (f) significance. The descriptive information obtained from these studies is summarized in Table 2. Studies on the adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Practices (SAPs) have been conducted both locally and internationally. The logistic regression (logit) and probit models have been used to analyze the variables that affect adoption in different regions.

3.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Table 3 below presents the studies examined for selecting articles that align with the study’s objectives due to their relevance and applicability. In terms of language preference, only English articles were chosen to reach a diverse audience across the African continent. The study focused solely on papers related to Southern Africa, excluding studies from other regions to minimize bias. This review focused on articles published between 2010 and 2024, allowing our analysis to provide an accurate reflection of the current state of adoption of sustainable agricultural practices (SAPs) by smallholder farmers.

4. Results

Although the various literature [44,45] evidence on SAPs suggests a positive impact of adopting sustainable agricultural practices, the adoption rate is very low in many countries due to several factors. The challenges that smallholder farmers face daily include financial constraints, limited knowledge and access to information, insecure land tenure, and limited resources. This section outlines the challenges faced by smallholder farmers in adopting sustainable agricultural practices. Additionally, this section elaborates on sustainable agricultural practices that smallholder farmers are encouraged to adopt on their farms to enhance farm productivity, conserve biodiversity, and utilize natural resources [46]. Table 3 below outlines the benefits of SAP adoption.
Table 3. The benefits of SAP adoption.
Table 3. The benefits of SAP adoption.
ReferencesBenefits of SAP Adoption
[47]Preserve biodiversity
[48]Improved soil health
[49]Improved yield
[50]Reduce environmental pollution
[51]Cost-effective

4.1. Intercropping System

Intercropping occurs when a smallholder farmer cultivates two or more crops simultaneously on the same plot of land, which also helps to increase crop yield and generate enough profit [52]. Intercropping systems are essential in agricultural production due to their ability to improve soil structure, reduce soil erosion, and enhance biodiversity. Smallholder farmers are encouraged to adopt intercropping as a sustainable practice, as it benefits agricultural production and reduces the cost of inputs [53]. Intercropping plays a crucial role for resource-poor farmers by incorporating legume crops, such as cowpea, soybeans, groundnuts, and Bambara groundnuts, with nitrogen-fixing bacteria. Legume crops are utilized to enhance soil fertility, increase crop yields, and improve soil structure. One of the additional benefits of intercropping legume crops (e.g., cowpea) with cereal crops (e.g., maize) is the N-benefit to the cropping system, which improves the fertility of the succeeding crops [54]. Intercropping also helps smallholder farmers control and manage weeds. The intercropping system conserves soil moisture and reduces evaporation rates.

4.2. Organic Manure

Organic manure is essential to sustainable agriculture, as it can improve soil fertility, aeration, organic matter buildup, soil structure, and water-holding capacity [55]. Organic manure can be kraal manure, chicken manure, green manure, or any other waste product, and they improve soil fertility without harming the environment or ecosystem [56]. Organic manure in the soil enhances biological activities, which help break down crop and animal residues to increase the organic matter content, making it accessible for crops to uptake. Organic manure is generally categorized into two types: bulky and concentrated organic manures [57].

4.3. Crop Rotation

Crop rotation occurs when farmers plant different crops year after year on a small piece of land to improve the soil health status, increase crop yield and profit, and disrupt disease by breaking down its life cycle [58]. Crop rotation with legumes not only increases cropping intensity but also enhances the total food availability. Legume crops aid in nitrogen fixation, which benefits the subsequent crops in the soil [59]. Additionally, crop rotation can disrupt the life cycle of diseases in the soil, as different crops are susceptible to various diseases [60]. The manifestation of pathogens and diseases occurs more frequently in monocropping, where the same crop is grown on the same land year after year. This practice affects the crop’s performance, leading to reduced production and a decline in product quality [61].

4.4. Cover Crops

Cover crops are mainly used to cover the exposed soil to avoid soil erosion (both wind and water erosion) [62]. The benefits of adopting cover crops in agriculture include an increased soil organic matter, improved soil moisture retention, reduced soil erosion, enhanced microbial activity, and improved soil structure [63]. Cover crops encompass crop residues, legumes, root crops, and vegetative covers, collectively contributing to an enhanced soil fertility and cation exchange capacity (CEC) [64]. However, cover crops serve as a form of soil dressing, preventing soil loss by incorporating Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) into the soil, which enhances its nitrogen content due to its ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen. Their root system can also search for nutrients lost from the previous crops and act as a nutrient recycling agent [65].

4.5. Zero Tillage

Zero tillage, also known as no-tillage, is primarily used to conserve soil health by avoiding disturbances from machinery or other implements during the cultivation process [66]. The adoption of zero-tillage practices on farms will also enhance microbial activity, reduce soil erosion, minimize the use of synthetic inputs, and reduce nutrient leaching [67]. In this case, it is another solution that improves food security, is cost-effective, and generates sufficient profit. Zero tillage retains the largest amount of crop residue on the soil surface and minimizes evaporation, as it avoids the turning or breaking of soil particles during soil preparation [68]. It is an approach whereby farmers plant crops in previously unprepared soil along with the remaining crop residue in narrow slots and trenches. However, it will minimize the manifestation of pests and diseases on the farm, and weeds can also be controlled [69].

4.6. The Benefits of SAPs over Conventional Agriculture

The following description outlines both SAPs and conventional agriculture, as well as their impacts on and contributions to the environment and food security. In terms of conservation agriculture, smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa are becoming increasingly aware of its importance, which involves employing several sustainable agricultural practices (SAPs) and utilizing natural resources without compromising the environment [70]. Sustainable agricultural practices (SAPs) refer to an approach to managing agroecosystems for improved and sustained productivity, increased profits, and food security, while preserving and enhancing the resource base and the environment. There is an inequality between agricultural productivity and world population growth. For this reason, there is a need to use an approach that maximizes production in an environmentally friendly manner without increasing production costs. SAPs, which are a more integrated approach, are seen as being able to reduce land degradation and improve food security in a more sustainable way [71]. Conventional agriculture does not prioritize the preservation of biodiversity, natural resources, and animal welfare, instead opting for the use of agrochemical inputs, such as fertilizers, to increase yields.
In contrast, sustainable agricultural practices are designed to sustain agricultural output while protecting natural resources and avoiding the use of artificial inputs that could have adverse environmental effects [72]. It promotes the sustainability of agriculture for future generations, boosting food security and increasing agricultural output. Conventional agriculture (farming or tillage) is a set of farming practices that commonly focus on monoculture, consisting of intensive plowing, heavy irrigation, and chemical inputs [73]. Land plowing is the main operation in conventional agriculture; it reduces weed problems and exposes soil erosion. In the long run, this operation leads to land degradation, including soil compaction and soil infertility, which will impact crop quality. However, there is an alternative technology to conventional agriculture, known as conservation agriculture, which integrates environmental, economic, and social benefits [74].
Figure 2 below shows the negative impact of conventional farming on agricultural production and the environment [75]. Traditional farming systems have been dominant in the farm sector for a long time and have been proven to have a negative impact on the environment, resulting in food insecurity, low production, and income loss for smallholder farmers [76]. Land degradation is also one of the most serious issues that legume smallholder farmers face daily, as it affects their crop production and results in a loss of profits and income. Legume smallholder farmers must adopt sustainable agricultural practices that will not affect human life and the environment.
Agriculture 15 02125 g002
Figure 2. Impact of conventional farming on agriculture and environment; Coulibaly [77].
Figure 2. Impact of conventional farming on agriculture and environment; Coulibaly [77].
Agriculture 15 02125 g002

5. Literature Search Results

5.1. Factors Influencing the Adoption of SAPs

This review identified multiple variables influencing the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices (SAPs), which can be grouped into four broad categories: socio-economic characteristics, institutional and technical factors, management characteristics, and economic and financial aspects. Table 4 presents variables categorized into four main categories: (a) socio-economic characteristics, (b) farm bio-physical characteristics, (c) management characteristics, and (d) institutional and technical factors. These categories include information and knowledge aspects, technical and managerial aspects, social considerations, environmental and health concerns, and socio-economic and demographic aspects. Nevertheless, recent studies have found that farmers’ psychological factors or perceived attributes are also important factors affecting the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices (SAPs). Most smallholder farmers are still unaware of improved sustainable farming practices. However, numerous efforts have been made by various governments, NGOs, and other stakeholders to educate farmers about the importance and benefits of SAPs.

5.1.1. Socio-Economic Characteristics

Wekesa [78] noted that age plays a crucial role in the adoption of agricultural practices and can have either a positive or negative impact on technological adoption, depending on the region. Age positively influences the use of organic manure, as most smallholder farmers are older individuals who tend to adopt its use due to their experiences. Older farmers (over 36 years old) have been practicing the use of organic manure and intercropping systems based on their indigenous knowledge. Still, since they cannot carry out the farming operations, they fail to continue with the implementation. In contrast, Lebeta [79] suggested that older farmers, due to aging, fail to adopt sustainable agricultural practices.
In comparison, younger smallholder farmers (<35 years old) are more energetic and flexible in adopting new technologies on their farms [80]. Smallholder farmers’ experience in agricultural practices has a positive influence on the adoption of new farming methods, as they apply their previous knowledge and skills to improve farm productivity. The chains of practices created following the previous one (also called a “foot in the door” model) could lead to the complete transformation of farming systems [81].

5.1.2. Institutional and Technical Factors

Training by extension officers or private institutions plays a crucial role in the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices, as it equips smallholder farmers with the necessary skills and knowledge to implement these practices effectively. Extension officers play an essential role in collaborating with farmers to enhance farm production, improve food security, and promote sustainable agricultural practices [82]. Extension officers utilize various channels, including Farmers’ Day, phone calls, WhatsApp groups, and newsletters, to disseminate information about the new sustainable practices that farmers must adopt daily [83]. The background of smallholder farmers significantly influences their adoption of sustainable agricultural practices. Farmers who own a plot of land (ownership) are optimistic towards adopting sustainable farming practices. Smallholder farmers who use communal land often fail to invest more in their farms since the land does not belong to the community’s people [84].
Participating in a farmer’s group has a positive and significant influence on the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices (SAPs), as it offers an opportunity for farmers to share information among themselves [85]. Farmers who participate in farmers’ groups are likely to change their farming practices, adopting crop varieties to improve farm productivity.

5.1.3. Farm Bio-Physical Characteristics

Farm bio-physical characteristics refer to the natural components of farming, including types of soil, water, vegetation, and topography, which also influence the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices by smallholder farmers. However, it results in poor production and yield [86]. These characteristics can be considered constraints for smallholder farmers because they impact crop selection, the type of irrigation required, and the maintenance of agricultural production [87]. In terms of soil type, different types vary in their water-holding capacity, drainage, aeration, soil pH, and nutrient retention, which influence their suitability and management practices. Climate is another aspect that influences the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices, and rainfall patterns determine the availability of water for crops to absorb, while also influencing crop choices [88].

5.2. Management Characteristics

Management characteristics, particularly education and farming experience, play a critical role in influencing the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices (SAPs). Experience enables smallholder farmers to identify and select practices that are both cost-effective and suitable for their farming systems, thereby improving productivity and profitability [89]. Formal training programs are equally important, as they equip farmers with the technical knowledge and practical skills required to effectively implement SAPs [90]. Table 4 presents a synthesis of factors from the literature that influence the adoption of SAPs [91].
Table 4. Factors found in the literature on the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices; Wollni and Anderson [91].
Table 4. Factors found in the literature on the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices; Wollni and Anderson [91].
ReferencesSocio-Economic
Characteristics		Farm Bio-Physical
Characteristics		Management
Characteristic		Institutional and
Technical Factors
[92]AgelandscapeExperienceTraining
[93]EducationType of soilFormal training programsGovernment extension
[94]GenderWater Access to knowledge
[95]Marital status Access to debt
[96]No of household Availability of machinery
Among the socio-economic factors, age has been shown to significantly affect adoption patterns. Older smallholder farmers often adopt SAPs at a slower rate than younger farmers, who are generally more open to technology and innovation [97]. Furthermore, education level is consistently highlighted as one of the most influential factors: smallholder farmers with higher levels of formal education and training are better able to comprehend the long-term benefits of SAPs and are more likely to implement them compared to those with little or no formal education [98]. Another critical determinant is farm size and land ownership. Smallholder farmers with larger plots or secure land tenure are more inclined to adopt SAPs, as the land provides the collateral necessary to access credit. Secure land rights not only encourage investment in long-term soil and water management but also give farmers confidence that their investments will benefit future generations [99]. Closely linked to land ownership is access to credit and financial resources. Many smallholder farmers in Southern Africa have a limited income, which constrains their ability to adopt labor-intensive or costly practices, such as purchasing improved seed varieties or investing in soil conservation measures [100]. Credit availability can reduce this barrier by enabling farmers to cover upfront costs and gradually reap the benefits of improved productivity.
Finally, the role of government policies and institutional support cannot be overstated. Policy interventions such as subsidies for sustainable inputs, access to extension services, and market support have a direct impact on smallholder farmers’ willingness and ability to adopt SAPs. Conversely, weak or inconsistent policy implementation often discourages adoption. In Southern Africa, where older farmers dominate agriculture and often rely on farming to supplement pension funds, supportive policies are particularly crucial to overcoming financial and structural barriers to adoption.
In summary, while multiple factors influence the adoption of SAPs, the most significant ones identified in the literature include education, farm size and land ownership, access to credit, and supportive government policies. These factors interact with socio-demographic variables such as age and income, shaping adoption decisions across different farming contexts in the region. Table 5 further discusses how these factors manifest in Southern Africa.

5.3. Outcomes of Sustainable Agricultural Practices (SAPs)

Financial constraints in agriculture remain one of the most significant barriers hindering the progress of smallholder farmers and their adoption of sustainable agricultural practices, ultimately affecting farm productivity and contributing to food insecurity [105]. These financial challenges reduce the purchasing power of legume smallholder farmers, limiting their ability to acquire agricultural inputs such as quality seeds, fertilizers, and pest control products, as well as their capacity to cover operational expenses on the farm. In addition, financial constraints directly influence farmers’ willingness to take on risks, which in turn affects their choice to select and adopt new farming techniques designed to improve productivity [106]. As a result, the absence of reliable financial resources slows down the transition to sustainable and resilient farming systems. Beyond financial limitations, a restricted access to infrastructure and productive resources including roads, markets, farming equipment, transportation, and training opportunities plays a crucial role in shaping the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices [107]. Where infrastructure is poor, farmers struggle to move produce to market, reducing both profitability and incentives for investing in sustainable practices. Conversely, when legume smallholder farmers have reliable road networks and a supportive infrastructure, they can efficiently reach markets to sell their products [108]. Improved market access not only increases household incomes but also encourages the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices, as farmers see tangible benefits in terms of productivity, profitability, and the ability to meet consumer demand.
The adoption of sustainable agricultural practices is also deeply influenced by social and cultural factors. Farmers are embedded within societies that exert constant pressure to conform to accepted norms, values, and beliefs [109]. These social dynamics shape farmers’ attitudes, desires, and openness to adopting new practices. Community leaders and opinion shapers play a particularly influential role in legitimizing or discouraging innovation. Where leaders endorse sustainable technologies, adoption is more likely to spread widely; however, if leaders do not relate to or trust specific technologies, resistance and rejection within the community often follow. Thus, community dynamics act as both drivers and barriers in the uptake of sustainable farming methods.
Finally, environmental pressures compound these challenges. Climate change, unsustainable agricultural practices, and widespread soil degradation are now among the most significant threats to agricultural productivity and the livelihoods of smallholder farmers, particularly those living in rural areas where the dependence on farming is the highest [110]. These pressures reduce yields, degrade natural resources, and increase vulnerability to shocks. The adoption of sustainable agricultural practices is therefore critical, not only as a means of restoring soil fertility and conserving biodiversity but also as a strategy to mitigate the impacts of climate change. By adopting sustainable practices, smallholder farmers can enhance productivity, secure reliable profits, and build resilience to environmental and economic shocks.

6. Discussion

Conventional agriculture, characterized by a heavy reliance on synthetic inputs, genetically modified organisms, and yield-maximization approaches, has long been the dominant farming model [111]. While such practices boost short-term productivity, they often degrade natural resources, reduce biodiversity, and threaten environmental sustainability. For smallholder farmers, especially those in rural communities, these systems create additional barriers. Poor agricultural productivity reduces income generation, limiting their ability to invest in sustainable agricultural practices. Furthermore, smallholders face persistent challenges such as limited access to financial resources, market linkages, and training opportunities, which prevent them from adopting SAPs effectively. Climate change, land degradation, and population growth intensify these difficulties, placing farmers under immense pressure to meet food demand while struggling to sustain livelihoods [112]. Collectively, these systemic constraints explain why many smallholder farmers hesitate to transition fully to SAPs, despite their recognized long-term benefits. Despite these challenges, sustainable agricultural practices represent a viable pathway to long-term agricultural resilience and improved livelihoods. By minimizing the use of synthetic inputs, SAPs lower production costs, making farming more affordable and profitable for smallholders [113]. Practices such as crop rotation, intercropping, and organic soil management not only preserve natural resources but also improve soil fertility and water use efficiency, reducing the risks of groundwater contamination and land degradation [114]. Additionally, SAPs enhance food security by improving the nutritional quality and diversity of food crops, thereby contributing to better health outcomes for farming communities. Beyond household-level impacts, SAP adoption fosters broader socio-economic benefits by creating rural employment opportunities and supporting more inclusive and sustainable agricultural economies. Importantly, SAPs align with global priorities of addressing climate change, conserving biodiversity, and transforming food systems for future generations.
Taken together, the discussion highlights that, while the adoption of SAPs is constrained by financial, institutional, and infrastructural barriers (RQ1), their potential benefits, ranging from environmental conservation to enhanced food security and rural economic development, are significant (RQ2). Addressing the structural challenges through supportive policies, access to credit, farmer training, and improved market access could unlock these benefits, making sustainable agriculture both feasible and attractive for smallholder farmers.
Countries such as Nigeria, Kenya, and Ethiopia have adopted policies and measures to promote sustainable agricultural practices. However, governments and agencies have raised awareness about the importance of adopting SAPs [115]. The adoption of sustainable farming practices (SAPs) affects individual and structural factors. Limited knowledge, land tenure, community settings, capital, and market barriers act as impediments to smallholder farmers, hindering their ability to adopt or invest in new agricultural practices on the farm [116]. Individual factors include farm size, income, skill, experience, age, gender, and knowledge, whereas structural factors involve socio-economic conditions, environmental requirements, and communicative systems [117]. A farmer’s decision to adopt a particular sustainable agricultural practice (SAP) is influenced by various factors, including land tenure, access to credit, education, laborers, off-farm income, age, and farm size. They hinder the adoption rate, and, at the same time, smallholder farmers usually prefer to use what they already have on their farms to enhance productivity and promote sustainable agriculture for future generations [118]. The adoption of new environmentally friendly management practices depended upon awareness, perception, available resources, and incentives. Smallholder farmers are unwilling to adopt low-input practices due to their perception of lower profitability and higher labor requirements [119]. Moreover, in developing countries, younger farmers (<35 years) can adopt new agricultural technologies at a greater rate compared to older farmers (>35 years) [120]. The adoption of sustainable farm practices requires labor-intensive practices compared to conventional farming; hence, factors such as the number of family members engaged, and the number of laborers employed have a significant influence on the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices [121].
The location of a farm plays a crucial role in the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices. In terms of transportation, it is difficult for smallholder farmers to sell their products in the market. Smallholder farmers often sell their products directly from their homes, farms, and informal markets to improve their livelihoods. The distance from the market hinders smallholder farmers’ opportunities to expand their farming operations due to the high cost of production, including transportation costs [122]. Farm size influences the adoption of SAPs as well, and commercial farmers are more likely to adopt sustainable agricultural practices because they have resources and are driven by profit.
Smallholder farmers are typically resource-poor producers whose primary aim is to feed their families rather than to farm at a commercial scale. Their capacity to adopt sustainable agricultural practices (SAPs) is constrained by multiple socio-economic and institutional barriers. A critical factor is the high cost of new technologies: while cost-effective and advantageous innovations may be adopted relatively quickly, resource-poor farmers are often unable to afford or sustain the use of costly or capital-intensive practices, which are more rapidly taken up by large-scale farmers [123,124]. Additionally, practices that demand a high labor input with limited profitability are unattractive to smallholders. Factors such as limited farm size, lack of awareness of the environmental impacts of excessive agrochemical use, inadequate labor availability, and insufficient social capital further reduce the likelihood of SAP adoption. These constraints highlight that even when farmers recognize the environmental benefits of SAPs, practical limitations, especially economic and labor-related limitations, pose significant barriers to widespread adoption. Despite these challenges, the potential benefits of SAPs for smallholder farmers and their communities are substantial. Sustainable agricultural practices can generate sufficient profits, enhance farm productivity, and improve the quality of life for farming households. Beyond economic returns, SAPs contribute to healthier ecosystems by reducing the reliance on harmful agrochemicals, preserving soil fertility, and protecting biodiversity. They also improve food quality and nutritional value, which are vital for addressing food insecurity in resource-poor households. Importantly, SAPs have the capacity to transform smallholder farming into a more resilient and sustainable livelihood system, enabling farmers to adapt to environmental change and contribute positively to community development.
The discussion shows that, while the adoption of SAPs among smallholder farmers is hindered by financial, labor, and institutional constraints (RQ1), their benefits in terms of profitability, environmental protection, food security, and improved farmer well-being make them essential for sustainable rural development (RQ2). Addressing the barriers through supportive policies, affordable technologies, farmer training, and strengthened social networks is critical for realizing the transformative potential of SAPs.

7. Conclusions

Sustainable agricultural practices (SAPs) aim to ensure that agricultural systems remain productive, resilient, and environmentally sound for both current and future generations. They are increasingly promoted by government policymakers, private industries, and researchers as strategies to enhance food security, create employment opportunities, improve rural livelihoods, and generate sustainable profits. However, despite these benefits, smallholder farmers often face significant barriers that limit their adoption. These include inadequate access to information, weak market linkages, and limited credit facilities, all of which prevent them from fully benefiting from sustainable approaches. Many smallholder farmers, therefore, resort to combining sustainable practices with conventional farming methods as a pragmatic strategy to balance immediate productivity demands with long-term soil fertility and environmental conservation.
This review synthesizes evidence from a wide range of studies to identify and critically examine the socio-economic, managerial, bio-physical, institutional, and technical factors that shape the adoption of SAPs. The findings highlight that adoption is not determined by a single factor but rather by the interplay of multiple, context-specific variables such as household demographics, farm size, education levels, access to infrastructure, and local governance systems. By mapping these interrelated drivers, this study makes an important contribution to the sustainable agriculture research agenda. Specifically, it provides an integrated understanding of adoption patterns that can inform targeted interventions and evidence-based policymaking. The review demonstrates that, for SAPs to achieve a widespread uptake, enabling environments must be created through supportive policies, access to extension services, gender- and youth-inclusive programs, and well-functioning agricultural markets.
There are several key directions for future research that emerge. First, there is a need for longitudinal studies that track adoption over time to better understand the sustainability of SAP uptake and its long-term impacts on productivity, resilience, and household well-being. Second, more comparative studies across regions and farming systems are required to explore how contextual factors such as climate variability, soil types, and cultural norms shape adoption differently. Third, future work should explore the economic and ecological trade-offs that smallholder farmers face when combining conventional and sustainable practices, helping to design transition pathways that are both viable and scalable. Finally, further research should examine the role of digital technologies and climate-smart innovations in overcoming information gaps, reducing transaction costs, and enhancing farmers’ adaptive capacity.

Author Contributions

S.M. (Salmina Mokgehle) and J.T. conceptualized the study and drafted the manuscript. S.M. (Salmina Mokgehle), J.T. and B.S. analyzed and interpreted the data. S.M. (Salmina Mokgehle), J.T., J.N., S.M. (Solly Molepo), B.S., S.H.-G., L.N. and S.M. (Sylvester Mpandeli) contributed to the reviewing and writing of the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Water Research Commission (Project number: C2023/2024-01368).

Data Availability Statement

Not Applicable.

Acknowledgments

The Water Research Commission (Project no: C2023/2024-01368) is acknowledged for funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Nyasimi, M.; Kimeli, P.; Sayula, G.; Radeny, M.; Kinyangi, J.; Mungai, C. Adoption and Dissemination Pathways for Climate-Smart Agriculture Technologies and Practices for Climate-Resilient Livelihoods in Lushoto, Northeast Tanzania. Climate 2017, 5, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Sipoko, N. Effect of Irrigation Farming Potential on the Commercialization of Smallholder Farming in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. Master’s Dissertation, University of Fort Hare, Dikeni, South Africa, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  3. Suri, S. Climate Change and Food Security in the Global South. 2021. Available online: https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/climate-change-and-food-security-in-the-global-south (accessed on 30 March 2023).
  4. Ruzzante, S.; Labarta, R.; Bilton, A. Adoption of agricultural technology in the developing world: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. World Dev. 2021, 146, 105599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Rojas, A.; Rahlao, S.; Alfaro, M.; Engel, W.; Dubeux, C.; Gomez, C.; Gutman, V.; Jarvis, A.; Kebreab, E.; Rosales, R. An Assessment of Mitigation Potential of GHG in the Agriculture Sector: The case of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Peru and South Africa. 2014. Available online: http://www.mapsprogramme.org (accessed on 30 March 2023).
  6. Makate, C.; Makate, M.; Mango, N. Sustainable agriculture practices and livelihoods in pro-poor smallholder farming systems in southern Africa. Afr. J. Sci. Technol. Innov. Dev. 2017, 9, 269–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Mutyasira, V.; Hoag, D.; Pendell, D. The adoption of sustainable agricultural practices by smallholder farmers in Ethiopian highlands: An integrative approach. Cogent Food Agric. 2018, 4, 1552439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Khwidzhili, R.H.; Worth, S.H. Evaluation of policies promoting sustainable agriculture in South Africa. S. Afr. J. Agric. Ext. 2017, 45, 73–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kebede, D.; Ketema, M.; Dechassa, N.; Hundessa, F. Determinants of adoption of wheat production technology packages by smallholder farmers: Evidence from eastern Ethiopia. Turkish JAF Sci. Tech. 2017, 5, 267–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lee, K. The Role of Culture in Agricultural Technology Diffusion in Ghana. Unpublished MMSS Senior Thesis, Northwestern University, Department of Economics, Evanston, IL, USA, 2011. (accessed on 30 March 2023). [Google Scholar]
  11. Omobitan, O.; Khanal, A. Examining capital constraints and financing sources: How do small farms meet their agricultural spending and expenses? J. Risk Financ. Manag. 2022, 15, 133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Balana, B.B.; Mekonnen, D.; Haile, B.; Hagos, F.; Yimam, S.; Ringler, C. Demand and supply constraints of credit in smallholder farming: Evidence from Ethiopia and Tanzania. World Dev. 2022, 159, 106033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Pradhan, M.; Tripura, B.; Mondal, T.K.; Darnnel, R.R.; Murasing, J. Factors influencing the adoption of organic farming by the farmers of North District of Sikkim. Int. J. Adv. Sci. Res. Dev. 2017, 4, 1–7. Available online: http://paper.researchbib.com/view/paper/200707 (accessed on 10 November 2020).
  14. Deininger, K.; Savastano, S.; Xia, F. Smallholders’ land access in Sub-Saharan Africa: A new landscape. Food Policy 2017, 67, 78–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Koiralaa, K.H.; Mishrab, A.; Mohantyca, S. Impact of land ownership on productivity and efficiency of rice farmers: The case of the Philippines. Land Use Policy 2016, 50, 371–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Meena, D.C.; Kumari, M.; Kishore, P.; Bangararaju, T.S.V.; Bishnoi, R. Do socio-economic conditions and personal behaviour influence the adoption of climate change mitigating measures. Indian J. Ext. Educ. 2023, 59, 22–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Middelberg, S.L. Sustainable Agriculture: A Review of Challenges Facing the South African Agricultural Sector. J. Hum. Ecol. 2013, 42, 163–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Besley, T.; Ghatak, M. Property rights and economic development. In Handbook of Economic Development; Rosenzweig, M.R., Rodrik, D., Eds.; Elsevier: Oxford, UK; Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2010; pp. 4525–4595. [Google Scholar]
  19. Tesfaye, K.; Kassie, M.; Cairns, J.E.; Michael, M.; Stirling, C.; Abate, T. Potential for scaling up climate-smart agricultural practices: Examples from sub-Saharan Africa, Climate Change Adaptation in Africa. In Climate Change Management; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 185–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Laosutsan, P.; Shivakoti, G.P.; Soni, P. Agricultural and natural resources adaptations to climate change: Factors influencing the adoption of good agricultural practices and export decision of Thailand’s vegetable farmers. Int. J. Commons. 2019, 13, 867–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Gram, G.; Roobroeck, D.; Pypers, P.; Six, J.; Merckx, R.; Vanlauwe, B. Combining organic and mineral fertilizers as a climate-smart integrated soil fertility management practice in sub-Saharan Africa: A meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0239552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Kandel, H.J.; Samarappuli, D.P.; Johnson, K.L.; Berti, M.T. Soybean Relative Maturity, Not Row Spacing, Affected Interseeded Cover Crops Biomass. Agriculture 2021, 11, 441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Chaves, C.S.; Ribeiro, K.G.; Pereira, O.G.; da Fonseca, D.M.; Cecon, P.R.; Gomide, C.A.D.M. Signal Grass Deferred Pastures Fertilized with Nitrogen or Intercropped with Calopo. Agriculture 2021, 11, 804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hammed, T.; Oloruntoba, T.; Ana, E. Enhancing growth and yield of crops with nutrient-enriched organic fertilizer at wet and dry seasons in ensuring climate-smart agriculture. Int. J. Recycl. Org. Waste Agric. 2019, 8, 81–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Almond, R.E.A.; Grooten, M.; Peterson, T. Living Planet Report 2020: Bending the Curve of Biodiversity Loss; World Wildlife Fund: Gland, Switzerland, 2020; ISBN 978-2-940529-99-5. Available online: https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/16870 (accessed on 1 March 2023).
  26. Chalise, D.; Kumar, L.; Kristiansen, P. Land degradation by soil erosion in Nepal: A review. Soil Syst. 2019, 3, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zeweld, W.; Van Huylenbroeck, G.; Tesfay, G.; Speelman, S. Intentions of Smallholder farmers towards sustainable agricultural practices. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 187, 71–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Adenle, A.A.; Azadi, H.; Manning, L. The era of sustainable agricultural development in Africa: Understanding the benefits and constraints. Food Review. Int. 2018, 34, 411–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kidane, S.M.; Lambert, D.M.; Eash, N.S.; Roberts, R.K.; Thierfelder, C. Conservation agriculture and maize production risk: The case of Mozambique smallholders. J. Agron. 2019, 111, 2636–2646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Peterson, B.; Snappy, S. What is sustainable intensification? Views from experts. Land Use Policy 2015, 46, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Pretty, J.; Benton, T.G.; Bharucha, Z.P.; Dicks, L.V.; Flora, C.B.; Godfray, D.; Goulson, S.; Hartley, N. Wratten Global assessment of agricultural system redesign for sustainable intensification. Nat. Sustain. 2018, 1, 441–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wang, L.; Zhao, Y.; Al-Kaisi, M.; Yang, J.; Chen, Y.; Sui, P. Effects of seven diversified crop rotations on selected soil health indicators and wheat productivity. Agronomy 2020, 10, 235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Parmentier, S. Scaling-Up Agroecological Approaches: What, Why and How? Belgium Discussion Paper; Oxfam Solidarity: Brussels, Belgium, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  34. Tricco, A.C.; Lillie, E.; Zarin, W.; O’Brien, K.K.; Colquhoun, H.; Levac, D.; Straus, S.E. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews: Checklist and explanation. Ann. Intern. Med. 2018, 169, 467–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ntshangase, N.; Muroyiwa, B.; Sibanda, M. Farmers’ perceptions and factors influencing the adoption of no-till conservation agriculture by small-scale farmers in Zashuke, KwaZulu-Natal Province. Sustainability 2018, 10, 555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kornegay, J.L.; Harwood, R.R.; Batie, S.S.; Bucks, D.; Flora, C.B.; Hanson, J.; Willis, P. Towards Sustainable Agriculture System in the 21st Century; National Research Council of the National Academies: Washington, DC, USA, 2010; Available online: http://nap.edu/12832 (accessed on 1 March 2023).
  37. Swinton, S.M.; Rector, N.; Robertson, G.P.; Jolejole Foreman, C.B.; Lupi, F. Farmers decisions 117 about adopting environmentally beneficial practices. In The Ecology of Agricultural Landscapes: Long-Term Research on the Path to Sustainability; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 340–359. Available online: https://lter.kbs.msu.edu/pub/3453 (accessed on 1 March 2023).
  38. Mpinda, M.O.; Bett, H.K.; Muluvi, A.S. Determinants of adoption of climate-smart agricultural practices among smallholder maize farmers in the Northeast District, Botswana. Discov. Agric. 2024, 3, 114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Bouwman, T.I.; Andersson, J.A.; Giller, K.E. Adapting Yet Not Adopting? Conservation Agriculture in Central Malawi. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2021, 307, 107224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Shiimi, T.; Uchezuba, D. Socio-Economic Factors Influencing the Adoption of Conservation Agriculture in Northern Namibia. Sustainability 2025, 17, 2298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Adeogun, S.; Adebayo, O. Adoption and Impact of Climate-Smart Agriculture Practices Among Vegetable Farmers in Maseru District, Lesotho. Visegr. J. Bioecon. Sustain. Dev. 2024, 14, 13–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Hodges, D.; Maseko, M.S. Factors Influencing Adoption of Conservation Agriculture: A Case for Increasing Resilience to Climate Change and Variability in Swaziland. J. Environ. Earth Sci. 2015, 5, 16–25. [Google Scholar]
  43. Jia, H. Agriculture: Science and technology safeguard sustainability. Natl. Sci. Rev. 2019, 6, 595–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Magazzino, C.; Santeramo, F.G. Financial development, growth, and productivity. J. Econ. Stud. 2023, 51, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Jacobs, A.A.; Evans, R.S.; Allison, J.K.; Garner, E.R.; Kingery, W.L.; McCulley, R.L. Cover crops and no-tillage reduce crop production costs and soil loss, compensating for lack of short-term soil quality improvement in a maize and soybean production system. Soil Till Res. 2022, 218, 105310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Wulanningtyas, H.S.; Gong, Y.; Li, P.; Sakagami, N.; Nishiwaki, J.; Komatsuzaki, M. A cover crop and no-tillage system for enhancing soil health by increasing soil organic matter in soybean cultivation. Soil Till Res. 2021, 205, 104749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Maja, M.M.; Ayano, S.F. The Impact of Population Growth on Natural Resources and Farmers’ Capacity to Adapt to Climate Change in Low-Income Countries. Earth Syst. Environ. 2021, 5, 271–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Gattinger, A.; Jawtusch, J.; Müller, A.; Mäder, P. No-Till Agriculture. A Climate Smart Solution? Misereor: Aachen, Germany, 2011; pp. 1–24. Available online: https://orgprints.dk/id/eprint/20302/1/MISEREOR_no_till.pdf (accessed on 30 March 2023).
  49. Luo, Z.; Wang, E.; Sun, O.J. Can no-tillage stimulate carbon sequestration in agricultural soils? A meta-analysis of paired experiments. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2010, 139, 224–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Adnan, N.; Nordin, S.M.; bin Abu Bakar, Z. Understanding and facilitating sustainable agricultural practice: A comprehensive analysis of adoption behaviour among Malaysian paddy farmers. Land Use Policy 2017, 68, 372–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Glaze-Corcoran, S.; Hashemi, M.; Sadeghpour, A.; Jahanzad, E.; Afshar, R.K.; Liu, X. Understanding intercropping to improve agricultural resiliency and environmental sustainability. Adv. Agron. 2020, 162, 199–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. FAO. The International Code of Conduct for the Sustainable Use and Management of Fertilizers; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2019; ISBN 978-92-5-131705-1. [Google Scholar]
  53. Weih, M.; Karley, A.J.; Newton, A.C.; Kiær, L.P.; Scherber, C.; Rubiales, D.; Adam, E.; Ajal, J.; Brandmeier, J.; Pappagallo, S. Grain Yield Stability of Cereal-Legume Intercrops is Greater Than Sole Crops in More Productive Conditions. Agriculture 2021, 11, 255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kassie, M.; Jaleta, M.; Shiferaw, B.; Mmbando, F.; Mekuria, M. Adoption of interrelated sustainable agricultural practices in smallholder systems: Evidence from rural Tanzania. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2013, 80, 525–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Arslan, A.; Mc Cathy, N.; Lipper, L.; Asfaw, S.; Andrea, C. Adoption and intensity of adoption of conservation farming practices in Zambia. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2014, 187, 72–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Shrestha, J.; Subedi, S.; Timsina, K.P. Sustainable intensification in agriculture: An approach for making agriculture greener and productive. J. Nep. Agric. Res. Counc. 2021, 7, 133–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Reddy, A.K.; Reddy, K.P. Classification of organic manures: Bulky and concentrated organic manures. Int. J. Environ. Clim. Change 2021, 11, 123–130. [Google Scholar]
  58. Agholor, A.I. Analysis of Decision Making in Smallholder Irrigation Practice: A Case Study of Shiloh and Zanyokwe Irrigation Schemes in Central Eastern Cape, South Africa. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Fort Hare, Dikeni, South Africa, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  59. Omer, M.; Idowu, O.; Ulery, A.; VanLeeuwen, D.; Guldan, S. Seasonal changes of soil quality indicators in selected arid cropping systems. Agriculture 2018, 8, 124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Adetunji, A.T.; Ncube, B.; Mulidzi, R.; Lewu, F.B. Management impact and benefit of cover crops on soil quality: A review. Soil Tillage Res. 2020, 204, 104717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Danso-Abbeam, G.; Dagunga, G.; Ehiakpor, D.S.; Abiodun, A.; Ogundeji, A.A.; Edinam Dope Setsoafia, E.D.; Joseph, A.; Awuni, J.A. Crop livestock diversification in the mixed farming systems: Implication on food security in Northern Ghana. Agric. Food Secur. 2021, 10, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Bese, D.; Elliot Zwane, E.; Cheteni, P. Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Practices by Smallholder Farmers in Mbhashe Municipality in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. 2020. Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/10520/ejc-aa_affrika1_v2021_nsi1_a2 (accessed on 30 March 2023).
  63. Pradyot, R.J. Can minimum tillage enhance productivity? Evidence from smallholder farmers in Kenya. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 218, 465–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Okon, U.E.; Idiong, I.C. Factors influencing adoption of organic vegetable farming among farm households in the south-south region of Nigeria. Am. Eurasian J. Agric. Environ. Sci. 2016, 16, 852–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Chichongue, O.; Pelser, A.; Tol, J.V.; du Preez, C.; Ceronio, G. Effects of Tillage Systems and Cropping Patterns on Soil Physical Properties in Mozambique. Inter. J. Agric. Ext. 2019, 7, 277–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Suneeporn, S.; Chanhathai, K.; Krichanont, I.; Unggoon, W. Farmers’ Adoption of Organic Rice Production in Chachoengsao Province, Thailand. J. Agric. Ext. 2020, 24, 71–79. Available online: http://eoi.citefactor.org/10.11226/v24i2 (accessed on 30 March 2023). [CrossRef]
  67. Habanyati, E.J.; Nyanga, P.H.; Umar, B.B. Factors contributing to the adoption of conservation agriculture among smallholder farmers in Petauke, Zambia. Kasetsart J. Soc. Sci. 2018, 41, 91–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Joshi, A.; Kalauni, D.; Tiwari, U. Determinants of awareness of good agricultural practices (GAP) among banana growers in Chitwan, Nepal. J. Agric. Food Res. 2019, 1, 100010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Kunzekweguta, M.; Rich, K.M.; Lyne, M.C. Factors affecting adoption and intensity of conservation agriculture techniques applied by smallholders in Masvingo district, Zimbabwe. Agrekon 2017, 56, 330–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Ullah, A.; Shah, S.N.M.; Ali, A.; Naz, R.; Mahar, A.; Kalhoro, S.A. Factors affecting the adoption of organic farming in Peshawar, Pakistan. Agric. Sci. 2015, 06, 587–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Terano, R.; Mohamed, Z.; Shamsudin, M.N.; Latif, I.A. Factors influencing intention to adopt sustainable agriculture practices among paddy farmers in Kada, Malaysia. Asian. J. Agri. Res. Extn. 2015, 9, 268–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Sharma, P.; Sharma, P.; Thakur, N. Sustainable farming practices and soil health: A pathway to achieving SDGs and future prospects. Discov. Sustain. 2024, 5, 250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Arnhold, S.; Lindner, S.; Lee, B.; Martin, E.; Kettering, J.; Nguyen, T.T.; Koellner, T.; Ok, Y.S.; Huwe, B. Conventional and organic farming: Soil erosion and conservation potential for row crop cultivation. Geoderma 2024, 219–220, 89–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Ward, P.S.; Bell, A.R.; Droppelmann, K.; Benton, T.G. Early adoption of conservation agriculture practices: Understanding partial compliance in programs with multiple adoption decisions. Land Use Policy 2018, 70, 27–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Najafabadi, M.O.; Khedri, K.; Lashgarara, F. Requirements of low-input sustainable agriculture implementation: A factor analysis of experts’ perspective. ARPN J. Agric. Biol. Sci 2012, 7, 583–585. [Google Scholar]
  76. Kom, Z.; Nethengwe, N.S.; Mpandeli, N.S. Determinants of small-scale farmers’ choice and adaptive strategies in response to climatic shocks in Vhembe District, South Africa. GeoJournal 2020, 87, 677–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Coulibaly, T.P.; Du, J.; Diakité, D. Sustainable agricultural practices adoption. Agriculture 2021, 67, 166–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Wekesa, B.M. Effects of Climate-Smart Agricultural Practices on Food Security of Small-Scale Farmers in Teso North Sub-Country, Kenya. Master’s Dissertation, Egerton University, Nakuru, Kenya, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  79. Lebeta, T.H. Participation in and Impact of Small-Scale Irrigation Practice on Household Income: The Case of Abay Chomen District of Oromia National, Regional State, Ethiopia. Master’s Dissertation, Haramaya University, Oromia, Ethiopia, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  80. Vidanapathirana, N.P. Agricultural information systems and their applications for the development of agriculture and rural community, a review study. In Proceedings of the 35th Information Systems Research Seminar in Scandinavia (IRIS), Sigtuna, Sweden, 17–20 August 2012; Volume 1, pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  81. Hermanus, J.S.; Osden, J. Factors affecting digital technology adoption by small-scale farmers in agriculture value chains (AVCs) in South Africa. Inf. Technol. Dev. 2021, 28, 558–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Mwangi, M.; Kariuki, S. Factors determining the adoption of new agricultural technology by smallholder farmers in developing countries. J. Econ. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 6, 208–216. [Google Scholar]
  83. Mulugeta, A. Factors Affecting Adoption of Improved Haricot Bean Varieties and Associated Agronomic Practices in Dale Woreda, Southern Nations, Nationalities & Peoples’ Region (SNNPR). Master’s Thesis, Hawassa University, Hawassa, Ethiopia, 2012. Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/10291 (accessed on 30 March 2020).
  84. Wilson, R.S.; Howard, G.; Burnett, E.A. Improving nutrient management practices in agriculture: The role of risk-based beliefs in understanding farmers’ attitudes toward taking additional action. Water Resour. Res. 2014, 50, 6735–6746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Mobius, M.; Phan, T.; Szeidl, A. Treasure Hunt: Social Learning in the Field; Working Paper 2; RePEc:nbr:nberwo:21014; National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  86. Kemboi, E.; Muendo, K.; Kiprotich, C. Crop diversification analysis amongst smallholder farmers in Kenya (empirical evidence from Kamariny ward, Elgeyo Marakwet County). Cogent Food Agric. 2020, 6, 1834669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Lemma, T.; Sharma, M. Motivations for women’s participation in urban agriculture: A multivariate probit model analysis. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2024, 22, 2379893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Vilakazi, B.S.; Zengeni, R.; Mafongoya, P. Indigenous strategies used by selected farming communities in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, to manage soil, water, and climate extremes and to make weather predictions. Land Deg. Dev. 2019, 30, 1999–2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Kaliba, A.R.; Mazvimavi, K.; Gregory, T.L.; Mgonja, F.M.; Mgonja, M. Factors affecting adoption of improved sorghum varieties in Tanzania under information and capital constraints. Agri. Food Econ. 2018, 6, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Sisha, T.A. Household-level food insecurity assessment: Evidence from panel data, Ethiopia. Sci. Afr. 2020, 7, e00262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Wollni, M.; Andersson, C. Spatial patterns of organic agriculture adoption: Evidence from Honduras. Ecol. Econ. 2014, 97, 120–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Teklewold, H. Understanding gender differences in the choices of a portfolio of climate-smart agricultural practices in sub-Saharan Africa. World Dev. Perspect. 2023, 29, 100486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Dlangalala, S.F.; Mudhara, M. Determinants of farmer awareness of water governance across gender dimensions in smallholder irrigation schemes in KwaZulu-Natal Province, South Africa. Water SA 2020, 46, 234–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Mancinelli, R.; Muleo, R.; Marinari, S.; Radicetti, E. How soil ecological intensification by means of cover crops affects nitrogen use efficiency in pepper cultivation. Agriculture 2019, 9, 145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Mäder, P.; Berner, A. Development of reduced tillage systems in organic farming in Europe. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2012, 27, 7–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Deininger, K.; Ali, D.A.; Alemu, T. Impacts of land certification on tenure security, investment, and land market participation: Evidence from Ethiopia. Land. Econ. 2011, 87, 312–334. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41307216 (accessed on 10 February 2023). [CrossRef]
  97. Ziba, D. The Impact of Irrigation Schemes on Farmers’ Income and Livelihoods in the Upper East Region of Ghana. Master’s Dissertation, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kabwe, Zambia, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  98. Mutero, J.; Munapo, E.; Seaketso, P. Operational challenges faced by smallholder farmers: A case of eThekwini metropolitan in South Africa. Environ. Econ. 2016, 7, 40–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Mudhara, M. In agrarian transformation in Smallholder Agriculture in South Africa: A Diagnosis of Bottlenecks and Public Policy Options, Unpublished Paper Delivered at the National Conference on Structural Poverty in South Africa. 2010. Available online: https://www.plaas.org.za/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/mudhara.pdf (accessed on 30 March 2023).
  100. Cheteni, P.; Mushunje, A.; Taruvinga, A. Barriers and Incentives to Potential Adoption of Biofuel Crops by Smallholder Farmers in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. Master’s Thesis, University of Fort Hare, Dikeni, South Africa, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  101. Siulemba, G.K.; Moodley, V. A gendered analysis of sustainable agricultural practices with a changing climate in the Chankumba agricultural community, Zambia. Agenda 2014, 28, 135–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Chitja, J.M.; Morojele, P. The context of smallholder farming in South Africa: Towards a livelihood asset-building framework. J. Hum. Ecol. 2014, 45, 147–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Marenya, P.P.; Kassie, M.; Jaleta, M.; Erenstein, O. Predicting minimum tillage adoption among smallholder farmers using micro-level and policy variables. Agric. Food Econ. 2017, 5, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Musetha, M.A. The impact of climate change on agricultural crop production in the Vhembe district municipality, Limpopo province, South Africa. Master’s Thesis, University of South Africa, Muckleneuk, Pretoria, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  105. Mishra, B.; Gyawali, B.; Paudel, K.; Poudyal, N.; Simon, M.; Dasgupta, S.; Antonious, G. Adoption of Sustainable Agriculture Practices among Farmers in Kentucky, USA. Environ. Manag. 2018, 62, 1060–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Migliorini, P.; Wezel, A. Converging and diverging principles and practices of organic agriculture regulations and agroecology. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2017, 37, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Bantle, A.; Borken, W.; Ellerbrock, R.H.; Schulze, E.D.; Weisser, W.W.; Matzner, E. Quantity and quality of dissolved organic carbon released from coarse woody debris of different tree species in the early phase of decomposition. Forum Ecol. Manag. 2014, 329, 287–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Rankin, J.G. Data system-embedded guidance significantly improves data analyses by making data ‘over the counter’ for users. In Handbook of Research on Innovations in Information Retrieval, Analysis, and Management; Martins, J.T., Molnar, A., Eds.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2015; pp. 843–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Agarwal, B. Gender equality, food security, and the Sustainable Development Goals. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2018, 34, 26–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Ali, S.; Hussain, T.; Zhang, G.; Nurunnabi, M.; Li, B. The Implementation of Sustainable Development Goals in “BRICS” Countries. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Altieri, M.A.; Nicholls, C.I.; Henao, A.; Lana, M.A. Agroecology and the design of climate change-resilient farming systems. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 35, 869–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Anibaldi, R.; Rundle-Thiele, S.; David, P.; Roemer, C. Theoretical Underpinnings in Research Investigating Barriers for Implementing Environmentally Sustainable Farming Practices: Insights from a Systematic Literature Review. Land 2021, 10, 386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Antwi-Agyei, P.; Abalo, E.M.; Dougill, A.J.; Baffour-Ata, F. Motivations, enablers, and barriers to the adoption of climate-smart agricultural practices by smallholder farmers: Evidence from the transitional and savannah agroecological zones of Ghana. Reg. Sustain. 2021, 2, 375–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Arora, N.K.; Mishra, I. Current scenario and future directions for Sustainable Development Goal 2: A roadmap to zero hunger. Environ. Sustain. 2022, 5, 129–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Atapattu, A.A.A.J.; Senarathne, S.H.S.; Raveendra, S.A.S.T.; Egodawatte, W.C.P.; Mensah, S. Effect of short-term agroforestry systems on soil quality in marginal coconut lands in Sri Lanka. Agric. Res. J. 2017, 54, 324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Bacon, C.M.; Getz, C.; Kraus, S.; Montenegro, M.; Holland, K. The Social Dimensions of Sustainability and Change in Diversified Farming Systems. Ecol. Soc. 2012, 17, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Baker, B.P.; Green, T.A.; Loker, A.J. Biological control and integrated pest management in organic and conventional systems. Biol. Control. 2020, 140, 104095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Balasundram, S.K.; Shamshiri, R.R.; Sridhara, S.; Rizan, N. The Role of Digital Agriculture in Mitigating Climate Change and Ensuring Food Security: An Overview. Sustainability 2023, 15, 5325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Campbell, B.M.; Hansen, J.; Rioux, J.; Stirling, C.M.; Twomlow, S.; Wollenberg, E. Urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts (SDG 13): Transforming agriculture and food systems. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2018, 34, 13–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Caron, P.; Ferrero y de Loma-Osorio, G.; Nabarro, D.; Hainzelin, E.; Guillou, M.; Andersen, I.; Arnold, T.; Astralaga, M.; Beukeboom, M.; Bickersteth, S.; et al. Food systems for sustainable development: Proposals for a profound four-part transformation. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 38, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Kahane, R.; Hodgkin, T.; Jaenicke, H.; Hoogendoorn, C.; Hermann, M.; Keatinge, J.D.H.; d’Arros Hughes, J.; Padulosi, S.; Looney, N. Agrobiodiversity for food security, health, and income. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2013, 33, 671–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Serdeczny, O.; Adams, S.; Baarsch, F.; Coumou, D.; Robinson, A.; Hare, W. Climate change impacts in Sub-Saharan Africa: From physical changes to their social repercussions. Reg. Environ. Change 2017, 17, 1585–1600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Sani, S.; Haji, J.; Goshu, D. Climate change adaptation strategies of smallholder farmers: The case of Assosa District, Western Ethiopia. Environ. Earth Sci. 2016, 6, 9–15. [Google Scholar]
  124. Cele, P.D. Sustainable Agricultural Practices in Smallholder Farming Systems: A Case Study of Smallholder Farmers in the Ugu District, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Ph.D. Thesis, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa, 2016. [Google Scholar]
Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria used in article selection.
Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria used in article selection.
Inclusion CriteriaExclusion Criteria
Peer-reviewed journal articlesGray literature (reports, dissertations, policy briefs)
Published between 2010 and 2024Published before 2010
English-language studiesNon-English publications
Articles focusing on Southern AfricaArticles conducted outside Southern Africa
Articles addressing sustainable agricultural practices (SAPs), the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices by smallholder farmers, food security, or extension servicesArticles unrelated to SAP adoption or focusing exclusively on crops other than legumes
Table 2. Summary of studies on the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices.
Table 2. Summary of studies on the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices.
ReferencesYear of Study CountrySustainable Agricultural PracticeSample SizeMethod of Analysis
[34]2018MozambiqueConservation agriculture616Logit model
[35]2010Eastern Cape, South AfricaAgricultural practices130Binary model
[36]2015MalawiConservation agriculture 350Logistic regression
[37]2024BotswanaMinimum tillage384MultivariateProbit
[38]2021AngolaOrganic crops396Logistic regression
[39]2024NamibiaConservation agriculture169Multinomial logit model
[40]2024LesothoGAPs (Good Agricultural Practices)180Logit model
[41]2015EswatiniConservation agriculture200Binary Logistic regression
[42]2019ZambiaConservational agriculture92Logit model
[43]2023ZimbabweConservational agriculture237Wald statistics
Table 5. Factors affecting SAP adoption in Southern Africa.
Table 5. Factors affecting SAP adoption in Southern Africa.
FactorsReferences
Age[101]
Level of education[102]
Land tenure [103]
Source of income[104]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Thobane, J.; Ndoro, J.; Molepo, S.; Serote, B.; Hlophe-Ginindza, S.; Mpandeli, S.; Nhamo, L.; Mokgehle, S. A Review on the Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Practices in Southern Africa: Focus on Smallholder Farmers. Agriculture 2025, 15, 2125. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15202125

AMA Style

Thobane J, Ndoro J, Molepo S, Serote B, Hlophe-Ginindza S, Mpandeli S, Nhamo L, Mokgehle S. A Review on the Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Practices in Southern Africa: Focus on Smallholder Farmers. Agriculture. 2025; 15(20):2125. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15202125

Chicago/Turabian Style

Thobane, Jonathan, Jorine Ndoro, Solly Molepo, Batizi Serote, Samkelisiwe Hlophe-Ginindza, Sylvester Mpandeli, Luxon Nhamo, and Salmina Mokgehle. 2025. "A Review on the Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Practices in Southern Africa: Focus on Smallholder Farmers" Agriculture 15, no. 20: 2125. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15202125

APA Style

Thobane, J., Ndoro, J., Molepo, S., Serote, B., Hlophe-Ginindza, S., Mpandeli, S., Nhamo, L., & Mokgehle, S. (2025). A Review on the Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Practices in Southern Africa: Focus on Smallholder Farmers. Agriculture, 15(20), 2125. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15202125

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop