Sustainability 10 01990

sustainability
Review
Institutional Perspectives of Climate-Smart
Agriculture: A Systematic Literature Review
Edmond Totin 1,2 ID , Alcade C. Segnon 2,3,4, * ID , Marc Schut 5,6 ID , Hippolyte Affognon 2 ,
Robert B. Zougmoré 2,7 , Todd Rosenstock 8 ID and Philip K. Thornton 9
1 Ecole de Foresterie et d’Ingénierie du Bois, Université Nationale d’Agriculture du Benin,
Kétou BP 43, Benin; [email protected]
2 International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Bamako BP 320, Mali;
[email protected] (H.A.); [email protected] (R.B.Z.)
3 Institute for Environment and Sanitation Studies, University of Ghana, P.O. Box LG 209,
Legon, Accra, Ghana
4 Faculty of Agronomic Sciences, University of Abomey-Calavi, Cotonou 01 BP 526, Benin
5 International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), P.O. Box 1269, Kigali, Rwanda; [email protected]
6 Knowledge, Technology and Innovation Group, Wageningen University and Research, P.O. Box 8130,
6700 EW Wageningen, The Netherlands
7 CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), ICRISAT,
Bamako BP 320, Mali
8 World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), P.O. Box 30677, Nairobi 00100, Kenya; [email protected]
9 CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS),
International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), P.O. Box 30709, Nairobi 00100, Kenya;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +229-97-327-830

Received: 22 May 2018; Accepted: 8 June 2018; Published: 13 June 2018
Abstract: Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) is increasingly seen as a promising approach to feed the
growing world population under climate change. The review explored how institutional perspectives
are reflected in the CSA literature. In total, 137 publications were analyzed using institutional analysis
framework, of which 55.5% make specific reference to institutional dimensions. While the CSA
concept encompasses three pillars (productivity, adaptation, and mitigation), the literature has hardly
addressed them in an integrated way. The development status of study sites also seems to influence
which pillars are promoted. Mitigation was predominantly addressed in high-income countries,
while productivity and adaptation were priorities for middle and low-income countries. Interest in
institutional aspects has been gradual in the CSA literature. It has largely focused on knowledge
infrastructure, market structure, and hard institutional aspects. There has been less attention to
understand whether investments in physical infrastructure and actors’ interaction, or how historical,
political, and social context may influence the uptake of CSA options. Rethinking the approach to
promoting CSA technologies by integrating technology packages and institutional enabling factors
can provide potential opportunities for effective scaling of CSA options.
Keywords: climate-smart agriculture; institutions; adaptation; mitigation; systematic review
1. Introduction
Global climate change is recognized as one of the greatest threats to agricultural productivity
in several regions of the world [1]. Many African countries is projected to be severely compromised
by climate variability and change in agricultural production, including access to food, the length of
growing seasons, and yield potential [2]. Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) has been particularly exposed
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1990; doi:10.3390/su10061990 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2018, 10, 1990 2 of 20
to the impact of climate variability due to the high reliance on rain-fed agriculture in this region [3].
Harvell, et al. [4] have shown that the climate change impacts on agriculture will occur along with
high population growth and change of consumption patterns. The world population is projected to be
about 8 and 10 billion in 2020 and 2050 respectively [5]. With such a population trend, agriculture will
require a significant transformation to ensure adequate food supplies for the growing population and
meet the challenge of climate change [6].
Two major scenarios are considered to increase food production for the growing world population:
(a) greater land clearing to expand the production area to meet the food demand, and (b) intensification
on existing crop lands with an increased use of inputs, such as fertilisers and seeds. Regarding
the fast expansion of urban areas, land scarcity is now a serious issue in many parts of SSA [7].
Technically, it would be relatively easier to increase food production and close the yield gaps through
the intensification on existing crop lands with available technologies [8]. Therefore, the sustainable
intensification of smallholder farming is a serious option for satisfying food requirements. The Climate
Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) program, an interdisciplinary CGIAR Research
Program, seeks to achieve the sustainable intensification of food production and support global
demand for food through the promotion of “climate-smart agriculture” (CSA).
The concept of CSA emerged as a promising way to secure food for the growing world population
under climate change conditions [9]. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FAO [10] defines CSA as “agriculture that sustainably increases productivity, enhances resilience,
reduces greenhouse gases, and enhances achievement of national food security and development
goals”. The concept reflects an ambition to improve the integration of agriculture development and
climate responsiveness. It aims to achieve food security and broader development goals within the
context of a changing climate and increasing food demand [11]. The CSA includes both traditional and
innovative practices and technologies that promote agricultural productivity and generate income.
It also boosts resilience to climate change and mitigates greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions when
possible. It includes three major pillars: (a) increasing agricultural productivity; (b) increasing adaptive
capacity at multiple scales (from farm to nation); and (c) reducing greenhouse gas emissions [12].
While there is a consensus on the potential of the CSA to support global food and nutritional security
in less-favored conditions [11–13], CSA scholars have different perspectives to approach the scaling of
CSA options.
For decades, many countries have made significant investments in agriculture through successive
generations of climate adaptation projects to increase the productivity of smallholder farmers
(e.g., irrigation infrastructures; dissemination of improved agricultural packages) [14,15]. However,
studies suggested that these projects have not achieved much success because, among other flaws,
they focused on technology development assuming that this will be sufficient to stimulate agricultural
intensification. However, by doing so, they underestimated the complexity of the institutional context
within which the farmers and other actors in agricultural systems operate [16,17].
Over the past few decades, efforts to enhance the food systems productivity focused on a
“technology push”-approach, assuming that significant productivity growth could be easily achieved
through access to technologies [18,19]. Technologies then are transferred to the end-users with limited
understanding of the local context under which these users operate, thus leaving out important
issues such as access to market and credit [20]. Seemingly helpful options do not always receive the
expected outcomes as the quality of the technology itself may not be the only factor that determines the
adoption and the scaling [21]. Therefore, some authors, including Quisumbing and Pandolfelli [22] and
Hounkonnou, et al. [23] argued that effective deployment of technological interventions in complex
situations calls for a more comprehensive approach to stimulate sustainable transformation.
Overall, there has been a gradual shift from a technology-oriented approach to a more
systems-oriented approach that considers the complexity of farming systems. This includes the full
array of policy, market, political, and other institutional aspects that shape the context in which farming
takes place. Several studies conducted in the agricultural innovation domain have shown that when
focusing on technologies alone, one overlooks the enabling and constraining factors that determine
whether technologies are available, accessible, and are able to make a difference for farmers [23–25].
An on-going systematic review is being conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of 73 promising
farm-level technological management practices to achieve the CSA intended benefits and inform
discourse on food, agriculture, and climate change [26]. This review targets CSA practices and
technologies across five categories (agronomy, agroforestry, livestock, postharvest management, and
energy systems) to assess their contributions to the three CSA pillars. This review focuses on the
technologies, and ignores the institutional dimensions of CSA options. This paper adopts the system’s
perspective, and argues that institutional dimensions are paramount as they embody political agency,
historical contingencies, and locally-specific dynamics of power that also play out in the adoption
and the scaling of the CSA options. Therefore, the objective of this paper is to explore specifically
whether and how institutional perspectives are reflected in the existing CSA literature. This study aims
enlarge the scope of the previous syntheses on CSA practices conducted by Rosenstock, et al. [26] and
to contribute to the broader debate about the potential role of institutions and institutional innovation
in agricultural development in low- and middle-income regions. This is an issue which has only been
investigated to a limited extent [27].
Following a detailed overview of the search protocol used to review the literature (Section 2), the
article analyzes the thematic and geographical distribution of the available CSA literature and explores
the different dimensions of the institutions reflected in the literature (Section 3). Finally, we highlight
lessons emerging from this study and the major existing gaps in the literature that can inform future
climate research (Section 4).
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Data Sources and Extraction

To understand how institutional dimensions are reflected in CSA literature, we conducted
the study by using the systematic review framework proposed by Berrang-Ford, et al. [28], which
provides guidelines and formats for synthesizing and tracking climate change adaptation research.
The framework includes, (a) the description of literature sources, (b) articulation of search terms and a
detailed description of the search process, (c) the description of criteria for inclusion and exclusion,
and (d) the documentation of literature included and excluded.
2.1.1. Description of Literature Source

We used web-based search engines ISI Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus for literature
identification. We limited the scope of these search engines because of their ability to provide easy
access to complex search terms. They also provided extensive coverage both in terms on disciplines
and the quality of their publications [29]. We purposely decided not to include grey literature such as
institutional reports and based the study on peer review scientific literature.
In WoS, topic search was used to identify publications that refer to CSA in title, abstract, and
author keywords. It was indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded, the Social Sciences Citation
Index or the Emerging Sources Citation Index. In Scopus, the Compound Field TITLE-ABS-KEY that
searches abstracts, keywords, and article titles was used to identify CSA literature. The search was
narrowed down to English language publications (in both search engines). The search considered all
peer-reviewed articles, reviews, book chapters, books, and editorial material available in the search
engines at the time of the search (from 1945 until February 2017).
2.1.2. Articulation of Search Terms and/or Detailed Description of Search Process

To identify relevant literature associated to CSA, we combined the search terms “climat* smart*”
OR “climat* friend*” with descriptors (or keywords) related to agricultural sector (see Supplementary
Materials Table S1 for a complete list of search strings used for the review). For the scope of this study,
we partly based our methods on the work of Rosenstock, et al. [26]. In the study, we conceptualize
agriculture as referring to crops, livestock, and fisheries sectors in the broadest sense, including
soil/land and water management (see Table S1).
2.1.3. Description of Criteria for Inclusion and Exclusion

The preliminary search yielded 624 documents (including 225 publications from WoS and
399 publications from Scopus), which were exported into ENDNOTE X7 [30] for initial screening.
After removing the duplicates and publication types other than article, review, conference paper,
book chapter, book, or editorial material, 392 publications remained. Of these, 138 publications met
relevance criteria after screening titles and abstracts based on our inclusion and exclusion criteria
(Table 1). We performed a full text review for the 138 relevant publications to confirm eligibility for
inclusion. Of the final list, one book chapter was not accessible and was excluded. The final list
contains 137 publications.
Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria for literature selection.
Inclusion Criteria Exclusion Criteria

Text in English Text in languages other than English
Publication type is other than article, review, or book chapter
Publication type is article, review, or book chapter
(e.g., note, erratum, book review, conference paper)
Focuses on sectors other than agriculture (e.g., energy and
Focuses on the agricultural sector
transport sectors)
Addresses at least one of the CSA pillars (productivity,
Addresses none of the CSA pillars
adaptation and mitigation)
Text does not provide sufficient detail to carry out
Text includes sufficient detail to carry out data analysis
data analysis
In the next step, we studied in detail the 137 relevant CSA publications to identify (a) the CSA
pillar(s) addressed; and (b) specific institutional dimensions of CSA options that are studied. The
full text review targeted the publications’ thematic focus, geographical scope, economic development
status of the country of each publication, and CSA pillars addressed. We followed the World Bank’s
income-based distribution—low income, lower middle income, upper middle income, and high
income [31]—to determine the development status of the countries. The income distribution is based
on gross national income (GNI) per capita.
Next, we defined keywords (Table 2) to guide the analysis of institutional dimension, using
an institutional analysis framework [32,33]. This framework subdivides between the following
institutional dimensions: (a) ‘knowledge infrastructure’, relating to the way the creation and use
of knowledge is organized (e.g., knowledge, research and development); (b) ‘physical infrastructure’,
consisting principally of roads and telecommunications; (c) ‘hard institution’ refers to formal rules,
regulations, and norms such as technical standards, labor law, and risk management rules; (d) ‘soft
institutions’ relates to informal rules, such as social norms and values, culture and implicit rules;
(e) ‘interaction’, calibrated by strength of connectivity, relation among actors as governments, NGOs
and research institutes; and (f) ‘market structures’, relating to the position of and relations between
market parties along the value chain. Following Schut, et al. [34], keywords were formulated
progressively and examined as a proxy data source to reflect the features of institutions, recognizing
that there are potential overlaps among some of the dimensions. Keywords were later clustered
(for each dimension, when possible) to give more insights on how each institutional dimension was
reflected in the literature.
Table 2. Analytical framework and keywords used for institutional dimension analysis.
Dimensions Keywords Cluster

Extension system/advisory service Agricultural extension system
Capacity building/training
Knowledge Education Capacity strengthening
infrastructure Empowerment
Knowledge/experience Knowledge and
Information (access and/or sharing)/communication communication
Infrastructure
Physical
Roads Infrastructure
infrastructure
Transport facility(ies)/asset (s)
Land or resource tenure/agreements/ownership
Property right Resource tenure system
Traditional rights systems
Hard institutional Policy (ies)/program (s)/rule/regulation/law
Subsidy (ies)/incentive (s)/financial Compensation/support Policy
mechanisms/investment
Decision support system/planning/governance system Governance
Custom/tradition
Norm (cultural)/cultural factors/trust Socio-cultural dimensions
Soft institutional
Value/concern/attitude/belief
Gender Gender
Network/relationship/interconnection
Networking
Membership/association/cooperative
Interaction Stakeholders engagement/partnership (public–private,
formal-informal, multi-stakeholders)/collective (or social)
Collaboration and partnership
learning/collective actions/mutual agreement
Multi-stakeholder platforms
Inputs and technology (access/availability)
Labor
Insurance Inputs and support
Credit/financial support (access/availability)/capital
Market structure Entrepreneurship
Market (access/availability/orientation/demand
Market information/competition/price/marketing
Market and value chain
Supply/value chain/distributional channel
Contractual arrangement
2.1.4. Documentation of Literature Included and Excluded

All the CSA publications found in the preliminary search were exported in a database, which
contains information on authors, publication year, publication title, source title, publication type,
authors’ name, authors’ keywords, and subject areas of each document. A database was also created
for relevant publications containing additional information including CSA pillars addressed, thematic
focus, and element/aspect of institutional dimension addressed. The list of included and excluded
criteria are presented in Table 1.
2.2. Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to present quantitative trends on CSA options in the literature
and geographical distribution patterns. To test the associations between CSA pillars (e.g., productivity,
adaptation, and mitigation) addressed and economic development status of publications’ country, the
Fisher exact test was performed, with significance reported at 95.0%. Thematic content analysis was
performed to examine how institutional dimensions was reflected in the relevant CSA publications. The
institutional dimension analysis was guided by keywords (see Table 2) and performed electronically
using Adobe Acrobat. Appearance of each institutional dimension keyword in the title, abstract,
keywords and main body of the text (excluding figures, tables, captions, acknowledgement, and
references) was quantified. Thus, the frequencies served as proxies to the level of importance attached
to a particular institutional dimension. During the analysis, the meaning and use of each keyword was
verified since specific keywords can have different meaning depending on the context in which it is
being used [34]. All statistical analyses were performed using R software version 3.3.2 [35].
3. Results
3.1. Distribution
The initial 392 publications selected after the first screening included research articles (72.7%,
n = 285), book chapters (9.2%, n = 36), conference papers (7.6%, n = 30), reviews (7.4%, n = 29), editorial
materials (1.8%, n = 7), and books (1.3%, n = 5). The publications’ years ranged from 1991 to 2017.
While the average number of publications per year was 18, about 89.0% (n = 349) of the documents
were published after 2008, which was the period where the CSA concept emerged in the literature
(Table 3). The top-five publication sources included agricultural systems (3.1%, n = 12), agriculture
and food security (2.5%, n = 10), energy policy (2.3%, n = 9), climate policy (1.3%, n = 5), and land use
policy (1.3%, n = 5).
Table 3. Composition of climate-smart agriculture and institutional-oriented climate-smart

agriculture publications.
All Publications (Climate CSA Relevant (Agriculture) CSA-Institutional-Oriented

Smart/Friendly Literature) Publications Publications
Number of publications 100.0% (n = 392) 35.0% (n = 137) 19.4% (n = 76)
Range of publication years 1991–2017 2008–2017 2011–2017
Average publication per year 18.67 15.22 10.85
Agriculture and Food
Agriculture and Food Security (7.3%)
Agricultural systems (3.1%) Security (11.8%)
Agricultural Systems (6.6%)
Agriculture and food Agricultural Systems (9.2%)
Journal of Cleaner Production (2.9%)
Top-5 publication sources security (2.5%) Regional Environmental
Regional Environmental
(% of total) Energy policy (2.3%) Change (5.3%)
Change (2.9%)
Climate policy (1.3%) Food Security (2.6%)
Nutrient Cycling in Agro
Land use policy (1.3%) Gender, Technology, and
Ecosystems (2.2%)
Development (2.6%)
Main subject areas covered in the 392 publications were respectively environmental science
(45.2%, n = 177); agricultural and biological sciences (34.4%, n = 135); social sciences (25.0%, n = 98);
energy (15.6%, n = 61); engineering (11.7%, n = 46); and economics, econometrics, and finance
(11.2%, n = 44) (see Supplementary Materials Figure S1 for the overall subject areas covered by the
CSA publications).
3.2. Climate-Smart Agriculture Focused Literature

Of the 137 CSA focused publications, 80.3% (n = 110) were research article, while review and
book chapter covered respectively 11.7% (n = 16) and 8.0% (n = 11). Although, on average around
15 CSA focused publications were made per year, and about 92.7% (n = 127) of CSA publications were
published after 2012. The top-five publication sources were Agriculture and Food Security (7.3%, n = 10),
Agricultural Systems (6.6%, n = 9), Journal of Cleaner Production (2.9%, n = 4), Regional Environmental
Change (2.9%, n = 4), and Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems (2.2%, n = 3).
In terms of geographic coverage, India was the most represented country in the CSA literature,
with 13 publications [36–41], followed by Tanzania (n = 10) [42–45], Germany (n = 8) [46–48] and
Malawi (n = 7) [49–51] (see Figure S2 for the distribution of the CSA related publication across
countries). Some publications however, did not make specific reference to a country or region (n = 21)
and provided generic conceptual development [11,52,53].
Overall, Africa was the most targeted continent in the CSA literature with about 46 out of the
137 publications that met the inclusion criteria for selection, followed by Asia (n = 32), Europe (n = 27),
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 20
and America (n = 16). Within the African continent, the sub-regions of Eastern Africa and Western
27), and America (n = 16). Within the African continent, the sub-regions of Eastern Africa and Western
Africa were the most targeted with 40 and 10 publications, respectively. The CSA publications obtained
Africa were the most targeted with 40 and 10 publications, respectively. The CSA publications
in Southern Asia and South-Eastern Asia sub-regions were 19 and 6, respectively. In Europe, Northern
obtained in Southern Asia and South-Eastern Asia sub-regions were 19 and 6, respectively. In Europe,
Europe, and Western Europe were the most represented sub-regions, with 16 and 10 publications
Northern Europe, and Western Europe were the most represented sub-regions, with 16 and 10
respectively. In the Americas, South, Central, and Northern America were fairly equally represented
publications respectively. In the Americas, South, Central, and Northern America were fairly equally
with respectively seven, six, and five publications.
represented with respectively seven, six, and five publications.
Regarding the specific agricultural related focus, the review shows that the climate perspective
Regarding the specific agricultural related focus, the review shows that the climate perspective
is reflected in the CSA literature from different angles, ranging from farm-scale agricultural
is reflected in the CSA literature from different angles, ranging from farm-scale agricultural practices
practices [54–56] to food supply chains and food systems [57,58].
[54–56] to food supply chains and food systems [57,58].
Based on the CSA pillars addressed, about 32.1% (n = 44) of the publications addressed
Based on the CSA pillars addressed, about 32.1% (n = 44) of the publications addressed
simultaneously the three CSA pillars—productivity, adaptation, and mitigation [12,59–61]. About
simultaneously the three CSA pillars—productivity, adaptation, and mitigation [12,59–61]. About
26.3% (n = 36) emphasized on mitigation only [47,48,62], while 21.9% (n = 30) on both productivity and
26.3% (n = 36) emphasized on mitigation only [47,48,62], while 21.9% (n = 30) on both productivity
adaptation issues [42,63,64]. A relatively limited number of the publications combined productivity
and adaptation issues [42,63,64]. A relatively limited number of the publications combined
and mitigation pillars (6.6%, n = 9) [49,65,66]; adaptation and mitigation (2.9%, n = 4) [67–70]; and in
productivity and mitigation pillars (6.6%; n = 9) [49,65,66]; adaptation and mitigation (2.9%; n = 4)
adaptation alone (6.6%, n = 9) [71–73].
[67–70]; and in adaptation alone (6.6%; n = 9) [71–73].
A cross analysis of the pillars addressed and the economic development status of the country
A cross analysis of the pillars addressed and the economic development status of the country in
in which the study has been conducted indicated that publications addressing either adaptation or
which the study has been conducted indicated that publications addressing either adaptation or
productivity pillars were more likely to come from low income and lower middle income countries,
productivity pillars were more likely to come from low income and lower middle income countries,
while publications reporting on mitigation were more likely to come from high income countries
while publications reporting on mitigation were more likely to come from high income countries (p<
(p < 0.0001, Fisher’s exact test, Figure 1). Sixty-six percent (66.7%, n = 24) of publications solely
0.0001, Fisher’s exact test, Figure 1). Sixty-six percent (66.7%, n = 24) of publications solely addressing
addressing mitigation were from high income countries compared with 2.8% (n = 1), 11.1% (n = 4) and
mitigation were from high income countries compared with 2.8% (n = 1), 11.1% (n = 4) and 16.7% (n
16.7% (n = 6) from low, lower-middle, and upper-middle income countries, respectively. Publications
= 6) from low, lower-middle, and upper-middle income countries, respectively. Publications
addressing specifically productivity dimension were equally (40%, n = 2) from low and lower-middle
addressing specifically productivity dimension were equally (40%, n = 2) from low and lower-middle
income countries compared with 20% (n = 1) from high income countries. Regarding adaptation
income countries compared with 20% (n = 1) from high income countries. Regarding adaptation
pillar, 22% (22.2%, n = 2) of adaptation publications were from high income countries, while
pillar, 22% (22.2%, n = 2) of adaptation publications were from high income countries, while 33.3% (n
33.3% (n = 3), 55.5% (n = 5) and 11.1% (n = 1) from low, lower-middle, and upper-middle income
= 3), 55.5% (n = 5) and 11.1% (n = 1) from low, lower-middle, and upper-middle income countries,
countries, respectively.
respectively.
Figure 1.1. Correlation

Figure Correlation of
of CSA
CSA pillars
pillars addressed
addressed and
and the
the economic
economic development
development status
status of
of the
the country
country
(LI = low income; LMI = lower-middle income; UMI = upper-middle income; HI = High
(LI = low income; LMI = lower-middle income; UMI = upper-middle income; HI = High income). income).
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 20
Obviously, in developed countries

Obviously, countries (e.g.,
(e.g.,Europe
Europeand andNorth
NorthAmerica),
America), mostmostof of
thethe
literature on
literature
the the
on climate change
climate and global
change warming
and global inevitably
warming turns toturns
inevitably the responsibility industrialized
to the responsibility countries
industrialized
bear for bear
countries having contributed
for having to temperature
contributed change
to temperature by the
change burning
by the burningof offossil
fossilfuels
fuels [48,62]. The
[48,62]. The
literature, particularly
literature, particularly focuses on on climate
climate change
change mitigation
mitigation and and puts
puts emphasize
emphasize on on the
the obligations
obligations
of industrialized
of industrialized states
states toto reduce
reduce their
their emissions
emissions of of greenhouse
greenhouse gases gases mainly
mainly carbon
carbon dioxide
dioxide
produced and to help
produced help poor
poorcountries
countriesdo dolikewise
likewise[47,74].
[47,74].TheyTheyoften argue
often arguethatthat
global warming
global warming is a
matter
is of international
a matter of internationaljustice, fairness,
justice, and and
fairness, equity [75,76].
equity In the
[75,76]. Indeveloping countries,
the developing however
countries, (e.g.,
however
Sub-Saharan
(e.g., African
Sub-Saharan and South
African America),
and South wherewhere
America), climate change
climate and variability
change are among
and variability the major
are among the
challenges
major to the food
challenges to thesystems, the literature
food systems, mainly focuses
the literature mainly on the improvement
focuses of farming
on the improvement of practices
farming
and access
practices to resources
and to increasetothe
access to resources productivity
increase of agriculture
the productivity and to secure
of agriculture food
and for the food
to secure growing
for
population [71,73,77]. In general, the development status of a country or a region
the growing population [71,73,77]. In general, the development status of a country or a region seems seems to influence
theinfluence
to way the country
the wayapproaches
the countrythe climate change
approaches issues,change
the climate either through mitigation
issues, either through(mostly for the
mitigation
developed
(mostly countries)
for the developedor adaption
countries)andor productivity
adaption andincreased
productivityperspectives, which are thewhich
increased perspectives, priorities
are
for priorities
the developing forcountries
developing [53].
countries [53].
3.3.
3.3. Institutional Perspective
Perspective in
in CSA
CSA Literature
Literature
The
The in-depth
in-depth analysis
analysis of of the
the CSA
CSA literature
literature shows
shows that
that about
about 55.5%
55.5% (n(n == 76)
76) of
of the
the publications
publications
make
make specific
specific reference
reference toto the
the institutional
institutional dimensions,
dimensions, albeit
albeit from
from diverse
diverse perspectives
perspectives including
including
knowledge and physical infrastructures, market structure, soft and hard institutions,
knowledge and physical infrastructures, market structure, soft and hard institutions, and interactions and interactions
as
as illustrated by
by Figure
Figure 22(see
(seeTable
TableS2S2for forcomplete
complete overview
overview of of
CSACSA publications
publications according
according to
to the
the institutional
institutional dimension
dimension addressed).
addressed). Articles
Articles werewere written
written fromfrom
20112011 onwards,
onwards, with
with on on average
average 10
10 publications per year and about 85.5% (n = 65) that have
publications per year and about 85.5% (n = 65) that have been published been published after 2013. The top-five
top-five
institutional-focused publication sources included, Agriculture and Food Security (11.8%,
institutional-focused (11.8%; n = 9);
Agricultural
AgriculturalSystems
Systems(9.2%,
(9.2%;nn==7);7);Regional
RegionalEnvironmental
Environmental Change
Change (5.3%, n =n4);
(5.3%; Food
= 4); Security
Food (2.6%,
Security n =n2);=
(2.6%;
and Gender,
2); and Technology,
Gender, and Development
Technology, (2.6%, n(2.6%;
and Development = 2). Innthis section,
= 2). In thiswesection,
analyzewe the analyze
specific institutional
the specific
aspects reflected
institutional in the
aspects existing
reflected CSA
in the literature
existing CSAbased on institutional
literature analysis analysis
based on institutional framework [32]. [32].
framework
Figure 2.
Figure 2. Institutional
Institutional dimension
dimension reflected
reflected in
in the
the CSA
CSA literature.
literature.
3.3.1. Knowledge Infrastructure

The knowledge infrastructure dimension was addressed in 86.8% (n = 66) of the publications.
Some of these publications (40.8%, n = 31) targeted the factors that create enabling condition for scaling
CSA technologies. A set of articles conclude that despite the technical feasibility and the biophysical
performances of CSA technologies, their uptake can remain low if the users, for example smallholder
farmers, do not perceive the direct benefits they can gain from the technology. For farmers, the first
goal of adopting CSA technologies is about the profits they can have from using the technologies,
rather than the positive environmental benefits [38,78,79]. Such reward schemes represent a big boost
for the farmer livelihoods and provide incentives for them to make decisions in favor of the CSA
technologies [60]. This is similar to what happens at the decision stage of adoption processes as
described by Rogers [80] which involves the weighing of benefits, disadvantages, and trade-offs to
inform the decision of adoption or rejection of a proposed technology. Clearly, the environmental
impact is not always the target of technology users, but mainly how the externalities generated from the
use of CSA technologies contribute to household needs—both food security and household incomes.
Likewise, Alem, et al. [42] presented the system of rice intensification (SRI), which is widely used in
low-rainfall areas. The increased use of SRI is not related to the climate smart label of the technology,
but people adopt the technology because it generates significant benefits for users. On average,
participation in SRI increases yield per acre by about 58% and it requires less water [42]. This also
results in a substantial reduction in the amount of methane emitted to the atmosphere, which is the
embedded climate impact [81]. Kpadonou, et al. [13] also makes a similar conclusion, estimating that
the availability of labor, security over land tenure, and capacity building are the major drivers of
farmers’ decisions to adopt CSA technology. Again, the positive environmental outcome of the CSA
technology alone is not enough to stimulate its uptake.
Another category of publications (81.6%, n = 62) provided a more comprehensive understanding of
challenges surrounding the adoption of CSA practices and emphasized the need for additional support,
such as enabling policy to facilitate their uptake [13,82,83]. Along the same lines, Dougill, et al. [51]
and Pulkkinen, et al. [57] highlighted the role that knowledge, communication, and capacity building
all play in stimulating and enhancing the adoption of CSA options.
3.3.2. Hard Infrastructure

Regulation and policy featured in approximately 73.7% (n = 56) of the publications. The articles
referred to the resource tenure [12,49], the policy [61,84], and governance [85,86]. They mapped
the differences of priority setting between developed and developing countries and discuss how
climate is mainstreamed in agriculture policies, negotiations, and strategies developed to achieve more
sustainable outcomes [87]. For the effective implementation of the CSA options at a larger scale to
meet the projected rise in global food demand, scholars also emphasized the need for a comprehensive
regulatory framework to incentivize the agricultural sector to convert from conventional to more
climate smart practices [61,88,89].
3.3.3. Market Structure

Almost 84.2% of the CSA literature (n = 64) addressed market related issues. These publications
show that building resilient food systems for vulnerable farmers should focus not only on improving
yields and on use of drought tolerant varieties, but also on creating enabling conditions for access to
production inputs (e.g., seed, fertilizer, labor), post-harvest facilities [90], and market outlets [42,91].
Uncertain markets and variable prices very often determine the users’ decision to adopt or not a
given CSA technology. Alem, et al. [42] examines the influence of the rice market price and concluded
that, even SRI indeed improves yield in rain-dependent areas, its profitability hinges on the market
price farmers. Harvey, et al. [91] assert the important role of enabling institutions—the market—when
exploring plausible options to strengthen the adaptive capacity of smallholder farmers. They concluded
that although farmers use a variety of risk-coping strategies, these are insufficient to prevent them
from food insecurity. This is a result of poor articulation of their adaptive strategies with the wider
institutional setting, such as a reliable financing system and market facilities.
Some of the publications, including works of Douxchamps, et al. [64] and Fischer, et al. [36] show
that the increased use of the CSA options could improve the food security status of rural households
and reduced their vulnerability resulting in a more stable cash flow. These publications often point to
the availability of remunerative market outlets and access to inputs as pre-conditions for the increased
use of the CSA options [51,64,89,92]. The CSA related market publications also examined the major
economic barriers that hinders the adoption and diffusion of CSA innovations such as the poor access to
financial support [51]. The high cost of some of the CSA technologies is a major barrier, as smallholder
farmers can hardly afford them. Other publications, including [93], studied the willingness of the
consumers to pay more for products resulting from the climate smart farming.
3.3.4. Soft Institutions

Soft institutions are reflected in about 55.3% (n = 42) of the publications, focusing on gender [94–97]
and other socio-cultural dimensions [86,89]. For instance, Njeru, et al. [86] assessed the effect of
various traditional water harvesting practices and integrated soil fertility management technologies for
enhanced sorghum productivity in lower and drier parts of Central Kenya. Much of these publications
also analyzed locally developed strategies to cope with changing climate conditions [59,98]. Even
though Nordic countries are self-sufficient in meat production, Aby, et al. [59] established that there is
a high need for more local initiatives and innovative climate-smart agriculture to accommodate human
population growth and climate change challenges.
Approximately 32.9% of the publications (n = 25) reflected on how the diversity of the local
context within which CSA options are promoted can affect the direction and magnitude of potential
outcomes generated [94,99,100]. They recommend considering a critical background analysis of social,
historical, and cultural conditions when promoting the CSA options. A number of these publications
also show that the CSA diffusion initiatives cannot work in isolation and should be part of wider
institutional interventions (e.g., government and large scale programs) to capture additional and
supportive opportunities [96,101].
3.3.5. Interactions
About 36.8% of the publications (n = 28) made reference to interaction through networking (18.4%,
n = 14) [102] and partnership (30.2%, n = 23) [44,103]. The publications explored how the growing
pool of investment in climate change offers an opportunity for the local communities to build their
capacities and develop innovative partnership with government organizations [44,102]. An illustrative
case of win–win public–private collaboration was formed between farmers, private-milk-processing
enterprises and a public research institution in Tanzania to improve the standard of the locally
produced milk. It also guarantees a remunerative market outlet of the surplus milk to larger and
more distant markets Msalya, et al. [44]. The development of innovative market opportunities around
the CSA options can stimulate smallholder farmers to engage in strategic partnership with key
stakeholders such as universities and research centers. These partnerships can lead to the creation
of new activities; for example, the establishment of climate-smart goat’s milk processing and dairy
goat maintenance in Tanzania as the outcome of joint collaboration between Universities, research
entities, and farmers’ organization [44]. Likewise, regarding the plausible impacts of global warming
and continued uncontrolled release of greenhouse gasses and their implications for the livestock
industry, no single organization (or entity) can perform the needed research and the implementation
thereof on its own. Scholtz, et al. [98] recommended collective innovations and joint actions of
relevant stakeholders with the objective to share research expertise and information, build capacity,
and conduct research and development studies, should be a priority. This option is similar to what
Pomeroy, et al. [104] have also recommended, stressing on collective and more integrated actions and
the capacity building of fishery members to enhance their resilience to climate change. In general, this
category of publications examined the potential role of private sector and partnership in the diffusion
of CSA to small-scale farmers.
3.3.6. Physical Infrastructure

There are relatively limited CSA publications (26.3%, n = 20) that reflected on issues linked
to physical infrastructure. The publications that address physical infrastructure make reference to
roads and post-harvest facilities [60,61,71,97]. These publications highlight the impacts that climate
change manifestations have on infrastructure for post-harvest storage and processing, and subsequent
transport networks. For most of these publications, modern infrastructure facilities reflect the growing
concern over climate change by adopting engineering principles and guidelines for greater adaptation
to emerging environmental challenges.
4. Discussion
Research and development scholars establish that technology-oriented interventions alone may
not be sufficient to sustainably address the challenges of agriculture and climate change [21–23,105].
Many agrarian systems are still suffering from the extreme climate events, despite the extensive
research on climate-coping options, including existing sophisticated agricultural modelling that
predicts plausible future pathways. It elucidates the uncertain characteristic of climate events and
the limitation of the technology-oriented approach to address complex issues as climate change. It is
clear that setting sustainable solutions in reducing risks to food security will require coordinated and
systematic responses of many actors across levels [106]. Below are the main lessons and knowledge
gaps identified from the CSA review.
4.1. Emerging Lessons

The review shows that the interest in the institutional dimension of the CSA options started
in 2011 and focused on knowledge distribution, market, and policy aspects [48,60,84]. This interest
has expanded gradually to address new perspectives such as gender and social differentiation in
adoption of climate-smart agricultural practices [97]. The asymmetric access to extension officers,
agricultural services, and information remains a major barrier that hinders the effective use of the
CSA options. Part of the literature elucidates how the diversity of the local context can orient the scale
and the amplitude of interventions [94]. New perspectives reflected in the literature also include the
emergence of partnerships with a wide diversity of stakeholders, which offers an opportunity for the
local communities to capture resources and build their capacity [102].
Regarding the institutional analysis, about 55.5% (n = 76) of the CSA publications studied in this
review used the systems approach by including institutional perspective in their analysis. Market
structure and knowledge infrastructure aspects were the most frequent institutional dimensions
reflected in the literature. They specifically discussed the key role that the availability of market
opportunities can play in the uptake of the CSA technologies and practices. Scholars demonstrate
that creating enabling market conditions will contribute to reducing the risk for potential users to
invest in the CSA options [36,60]. For example, the existence of remunerative market opportunities
could stimulate farmers to use the promoted CSA technologies as they may be guaranteed that the
resulting product will be sold at a relatively good price. This analysis confirms Drucker and Noel [107]
perspective according to which technology is seen as a kind of ‘artefact’, and it is among the market
mechanism that the technology is transformed into innovation. It implies that, on its own, a technology
is not sufficient. It helps to create value only when it meets an enabling market opportunity [108].
The CSA concept aims at increasing productivity and resilience, reducing/removing GHGs, and
enhancing the achievement of food security and development goals. While theoretically the CSA
concept is defined with these three objectives, in practice however, it is not always addressed as such.
Some climate scholars assert that actions related to either mitigation, adaptation, or increase of crop
productivity have potential overlaps [109,110]. The gap between what CSA theoretically is and how it
is implemented in practice could be linked to methodological challenges. As the boundary among
the three pillars intersect in many ways, it may be necessary to assess the potential of a given practice
by pointing simultaneously to the three pillars. To deepen the understanding of climate priorities
and options, further works may be needed to design a methodological framework that allows a
systematic assessment of the three pillars for CSA options. Thus, offering a more conducive context
for implementation.
The review shows that in developed countries, much of the research and development actions
emphasized on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions with less commitment in adaptation
actions. In the developing countries, however, interventions mainly focused on setting an enabling
condition for increased crop productivity to ensure resilience to climate change [50,51,111]. In general,
the development status of a country seems to influence the way that climate change challenges
are addressed, either through mitigation (mostly for the developed countries) or adaptation and
productivity-increase lenses [53].
4.2. Knowledge Gaps

While the market and knowledge dimensions are well documented in the existing CSA literature,
there are a number of gaps that still exist: (a) limited attention to contextual and cultural factors;
(b) relatively poor public–private partnership to support the scaling of the CSA options; and (c) a
gap in physical infrastructure analysis. These institutional dimensions have not been given adequate
attention in the CSA literature.
There has been little research to understand the role of local rules, historical legacies, cultural
influences, social identities, and political competition in the uptake of CSA technologies. Many scholars
argue that the institutional context in which a given technology is promoted is inevitably a component
that shapes the uptake process [23,112,113]. For example, in their analysis of the drivers of technology
transfer, Kedia and Bhagat [114] acknowledge that better understanding of the cultural constraints is
important to design technologies that meet users’ expectations and values. Also, many government
interventions fail in their attempt to replicate the Asian Green Revolution in Sub-Saharan Africa, among
others, because these initiatives have underestimated the potential of social, political, cultural, and
historical contexts [115]. The success of the Green Revolution in Asia was possible due to structurally-,
historically-, and socially-constructed enabling environment that lead to crop productivity growth [116].
The recognition of the institutional dynamics and relations that link technologies to the broader context
in which they are operating is important to catalyze their effective use. This contextual analysis has
not been given adequate attention in the current CSA literature.
The review highlights the little interest of existing literature to the “interaction”, between private
sector and public government. This is an important gap, specifically in the context of Sub-Saharan
Africa, where most governments reduced their public expenditures in agriculture based on the new
orientation after the structural adjustment reforms [117]. These reforms happened along with global
food and financial crises, changing market structure, and climate challenges [118]. In such a dynamic
context, stimulating the interaction among key players to attract more investment flows, from the
private sector may be an opportunity to fill public investment gaps. It also has the potential to channel
capital needed for agricultural and rural development [119]. This in turn will accelerate the replication
of climate-resilient technologies and services in core development sectors [119]. Unfortunately, in SSA,
private sector supports to agricultural development in general and CSA technologies are weak and
often seen as a negative business practice. However, strong public–private partnerships appear to
be a promising alternative to create business opportunities for upscaling CSA technologies. A recent
innovative public–private experiment is being constructed with Manobi ©, a private company that
offers a portfolio of integrated agricultural-climate services to the most vulnerable communities to cope
with climate challenges [87]. Evidence of the value of public–private interaction has not been captured
much in the CSA literature. Few publications related to public–private connection exist [44,57,103],
but there is still limited understanding of how this kind of cooperation adds value to the upscaling of
the CSA options.
The review demonstrates a relatively poor articulation of physical infrastructure in CSA literature,
which overlooks an important portion of this discourse. Many research findings, including the
work of Platteau [120] highlighted the significant role that physical infrastructures such as roads
and rural communication play in agricultural development. Overall, about 26.3% (n = 20) of the
selected literature made specific reference to the physical infrastructure (e.g., roads and post-harvest
facilities) [60,61,71,97]. Haggblade, et al. [121] observed that investments in rural infrastructure, such
as roads, can stimulate the reduction of transportation costs, increase farmers’ access to markets and
lead to substantial agricultural expansion. Even though it is recognized that infrastructure investment
has a strong impact on rural incomes [121], major infrastructural issues are not addressed yet in the
CSA literature.
The works of Rinaldi, et al. [122] indicated that irrigation is one of the critical components that
affects the agricultural productivity and helps to mitigate the effect of climate variability in a significant
manner. Irrigation has great potential to support adaptation to climate variability and change in
cropping systems. Upscaling irrigation-based CSA options will likely result in simultaneously
adaptation and productivity benefits. However, there are currently limited empirical studies on
the irrigation system to support crop productivity [73,123,124]. There is also limited information to
policy decision-making on adaptation and food security in this challenging climate context.
5. Conclusions
The concept of CSA is becoming a booming topic in agricultural development and climate change
communities. It emerges as a promising package to secure food for the growing world population
exposed to climate uncertainty and increasing food demand. Many of the CSA interventions continue
to focus on the development and diffusion of technological packages to increase the productivity of
smallholder farmers. A growing body of literature suggested that technology-oriented interventions
alone may not be enough to achieve sustainable agricultural transformation. This is due to the
complexity of the institutional context within which actors in agricultural systems operate. Using
the innovation system framework, the study analyzed 137 peer review CSA publications, and shows
that interest in institutional perspectives of CSA technologies has gradually grown over the years.
Although the existing literature acknowledges the importance of some institutions in the uptake of CSA
technologies (e.g., market), other perspectives such as the engagement of private sector in agricultural
development have received less attention. Another major gap in the current literature relates to the
documentation of the synergies and tradeoffs among the three pillars of CSA and the poor attention on
the role of the contextual factors—historical legacies, cultural influences, and political competition—in
the scaling of CSA options. The review concludes that more attention is needed for the institutional
and political dimensions of CSA technologies. Rethinking this approach to promote CSA technologies
by building both on technology packages and institutional enabling context can provide potential
opportunities for effective scaling of CSA options. Such knowledge is critical to improving the design
of CSA research and supportive policy.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/6/1990/

s1, Figure S1. Subject areas covered by the CSA agricultural oriented publications analyzed title; Figure S2.
Geographic distribution of the CSA related publications; Table S1. Description of search strings used for CSA
literature identification; Table S2. Categorization of CSA publications according to institutional dimensions.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, E.T., A.C.S., and M.S.; Methodology, E.T., A.C.S., and M.S.; Formal
Analysis, E.T. and A.C.S.; Investigation, E.T. and A.C.S.; Data curation, A.C.S.; Writing—original draft preparation,
E.T. and A.C.S.; Writing—review and editing, E.T., A.C.S, M.S., H.A., T.R., R.Z., and P.K.T.; Visualization, E.T.,
A.C.S., M.S., and T.R.; Supervision, R.Z. and P.K.T.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: The authors acknowledge the CGIAR Fund Council, ACIAR (Australia), European Union,
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), New Zealand, The Netherlands, Switzerland, UK, and
Thailand for funding to the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS).
This work was also carried out under the Adaptation at Scale in Semi-Arid Regions (ASSAR) consortium. ASSAR
is one of four consortia under the Collaborative Adaptation Research Initiative in Africa and Asia (CARIAA),
with financial support from the UK Government’s Department for International Development (DFID), and the
International Development Research Centre (IDRC), Ottawa, Canada. The views expressed in this work are those
of the creators and do not necessarily represent those of the UK Government’s Department for International
Development, the International Development Research Centre, Canada or its Board of Governors. The authors
thank Beda Adza Maretha and Essegbemon Akpo for providing critical comments and editorial assistance.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Niang, I.; Ruppel, O.C.; Abdrabo, M.A.; Essel, C.; Lennard, C.; Padgham, J.; Urquhart, P.; Descheemaeker, K.
Africa. In Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of
Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA,
2014; pp. 1199–1265.
2. Müller, C.; Cramer, W.; Hare, W.L.; Lotze-Campen, H. Climate change risks for African agriculture. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 4313–4315. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Cooper, P.; Dimes, J.; Rao, K.; Shapiro, B.; Shiferaw, B.; Twomlow, S. Coping better with current climatic
variability in the rain-fed farming systems of Sub-Saharan Africa: An essential first step in adapting to future
climate change? Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2008, 126, 24–35. [CrossRef]
4. Harvell, C.D.; Mitchell, C.E.; Ward, J.R.; Altizer, S.; Dobson, A.P.; Ostfeld, R.S.; Samuel, M.D. Climate
warming and disease risks for terrestrial and marine biota. Science 2002, 296, 2158–2162. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
5. Serdeczny, O.; Adams, S.; Baarsch, F.; Coumou, D.; Robinson, A.; Hare, W.; Schaeffer, M.; Perrette, M.;
Reinhardt, J. Climate change impacts in Sub-Saharan Africa: From physical changes to their social
repercussions. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2016, 17, 1585–1600. [CrossRef]
6. Kaczan, D.; Arslan, A.; Lipper, L. Climate-Smart Agriculture, A Review of Current Practice of Agroforestry
and Conservation Agriculture in Malawi and Zambia; ESA Working Paper No. 13-07; Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2013.
7. Cohen, B. Urbanization in developing countries: Current trends, future projections, and key challenges for
sustainability. Technol. Soc. 2006, 28, 63–80. [CrossRef]
8. Godfray, H.C.J.; Beddington, J.R.; Crute, I.R.; Haddad, L.; Lawrence, D.; Muir, J.F.; Pretty, J.; Robinson, S.;
Thomas, S.M.; Toulmin, C. Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 2010, 327, 812–818.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
9. McCarthy, N.; Lipper, L.; Branca, G. Climate-Smart Agriculture: Smallholder Adoption and Implications for
Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation; Climate Change Agriculture Work Paper; Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2011; pp. 1–37.
10. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). “Climate-Smart” Agriculture: Policies,
Practices and Financing for Food Security, Adaptation and Mitigation; Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2010.
11. Lipper, L.; Thornton, P.; Campbell, B.M.; Baedeker, T.; Braimoh, A.; Bwalya, M.; Caron, P.; Cattaneo, A.;
Garrity, D.; Henry, K.; et al. Climate-smart agriculture for food security. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2014, 4, 1068–1072.
[CrossRef]
12. Campbell, B.M.; Thornton, P.; Zougmoré, R.; van Asten, P.; Lipper, L. Sustainable intensification: What is its
role in climate smart agriculture? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2014, 8, 39–43. [CrossRef]
13. Kpadonou, R.A.B.; Owiyo, T.; Barbier, B.; Denton, F.; Rutabingwa, F.; Kiema, A. Advancing
climate-smart-agriculture in developing drylands: Joint analysis of the adoption of multiple on-farm soil
and water conservation technologies in west African sahel. Land Use Policy 2017, 61, 196–207. [CrossRef]
14. Fernández-Baldor, Á.; Hueso, A.; Boni, A. From individuality to collectivity: The challenges for
technology-oriented development projects. In The Capability Approach, Technology and Design; Oosterlaken, I.,
van den Hoven, J., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 135–152.
15. Zhou, K.Z.; Yim, C.K.; Tse, D.K. The effects of strategic orientations on technology-and market-based
breakthrough innovations. J. Mark. 2005, 69, 42–60. [CrossRef]
16. Matta, N.F.; Ashkenas, R.N. Why good projects fail anyway. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2003, 81, 109–116. [PubMed]
17. Douthwaite, B.; Keatinge, J.D.H.; Park, J.R. Why promising technologies fail: The neglected role of user
innovation during adoption. Res. Policy 2001, 30, 819–836. [CrossRef]
18. Van den Ende, J.; Dolfsma, W. Technology-push, demand-pull and the shaping of technological
paradigms-patterns in the development of computing technology. J. Evol. Econ. 2005, 15, 83–99. [CrossRef]
19. Nam, C.H.; Tatum, C.B. Strategies for technology push: Lessons from construction innovations. J. Constr.
Eng. Manag. 1992, 118, 507–524. [CrossRef]
20. Zijp, W. Improving the Transfer and Use of Agricultural Information: A Guide to Information Technology; World Bank
Discussion Papers No. WDP 247; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 1994.
21. Ndjeunga, J.; Bantilan, C. Uptake of improved technologies in the semi-arid tropics of West Africa: Why is
agricultural transformation lagging behind? J. Agric. Dev. Econ. 2005, 2, 85–102.
22. Quisumbing, A.R.; Pandolfelli, L. Promising approaches to address the needs of poor female farmers:
Resources, constraints, and interventions. World Dev. 2010, 38, 581–592. [CrossRef]
23. Hounkonnou, D.; Kossou, D.; Kuyper, T.W.; Leeuwis, C.; Nederlof, E.S.; Roling, N.; Sakyi-Dawson, O.;
Traore, M.; van Huis, A. An innovation systems approach to institutional change: Smallholder development
in West Africa. Agric. Syst. 2012, 108, 74–83. [CrossRef]
24. Roling, N.; Hounkonnou, D.; Kossou, D.; Kuyper, T.W.; Nederlof, S.; Sakyi-Dawson, O.; Traore, M.;
van Huis, A. Diagnosing the scope for innovation: Linking smallholder practices and institutional context
introduction to the special issue. NJAS-Wagening. J. Life Sci. 2012, 60–63, 1–6. [CrossRef]
25. Schut, M.; van Asten, P.; Okafor, C.; Hicintuka, C.; Mapatano, S.; Nabahungu, N.L.; Kagabo, D.;
Muchunguzi, P.; Njukwe, E.; Dontsop-Nguezet, P.M.; et al. Sustainable intensification of agricultural
systems in the central African highlands: The need for institutional innovation. Agric. Syst. 2016, 145,
165–176. [CrossRef]
26. Rosenstock, T.S.; Lamanna, C.; Chesterman, S.; Bell, P.; Arslan, A.; Richards, M.; Rioux, J.; Akinleye, A.;
Champalle, C.; Cheng, Z.; et al. The Scientific Basis of Climate-Smart Agriculture: A Systematic Review Protocol;
CCAFS Working Paper no. 138; CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food
Security (CCAFS): Copenhagen, Denmark, 2016.
27. Van Paassen, A.; Klerkx, L.; Adu-Acheampong, R.; Adjei-Nsiah, S.; Zannoue, E. Agricultural innovation
platforms in west Africa: How does strategic institutional entrepreneurship unfold in different value chain
contexts? Outlook Agric. 2014, 43, 193–200. [CrossRef]
28. Berrang-Ford, L.; Pearce, T.; Ford, J. Systematic review approaches for climate change adaptation research.
Reg. Environ. Chang. 2015, 15, 755–769. [CrossRef]
29. Epule, E.T.; Ford, J.; Lwasa, S.; Lepage, L. Climate change adaptation in the sahel. Environ. Sci. Policy 2017,
75, 121–137. [CrossRef]
30. Reuters, T. Endnote x7; Thomson Reuters: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2013.
31. Sumner, A. Global poverty and the new bottom billion: What if three-quarters of the world’s poor live in
middle-income countries? IDS Work. Pap. 2010, 2010, 1–43. [CrossRef]
32. Woolthuis, K.R.; Lankhuizen, M.; Gilsing, V. A system failure framework for innovation policy design.
Technovation 2005, 25, 609–619. [CrossRef]
33. Van Mierlo, B.; Leeuwis, C.; Smits, R.; Woolthuis, R.K. Learning towards system innovation: Evaluating a
systemic instrument. Technol. Forecast. Soc. 2010, 77, 318–334. [CrossRef]
34. Schut, M.; Rodenburg, J.; Klerkx, L.; van Ast, A.; Bastiaans, L. Systems approaches to innovation in crop
protection. A systematic literature review. Crop Prot. 2014, 56, 98–108. [CrossRef]
35. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Available online: http://www.r-
project.org/ (accessed on 8 June 2018).
36. Fischer, H.W.; Reddy, N.L.N.; Rao, M.L.S. Can more drought resistant crops promote more climate
secure agriculture? Prospects and challenges of millet cultivation in Ananthapur, Andhra Pradesh.
World Dev. Perspect. 2016, 2, 5–10. [CrossRef]
37. Hochman, Z.; Horan, H.; Reddy, D.R.; Sreenivas, G.; Tallapragada, C.; Adusumilli, R.; Gaydon, D.S.; Laing, A.;
Kokic, P.; Singh, K.K.; et al. Smallholder farmers managing climate risk in India: 2. Is it climate-smart?
Agric. Syst. 2017, 151, 61–72. [CrossRef]
38. Khatri-Chhetri, A.; Aggarwal, P.K.; Joshi, P.K.; Vyas, S. Farmers’ prioritization of climate-smart agriculture
(CSA) technologies. Agric. Syst. 2017, 151, 184–191. [CrossRef]
39. Kritee, K.; Nair, D.; Tiwari, R.; Rudek, J.; Ahuja, R.; Adhya, T.; Loecke, T.; Hamburg, S.; Tetaert, F.; Reddy, S.;
et al. Groundnut cultivation in semi-arid peninsular India for yield scaled nitrous oxide emission reduction.
Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2015, 103, 115–129. [CrossRef]
40. Sharma, R.; Chauhan, S.K.; Tripathi, A.M. Carbon sequestration potential in agroforestry system in India:
An analysis for carbon project. Agrofor. Syst. 2016, 90, 631–644. [CrossRef]
41. Subash, N.; Gangwar, B.; Singh, S.; Koshal, A.K.; Kumar, V. Long-term yield variability and detection of
site-specific climate-smart nutrient management practices for rice-wheat systems: An empirical approach.
J. Agric. Sci. 2014, 152, 575–601. [CrossRef]
42. Alem, Y.; Eggert, H.; Ruhinduka, R. Improving welfare through climate-friendly agriculture: The case of the
system of rice intensification. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2015, 62, 243–263. [CrossRef]
43. Kimaro, A.A.; Mpanda, M.; Rioux, J.; Aynekulu, E.; Shaba, S.; Thiong’o, M.; Mutuo, P.; Abwanda, S.;
Shepherd, K.; Neufeldt, H.; et al. Is conservation agriculture ‘climate-smart’ for maize farmers in the
highlands of tanzania? Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2016, 105, 217–228. [CrossRef]
44. Msalya, G.; Lie, H.; Mfinanga, V.; Ringheim, A.S.; Sandvik, R.; Åsli, M.; Christophersen, O.A.; Haug, A.;
Mushi, D.E.; Mwaseba, D.; et al. Public-private partnership for sustainable production and marketing of
goat’s milk in light of climate change. In Climate Change and Multi-Dimensional Sustainability in African
Agriculture: Climate Change and Sustainability in Agriculture; Lal, R., Kraybill, D., Hansen, D.O., Singh, B.R.,
Mosogoya, T., Eik, L.O., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 505–524.
45. Murage, A.W.; Midega, C.A.O.; Pittchar, J.O.; Pickett, J.A.; Khan, Z.R. Determinants of adoption of
climate-smart push-pull technology for enhanced food security through integrated pest management in
eastern Africa. Food Secur. 2015, 7, 709–724. [CrossRef]
46. Ajayi, A.E.; Horn, R. Transformation of ex-arable land to permanent grassland promotes pore rigidity and
mechanical soil resilience. Ecol. Eng. 2016, 94, 592–598. [CrossRef]
47. Beyer, C.; Höper, H. Greenhouse gas exchange of rewetted bog peat extraction sites and a sphagnum
cultivation site in northwest germany. Biogeosciences 2015, 12, 2101–2117. [CrossRef]
48. Böttcher, H.; Freibauer, A.; Scholz, Y.; Gitz, V.; Ciais, P.; Mund, M.; Wutzler, T.; Schulze, E.D. Setting priorities
for land management to mitigate climate change. Carbon Balanc. Manag. 2012, 7, 5. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
49. Arakelyan, I.; Moran, D. Nationally appropriate mitigation actions for the dairy sector in malawi: Needs
and opportunities. In Handbook of Climate Change Adaptation; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015;
pp. 1861–1882.
50. Branca, G.; Lipper, L.; Sorrentino, A. Cost-effectiveness of climate-related agricultural investments in
developing countries: A case study. New Medit 2015, 14, 4–12.
51. Dougill, A.J.; Whitfield, S.; Stringer, L.C.; Vincent, K.; Wood, B.T.; Chinseu, E.L.; Steward, P.;
Mkwambisi, D.D. Mainstreaming conservation agriculture in Malawi: Knowledge gaps and institutional
barriers. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 195, 25–34. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
52. Żukowska, G.; Myszura, M.; Baran, S.; Wesołowska, S.; Pawłowska, M.; Dobrowolski, Ł. Agriculture vs.
Alleviating the climate change. Prob. Ekorozw. 2016, 11, 67–74.
53. Steenwerth, K.L.; Hodson, A.K.; Bloom, A.J.; Carter, M.R.; Cattaneo, A.; Chartres, C.J.; Hatfield, J.L.; Henry, K.;
Hopmans, J.W.; Horwath, W.R.; et al. Climate-smart agriculture global research agenda: Scientific basis for
action. Agric. Food Secur. 2014, 3, 11. [CrossRef]
54. Thierfelder, C.; Rusinamhodzi, L.; Setimela, P.; Walker, F.; Eash, N.S. Conservation agriculture and
drought-tolerant germplasm: Reaping the benefits of climate-smart agriculture technologies in central
mozambique. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2016, 31, 414–428. [CrossRef]
55. Thierfelder, C.; Matemba-Mutasa, R.; Bunderson, W.T.; Mutenje, M.; Nyagumbo, I.; Mupangwa, W.
Evaluating manual conservation agriculture systems in Southern Africa. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 222,
56. Bandanaa, J.; Egyir, I.S.; Asante, I. Cocoa farming households in ghana consider organic practices as climate
smart and livelihoods enhancer. Agric. Food Secur. 2016, 5, 29. [CrossRef]
57. Pulkkinen, H.; Roininen, T.; Katajajuuri, J.M.; Järvinen, M. Development of a climate choice meal concept for
restaurants based on carbon footprinting. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2016, 21, 621–630. [CrossRef]
58. Neufeldt, H.; Jahn, M.; Campbell, B.M.; Beddington, J.R.; DeClerck, F.; De Pinto, A.; Gulledge, J.; Hellin, J.;
Herrero, M.; Jarvis, A. Beyond climate-smart agriculture: Toward safe operating spaces for global food
systems. Agric. Food Secur. 2013, 2, 12. [CrossRef]
59. Aby, B.A.; Kantanen, J.; Aass, L.; Meuwissen, T. Current status of livestock production in the nordic countries
and future challenges with a changing climate and human population growth. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect.
A-Anim. Sci. 2014, 64, 73–97.
60. Ajayi, O.C.; Catacutan, D. Role of externality in the adoption of smallholder agroforestry: Case studies from
Southern Africa and Southeast Asia. In Externality: Economics, Management and Outcomes; Sunderasan, S.,
Ed.; Nova Science Publishers, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 167–188.
61. Brandt, P.; Kvakić, M.; Butterbach-Bahl, K.; Rufino, M.C. How to target climate-smart agriculture? Concept
and application of the consensus-driven decision support framework “target CSA”. Agric. Syst. 2017, 151,
62. Edjabou, L.D.; Smed, S. The effect of using consumption taxes on foods to promote climate friendly
diets—The case of denmark. Food Policy 2013, 39, 84–96. [CrossRef]
63. Arslan, A.; McCarthy, N.; Lipper, L.; Asfaw, S.; Cattaneo, A.; Kokwe, M. Climate smart agriculture? Assessing
the adaptation implications in zambia. J. Agric. Econ. 2015, 66, 753–780. [CrossRef]
64. Douxchamps, S.; Van Wijk, M.T.; Silvestri, S.; Moussa, A.S.; Quiros, C.; Ndour, N.Y.B.; Buah, S.; Somé, L.;
Herrero, M.; Kristjanson, P.; et al. Linking agricultural adaptation strategies, food security and vulnerability:
Evidence from west Africa. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2016, 16, 1305–1317. [CrossRef]
65. Carlsson, G.; Mårtensson, L.M.; Prade, T.; Svensson, S.E.; Jensen, E.S. Perennial species mixtures for
multifunctional production of biomass on marginal land. GCB Bioenergy 2017, 9, 191–201. [CrossRef]
66. Saiz, G.; Wandera, F.M.; Pelster, D.E.; Ngetich, W.; Okalebo, J.R.; Rufino, M.C.; Butterbach-Bahl, K. Long-term
assessment of soil and water conservation measures (Fanya-juu terraces) on soil organic matter in South
Eastern Kenya. Geoderma 2016, 274, 1–9. [CrossRef]
67. Kibria, G.; Haroon, A.K.; Nugegoda, D. Climate change impacts on tropical and temperate fisheries,
aquaculture, and seafood security and implications—A review. Livest. Res. Rural Dev. 2017, 29, 1–26.
68. Pillarisetti, J.R.; Tisdell, C. Multifunctional agriculture and wellbeing in developing nations. In Multifunctional
Agriculture, Ecology and Food Security: International Perspectives; Pillarisetti, J.R., Lawrey, R., Ahmad, A., Eds.;
Nova Science Publishers, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 1–19.
69. Ureta, J.U.; Evangelista, K.P.A.; Habito, C.M.D.; Lasco, R.D. Exploring gender preferences in farming system
and tree species selection: Perspectives of smallholder farmers in Southern Philippines. J. Environ. Sci. Manag.
2016, 56–73.
70. Wong, S. Can climate finance contribute to gender equity in developing countries? J. Int. Dev. 2016, 28,
71. Bendito, A.; Twomlow, S. Promoting climate smart approaches to post-harvest challenges in Rwanda. Int. J.
Agric. Sustain. 2015, 13, 222–239. [CrossRef]
72. De Nijs, P.J.; Berry, N.J.; Wells, G.J.; Reay, D.S. Quantification of biophysical adaptation benefits from
climate-smart agriculture using a bayesian belief network. Sci. Rep. 2014, 4, 6682. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
73. Fader, M.; Shi, S.; Von Bloh, W.; Bondeau, A.; Cramer, W. Mediterranean irrigation under climate change:
More efficient irrigation needed to compensate for increases in irrigation water requirements. Hydrol. Earth
Syst. Sci. 2016, 20, 953–973. [CrossRef]
74. Case, S.D.C.; McNamara, N.P.; Reay, D.S.; Stott, A.W.; Grant, H.K.; Whitaker, J. Biochar suppresses N2 O
emissions while maintaining N availability in a sandy loam soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2015, 81, 178–185.
[CrossRef]
75. Metz, B. International equity in climate change policy. Integr. Assess. 2000, 1, 111–126. [CrossRef]
76. Harris, P.G. Fairness, responsibility, and climate change. Ethics Int. Aff. 2003, 17, 149–156. [CrossRef]
77. Jost, C.; Kyazze, F.; Naab, J.; Neelormi, S.; Kinyangi, J.; Zougmore, R.; Aggarwal, P.; Bhatta, G.; Chaudhury, M.;
Tapio-Bistrom, M.L.; et al. Understanding gender dimensions of agriculture and climate change in
smallholder farming communities. Clim. Dev. 2016, 8, 133–144. [CrossRef]
78. Uddin, M.N.; Bokelmann, W.; Entsminger, J.S. Factors affecting farmers’ adaptation strategies to
environmental degradation and climate change effects: A farm level study in Bangladesh. Climate 2014, 2,
79. Belay, A.; Recha, J.W.; Woldeamanuel, T.; Morton, J.F. Smallholder farmers’ adaptation to climate change and
determinants of their adaptation decisions in the central rift valley of Ethiopia. Agric. Food Secur. 2017, 6, 24.
[CrossRef]
80. Rogers, P. Matching impact evaluation design to the nature of the intervention and the purpse of the
evaluation. In Designing Impact Evaluations: Different Perspectives; Chambers, R., Karlan, D., Ravallion, M.,
Rogers, P., Eds.; International Initiative for Impact Evaluation: New Delhi, India, 2009; pp. 24–33.
81. Xiong, W.; van der Velde, M.; Holman, I.P.; Balkovic, J.; Lin, E.; Skalský, R.; Porter, C.; Jones, J.; Khabarov, N.;
Obersteiner, M. Can climate-smart agriculture reverse the recent slowing of rice yield growth in China?
Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2014, 196, 125–136. [CrossRef]
82. García de Jalón, S.; Silvestri, S.; Barnes, A.P. The potential for adoption of climate smart agricultural practices
in Sub-Saharan livestock systems. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2017, 17, 399–410. [CrossRef]
83. Khatri-Chhetri, A.; Aryal, J.P.; Sapkota, T.B.; Khurana, R. Economic benefits of climate-smart agricultural
practices to smallholder farmers in the indo-gangetic plains of India. Curr. Sci. 2016, 110, 1251–1256.
84. Bogdanski, A. Integrated food-energy systems for climate-smart agriculture. Agric. Food Secur. 2012, 1, 9.
[CrossRef]
85. Lognoul, M.; Theodorakopoulos, N.; Hiel, M.P.; Regaert, D.; Broux, F.; Heinesch, B.; Bodson, B.;
Vandenbol, M.; Aubinet, M. Impact of tillage on greenhouse gas emissions by an agricultural crop and
dynamics of N2 O fluxes: Insights from automated closed chamber measurements. Soil Tillage Res. 2017, 167,
80–89. [CrossRef]
86. Njeru, P.N.M.; Maina, I.; Lekasi, J.K.; Kimani, S.K.; Esilaba, A.O.; Mugwe, J.; Mucheru-Muna, M. Climate
smart agriculture adaptation strategies for rain-fed agriculture in drought-prone areas of Central Kenya.
Int. J. Agric. Resour. Gov. Ecol. 2016, 12, 113–124. [CrossRef]
87. Chandra, A.; McNamara, K.E.; Dargusch, P.; Damen, B.; Rioux, J.; Dallinger, J.; Bacudo, I. Resolving the
unfccc divide on climate-smart agriculture. Carbon Manag. 2016, 7, 295–299. [CrossRef]
88. Zougmoré, R.; Partey, S.; Ouédraogo, M.; Omitoyin, B.; Thomas, T.; Ayantunde, A.; Ericksen, P.; Said, M.;
Jalloh, A. Toward climate-smart agriculture in west Africa: A review of climate change impacts, adaptation
strategies and policy developments for the livestock, fishery and crop production sectors. Agric. Food Secur.
2016, 5, 26. [CrossRef]
89. Engel, S.; Muller, A. Payments for environmental services to promote “climate-smart agriculture”? Potential
and challenges. Agric. Econ. (UK) 2016, 47, 173–184. [CrossRef]
90. Maharaj, R.; Singh-Ackbarali, D.; Sankat, C.K. Postharvest management strategies. In Impacts of Climate
Change on Food Security in Small Island Developing States; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2015; pp. 221–254.
91. Harvey, C.A.; Chacón, M.; Donatti, C.I.; Garen, E.; Hannah, L.; Andrade, A.; Bede, L.; Brown, D.; Calle, A.;
Chará, J.; et al. Climate-smart landscapes: Opportunities and challenges for integrating adaptation and
mitigation in tropical agriculture. Conserv. Lett. 2014, 7, 77–90. [CrossRef]
92. Descheemaeker, K.; Oosting, S.J.; Tui, S.H.K.; Masikati, P.; Falconnier, G.N.; Giller, K.E. Climate change
adaptation and mitigation in smallholder crop-livestock systems in Sub-Saharan Africa: A call for integrated
impact assessments. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2016, 16, 2331–2343. [CrossRef]
93. Li, X.G.; Jensen, K.L.; Clark, C.D.; Lambert, D.M. Consumer willingness to pay for beef grown using climate
friendly production practices. Food Policy 2016, 64, 93–106. [CrossRef]
94. Beuchelt, T.D.; Badstue, L. Gender, nutrition- and climate-smart food production: Opportunities and
trade-offs. Food Secur. 2013, 5, 709–721. [CrossRef]
95. Murage, A.W.; Pittchar, J.O.; Midega, C.A.O.; Onyango, C.O.; Khan, Z.R. Gender specific perceptions and
adoption of the climate-smart push-pull technology in eastern Africa. Crop Prot. 2015, 76, 83–91. [CrossRef]
96. Khapung, S. Transnational feminism and women’s activism: Building resilience to climate change impact
through women’s empowerment in climate smart agriculture. Asian J. Women’s Stud. 2016, 22, 497–506.
[CrossRef]
97. Akter, S.; Krupnik, T.; Rossi, F.; Khanam, F. The influence of gender and product design on farmers’
preferences for weather-indexed crop insurance. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2016, 38, 217–229. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
98. Scholtz, M.M.; Schönfeldt, H.C.; Neser, F.W.C.; Schutte, G.M. Research and development on climate change
and greenhouse gases in support of climate-smart livestock production and a vibrant industry. S. Afr. J.
Anim. Sci. 2014, 44, S1–S7.
99. Makate, C.; Wang, R.C.; Makate, M.; Mango, N. Crop diversification and livelihoods of smallholder farmers
in Zimbabwe: Adaptive management for environmental change. Springerplus 2016, 5, 1135. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
100. Mottaleb, K.A.; Rejesus, R.M.; Murty, M.V.R.; Mohanty, S.; Li, T. Benefits of the development and
dissemination of climate-smart rice: Ex ante impact assessment of drought-tolerant rice in South Asia.
Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2017, 22, 879–901. [CrossRef]
101. Loughridge, K.B. Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) in the Mid-Atlantic United States: A Sociological
Analysis. Ph.D. Thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA, 2003.
102. Shames, S.; Heiner, K.; Kapukha, M.; Kiguli, L.; Masiga, M.; Kalunda, P.N.; Ssempala, A.; Recha, J.; Wekesa, A.
Building local institutional capacity to implement agricultural carbon projects: Participatory action research
with VI agroforestry in Kenya and ecotrust in Uganda. Agric. Food Secur. 2016, 5, 13. [CrossRef]
103. Quail, S.; Onyango, L.; Recha, J.; Kinyangi, J. Private sector actions to enable climate-smart agriculture in
small-scale farming in Tanzania. In Climate Change and Multi-Dimensional Sustainability in African Agriculture:
Climate Change and Sustainability in Agriculture; Lal, R., Kraybill, D., Hansen, D.O., Singh, B.R., Mosogoya, T.,
Eik, L.O., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 525–551.
104. Pomeroy, R.S.; Katon, B.M.; Harkes, I. Conditions affecting the success of fisheries co-management: Lessons
from Asia. Mar. Policy 2001, 25, 197–208. [CrossRef]
105. Segnon, A.C.; Achigan-Dako, E.; Gaoue, O.; Ahanchédé, A. Farmer’s knowledge and perception of diversified
farming systems in sub-Humid and semi-arid areas in benin. Sustainability 2015, 7, 6573–6592. [CrossRef]
106. Campbell, B.M.; Vermeulen, S.J.; Aggarwal, P.K.; Corner-Dolloff, C.; Girvetz, E.; Loboguerrero, A.M.;
Ramirez-Villegas, J.; Rosenstock, T.; Sebastian, L.; Thornton, P.; et al. Reducing risks to food security from
climate change. Glob. Food Secur. 2016, 11, 34–43. [CrossRef]
107. Drucker, P.F.; Noel, J.L. Innovation and entrepreneurship: Practices and principles. J. Contin. High. Educ.
1986, 34, 22–23. [CrossRef]
108. Dalohoun, D.N.; Hall, A.; Mele, P.V. Entrepreneurship as driver of a ‘self-organizing system of innovation’:
The case of Nerica in Benin. Int. J. Technol. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2009, 8, 87–101. [CrossRef]
109. Boucher, O.; Forster, P.M.; Gruber, N.; Ha-Duong, M.; Lawrence, M.G.; Lenton, T.M.; Maas, A.; Vaughan, N.E.
Rethinking climate engineering categorization in the context of climate change mitigation and adaptation.
Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 2014, 5, 23–35. [CrossRef]
110. Suckall, N.; Stringer, L.C.; Tompkins, E.L. Presenting triple-wins? Assessing projects that deliver adaptation,
mitigation and development co-benefits in rural Sub-Saharan Africa. Ambio 2015, 44, 34–41. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
111. Anand, A.; Khetarpal, S. Impact of climate change on agricultural productivity. In Plant Biology and
Biotechnology: Plant Diversity, Organization, Function and Improvement; Springer: New Delhi, India, 2015;
Volume 1, pp. 729–755.
112. Klerkx, L.; Leeuwis, C. Establishment and embedding of innovation brokers at different innovation system
levels: Insights from the dutch agricultural sector. Technol. Forecast. Soc. 2009, 76, 849–860. [CrossRef]
113. Cullen, B.; Tucker, J.; Snyder, K.; Lema, Z.; Duncan, A. An analysis of power dynamics within innovation
platforms for natural resource management. Innov. Dev. 2014, 4, 259–275. [CrossRef]
114. Kedia, B.L.; Bhagat, R.S. Cultural constraints on transfer of technology across nations: Implications for
research in international and comparative management. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1988, 13, 559–571. [CrossRef]
115. Kijima, Y.; Otsuka, K.; Sserunkuuma, D. An inquiry into constraints on a green revolution in Sub-Saharan
Africa: The case of nerica rice in Uganda. World Dev. 2011, 39, 77–86. [CrossRef]
116. Baghel, R.; Nüsser, M. Discussing large dams in Asia after the World Commission on Dams: Is a political
ecology approach the way forward? Water Altern. 2010, 3, 231–248.
117. Ahmed, I.I.; Lipton, M. Impact of Structural Adjustment on Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Review of the
Literature; Institute of Development Studies and Poverty Research Unit, University of Sussex: Brighton, UK,
1997; p. 33.
118. Alexandratos, N.; Bruinsma, J. World Agriculture towards 2030/2050: The 2012 Revision; Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2012; p. 160.
119. Biagini, B.; Miller, A. Engaging the private sector in adaptation to climate change in developing countries:
Importance, status, and challenges. Clim. Dev. 2013, 5, 242–252. [CrossRef]
120. Platteau, J.P. Physical infrastructure as a constraint on agricultural growth: The case of sub-Saharan Africa.
Oxf. Dev. Stud. 1996, 24, 189–219. [CrossRef]
121. Haggblade, S.; Hazell, P.; Reardon, T. The rural non-farm economy: Prospects for growth and poverty
reduction. World Dev. 2010, 38, 1429–1441. [CrossRef]
122. Rinaldi, S.M.; Peerenboom, J.P.; Kelly, T.K. Identifying, understanding, and analyzing critical infrastructure
interdependencies. IEEE Control Syst. 2001, 21, 11–25. [CrossRef]
123. Siderius, C.; Boonstra, H.; Munaswamy, V.; Ramana, C.; Kabat, P.; van Ierland, E.; Hellegers, P. Climate-smart
tank irrigation: A multi-year analysis of improved conjunctive water use under high rainfall variability.
Agric. Water Manag. 2015, 148, 52–62. [CrossRef]
124. Olayide, O.E.; Tetteh, I.K.; Popoola, L. Differential impacts of rainfall and irrigation on agricultural production
in Nigeria: Any lessons for climate-smart agriculture? Agric. Water Manag. 2016, 178, 30–36. [CrossRef]
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Sustainability 10 01990

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 10 01990

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 10 01990

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Keywords: climate-smart agriculture; institutions; adaptation; mitigation; systematic review

Sustainability 2018, 10, 1990; doi:10.3390/su10061990 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Sources and Extraction

2.1.1. Description of Literature Source

2.1.2. Articulation of Search Terms and/or Detailed Description of Search Process

2.1.3. Description of Criteria for Inclusion and Exclusion

Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria for literature selection.

Inclusion Criteria Exclusion Criteria

Dimensions Keywords Cluster

2.1.4. Documentation of Literature Included and Excluded

2.2. Data Analysis

Table 3. Composition of climate-smart agriculture and institutional-oriented climate-smart

All Publications (Climate CSA Relevant (Agriculture) CSA-Institutional-Oriented

3.2. Climate-Smart Agriculture Focused Literature

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 20

Figure 1.1. Correlation

Obviously, in developed countries

3.3.1. Knowledge Infrastructure

3.3.2. Hard Infrastructure

3.3.3. Market Structure

3.3.4. Soft Institutions

3.3.6. Physical Infrastructure

4.1. Emerging Lessons

4.2. Knowledge Gaps

Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/6/1990/

You might also like