agricultural society essay brainly

Student Essays

Essay on Agriculture | Importance & Significance of Agriculture Essay

Agriculture is the backbone of our country. The following essay on agriculture discusses the significance, importance and role of agriculture for the progress & power of a nation.

Agriculture Essay | Importance & Significance of Agriculture in Life

The primary purpose of agriculture is to cultivate crops and to domesticate animals for the purpose of providing food and other necessities for mankind.

Although it has been practiced since ancient times, it has evolved over time and has become an important part of our country’s economic development.

Importance of Agriculture

Agriculture is very important. Following are the main points regarding the significance of agriculture in our lives

1. Agriculture is the main Source of food:  Agriculture is a gift to the country, so it is no surprise that our food is a product of this activity. Food shortages existed in the country before independence, but they were resolved with the advent of the green revolution in agriculture in the year 1969.

>>>>>>>> Related Post:    Speech on Soil Pollution For Students

2. Agriculture contributes to National Income:  Agricultural activities generated over 59% of national income in 1950-51. Although it has reduced to around 24% about ten years ago, the agricultural sector remains one of the major sources of income in India.

3. Progress of Industrial Sector:  The agricultural sector plays a major role in the industrial sector by providing the raw materials which are used in manufacturing. Many industries are dependent on agriculture, including cotton textiles, sugar, jute, rubber, and oil.

4. Agriculture creates Employment Opportunities:  Agricultural activities require a large labour force, which provides numerous employment opportunities. There are not only direct employment opportunities available but indirect ones as well. A good example is farmers need to transport their products from one place to another, which supports the transport sector.

5. Agriculture increases Foreign Trade:  Agriculture accounts for the majority of exports. Agricultural exports account for more than 70% of total exports. India is the world’s third largest producer of jute products and sugar.

6. Increase in Government Revenue:  Government revenue is generated from excise duties on agricultural goods, land revenue and taxes on agricultural machinery sales.

7. Formation of Capital:  Capital can be generated from surplus income generated from agricultural activities.

8. Agriculture is dangerous Industry:  However, it is no secret that agriculture is a dangerous industry, and the importance of agriculture cannot be underestimated. Injuries among farmers are quite common. Rollovers and other accidents involving motor and machinery are some of the common causes of agrarian injuries.

Additionally, they are also at risk of skin diseases, lung infections, noise-induced hearing problems, sunstroke, and some types of cancers caused by the nature of their job. The pesticides may cause serious illnesses, even birth defects, in those exposed to them.

>>>>>>>> Related Post:  Speech on Importance of Water For Students

Even so, agriculture still plays a crucial role in the evolution of human civilization. As Booker T. Washington once said about agriculture that, “No race can prosper till it learns there is as much dignity in tilling a field as in writing a poem”, Therefore, the agriculture sector is an integral part and a great strength  of a country.

1 thought on “Essay on Agriculture | Importance & Significance of Agriculture Essay”

Not bad but nice

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Essay Samples
• College Essay
• Writing Tools
• Writing guide

↑ Return to College Essay

Essay on Agrarian Societies

In my essay, I explain what agrarian societies are, how long they have been around, and what it means to be an agrarian society. Most people think of Amish people when they think of agrarian societies, and they would be right, but my essay proves that they have been around for a lot longer than the Amish have.

An agrarian society is also known as an agricultural society. Their entire economy rests on their ability to produce and maintain farmland and crops. If a country, area, state or nation creates enough produce from farmland, it may be deemed an agrarian society, even if it is not meaning to be one in the same way that Amish people “intend” to live an agrarian lifestyle. If a country, area, state or nation has farming as its primary source of wealth, then it is an agrarian society; no matter how advanced the society is.

Agrarian societies are not as old as some people think. They have only existed in different parts of the world around as far back as 10,000 years ago, but some still exist today in various locations around the globe. The reason why they are only a relatively new thing in human history is because most societies have always had to mix the methods in which they produce, trade and survive. However, around 10,000 years ago, humans started trading over larger distances to the point where an agrarian society could exist. For example, if it wanted weapons, it could swap them for farmland produce rather than have to mine for the iron and produce them themselves.

There are some modern states around the world and in the US that would be agrarian based on the amount of land that farming takes up in those states, and yet it is not an agrarian society because it takes so few people to manage the farm. Farmland can take up hundreds of square miles of land, but due to modern technology, only a small group of people are needed to maintain the crops. Yet, on the flip side, a single square mile in a state may hold 100,000 people. Even in the 19th century in countries as advanced as Britain and the US, less than half of the population was involved in agriculture, and that was back in the days when horses and bulls were pulling ploughs.

An agrarian society is no longer an agrarian society when less than half of its population is directly involved and engaged with the agricultural production of the society. For example, if you have 11 people in the society and only 5 people are farmers, then it is not an agrarian society. Most modern societies are industrial societies with only a small portion of their population being directly engaged with farming and/or agricultural production. The Commercial and Industrial Revolution in of 1000-1500 C.E. with the Mediterranean city-states was what turned many societies away from farming and into industry. Maritime commercial societies during the middle ages were also the reason why many societies turned away from agriculture. A large part of the spread of industrialism was thanks to the British Empire invading countries and replacing agrarian societies with industrial ones.

The fact that many smaller states became, and still are, highly urbanized has proven that even tiny societies can exist very easily without having most of their population engaged in agriculture. There as some states and locations that are powered simply by natural resources such as mines, or by being centers of manufacturing or trade. The Amish people in the US do represent what people currently think of as an agrarian society, but such societies have been around a very long time and are actually not as needed or required as they once were.

Follow Us on Social Media

Get more free essays

Send via email

Most useful resources for students:.

• Free Essays Download
• Writing Tools List
• Proofreading Services
• Universities Rating

Contributors Bio

Find more useful services for students

Free plagiarism check, professional editing, online tutoring, free grammar check.

Climate-smart agriculture: adoption, impacts, and implications for sustainable development

• Original Article
• Open access
• Published: 29 April 2024
• Volume 29 , article number  44 , ( 2024 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Wanglin Ma   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7847-8459 1 &
• Dil Bahadur Rahut   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7505-5271 2  

865 Accesses

9 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The 19 papers included in this special issue examined the factors influencing the adoption of climate-smart agriculture (CSA) practices among smallholder farmers and estimated the impacts of CSA adoption on farm production, income, and well-being. Key findings from this special issue include: (1) the variables, including age, gender, education, risk perception and preferences, access to credit, farm size, production conditions, off-farm income, and labour allocation, have a mixed (either positive or negative) influence on the adoption of CSA practices; (2) the variables, including labour endowment, land tenure security, access to extension services, agricultural training, membership in farmers’ organizations, support from non-governmental organizations, climate conditions, and access to information consistently have a positive impact on CSA adoption; (3) diverse forms of capital (physical, social, human, financial, natural, and institutional), social responsibility awareness, and digital advisory services can effectively promote CSA adoption; (4) the establishment of climate-smart villages and civil-society organizations enhances CSA adoption by improving their access to credit; (5) CSA adoption contributes to improved farm resilience to climate change and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions; (6) CSA adoption leads to higher crop yields, increased farm income, and greater economic diversification; (7) integrating CSA technologies into traditional agricultural practices not only boosts economic viability but also contributes to environmental sustainability and health benefits; and (8) there is a critical need for international collaboration in transferring technology for CSA. Overall, the findings of this special issue highlight that through targeted interventions and collaborative efforts, CSA can play a pivotal role in achieving food security, poverty alleviation, and climate resilience in farming communities worldwide and contribute to the achievements of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.

Similar content being viewed by others

A systematic literature review of factors influencing the adoption of climate-smart agricultural practices

Farm households’ adoption of climate-smart agricultural practices: empirical evidence from Seychelles

Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) adaptation, adaptation determinants and extension services synergies: a systematic review

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Climate change reduces agricultural productivity and leads to greater instability in crop production, disrupting the global food supply and resulting in food and nutritional insecurity. In particular, climate change adversely affects food production through water shortages, pest outbreaks, and soil degradation, leading to significant crop yield losses and posing significant challenges to global food security (Kang et al. 2009 ; Läderach et al. 2017 ; Arora 2019 ; Zizinga et al. 2022 ; Mirón et al. 2023 ). United Nations reported that the human population will reach 9.7 billion by 2050. In response, food-calorie production will have to expand by 70% to meet the food demand of the growing population (United Nations 2021 ). Hence, it is imperative to advocate for robust mitigation strategies that counteract the negative impacts of climate change and enhance the flexibility and speed of response in smallholder farming systems.

A transformation of the agricultural sector towards climate-resilient practices can help tackle food security and climate change challenges successfully. Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) is an approach that guides farmers’ actions to transform agrifood systems towards building the agricultural sector’s resilience to climate change based on three pillars: increasing farm productivity and incomes, enhancing the resilience of livelihoods and ecosystems, and reducing and removing greenhouse gas emissions from the atmosphere (FAO 2013 ). Promoting the adoption of CSA practices is crucial to improve smallholder farmers’ capacity to adapt to climate change, mitigate its impact, and help achieve the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.

Realizing the benefits of adopting CSA, governments in different countries and international organizations such as the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have made great efforts to scale up and out the CSA. For example, climate-smart villages in India (Alam and Sikka 2019 ; Hariharan et al. 2020 ) and civil society organizations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America (Waters-Bayer et al. 2015 ; Brown 2016 ) have been developed to reduce information costs and barriers and bridge the gap in finance access to promote farmers’ adoption of sustainable agricultural practices, including CSA. Besides, agricultural training programs have been used to enhance farmers’ knowledge of CSA and their adoption of the technology in Ghana (Zakaria et al. 2020 ; Martey et al. 2021 ).

As a result, smallholder farmers worldwide have adopted various CSA practices and technologies (e.g., integrated crop systems, drop diversification, inter-cropping, improved pest, water, and nutrient management, improved grassland management, reduced tillage and use of diverse varieties and breeds, restoring degraded lands, and improved the efficiency of input use) to reach the objectives of CSA (Kpadonou et al. 2017 ; Zakaria et al. 2020 ; Khatri-Chhetri et al. 2020 ; Aryal et al. 2020a ; Waaswa et al. 2022 ; Vatsa et al. 2023 ). In the Indian context, technologies such as laser land levelling and the happy seeder have been promoted widely for their potential in climate change adaptation and mitigation, offering benefits in terms of farm profitability, emission reduction, and water and land productivity (Aryal et al. 2020b ; Keil et al. 2021 ). In some African countries such as Tanzania and Kenya, climate-smart feeding practices in the livestock sector have been suggested to tackle challenges in feed quality and availability exacerbated by climate change, aiming to improve livestock productivity and resilience (García de Jalón et al. 2017 ; Shikuku et al. 2017 ; Radeny et al. 2022 ).

Several studies have investigated the factors influencing farmers’ decisions to adopt CSA practices. They have focused on, for example, farmers’ characteristics (e.g., age, gender, and education), farm-level characteristics (e.g., farm size, land fertility, and land tenure security), socioeconomic factors (e.g., economic conditions), institutional factors (e.g., development programs, membership in farmers’ organizations, and access to agricultural training), climate conditions, and access to information (Aryal et al. 2018 ; Tran et al. 2020 ; Zakaria et al. 2020 ; Kangogo et al. 2021 ; Diro et al. 2022 ; Kifle et al. 2022 ; Belay et al. 2023 ; Zhou et al. 2023 ). For example, Aryal et al. ( 2018 ) found that household characteristics (e.g., general caste, education, and migration status), plot characteristics (e.g., tenure of plot, plot size, and soil fertility), distance to market, and major climate risks are major factors determining farmers’ adoption of multiple CSA practices in India. Tran et al. ( 2020 ) reported that age, gender, number of family workers, climate-related factors, farm characteristics, distance to markets, access to climate information, confidence in the know-how of extension workers, membership in social/agricultural groups, and attitude toward risk are the major factors affecting rice farmers’ decisions to adopt CSA technologies in Vietnam. Diro et al.’s ( 2022 ) analysis revealed that coffee growers’ decisions to adopt CSA practices are determined by their education, extension (access to extension services and participation on field days), and ownership of communication devices, specifically radio in Ethiopia. Zhou et al. 2023 ) found that cooperative membership significantly increases the adoption of climate-smart agricultural practices among banana-producing farmers in China. These studies provide significant insights regarding the factors influencing farmers’ decisions regarding CSA adoption.

A growing body of studies have also estimated the effects of CSA adoption. They have found that CSA practices enhance food security and dietary diversity by increasing crop yields and rural incomes (Amadu et al. 2020 ; Akter et al. 2022 ; Santalucia 2023 ; Tabe-Ojong et al. 2023 ; Vatsa et al. 2023 ; Omotoso and Omotayo 2024 ). For example, Akter et al. ( 2022 ) found that adoption of CSA practices was positively associated with rice, wheat, and maize yields and household income, contributing to household food security in Bangladesh. By estimating data from rice farmers in China, Vatsa et al. ( 2023 ) reported that intensifying the adoption of climate-smart agricultural practices improved rice yield by 94 kg/mu and contributed to food security. Santalucia ( 2023 ) and Omotoso and Omotayo ( 2024 ) found that adoption of CSA practices (improved maize varieties and maize-legume intercropping) increases household dietary diversity and food security among smallholders in Tanzania and Nigeria, respectively.

Agriculture is crucial in climate change, accounting for roughly 20% of worldwide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Additionally, it is responsible for approximately 45% of the global emissions of methane, a potent gas that significantly contributes to heat absorption in the atmosphere. CSA adoption improves farm resilience to climate variability (e.g., Makate et al. 2019 ; Jamil et al. 2021 ) and mitigates greenhouse gas emissions (Israel et al. 2020 ; McNunn et al. 2020 ). For example, Makate et al. ( 2019 ) for southern Africa and Jamil et al. ( 2021 ) for Pakistan found that promoting CSA innovations is crucial for boosting farmers’ resilience to climate change. McNunn et al. ( 2020 ) reported that CSA adoption significantly reduces greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture by increasing soil organic carbon stocks and decreasing nitrous oxide emissions.

Although a growing number of studies have enriched our understanding of the determinants and impacts of ICT adoption, it should be emphasized that no one-size-fits-all approach exists for CSA technology adoption due to geographical and environmental variability. The definitions of CSA should also be advanced to better adapt to changing climate and regional production conditions. Clearly, despite the extensive research on CSA, several gaps remain. First, there is a lack of comprehensive studies that consolidate findings across different geographical regions to inform policymaking effectively. The calls for studies on literature review and meta-analysis to synthesize the findings of the existing studies to make our understanding generalized. Second, although the literature on determinants of CSA adoption is becoming rich, there is a lack of understanding of how CSA adoption is influenced by different forms of capital, social responsibility awareness of farmers’ cultivating family farms, and digital advisory services. Third, there is a lack of understanding of how climate-smart villages and civil society organizations address farmers’ financial constraints and encourage them to adopt modern sustainable agricultural practices, including CSA practices. Fourth, very few studies have explored how CSA adoption influences the benefit–cost ratio of farm production, factor demand, and input substitution. Fifth, no previous studies have reported the progress of research on CSA. Addressing these gaps is crucial for designing and implementing effective policies and programs that support the widespread adoption of CSA practices, thereby contributing to sustainable agricultural development and climate resilience.

We address the research gaps mentioned above and extend the findings in previous studies by organizing a Special Issue on “Climate-Smart Agriculture: Adoption, Impacts, and Implications for Sustainable Development” in the Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change (MASGC) journal. We aim to collect high-quality theoretical and applied research papers discussing CSA and seek to comprehensively understand the associations between CSA and sustainable rural and agricultural development. To achieve this goal, we aim to find answers to these questions: What are the CSA practices and technologies (either single or multiple) that are currently adopted in smallholder farming systems? What are the key barriers, challenges, and drivers of promoting CSA practices? What are the impacts of adopting these practices? Answers to these questions will help devise appropriate solutions for promoting sustainable agricultural production and rural development. They will also provide insights for policymakers to design appropriate policy instruments to develop agricultural practices and technologies and promote them to sustainably enhance the farm sector’s resilience to climate change and increase productivity.

Finally, 19 papers were selected after a rigorous peer-review process and published in this special issue. We collected 10 papers investigating the determinants of CSA adoption. Among them, four papers investigated the determinants of CSA adoption among smallholders by reviewing and summarizing the findings in the literature and conducting a meta-analysis. Three papers explored the role of social-economic factors on ICT adoption, including capital, social responsibility awareness, and digital advisory services. Besides, three papers examined the associations between external development interventions, including climate-smart villages and civil-society initiatives, and CSA adoption. We collected eight papers exploring the impacts of CSA adoption. Among them, one paper conducted a comprehensive literature review to summarize the impacts of CSA adoption on crop yields, farm income, and environmental sustainability. Six papers estimated the impacts of CSA adoption on crop yields and farm income, and one paper focused on the impact of CSA adoption on factor demand and input substitution. The last paper included in this special issue delved into the advancements in technological innovation for agricultural adaptation within the context of climate-smart agriculture.

The structure of this paper is as follows: Section  2 summarizes the papers received in this special issue. Section  3 introduces the international conference that was purposely organized for the special issue. Section  4 summarizes the key findings of the 19 papers published in the special issue, followed by a summary of their policy implications, presented in Section  5 . The final section provides a brief conclusion.

2 Summary of received manuscripts

The special issue received 77 submissions, with the contributing authors hailing from 22 countries, as illustrated in Fig.  1 . This diversity highlights the global interest and wide-ranging contributions to the issue. Notably, over half of these submissions (53.2%) originated from corresponding authors in India and China, with 29 and 12 manuscripts, respectively. New Zealand authors contributed six manuscripts, while their Australian counterparts submitted four. Following closely, authors from the United Kingdom and Kenya each submitted three manuscripts. Authors from Thailand, Pakistan, Japan, and Germany submitted two manuscripts each. The remaining 12 manuscripts came from authors in Vietnam, Uzbekistan, the Philippines, Nigeria, the Netherlands, Malaysia, Italy, Indonesia, Ghana, Ethiopia, Brazil, and Bangladesh.

Distributions of 77 received manuscripts by corresponding authors' countries

Among the 77 received manuscripts, 30 were desk-rejected by the guest editors because they did not meet the aims and scope of the special issue, and the remaining 47, considered candidate papers for the special issue, were sent for external review. The decision on each manuscript was made based on review reports of 2–4 experts in this field. The guest editors also read and commented on each manuscript before they made decisions.

3 ADBI virtual international conference

3.1 selected presentations.

The guest editors from Lincoln University (New Zealand) and the Asian Development Bank Institute (ADBI) (Tokyo, Japan) organized a virtual international conference on the special issue theme “ Climate-Smart Agriculture: Adoption, Impacts, and Implications for Sustainable Development ”. The conference was organized on 10–11 October 2023 and was supported by the ADBI. Footnote 1 As previously noted, the guest editors curated a selection of 47 manuscripts from the pool of 77 submissions, identifying them as potential candidates for inclusion in the special issue, and sent them out for external review. Given the logistical constraints of orchestrating a two-day conference, the guest editors ultimately extended invitations to 20 corresponding authors. These authors were invited to present their work at the virtual international conference.

Figure  2 illustrates the native countries of the presenters, showing that the presenters were from 10 different countries. Most of the presenters were from India, accounting for 40% of the presenters. This is followed by China, where the four presenters were originally from. The conference presentations and discussions proved immensely beneficial, fostering knowledge exchange among presenters, discussants, and participants. It significantly allowed presenters to refine their manuscripts, leveraging the constructive feedback from discussants and fellow attendees.

Distributions of selected presentations by corresponding authors' countries

3.2 Keynote speeches

The guest editors invited two keynote speakers to present at the two-day conference. They were Prof. Edward B. Barbier from the Colorado State University in the United States Footnote 2 and Prof. Tatsuyoshi Saijo from Kyoto University of Advanced Science in Japan. Footnote 3

Prof. Edward Barbier gave a speech, “ A Policy Strategy for Climate-Smart Agriculture for Sustainable Rural Development ”, on 10th October 2023. He outlined a strategic approach for integrating CSA into sustainable rural development, particularly within emerging markets and developing economies. He emphasized the necessity of CSA and nature-based solutions (NbS) to tackle food security, climate change, and rural poverty simultaneously. Highlighting the substantial investment needs and the significant role of international and domestic financing, Prof. Barbier advocated reducing harmful subsidies in agriculture, forestry, fishing, and fossil fuel consumption to redirect funds toward CSA and NbS investments. He also proposed the implementation of a tropical carbon tax as an innovative financing mechanism. By focusing on recycling environmentally harmful subsidies and leveraging additional funding through public and private investments, Prof. Barbier’s strategy aims to foster a “win–win” scenario for climate action and sustainable development, underscoring the urgency of adopting comprehensive policies to mobilize the necessary resources for these critical investments.

Prof. Tatsuyoshi Saijo, gave his speech, “ Future Design ”, on 11th October 2023. He explored the significant impact of the Haber–Bosch process on human civilization and the environment. Prof. Saijo identifies this process, which synthetically fixed nitrogen from the atmosphere to create ammonia for fertilizers and other products, as the greatest invention from the twentieth century to the present, fundamentally transforming the world’s food production and enabling the global population and industrial activities to expand dramatically. He also discussed the environmental costs of this technological advancement, including increased greenhouse gas emissions, pollution, and contribution to climate change. Prof. Saijo then introduced the concept of “Future Design” as a method to envision and implement sustainable social systems that consider the well-being of future generations. He presented various experiments and case studies from Japan and beyond, showing how incorporating perspectives of imaginary future generations into decision-making processes can lead to more sustainable choices. By doing so, Prof. Saijo suggested that humanity can address the “Intergenerational Sustainability Dilemma” and potentially avoid the ecological overshoot and collapse faced by past civilizations like Easter Island. He called for a redesign of social systems to activate “futurability”, where individuals derive happiness from decisions that benefit future generations, ultimately aiming to ensure the long-term survival of humankind amidst environmental challenges.

4 Summary of published articles

As a result of a rigorous double-anonymized reviewing process, the special issue accepted 19 articles for publication. These studies have investigated the determinants and impacts of CSA adoption. Table 1 in the Appendix summarises the CSA technologies and practices considered in each paper. Below, we summarize the key findings of the contributions based on their research themes.

4.1 Determinants of CSA adoption among smallholders

4.1.1 influencing factors of csa adoption from literature review.

Investigating the factors influencing farmers’ adoption of CSA practices through a literature review helps offer a comprehensive understanding of the multifaceted determinants of CSA adoption. Investigating the factors influencing farmers’ adoption of CSA practices through a literature review helps provide a comprehensive understanding of the determinants of CSA adoption. Such analyses help identify consistent trends and divergences in how different variables influence farmers’ CSA adoption decisions. In this special issue, we collected four papers that reviewed the literature and synthesized the factors influencing farmers’ decisions to adopt CSA.

Li, Ma and Zhu’s paper, “ A systematic literature review of factors influencing the adoption of climate-smart agricultural practices ”, conducted a systematic review of the literature on the adoption of CSA, summarizing the definitions of CSA practices and the factors that influence farmers’ decisions to adopt these practices. The authors reviewed 190 studies published between 2013 and 2023. They broadly defined CSA practices as “agricultural production-related and unrelated practices that can help adapt to climate change and increase agricultural outputs”. Narrowly, they defined CSA practices as “agricultural production-related practices that can effectively adapt agriculture to climate change and reinforce agricultural production capacity”. The review identified that many factors, including age, gender, education, risk perception, preferences, access to credit, farm size, production conditions, off-farm income, and labour allocation, have a mixed (positive or negative) influence on the adoption of CSA practices. Variables such as labour endowment, land tenure security, access to extension services, agricultural training, membership in farmers’ organizations, support from non-governmental organizations (NGOs), climate conditions, and access to information were consistently found to positively influence CSA practice adoption.

Thottadi and Singh’s paper, “ Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) adaptation, adaptation determinants and extension services synergies: A systematic review ””, reviewed 45 articles published between 2011 and 2022 to explore different CAS practices adopted by farmers and the factors determining their adoption. They found that CSA practices adopted by farmers can be categorized into five groups. These included resilient technologies (e.g., early maturing varieties, drought-resistant varieties, and winter ploughing), management strategies (e.g., nutrient management, water management, and pest management), conservation technologies (e.g., vermicomposting and residue management, drip and sprinkler irrigation, and soil conservation), diversification of income security (e.g., mixed farming, livestock, and crop diversification), and risk mitigation strategies (e.g., contingent planning, adjusting plant dates, and crop insurance). They also found that farmers’ decisions to adopt CSA practices are mainly determined by individual characteristics (age, gender, and education), socioeconomic factors (income and wealth), institutional factors (social group, access to credit, crop insurance, distance, land tenure, and rights), behavioural factors (climate perception, farmers’ perception on CSA, Bookkeeping), and factor endowments (family labour, machinery, and land size). The authors emphasized that extension services improved CSA adaptation by reducing information asymmetry.

Naveen, Datta, Behera and Rahut’s paper, “ Climate-Smart Agriculture in South Asia: Exploring Practices, Determinants, and Contribution to Sustainable Development Goals ”, offered a comprehensive systematic review of 78 research papers on CSA practice adoption in South Asia. Their objective was to assess the current implementation of CSA practices and to identify the factors that influence farmers’ decisions to adopt these practices. They identified various CSA practices widely adopted in South Asia, including climate-resilient seeds, zero tillage, water conservation, rescheduling of planting, crop diversification, soil conservation and water harvesting, and agroforestry. They also identified several key factors that collectively drive farmers’ adoption of CSA practices. These included socioeconomic factors (age, education, livestock ownership, size of land holdings, and market access), institutional factors (access to information and communication technology, availability of credit, input subsidies, agricultural training and demonstrations, direct cash transfers, and crop insurance), and climatic factors (notably rising temperatures, floods, droughts, reduced rainfall, and delayed rainfall).

Wang, Wang and Fu’s paper, “ Can social networks facilitate smallholders’ decisions to adopt Climate-smart Agriculture technologies? A three-level meta-analysis ”, explored the influence of social networks on the adoption of CSA technologies by smallholder farmers through a detailed three-level meta-analysis. This analysis encompassed 26 empirical studies, incorporating 150 effect sizes. The authors reported a modest overall effect size of 0.065 between social networks and the decision-making process for CSA technology adoption, with an 85.21% variance observed among the sample effect sizes. They found that over half (55.17%) of this variance was attributed to the differences in outcomes within each study, highlighting the impact of diverse social network types explored across the studies as significant contributors. They did not identify publication bias in this field. Among the three types of social networks (official-advising network, peer-advising network, and kinship and friendship network), kinship and friendship networks are the most effective in facilitating smallholders’ decisions to adopt climate-smart agriculture technologies.

4.1.2 Socioeconomic factors influencing CSA adoption

We collected three papers highlighting the diverse forms of capital, social responsibility awareness, and effectiveness of digital advisory services in promoting CSA in India, China and Ghana. These studies showcase how digital tools can significantly increase the adoption of CSA technologies, how social responsibility can motivate CSA practices and the importance of various forms of capital in CSA strategy adoption.

Sandilya and Goswami’s paper, “ Effect of different forms of capital on the adoption of multiple climate-smart agriculture strategies by smallholder farmers in Assam, India ”, delved into the determinants behind the adoption of CSA strategies by smallholder farmers in Nagaon district, India, a region notably prone to climate adversities. The authors focused on six types of capital: physical, social, human, financial, natural, and institutional. They considered four CSA practices: alternate land use systems, integrated nutrient management, site-specific nutrient management, and crop diversification. Their analyses encompassed a dual approach, combining a quantitative analysis via a multivariate probit model with qualitative insights from focus group discussions. They found that agricultural cooperatives and mobile applications, both forms of social capital, play a significant role in facilitating the adoption of CSA. In contrast, the authors also identified certain barriers to CSA adoption, such as the remoteness of farm plots from all-weather roads (a component of physical capital) and a lack of comprehensive climate change advisories (a component of institutional capital). Furthermore, the authors highlighted the beneficial impact of irrigation availability (a component of physical capital) on embracing alternate land use and crop diversification strategies. Additionally, the application of indigenous technical knowledge (a component of human capital) and the provision of government-supplied seeds (a component of institutional capital) were found to influence the adoption of CSA practices distinctly.

Ye, Zhang, Song and Li’s paper, “ Social Responsibility Awareness and Adoption of Climate-smart Agricultural Practices: Evidence from Food-based Family Farms in China ”, examined whether social responsibility awareness (SRA) can be a driver for the adoption of CSA on family farms in China. Using multiple linear regression and hierarchical regression analyses, the authors analyzed data from 637 family farms in five provinces (Zhejiang, Shandong, Henan, Heilongjiang, and Hebei) in China. They found that SRA positively impacted the adoption of CSA practice. Pro-social motivation and impression management motivation partially and completely mediated the relationship between SRA and the adoption of CSA practices.

Asante, Ma, Prah and Temoso’s paper, “ Promoting the adoption of climate-smart agricultural technologies among maize farmers in Ghana: Using digital advisory services ”, investigated the impacts of digital advisory services (DAS) use on CSA technology adoption and estimated data collected from 3,197 maize farmers in China. The authors used a recursive bivariate probit model to address the self-selection bias issues when farmers use DAS. They found that DAS notably increases the propensity to adopt drought-tolerant seeds, zero tillage, and row planting by 4.6%, 4.2%, and 12.4%, respectively. The average treatment effect on the treated indicated that maize farmers who use DAS are significantly more likely to adopt row planting, zero tillage, and drought-tolerant seeds—by 38.8%, 24.9%, and 47.2%, respectively. Gender differences in DAS impact were observed; male farmers showed a higher likelihood of adopting zero tillage and drought-tolerant seeds by 2.5% and 3.6%, respectively, whereas female farmers exhibited a greater influence on the adoption of row planting, with a 2.4% probability compared to 1.5% for males. Additionally, factors such as age, education, household size, membership in farmer-based organizations, farm size, perceived drought stress, perceived pest and disease incidence, and geographic location were significant determinants in the adoption of CSA technologies.

4.1.3 Climate-smart villages and CSA adoption

Climate-Smart Villages (CSVs) play a pivotal role in promoting CSA by significantly improving farmers’ access to savings and credit, and the adoption of improved agricultural practices among smallholder farmers. CSV interventions demonstrate the power of community-based financial initiatives in enabling investments in CSA technologies. In this special issue, we collected two insightful papers investigating the relationship between CSVs and the adoption of CSA practices, focusing on India and Kenya.

Villalba, Joshi, Daum and Venus’s paper, “ Financing Climate-Smart Agriculture: A Case Study from the Indo-Gangetic Plains ”, investigated the adoption and financing of CSA technologies in India, focusing on two capital-intensive technologies: laser land levelers and happy seeders. Conducted in Karnal, Haryana, within the framework of Climate-Smart-Villages, the authors combined data from a household survey of 120 farmers, interviews, and focus group discussions with stakeholders like banks and cooperatives. The authors found that adoption rates are high, with 77% for laser land levelers and 52% for happy seeders, but ownership is low, indicating a preference for renting from Custom-Hiring Centers. Farmers tended to avoid formal banking channels for financing, opting instead for informal sources like family, savings, and money lenders, due to the immediate access to credit and avoidance of bureaucratic hurdles. The authors suggested that institutional innovations and governmental support could streamline credit access for renting CSA technologies, emphasizing the importance of knowledge transfer, capacity building, and the development of digital tools to inform farmers about financing options. This research highlights the critical role of financing mechanisms in promoting CSA technology adoption among smallholder farmers in climate-vulnerable regions.

Asseldonk, Oostendorp, Recha, Gathiaka, Mulwa, Radeny Wattel and Wesenbeeck’s paper, “ Distributional impact of climate‑smart villages on access to savings and credit and adoption of improved climate‑smart agricultural practices in the Nyando Basin, Kenya ”, investigated the impact of CSV interventions in Kenya on smallholder farmers’ access to savings, credit, and adoption of improved livestock breeds as part of CSA practices. The authors employed a linear probability model to estimate a balanced panel of 118 farm households interviewed across 2017, 2019, and 2020. They found that CSV interventions significantly increased the adoption of improved livestock breeds and membership in savings and credit groups, which further facilitated the adoption of these improved breeds. The findings highlighted that community-based savings and loan initiatives effectively enable farmers to invest in CSA practices. Although there was a sustained positive trend in savings and loans group membership, the adoption of improved livestock did not show a similar sustained increase. Moreover, the introduction of improved breeds initially benefited larger livestock owners more. However, credit availability was found to reduce this inequity in ownership among participants, making the distribution of improved livestock more equitable within CSVs compared to non-CSV areas, thus highlighting the potential of CSV interventions to reduce disparities in access to improved CSA practices.

4.1.4 Civil-society initiatives and CSA adoption

Civil society initiatives are critical in promoting CSA by embedding its principles across diverse agricultural development projects. These initiatives enhance mitigation, adaptation, and food security efforts for smallholder farmers, demonstrating the importance of varied implementation strategies to address the challenges of CSA. We collected one paper investigating how civil society-based development projects in Asia and Africa incorporated CSA principles to benefit smallholder farmers and local communities.

Davila, Jacobs, Nadeem, Kelly and Kurimoto’s paper, “ Finding climate smart agriculture in civil-society initiatives ”, scrutinized the role of international civil society and non-government organizations (NGOs) in embedding CSA principles within agricultural development projects aimed at enhancing mitigation, adaptation, and food security. Through a thematic analysis of documentation from six projects selected on the basis that they represented a range of geographical regions (East Africa, South, and Southeast Asia) and initiated since 2009, the authors assessed how development programs incorporate CSA principles to support smallholder farmers under CSA’s major pillars. They found heterogeneous application of CSA principles across the projects, underscoring a diversity in implementation strategies despite vague definitions and focuses of CSA. The projects variedly contributed to greening and forests, knowledge exchange, market development, policy and institutional engagement, nutrition, carbon and climate action, and gender considerations.

4.2 Impacts of CSA adoption

4.2.1 impacts of csa adoption from literature review.

A comprehensive literature review on the impacts of CSA adoption plays an indispensable role in bridging the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical implementation in the agricultural sector. In this special issue, we collected one paper that comprehensively reviewed the literature on the impacts of CSA adoption from the perspective of the triple win of CSA.

Zheng, Ma and He’s paper, “ Climate-smart agricultural practices for enhanced farm productivity, income, resilience, and Greenhouse gas mitigation: A comprehensive review ”, reviewed 107 articles published between 2013–2023 to distill a broad understanding of the impacts of CSA practices. The review categorized the literature into three critical areas of CSA benefits: (a) the sustainable increase of agricultural productivity and incomes; (b) the adaptation and enhancement of resilience among individuals and agrifood systems to climate change; and (c) the reduction or avoidance of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions where feasible. The authors found that CSA practices significantly improved farm productivity and incomes and boosted technical and resource use efficiency. Moreover, CSA practices strengthened individual resilience through improved food consumption, dietary diversity, and food security while enhancing agrifood systems’ resilience by mitigating production risks and reducing vulnerability. Additionally, CSA adoption was crucial in lowering Greenhouse gas emissions and fostering carbon sequestration in soils and biomass, contributing to improved soil quality.

4.2.2 Impacts on crop yields and farm income

Understanding the impact of CSA adoption on crop yields and income is crucial for improving agricultural resilience and sustainability. In this special issue, we collected three papers highlighting the transformative potential of CSA practices in boosting crop yields, commercialization, and farm income. One paper focuses on India and the other concentrates on Ghana and Kenya.

Tanti, Jena, Timilsina and Rahut’s paper, “ Enhancing crop yields and farm income through climate-smart agricultural practices in Eastern India ”, examined the impact of CSA practices (crop rotation and integrated soil management practices) on crop yields and incomes. The authors used propensity score matching and the two-stage least square model to control self-selection bias and endogeneity and analyzed data collected from 494 farm households in India. They found that adopting CSA practices increases agricultural income and paddy yield. The crucial factor determining the adoption of CSA practices was the income-enhancing potential to transform subsistence farming into a profoundly ingrained farming culture.

Asante, Ma, Prah and Temoso’s paper, “ Farmers’ adoption of multiple climate-smart agricultural technologies in Ghana: Determinants and impacts on maize yields and net farm income ”, investigated the factors influencing maize growers’ decisions to adopt CSA technologies and estimated the impact of adopting CSA technologies on maize yields and net farm income. They considered three CSA technology types: drought-resistant seeds, row planting, and zero tillage. The authors used the multinomial endogenous switching regression model to estimate the treatment effect of CSA technology adoption and analyze data collected from 3,197 smallholder farmers in Ghana. They found that farmer-based organization membership, education, resource constraints such as lack of land, access to markets, and production shocks such as perceived pest and disease stress and drought are the main factors that drive farmers’ decisions to adopt CSA technologies. They also found that integrating any CSA technology or adopting all three CSA technologies greatly enhances maize yields and net farm income. Adopting all three CSA technologies had the largest impact on maize yields, while adopting row planting and zero tillage had the greatest impact on net farm income.

Mburu, Mburu, Nyikal, Mugera and Ndambi’s paper, “ Assessment of Socioeconomic Determinants and Impacts of Climate-Smart Feeding Practices in the Kenyan Dairy Sector ”, assessed the determinants and impacts of adopting climate-smart feeding practices (fodder and feed concentrates) on yield, milk commercialization, and household income. The authors used multinomial endogenous switching regression to account for self-selection bias arising from observable and unobservable factors and estimated data collected from 665 dairy farmers in Kenya. They found that human and social capital, resource endowment, dairy feeding systems, the source of information about feeding practices, and perceived characteristics were the main factors influencing farmers’ adoption of climate-smart feeding practices. They also found that combining climate-smart feed concentrates and fodder significantly increased milk productivity, output, and dairy income. Climate-smart feed concentrates yielded more benefits regarding dairy milk commercialization and household income than climate-smart fodder.

4.2.3 Impacts on crop yields

Estimating the impacts of CSA adoption on crop yields is crucial for enhancing food security, improving farmers’ resilience to climate change, and guiding policy and investment towards sustainable agricultural development. In this special issue, we collected one paper that provided insights into this field.

Singh, Bisaria, Sinha, Patasaraiya and Sreerag’s paper, “ Developing A Composite Weighted Indicator-based Index for Monitoring and Evaluating Climate-Smart Agriculture in India ”, developed a composite index based on a weighted index to calculate the Climate Smart Score (CSS) at the farm level in India and tested the relationship between computed CSS and farm-level productivity. Through an intensive literature review, the authors selected 34 indicators, which were then grouped into five dimensions for calculating CSS. These dimensions encompassed governance (e.g., land ownership, subsidized fertilizer, and subsidized seeds), farm management practices (mulching, zero tillage farming, and inter-cropping and crop diversification), environment management practices (e.g., not converting forested land into agricultural land and Agroforestry/plantation), energy management (e.g., solar water pump and Biogas digester), and awareness and training (e.g., knowledge of climate-related risk and timely access to weather and agro-advisory). They tested the relationship between CSS and farm productivity using data collected from 315 farmers. They found that improved seeds, direct seeding of rice, crop diversification, zero tillage, agroforestry, crop residue management, integrated nutrient management, and training on these practices were the most popular CSA practices the sampled farmers adopted. In addition, there was a positive association between CSS and paddy, wheat, and maize yields. This finding underscores the beneficial impact of CSA practices on enhancing farm productivity.

4.2.4 Impacts on incomes and benefit–cost ratio

Understanding the income effects of CSA adoption is crucial for assessing its impact on household livelihoods, farm profitability, and income diversity. Quantifying income enhancements would contribute to informed decision-making and investment strategies to improve farming communities’ economic well-being. In this special issue, we collected two papers looking into the effects of CSA adoption on income.

Sang, Chen, Hu and Rahut’s paper, “ Economic benefits of climate-smart agricultural practices: Empirical investigations and policy implications ”, investigated the impact of CSA adoption intensity on household income, net farm income, and income diversity. They used the two-stage residual inclusion model to mitigate the endogeneity of CSA adoption intensity and analyzed the 2020 China Rural Revitalization Survey data. They also used the instrumental-variable-based quantile regression model to investigate the heterogeneous impacts of CSA adoption intensity. The authors found that the education level of the household head and geographical location determine farmers’ adoption intensity of CSAs.CSA practices. The higher levels of CSA adoption were positively and significantly associated with higher household income, net farm income, and income diversity. They also found that while the impact of CSA adoption intensity on household income escalates across selected quantiles, its effect on net farm income diminishes over these quantiles. Additionally, the study reveals that CSA adoption intensity notably enhances income diversity at the 20th quantile only.

Kandulu, Zuo, Wheeler, Dusingizimana and Chagund’s paper, “ Influence of climate-smart technologies on the success of livestock donation programs for smallholder farmers in Rwanda ”, investigated the economic, environmental, and health benefits of integrating CSA technologies —specifically barns and biogas plants—into livestock donation programs in Rwanda. Employing a stochastic benefit–cost analysis from the perspective of the beneficiaries, the authors assessed the net advantages for households that receive heifers under an enhanced program compared to those under the existing scheme. They found that incorporating CSA technologies not only boosts the economic viability of these programs but also significantly increases the resilience and sustainability of smallholder farming systems. More precisely, households equipped with cows and CSA technologies can attain net benefits up to 3.5 times greater than those provided by the current program, with the benefit–cost ratios reaching up to 5. Furthermore, biogas technology reduces deforestation, mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, and lowering the risk of respiratory illnesses, underscoring the multifaceted advantages of integrating such innovations into livestock donation initiatives.

4.2.5 Impacts on factor demand and input substitution

Estimating the impacts of CSA adoption on factor demand and input substitution is key to optimizing resource use, reducing environmental footprints, and ensuring agricultural sustainability by enabling informed decisions on efficient input use and technology adoption. In this field, we collected one paper that enriched our understanding in this field. Understanding the impacts of CSA adoption on factor demand, input substitution, and financing options is crucial for promoting sustainable farming in diverse contexts. In this special issue, we collected one paper comprehensively discussing how CSA adoption impacted factor demand and input substitution.

Kehinde, Shittu, Awe and Ajayi’s paper, “ Effects of Using Climate-Smart Agricultural Practices on Factor Demand and Input Substitution among Smallholder Rice Farmers in Nigeria ”, examined the impacts of agricultural practices with CSA potential (AP-CSAPs) on the demand of labour and other production factors (seed, pesticides, fertilizers, and mechanization) and input substitution. The AP-CSAPs considered in this research included zero/minimum tillage, rotational cropping, green manuring, organic manuring, residue retention, and agroforestry. The authors employed the seemingly unrelated regression method to estimate data collected from 1,500 smallholder rice farmers in Nigeria. The authors found that labour and fertilizer were not easily substitutable in the Nigerian context; increases in the unit price of labour (wage rate) and fertilizer lead to a greater budget allocation towards these inputs. Conversely, a rise in the cost of mechanization services per hectare significantly reduced labour costs while increasing expenditure on pesticides and mechanization services. They also found that most AP-CSAPs were labour-intensive, except for agroforestry, which is labor-neutral. Organic manure and residue retention notably conserved pesticides, whereas zero/minimum tillage practices increased the use of pesticides and fertilizers. Furthermore, the demand for most production factors, except pesticides, was found to be price inelastic, indicating that price changes do not significantly alter the quantity demanded.

4.3 Progress of research on CSA

Understanding the progress of research on CSA is essential for identifying and leveraging technological innovations—like greenhouse advancements, organic fertilizer products, and biotechnological crop improvements—that support sustainable agricultural adaptation. This knowledge enables the integration of nature-based strategies, informs policy, and underscores the importance of international cooperation in overcoming patent and CSA adoption challenges to ensure global food security amidst climate change. We collected one paper in this field.

Tey, Brindal, Darham and Zainalabidin’s paper, “ Adaptation technologies for climate-smart agriculture: A patent network analysis ”, delved into the advancements in technological innovation for agricultural adaptation within the context of CSA by analyzing global patent databases. The authors found that greenhouse technologies have seen a surge in research and development (R&D) efforts, whereas composting technologies have evolved into innovations in organic fertilizer products. Additionally, biotechnology has been a significant focus, aiming to develop crop traits better suited to changing climate conditions. A notable emergence is seen in resource restoration innovations addressing climate challenges. These technologies offer a range of policy options for climate-smart agriculture, from broad strategies to specific operational techniques, and pave the way for integration with nature-based adaptation strategies. However, the widespread adoption and potential impact of these technologies may be hindered by issues related to patent ownership and the path dependency this creates. Despite commercial interests driving the diffusion of innovation, international cooperation is clearly needed to enhance technology transfer.

5 Summary of key policy implications

The collection of 19 papers in this special issue sheds light on the critical aspects of promoting farmers’ adoption of CSA practices, which eventually help enhance agricultural productivity and resilience, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve food security and soil health, offer economic benefits to farmers, and contribute to sustainable development and climate change adaptation. We summarize and discuss the policy implications derived from this special issue from the following four aspects:

5.1 Improving CSA adoption through extension services

Extension services help reduce information asymmetry associated with CSA adoption and increase farmers’ awareness of CSA practices’ benefits, costs, and risks while addressing their specific challenges. Therefore, the government should improve farmers’ access to extension services. These services need to be inclusive and customized to meet the gender-specific needs and the diverse requirements of various farming stakeholders. Additionally, fostering partnerships between small and medium enterprises and agricultural extension agents is crucial for enhancing the local availability of CSA technologies. Government-sponsored extension services should prioritize equipping farmers with essential CSA skills, ensuring they are well-prepared to implement these practices. This structured approach will streamline the adoption process and significantly improve the effectiveness of CSA initiatives.

5.2 Facilitating CSA adoption through farmers’ organizations

Farmers’ organizations, such as village cooperatives, farmer groups, and self-help groups, play a pivotal role in facilitating farmers’ CSA adoption and empowering rural women’s adoption through effective information dissemination and the use of agricultural apps. Therefore, the government should facilitate the establishment and development of farmers’ organizations and encourage farmers to join those organizations as members. In particular, the proven positive impacts of farmer-based organizations (FBOs) highlight the importance of fostering collaborations between governments and FBOs. Supporting farmer cooperatives with government financial and technical aid is essential for catalyzing community-driven climate adaptation efforts. Furthermore, the successful use of DAS in promoting CSA adoption underscores the need for government collaboration with farmer groups to expand DAS utilization. This includes overcoming usage barriers and emphasizing DAS’s reliability as a source of climate-smart information. By establishing and expanding digital hubs and demonstration centres in rural areas, farmers can access and experience DAS technologies firsthand, leading to broader adoption and integration into their CSA practices.

5.3 Enhancing CSA adoption through agricultural training and education

Agricultural training and education are essential in enhancing farmers’ adoption of CSA. To effectively extend the reach of CSA practices, the government should prioritize expanding rural ICT infrastructure investments and establish CSA training centres equipped with ICT tools that target key demographics such as women and older people, aiming to bridge the digital adoption gaps. Further efforts should prioritize awareness and training programs to ensure farmers can access weather and agro-advisory services. These programs should promote the use of ICT-based tools through collaborations with technology providers and include regular CSA training and the establishment of demonstration fields that showcase the tangible benefits of CSA practices.

Education plays a vital role in adopting CAPs, suggesting targeted interventions such as comprehensive technical training to assist farmers with limited educational backgrounds in understanding the value of CAPs, ultimately improving their adoption rates. Establishing robust monitoring mechanisms is crucial to maintaining farmer engagement and success in CSA practices. These mechanisms will facilitate the ongoing adoption and evaluation of CSA practices and help educate farmers on the long-term benefits. Centralizing and disseminating information about financial products and subsidies through various channels, including digital platforms tailored to local languages and contexts, is essential. This approach helps educate farmers on financing options and requirements, supporting the adoption of CSA technologies among smallholder farmers. Lastly, integrating traditional and local knowledge with scientific research and development can effectively tailor CSA initiatives. This integration requires the involvement of a range of stakeholders, including NGOs, to navigate the complexities of CSA and ensure that interventions are effective but also equitable and sustainable. The enhanced capacity of institutions and their extension teams will further support these CSA initiatives.

5.4 Promoting CSA adoption through establishing social networks and innovating strategies

The finding that social networks play a crucial role in promoting the adoption of CSA suggests that implementing reward systems to incentivize current CSA adopters to advocate for climate-smart practices within their social circles could be an effective strategy to promote CSA among farmers. The evidence of a significant link between family farms’ awareness of social responsibility and their adoption of CSA highlights that governments should undertake initiatives, such as employing lectures and pamphlets, to enhance family farm operating farmers’ understanding of social responsibility. The government should consider introducing incentives that foster positive behavioural changes among family farms to cultivate a more profound commitment to social responsibility. The government can also consider integrating social responsibility criteria into the family farm awards and recognition evaluation process. These measures would encourage family farms to align their operations with broader social and environmental goals, promoting CSA practices.

Combining traditional incentives, such as higher wages and access to improved agricultural inputs, with innovative strategies like community-driven development for equipment sharing and integrating moral suasion with Payment for Ecosystem Services would foster farmers’ commitment to CSA practices. The finding that technological evolution plays a vital role in shaping adaptation strategies for CSA highlights the necessity for policy instruments that not only leverage modern technologies but also integrate them with traditional, nature-based adaptation strategies, enhancing their capacity to address specific CSA challenges. Policymakers should consider the region’s unique socioeconomic, environmental, and geographical characteristics when promoting CSA, moving away from a one-size-fits-all approach to ensure the adaptability and relevance of CSA practices across different agricultural landscapes. They should foster an environment that encourages the reporting of all research outcomes to develop evidence-based policies that are informed by a balanced view of CSA’s potential benefits and limitations.

Finally, governance is critical in creating an enabling environment for CSA adoption. Policies should support CSA practices and integrate environmental sustainability to enhance productivity and ecosystem health. Development programs must offer financial incentives, establish well-supported voluntary schemes, provide robust training programs, and ensure the wide dissemination of informational tools. These measures are designed to help farmers integrate CAPs into their operations, improving economic and operational sustainability.

6 Concluding remarks

This special issue has provided a wealth of insights into the adoption and impact of CSA practices across various contexts, underscoring the complexity and multifaceted nature of CSA implementation. The 19 papers in this special issue collectively emphasize the importance of understanding local conditions, farmer characteristics, and broader socioeconomic and institutional factors that influence CSA adoption. They highlight the crucial role of extension services, digital advisory services, social responsibility awareness, and diverse forms of capital in facilitating the adoption of CSA practices. Moreover, the findings stress the positive impact of CSA on farm productivity, income diversification, and resilience to climate change while also pointing out the potential for CSA practices to address broader sustainability goals.

Significantly, the discussions underline the need for policy frameworks that are supportive and adaptive, tailored to specific regional and local contexts to promote CSA adoption effectively. Leveraging social networks, enhancing access to financial products and mechanisms, and integrating technological innovations with traditional agricultural practices are vital strategies for scaling CSA adoption. Furthermore, the discussions advocate for a balanced approach that combines economic incentives with moral persuasion and community engagement to foster sustainable agricultural practices.

These comprehensive insights call for concerted efforts from policymakers, researchers, extension agents, and the agricultural community to foster an enabling environment for CSA. Such an environment would support knowledge exchange, financial accessibility, and the adoption of CSA practices that contribute to the resilience and sustainability of agricultural systems in the face of climate change. As CSA continues to evolve, future research should focus on addressing the gaps identified, exploring innovative financing and technology dissemination models, and assessing the long-term impacts of CSA practices on agricultural sustainability and food security. This special issue lays the groundwork for further exploration and implementation of CSA practices, aiming to achieve resilient, productive, and sustainable agricultural systems worldwide and contribute to the achievements of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.

Data availability

No new data were created or analyzed during this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

The conference agenda, biographies of the speakers, and conference recordings are available at the ADBI website: https://www.adb.org/news/events/climate-smart-agriculture-adoption-impacts-and-implications-for-sustainable-development .

Profile of Prof. Edward B. Barbie: http://www.edwardbbarbier.com/ .

Google Scholar of Prof. Tatsuyoshi Saijo: https://scholar.google.co.nz/citations?user=ju72inUAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao .

Akter A, Geng X, EndelaniMwalupaso G et al (2022) Income and yield effects of climate-smart agriculture (CSA) adoption in flood prone areas of Bangladesh: farm level evidence. Clim Risk Manag 37:100455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2022.100455

Article   Google Scholar  

Alam MF, Sikka AK (2019) Prioritizing land and water interventions for climate-smart villages. Irrig Drain 68:714–728. https://doi.org/10.1002/ird.2366

Amadu FO, McNamara PE, Miller DC (2020) Yield effects of climate-smart agriculture aid investment in southern Malawi. Food Policy 92:101869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101869

Arora NK (2019) Impact of climate change on agriculture production and its sustainable solutions. Environ Sustain 2:95–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42398-019-00078-w

Aryal JP, Rahut DB, Maharjan S, Erenstein O (2018) Factors affecting the adoption of multiple climate-smart agricultural practices in the Indo-Gangetic Plains of India. Nat Resour Forum 42:141–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-8947.12152

Aryal JP, Farnworth CR, Khurana R et al (2020a) Does women’s participation in agricultural technology adoption decisions affect the adoption of climate-smart agriculture? Insights from Indo-Gangetic Plains of India. Rev Dev Econ 24:973–990. https://doi.org/10.1111/rode.12670

Aryal JP, Rahut DB, Sapkota TB et al (2020b) Climate change mitigation options among farmers in South Asia. Environ Dev Sustain 22:3267–3289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-019-00345-0

Belay AD, Kebede WM, Golla SY (2023) Determinants of climate-smart agricultural practices in smallholder plots: evidence from Wadla district, northeast Ethiopia. Int J Clim Chang Strateg Manag. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCCSM-06-2022-0071

Brown T (2016) Civil society organizations for sustainable agriculture: negotiating power relations for pro-poor development in India. Agroecol Sustain Food Syst 40:381–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2016.1139648

Diro S, Tesfaye A, Erko B (2022) Determinants of adoption of climate-smart agricultural technologies and practices in the coffee-based farming system of Ethiopia. Agric Food Secur 11:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-022-00385-2

FAO (2013) Climate smart agriculture sourcebook. Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations

García de Jalón S, Silvestri S, Barnes AP (2017) The potential for adoption of climate smart agricultural practices in Sub-Saharan livestock systems. Reg Environ Chang 17:399–410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-1026-z

Hariharan VK, Mittal S, Rai M et al (2020) Does climate-smart village approach influence gender equality in farming households? A case of two contrasting ecologies in India. Clim Chang 158:77–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2321-0

Israel MA, Amikuzuno J, Danso-Abbeam G (2020) Assessing farmers’ contribution to greenhouse gas emission and the impact of adopting climate-smart agriculture on mitigation. Ecol Process 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13717-020-00249-2

Jamil I, Jun W, Mughal B et al (2021) Does the adaptation of climate-smart agricultural practices increase farmers’ resilience to climate change? Environ Sci Pollut Res 28:27238–27249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-12425-8

Kang Y, Khan S, Ma X (2009) Climate change impacts on crop yield, crop water productivity and food security - a review. Prog Nat Sci 19:1665–1674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnsc.2009.08.001

Kangogo D, Dentoni D, Bijman J (2021) Adoption of climate-smart agriculture among smallholder farmers: does farmer entrepreneurship matter? Land Use Policy 109:105666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105666

Keil A, Krishnapriya PP, Mitra A et al (2021) Changing agricultural stubble burning practices in the Indo-Gangetic plains: is the Happy Seeder a profitable alternative? Int J Agric Sustain 19:128–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2020.1834277

Khatri-Chhetri A, Regmi PP, Chanana N, Aggarwal PK (2020) Potential of climate-smart agriculture in reducing women farmers’ drudgery in high climatic risk areas. Clim Chang 158:29–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2350-8

Kifle T, Ayal DY, Mulugeta M (2022) Factors influencing farmers adoption of climate smart agriculture to respond climate variability in Siyadebrina Wayu District, Central Highland of Ethiopia. Clim Serv 26:100290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2022.100290

Kpadonou RAB, Owiyo T, Barbier B et al (2017) 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 61:196–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.10.050

Läderach P, Ramirez-Villegas J, Navarro-Racines C et al (2017) Climate change adaptation of coffee production in space and time. Clim Chang 141:47–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1788-9

Makate C, Makate M, Mango N, Siziba S (2019) Increasing resilience of smallholder farmers to climate change through multiple adoption of proven climate-smart agriculture innovations. Lessons from Southern Africa. J Environ Manag 231:858–868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.10.069

Martey E, Etwire PM, Mockshell J (2021) Climate-smart cowpea adoption and welfare effects of comprehensive agricultural training programs. Technol Soc 64:101468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101468

McNunn G, Karlen DL, Salas W et al (2020) Climate smart agriculture opportunities for mitigating soil greenhouse gas emissions across the U.S. corn-belt. J Clean Prod 268:122240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122240

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Mirón IJ, Linares C, Díaz J (2023) The influence of climate change on food production and food safety. Environ Res 216:114674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.114674

Omotoso AB, Omotayo AO (2024) Enhancing dietary diversity and food security through the adoption of climate-smart agricultural practices in Nigeria: a micro level evidence. Environ Dev Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-04681-8

Radeny M, Rao EJO, Ogada MJ et al (2022) Impacts of climate-smart crop varieties and livestock breeds on the food security of smallholder farmers in Kenya. Food Secur 14:1511–1535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-022-01307-7

Santalucia S (2023) Nourishing the farms , nourishing the plates : association of climate ‐ smart agricultural practices with household dietary diversity and food security in smallholders. 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.21892

Shikuku KM, Valdivia RO, Paul BK et al (2017) Prioritizing climate-smart livestock technologies in rural Tanzania: a minimum data approach. Agric Syst 151:204–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.06.004

Tabe-Ojong MP, Aihounton GBD, Lokossou JC (2023) Climate-smart agriculture and food security: cross-country evidence from West Africa. Glob Environ Chang 81:102697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2023.102697

Tran NLD, Rañola RF, Ole Sander B et al (2020) Determinants of adoption of climate-smart agriculture technologies in rice production in Vietnam. Int J Clim Chang Strateg Manag 12:238–256. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCCSM-01-2019-0003

United Nations (2021) Economic and social council: population, food security, nutrition and sustainable development. Oxford Handb United Nations 1–20.  https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/undesa_pd_2021_e_cn.9_2021_2_advanceunedited.pdf . Accessed 1 Feb 2024

Vatsa P, Ma W, Zheng H, Li J (2023) Climate-smart agricultural practices for promoting sustainable agrifood production: yield impacts and implications for food security. Food Policy 121:102551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2023.102551

Waaswa A, OywayaNkurumwa A, MwangiKibe A, NgenoKipkemoi J (2022) Climate-Smart agriculture and potato production in Kenya: review of the determinants of practice. Clim Dev 14:75–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2021.1885336

Waters-Bayer A, Kristjanson P, Wettasinha C et al (2015) Exploring the impact of farmer-led research supported by civil society organizations. Agric Food Secur 4:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-015-0023-7

Zakaria A, Azumah SB, Appiah-Twumasi M, Dagunga G (2020) Adoption of climate-smart agricultural practices among farm households in Ghana: the role of farmer participation in training programmes. Technol Soc 63:101338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101338

Zhou X, Ma W, Zheng H et al (2023) Promoting banana farmers’ adoption of climate-smart agricultural practices: the role of agricultural cooperatives. Clim Dev:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2023.2218333

Zizinga A, Mwanjalolo J-GM, Tietjen B et al (2022) Climate change and maize productivity in Uganda: simulating the impacts and alleviation with climate smart agriculture practices. Agric Syst 199:103407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2022.103407

Download references

Acknowledgements

We want to thank all the authors who have submitted papers for the special issue and the reviewers who reviewed manuscripts on time. We acknowledge the Asian Development Bank Institute (ADBI) for supporting the virtual international conference on “ Climate-smart Agriculture: Adoption, Impacts, and Implications for Sustainable Development ” held on 10-11 October 2023. Special thanks to the invited keynote speakers, Prof. Edward Barbier and Prof. Tatsuyoshi Saijo. Finally, we would like to express our thanks, gratitude, and appreciation to the session chairs (Prof. Anita Wreford, Prof. Jianjun Tang, Prof. Alan Renwick, and Assoc. Prof. Sukanya Das), ADBI supporting team (Panharoth Chhay, Mami Nomoto, Mami Yoshida, and Raja Rajendra Timilsina), and discussants who made substantial contributions to the conference.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Global Value Chains and Trade, Faculty of Agribusiness and Commerce, Lincoln University, Christchurch, New Zealand

Asian Development Bank Institute, Tokyo, Japan

Dil Bahadur Rahut

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wanglin Ma .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests.

The authors declare no known interests related to their submitted manuscript.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Climate-smart Agriculture

See Table  1 .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Ma, W., Rahut, D.B. Climate-smart agriculture: adoption, impacts, and implications for sustainable development. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 29 , 44 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-024-10139-z

Download citation

Received : 08 April 2024

Accepted : 17 April 2024

Published : 29 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-024-10139-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Climate-smart agriculture
• Influencing factors
• Crop yields
• Farm incomes
• Research progress
• Development programs

Advertisement

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Land use changes in the environs of Moscow

Related Papers

Eurasian Geography and Economics

Grigory Ioffe

komal choudhary

This study illustrates the spatio-temporal dynamics of urban growth and land use changes in Samara city, Russia from 1975 to 2015. Landsat satellite imageries of five different time periods from 1975 to 2015 were acquired and quantify the changes with the help of ArcGIS 10.1 Software. By applying classification methods to the satellite images four main types of land use were extracted: water, built-up, forest and grassland. Then, the area coverage for all the land use types at different points in time were measured and coupled with population data. The results demonstrate that, over the entire study period, population was increased from 1146 thousand people to 1244 thousand from 1975 to 1990 but later on first reduce and then increase again, now 1173 thousand population. Builtup area is also change according to population. The present study revealed an increase in built-up by 37.01% from 1975 to 1995, than reduce -88.83% till 2005 and an increase by 39.16% from 2005 to 2015, along w...

Elena Milanova

Land use/Cover Change in Russia within the context of global challenges. The paper presents the results of a research project on Land Use/Cover Change (LUCC) in Russia in relations with global problems (climate change, environment and biodiversity degradation). The research was carried out at the Faculty of Geography, Moscow State University on the basis of the combination of remote sensing and in-field data of different spatial and temporal resolution. The original methodology of present-day landscape interpretation for land cover change study has been used. In Russia the major driver of land use/land cover change is agriculture. About twenty years ago the reforms of Russian agriculture were started. Agricultural lands in many regions were dramatically impacted by changed management practices, resulted in accelerated erosion and reduced biodiversity. Between the natural factors that shape agriculture in Russia, climate is the most important one. The study of long-term and short-ter...

Annals of The Association of American Geographers

Land use and land cover change is a complex process, driven by both natural and anthropogenic transformations (Fig. 1). In Russia, the major driver of land use / land cover change is agriculture. It has taken centuries of farming to create the existing spatial distribution of agricultural lands. Modernization of Russian agriculture started fifteen years ago. It has brought little change in land cover, except in the regions with marginal agriculture, where many fields were abandoned. However, in some regions, agricultural lands were dramatically impacted by changed management practices, resulting in accelerating erosion and reduced biodiversity. In other regions, federal support and private investments in the agricultural sector, especially those made by major oil and financial companies, has resulted in a certain land recovery. Between the natural factors that shape the agriculture in Russia, climate is the most important one. In the North European and most of the Asian part of the ...

Ekonomika poljoprivrede

Vasilii Erokhin

Journal of Rural Studies

judith pallot

In recent decades, Russia has experienced substantial transformations in agricultural land tenure. Post-Soviet reforms have shaped land distribution patterns but the impacts of these on agricultural use of land remain under-investigated. On a regional scale, there is still a knowledge gap in terms of knowing to what extent the variations in the compositions of agricultural land funds may be explained by changes in the acreage of other land categories. Using a case analysis of 82 of Russia’s territories from 2010 to 2018, the authors attempted to study the structural variations by picturing the compositions of regional land funds and mapping agricultural land distributions based on ranking “land activity”. Correlation analysis of centered log-ratio transformed compositional data revealed that in agriculture-oriented regions, the proportion of cropland was depressed by agriculture-to-urban and agriculture-to-industry land loss. In urbanized territories, the compositions of agricultura...

Open Geosciences

Alexey Naumov

Despite harsh climate, agriculture on the northern margins of Russia still remains the backbone of food security. Historically, in both regions studied in this article – the Republic of Karelia and the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) – agricultural activities as dairy farming and even cropping were well adapted to local conditions including traditional activities such as horse breeding typical for Yakutia. Using three different sources of information – official statistics, expert interviews, and field observations – allowed us to draw a conclusion that there are both similarities and differences in agricultural development and land use of these two studied regions. The differences arise from agro-climate conditions, settlement history, specialization, and spatial pattern of economy. In both regions, farming is concentrated within the areas with most suitable natural conditions. Yet, even there, agricultural land use is shrinking, especially in Karelia. Both regions are prone to being af...

RELATED PAPERS

AJP: Renal Physiology

Marlene Vind Hofmeister

Kenneth Showalter

JOSEPH NGURU

Interdisciplinary Environmental Review

chitra pandey

Philippe Funk

Logica Albertucii. Perutilis logica

henry jesus Leal

Nature Nanotechnology

Simon Brown

Asian Journal of Probability and Statistics

Justice Kangah

Animal Biotechnology

Roy Bickerstaffe

Sudipta Mondal

Applied Economics Letters

Riza Demirer

Journal of Medical Case Reports

OMER KARATOPRAK

Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia

Tri Esti Yuliyanti

Optics Letters

Javier Alda

Daiane Machado

Blucher Chemical Engineering Proceedings

Ana Cristina Pereira Dos Santos

Molecular Therapy

Sonia Guedan

ACM International Conference Proceeding Series

Robert Dale

World Englishes

Caroline Wiltshire

Recent Patents on Regenerative Medicinee

Samuel Aguiar

International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications (IJSRP)

maurice junior re

Más poder local

Luciana Panke

Paola Adinolfi

EBioMedicine

Patrick Peretti-watel

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Suburbanization Problems in the USSR : the Case of Moscow

• Référence bibliographique

Gornostayeva Galina A. Suburbanization Problems in the USSR : the Case of Moscow . In: Espace, populations, sociétés , 1991-2. Les franges périurbaines Peri-urban fringes. pp. 349-357.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3406/espos.1991.1474

www.persee.fr/doc/espos_0755-7809_1991_num_9_2_1474

• RIS (ProCite, Endnote, ...)

Résumé (fre)

La suburbanisation n'existe pas en URSS au sens des phénomènes décrits dans les villes occidentales. Cependant on observe certains transferts limités d'activités industrielles exigeantes en espace ou polluantes, voire même de centres de recherches, vers les zones suburbaines ou des villes-satellites. Mais ces déconcentrations répondent à une logique de planification administrative. En outre, les Moscovites hésitent à aller habiter dans ces centres d'emploi, de crainte de perdre les privilèges liés à l'autorisation d'habiter Moscou (la propiska) et du fait des communications insuffisantes avec la capitale. Le taux de croissance de la population moscovite reste supérieur à celui du reste de l'oblast. Par contre le développement de datchas de seconde résidence est très important dans l'oblast de Moscou, en particulier aux alentours des stations de chemin de fer. L'abolition du système de propiska pourrait transformer les datchas les plus proches de Moscou en résidences principales.

Résumé (eng)

The suburbanisation does not exist as such in the USSR with the meaning one has of the phenomena in Western cities. Though one may notice some limited transfers of industrial activities demanding a lot of space or polluting ones, even research centres, towards the suburban areas or satellite-towns. But these déconcentrations correspond to an administrative planification logics. Moreover the Muscovites hesitate before going and living in these employment centres, because they are afraid of loosing the privileges linked with the authorisation to live in Moscow (the propiska) and because of insufficient communications with the capital. The growth rate of the Muscovite population remains higher than this of the remainder of the oblast. To the contrary developing of datchas for second residences is very high in the Moscow oblast, especially in the vicinity of a railway station. The abolishment of the «propiska» system might transform the datchas nearer to Moscow into main residences.

• Economic structure [link]
• Suburbanization of activities [link]
• Suburbanization of population [link]
• Conclusions [link]
• Literature [link]

Liste des illustrations

• Table 1. Employment structure, % [link]
• Table 2. Annual rate of population increase, % [link]
• Fig. 1. Spatial distribution of country-cottages and gardening associations in the Moscow region [link]

Texte intégral

Galina A. GORNOSTAYEVA

Moscow University

Suburbanization Problems

in the USSR :

the Case of Moscow

Suburbanization processes typical to cities in Western Europe, the USA and other countries are not observed in the USSR or they are distorted to such an extent that they may not be compared with existing standards. This states the question how Soviet cities-succeeded in escaping this stage of urban development. In order to answer this question, we should first summarize the main aspects of Western suburbanization.

Firstly, it is well known that the urbanization processes are linked to structural changes in the economy. Thus the transition from the stage of concentration to this of suburbanization is associated with industrialization, and the transition to the third stage - déconcentration - is related with the rapid growth of employment in the non-industrial sphere. Secondly, a suburbanization of economic activities can be distinguished. It applies in the first place to the building and iron- working industry, transports, engineering and chemical works. These are polluting and requiring extensive areas. This suburbanization of industry is caused by the following factors: rising demand for land from firms ; worsening of transport

tions in the inner cities ; demand for lower land costs and taxation levels in suburbs ; rapid growth of road transports; state policies regulating the growth of large cities ; migration of the labour force to the suburban zones. Scientific and educational activities are also transferred from the centre to the suburbs.

The third important aspect of suburbanization applies to the population. In the suburbs two opposite flows of population meet ; one is centripetal, coming from non- metropolitan regions, the other is centrifugal, coming from the central city. The reasons for the migration to the suburbs are as follows : declining living standards in large cities (overcrowding, slow housing renewal, environmental problems, etc.); growth of motorization of the population, development of communications (telephone, telex, fax, computer) ; intensifying decentralization of working places ; lower land prices in the suburbs ; state support for the intensification of real estate development in the suburbs. The above-mentioned factors and reasons for suburbanization are altered in the Soviet cities. Let us explore them, by taking for example the largest one - Moscow.

Economic structure

The employment structure in the USSR reveals sharp differences from those in developed urbanized countries. The USSR is characterized by a high share of employment in agriculture, industry, construction and a low share in the non-industrial sphere (tab. 1).

A correlation analysis of the percentage of urban population and employment in the different spheres of economic activity reveals that the share of urban population in the USSR is higher than in countries with the same percentage of persons employed in agriculture.

TABLE 1. EMPLOYMENT STRUCTURE,

Source: personal calculations.

The urbanization processes in the Moscow Capital Region (MCR) are more intensive than in other regions of the USSR. Structural changes are more obvious here : the share of employment in the non-industrial sphere increases more substantially and the percentage of persons employed in industry and agriculture is lower than in the whole country. However the MCR cannot therefore be compared with a metropolitan region in a Western country. Although Moscow is the most advanced agglomeration in the USSR, it lags is far behind the major world cities in terms of development and it is at the very start of the post- industrial stage of its structural and urban transformation.

The structural «anomaly» of the USSR as a whole and of the MCR in particular is explained by the enforced process of industrialization (starting from the thirties) at the expense of the peasantry (thus, there is not only a booming industrial employment in cities, but also worsening living and working conditions in villages and forced collectivization having triggered off the massive rural emigration). As a result, the share of urban population in the USSR is higher than expected, based on changes in the economic structure. While urbanization in the developed countries was due, among

other causes, to an increasing labour efficiency in agriculture, this remained quite low in the USSR. Therefore the employment share in agriculture is overstated in comparison with countries with a similar percentage of urban population, and even this considerable part of the labour force is unable to feed the whole population of the country.

The share of agricultural employment in the mcr increased from 7,4 % to 7,6 °7o between 1980 and 1985 (as a result of Moscow attractiveness and the better living standards in its surrounding villages), whereas it continued to decline in other parts of the Central region. The population growth in villages adjacent to Moscow is especially intensive, though labour efficiency in localities near Moscow is higher than in the other oblasts. In spite of this, Moscow oblast provides only 61 % of milk, 34 °/o of potatoes, 45 % of vegetables and 23 % of meat needed by the population in Moscow city and oblast (Argumen- ty i facty, 1988, N50, p. 3). The structural anomaly is not only related to processes in agricultural sphere but also in industrial sector. As a result of the low economic mobility of socialist firms and of the absence of market relations, the industrial development was extensive,

without significant increases of the labour

productivity.

Thus the employment transfer from the

agricultural to the industrial sector, their

extensive development and their low labour

productivity are intrinsically related with the political definition of productiorfrela- tions and course of structural economic transformation.

Suburbanization of activities

Moscow and Moscow oblast show divergent economic structures and changes (tab. 1). In Moscow the employment share in the non-industrial sphere in Moscow is growing more rapidly, whereas the share of industrial employment is decreasing. In Moscow oblast the part of transport and communication infrastructure, retail trade, administration, housing (presently less developed than in Moscow) is increasing. Some stages in the transformation of activities in the mcr's settlements may be pointed out here. The stage of industrialization and reconstruction after World War II is characterized by the swift industrial development and the active restructuration of the Moscow and Moscow oblast economy. New industries have been built (motor-car and aircraft assembly, machine-tool industry, organic synthesis, etc.), around Moscow research and production potential. Nevertheless, this restructuration is extensive, since traditional industries don't curtail production. It favours the heavy concentration of modern functions in Moscow. There is no transfer of firms outside Moscow. Suburbanization of industrial activities did not occur because of the state owning the means of production and of thé socialist form of production relations. When research and technological progress are slowing down, these firms become inefficient and spatially immobile. The period 1956-1970 is marked by an intensive development of the region scientific sphere and by the rise of « satellite » urban policy. The new centres were specialized in modern branches of machinery and research-engineering activities and were undoubtedly very attractive for the population. Therefore towns like Dubna were growing rapidly. While the aim was to redirect part of Moscow population

growth, they display a quite specific relation with the capital. For instance, Muscovites working in Pushchino cannot reach their job every day because they lack transport facilities. Nevertheless, they don't wish to move and register their passports in the city in which they actually work, since they would have to give up their Moscow registration and then lose all Moscow privileges (see further). These new centres are isolated from information sources in Moscow. Poor telephone communications, lack of computers and telex systems hamper contacts and teamwork with colleagues in the city. It seems that material resources for experimental work in research centres are not sufficient to compensate for lack of information and communications. At the same time, poor transport links with Moscow and the other towns of Moscow oblast isolate the scientists from the higher standard of culture in the centre and from a well developed social infrastructure. An original home-work relation can be observed in Dubna: the Muscovites get the second registration of passports and live there in hostel apartments during 4 or 5 working days, during the weekends they go back to Moscow, where their families are living. The change of functions in Moscow oblast towns is still going on. Inside the towns of the first circle adjacent to Moscow, the share of employment in the non-industrial sectors and transport is growing. Inside the towns of the second circle (suburban zone) these changes lead to an increasing potential of non-industrial, industrial and construction functions. Finally, in the outlying parts of the region the further grovth of construction and industrial functions is observed and the organization potential is intensifying in some towns. The mcr towns display a crawling concen-

tration of the regional most important functions and their extension outside the boundaries of Moscow to the towns of the suburban zone. But the déconcentration of functions in the mcr is not only of natural- economic character. It also results from the state urban policy. Déconcentration is not related to the search for more advantageous sites for firms and institutions as regards to economic or social relations (the availability of cheaper labour force or more comfortable living conditions, etc.), nor is it sustained by the expansion of transport and communication facilities. Thus, this déconcentration is independent from curtailment of any function in central Moscow, whose potential is still growing, and it is also completely inadequate regarding the continuing concentration of population (see below). All this, together with the slow economic and territorial mobility of firms, is an obstacle to the economic restructuration of the region, and to the reorientation of Moscow and its suburbs to non-industrial activities and to progressive scientific and informational work. The mass labour-consuming functions still remain in Moscow and its suburbs, but they are inevitably cut off from modern types of activities.

The idea of alleviating Moscow's development appeared from the very beginning of its rapid growth, since the excessive concentration of population and employment led (as in the other major world cities) to environmental discomfort, worsening of transport, strip-holding of land and other congestion signs. In market economies, the firms react to alterations of economic or social conditions by their mobility: some

of them close, other relocate in more convenient places. In the USSR, the problem of firm transfer (unhealthy or unprofitable firms) becomes unsolvable because of the special type of production relations. Economic and territorial passivity of firms is apparent in the difficulties of erecting industrial buildings and dismantling machinery and equipment, in the low turnover of the means of production. The same problem exist regarding the labour force. Firms transferred to the suburban towns of Moscow oblast are encountering great difficulties in recruiting staff in sufficient numbers and of required skill. The local labour force is rather weak, while the Moscow workers wouldn't leave the capital to follow their firm, because they are afraid of being deprived of passport registration in Moscow. From the social point of view, giving up a Moscow registration is more significant to people than losing their job. The processes going on in the mcr are therefore not quite comparable with those in the Western world. The market economy is more «lively» and replacement of functions has the character of territorial waves. Some functions disappear while new ones emerge. In the mcr, the waves are replaced by stratification. New functions do not replace the old ones, but joining them. At the same time, this process of relative déconcentration of functions overpass the process of stable concentration of population. In the mcr, the modern branches are gravitated closely to Moscow, where skilled workers are retained by their registration advantages. Suburban towns have to be satisfied with commuters or specialists from the outlying regions of the USSR.

Suburbanization of population

The urbanization structure of the region is characterized by the predominance of its main centre - Moscow. The share of the capital in the total Moscow oblast population was as follows: in 1929 - 44,3 Vo, in 1939 - 51,6 %, in 1959 - 54,9 %, in 1979 -54,5 Vo, in 1985 - 57,3 % (Moscow Capital Region, p. 137.). Within the agglomeration, the share of Moscow is still higher, in 1959 it was 75,5 % and in 1985

- 67,3 % (ibid., p. 141), whereas in the highly developed capital regions of the world the agglomeration counts one half or less of the total population and of the economic potential, the second half being concentrated in the suburbs (Gritsay, p. 71). Moreover, the growth rate of Moscow population is higher than that of Moscow oblast (tab . 2).

TABLE 2. ANNUAL RATE OF POPULATION INCREASE,

Migrations are of great importance to the mcr. The internal migration of rural population to the cities is rather substantial, and the immigration flow from the rest of the USSR is not compensated by the decrease of rural population in the mcr. The nearer a town to Moscow, the larger the migration share in its total population increase.

The dynamics of population in the mcr has a specific character. In agglomerations of the developed countries the principle of the «broken glass» summarizes the suburbanization process. When, for some reasons, the centre loses its attractiveness the urban population moves to suburbs in search of higher living standard. In Moscow agglomeration the principle of the «overfilled glass» is operating. People wanting to live in Moscow cannot enter the city and are forced to settle near it. In Moscow immigration undoubtedly prevails over emigration, confirming the extreme territorial differentiation in conditions, level and way of life. As a rule, commuting is oriented from suburbs to Moscow (600 thousand persons come to Moscow and only 200 thousand leave it), but it accounts only for 12-15 % cf the total employment in Moscow's economy. Moreover, these commuters are not Muscovites but potential new inhabitants of the capital (striving for passport registration and domicile in Moscow).

Moscow became the most attractive place for living and an intensive flow of ruined rural residents as well as residents from other regions of the country were rushing -to Moscow. These processes were generated not only by the inception of the country structural economic transformation,

but also by the policy of special privileges for Moscow. These privileges came into being after the establishment of a centralized distribution system. Such a system involves the assignment of a priority level of foodstuffs and manufactured goods to each territory. Moscow was awarded the highest priority level. From the very beginning, better living standards and higher income for certain population categories were established there. In the thirties the artificial differentiation in living standards was confirmed by imposing restrictions to passport registration in the capital, and also by the division of administrative bodies into Moscow and Moscow oblast authorities. In the period 1925-30 dozens of new large firms were located in Moscow, but housing was insufficient at that time. Therefore, a great number of migrants from every corner of the country came to get a job in Moscow and settled in cottages in the nearby countryside. Soon, these settlements in the nearby countryside. Soon, these settlements turned into urban ones. For example, towns like Mytishchi and Luberstsy developed rapidly, and even Muscovites moved there when the railways were electrified. This was clearly the outset of a suburbanization process, but it stopped as soon as the restrictions on passport registration in Moscow were imposed and the social barrier between Moscow and Moscow oblast was established. In the period 1930-40, new industrial developments were banned from Moscow and firms drawn towards the city were located on the outskirts thus causing a rapid growth of the old and new towns. Although the development of cottages as second residence near Moscow started even before the revolution, since the en-

vironmental degradation of Moscow was practically completed at that time, they became the main resorts of those years. They had flourished in the districts with privileged natural conditions and convenient transport services (not further than 2 km from a railway station). In the period 1930-40, this sprawl of leisure housing carried on - cottage settlements expanded into an entire belt of scattered one- storeyed buildings. But at the same time, urban multi-storeyed housing also increased and after World War II these multi- storeyed buildings were found in the cottage settlements of the leisure zone. In the period 1950-60 a network of gardening associations was established. In those

years the most convenient land near Moscow had already been built on. The gardening plots allotted to the Muscovites were located in the remote parts of the mcr, outside the suburban zone, and very frequently they were on improper territories. Because of their remoteness, the difficulties in cultivation and building, the lack of infrastructure, these plots cannot become effective leisure resorts. More frequently Muscovites use them for fruit and vegetable growing.

The desire of the Muscovites for having a second residence in the suburbs can be interpreted as an unfulfilled suburbanization tendency. This desire has the same, mainly environmental, causes as suburbaniza-

tion in Western countries. The cottages within the reach of Moscow's traffic and having access to appropriate infrastructure and amenities, might become the principal residence of Muscovites if passport registration is abolished. The restrictions of passport registration in Moscow fixed in the thirties were devised as an administrative solution against the effects of Moscow's unique attractiveness and not as a means of eliminating the attractiveness itself. For this reason, Moscow became even more attractive, like a forbidden fruit. The consequences were both the concentration of the upper strata of society in the city and the extensive development of industry, resulting in a growing shortage of unskilled labour.

The shortage of regular workers in Moscow is sometimes explained by the increasing number of working places. An adequate planning of the «limiters» (1) system is then put forward as the solution for controlling the growth of Moscow is found in (Glushkova, 1988, p. 43). To be frank, about twenty industrial units and more than one hundred scientific institutions were already created in the seventies alone, in spite of the industrial building ban in Moscow, only a few firms moved outside the city in return. New industrial units easily find staff, since they offer new machinery, relatively good working conditions and higher wages. New scientific and administrative institutions are in a similar position. But the situation is totally different in the old industrial units, with rundown equipment and a high level of manual tasks. Those units suffer from a staff shortage. Moreover, as in any other city, there is a social mobility in Moscow, in most cases improving - from manual up to mental, from unskilled up to highly skilled work. Furthermore, the prestige of a higher education (university) is overestimated in Moscow, whereas the prestige of the manual professions has declined as a result of the stagnation of reinvestments in industry, the high share of manual labour (40 %), and also favouritism and

crowding in the administrative staffs. The attractiveness of an upper class position is therefore overestimated, and social mobility activated. Since Moscow cannot admit free «immigrants» the lower strata of the social structure are vacant and there appears a shortage of unskilled labour force. The lower strata of the social structure were filled in with « limiters ». Available employment in Moscow was not the cause of an organized immigration flow, but represented the only possible way to register the passport there. Roughly half of these people drawn into Moscow's economy left their jobs. «Limiters» get the right to register their passports in Moscow and take up their residence in new houses when their contract expires. They usually quit their job as soon as possible in search of better working conditions (Glushkova, 1988, p. 42). The nature of unskilled work in Moscow and the associated working conditions are so unattractive that it is nearly impossible to find Muscovites willing to perform them.

The institution of passport registration raised many problems. Thus the « limiters » are recruited in social groups not needing most of the advantages of a large city, their psychology and value system differ sharply from native Muscovites. The direct environment of the hostels where «limiters » live, has a pronounced criminal character. Fictitious marriage in order to register the passport in Moscow has become a widespread practice.

Moscow's environmental problems can hardly be solved as long as passport registration exists. The population is literally locked up within the city boundaries. Notwithstanding the environmental stresses, the Moscow privileges prevent the Muscovites from leaving the city. The urban districts not saturated with harmful industrial units are the most prestigious. The social and economic causes of Moscow's extensive growth reveal that its problems are a reflection of the ones facing the USSR. The concentration of economic, social and management functions in Mos-

cow in Soviet times materializes the strong centralism of the particraty and weighs down on the city's development. Low labour efficiency in agriculture and sheer desolation of villages on the one hand, rapid but extensive industrialisation together with forced increasing social attraction of Moscow, confirmed by the restrictions on passport registration, on the other hand, were the key factors of the mcr's polarization during decades. Together with objective factors found in other large cities of the world, subjective factors related to the Soviet political and economic system influence Moscow's growth.

The objective factors are as follows: the diversity of employment in the capital, the emergence of new types of occupations, the concentration of high-skilled and creative labour, the higher living standards, the large educational and cultural opportunities.

The subjective factors are the higher supply level of foodstuff and manufactured goods different than in other regions (the existence of meat-rationing system in many regions of the country and its absence in Moscow establishes a significant threshold not only in terms of supply but also in the outlook of the population); the lack of communications and individual motorized transport (in the rsfsr one counts 47 cars per 1000 urban inhabitants against 560 in the USA) (Argumenty i facty, 1988, N47, p. 2); the craving for joining the upper social classes and for accessing neighbourhoods with a high quality of life; unjustified promotion of upward social mobility releasing «the ground floors» of Moscow's economy; continued growth of employment due to the extensive economic development and the low economic and territorial mobility of firms. Today, the hierarchy of priorities for selecting a residence within the mcr and the whole country is as follows. Food supply comes first. The supply of manufactured

goods, the opportunities to obtain better and larger living quarters and to accede to a prestigious employment with a wage increase, social promotion, well developed consumer services come next. And only at the end of the scale appears the opportunity to fulfil cultural needs and education. Thus, there is a process of «pseudo- urbanization» characteristic of the Soviet economic and social system, superimposed on the process of «natural» urbanization. By natural urbanization we mean the process related to economic development and to the natural difference between rural and urban ways of life. The specificity, the structural changes and the hierarchy of city functions shape the migration flows conditioned by natural urbanization. «Pseudo-urbanization» points to «the scum» of the process, that may complete the economic and socially conditioned urbanization. The «pseudo-urbanization» is generated by a disproportionate development of the country's economic structure (hypertrophie share of industry; economic and political reforms have triggered off a massive flow of the peasantry towards the cities, related not with the rising but with the lowering of labour efficiency in agriculture, with impoverishment of the countryside and hence with the urge towards the centres of relative well-being), and by the territorial inequalities in standards of living, artificially created and maintained by the institution of passports and registration.

The suburbanization of population cannot be observed in the MCR. The centripetal tendencies mentioned above resulted in rapid growth of Moscow and its suburbs, as well as in some stagnation of its periphery. Thus Moscow agglomeration is now in the first stage of development, the stage of «crawling» concentration where centrifugal forces are very weak. This situation will last as long as the barrier in terms of standards of living exists between Moscow and Moscow oblast.

Conclusions

This study has reaffirmed the general lack of suburbanization in the Soviet cities. Some signs of suburbanization like the

transfer of some activities from Moscow to the suburbs, the concentration of population in towns and villages near the central

city and commuting, differ significantly pie and firms will emancipate, only if the from the Western cities. The process of ur- existing political and economic system in banization will take its normal course, peo- the USSR is dismantled.

Argumenty i facty, 1988, N47, p. 2 Argumenty i facty, 1988, N50, p. 3

GLUSHKOVA V.G. Questions of Interrelated Settlement in Moscow and the Moscow Region, Problems of Geography, vol. 131, Moscow, 1988, pp. 40-56.

GRITSAY O.V. Western Europe : Regional Contrasts at the New Stage of Scientific-Technological Progress, Moscow, 1988, 148 p.

Moscow in Figures. 1980, Moscow, 1981, 220 p. Moscow in Figures. 1985, Moscow, 1986, 240 p.

National Economy of Moscow Oblast. 1981-1985, Moscow, 1986, 271 p.

National Economy of the ussr. 1985, Moscow, 1986, 421 p. Yearbook of Labour Statistics. 1987, Geneva, 1987, 960 p.

Moscow Capital Region: Territorial Structure and Natural Environment, Moscow, 1988, 321 p.

(1) Limiters are unskilled workers, hired in an organised way by Moscow firms; after working there for several years of working they get the right to register

their passports and to take up their residence in Moscow.

• Yekaterinburg
• Novosibirsk
• Vladivostok

• Tours to Russia
• Practicalities
• Russia in Lists

Rusmania • Deep into Russia

Out of the Centre

Savvino-storozhevsky monastery and museum.

Zvenigorod's most famous sight is the Savvino-Storozhevsky Monastery, which was founded in 1398 by the monk Savva from the Troitse-Sergieva Lavra, at the invitation and with the support of Prince Yury Dmitrievich of Zvenigorod. Savva was later canonised as St Sabbas (Savva) of Storozhev. The monastery late flourished under the reign of Tsar Alexis, who chose the monastery as his family church and often went on pilgrimage there and made lots of donations to it. Most of the monastery’s buildings date from this time. The monastery is heavily fortified with thick walls and six towers, the most impressive of which is the Krasny Tower which also serves as the eastern entrance. The monastery was closed in 1918 and only reopened in 1995. In 1998 Patriarch Alexius II took part in a service to return the relics of St Sabbas to the monastery. Today the monastery has the status of a stauropegic monastery, which is second in status to a lavra. In addition to being a working monastery, it also holds the Zvenigorod Historical, Architectural and Art Museum.

Belfry and Neighbouring Churches

Located near the main entrance is the monastery's belfry which is perhaps the calling card of the monastery due to its uniqueness. It was built in the 1650s and the St Sergius of Radonezh’s Church was opened on the middle tier in the mid-17th century, although it was originally dedicated to the Trinity. The belfry's 35-tonne Great Bladgovestny Bell fell in 1941 and was only restored and returned in 2003. Attached to the belfry is a large refectory and the Transfiguration Church, both of which were built on the orders of Tsar Alexis in the 1650s.  

To the left of the belfry is another, smaller, refectory which is attached to the Trinity Gate-Church, which was also constructed in the 1650s on the orders of Tsar Alexis who made it his own family church. The church is elaborately decorated with colourful trims and underneath the archway is a beautiful 19th century fresco.

Nativity of Virgin Mary Cathedral

The Nativity of Virgin Mary Cathedral is the oldest building in the monastery and among the oldest buildings in the Moscow Region. It was built between 1404 and 1405 during the lifetime of St Sabbas and using the funds of Prince Yury of Zvenigorod. The white-stone cathedral is a standard four-pillar design with a single golden dome. After the death of St Sabbas he was interred in the cathedral and a new altar dedicated to him was added.

Under the reign of Tsar Alexis the cathedral was decorated with frescoes by Stepan Ryazanets, some of which remain today. Tsar Alexis also presented the cathedral with a five-tier iconostasis, the top row of icons have been preserved.

Tsaritsa's Chambers

The Nativity of Virgin Mary Cathedral is located between the Tsaritsa's Chambers of the left and the Palace of Tsar Alexis on the right. The Tsaritsa's Chambers were built in the mid-17th century for the wife of Tsar Alexey - Tsaritsa Maria Ilinichna Miloskavskaya. The design of the building is influenced by the ancient Russian architectural style. Is prettier than the Tsar's chambers opposite, being red in colour with elaborately decorated window frames and entrance.

At present the Tsaritsa's Chambers houses the Zvenigorod Historical, Architectural and Art Museum. Among its displays is an accurate recreation of the interior of a noble lady's chambers including furniture, decorations and a decorated tiled oven, and an exhibition on the history of Zvenigorod and the monastery.

Palace of Tsar Alexis

The Palace of Tsar Alexis was built in the 1650s and is now one of the best surviving examples of non-religious architecture of that era. It was built especially for Tsar Alexis who often visited the monastery on religious pilgrimages. Its most striking feature is its pretty row of nine chimney spouts which resemble towers.

Plan your next trip to Russia

Ready-to-book tours.

Your holiday in Russia starts here. Choose and book your tour to Russia.

REQUEST A CUSTOMISED TRIP

Looking for something unique? Create the trip of your dreams with the help of our experts.