Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2024) 29:19

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-024-10116-6

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Promoting the adoption of climate‑smart agricultural

technologies among maize farmers in Ghana: using digital
advisory services

Bright O. Asante1 · Wanglin Ma2 · Stephen Prah1 · Omphile Temoso3

Received: 3 September 2023 / Accepted: 16 February 2024

© The Author(s) 2024

Abstract
Although policy and advisory communities have promoted the use of digital advisory ser-
vices (DAS) to stimulate technology adoption among smallholder farmers, little is known
about whether DAS use encourages farmers to adopt climate-smart agricultural (CSA)
technologies. This study addresses the gap by estimating data collected from 3197 maize-
producing households in rural Ghana and considering three CSA technologies: row plant-
ing, zero tillage, and drought-tolerant seeds. A recursive bivariate probit model is utilized
to mitigate selection bias issues. The results show that DAS use significantly increases the
probabilities of adopting row planting, zero tillage, and drought-tolerant seeds by 12.4%,
4.2%, and 4.6%, respectively. Maize farmers’ decisions to use DAS are influenced by their
age, gender, education, family size, asset value, distance to farm, perceived incidence of
pest and disease, perceived drought stress, and membership in farmer-based organizations
(FBO). Furthermore, the disaggregated analysis reveals that DAS use has a larger impact
on the row planting adoption of female farmers than males.

Keywords Digital advisory services · Climate-smart agriculture · Impact assessment ·

Maize farmers · Ghana

* Wanglin Ma
Wanglin.Ma@lincoln.ac.nz
Bright O. Asante
boasante2@gmail.com
Stephen Prah
stephenprah888@gmail.com
Omphile Temoso
otemoso@yahoo.com
1
Department of Agricultural Economics, Agribusiness and Extension, Kwame Nkrumah University
of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana
2
Department of Global Value Chains and Trade, Faculty of Agribusiness and Commerce, Lincoln
University, Christchurch, New Zealand
3
UNE Business School, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 19 Page 2 of 24 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2024) 29:19

1 Introduction

Small-scale farming in developing countries is highly vulnerable to weather variability,

droughts, and unpredictable precipitation, influencing agricultural production and many
households’ welfare (Olagunju et al. 2020; Dhanya et al. 2022). To address the climate
change-induced challenges, policymakers and advisory communities are promoting vari-
ous technologies such as climate-smart agricultural (CSA) technologies. CSA technologies
include a variety of technologies, practices, and services that have the potential to reduce
the effects of climate change on agricultural systems (Khatri-Chhetri et al. 2017). They
include water-smart technologies (e.g., rainwater harvesting), energy-smart technologies
(e.g., zero tillage), nutrient-smart technologies (e.g., intercropping with legumes), weather-
smart technologies (e.g., climate-smart housing for livestock), and knowledge-smart tech-
nologies (e.g., improved crop varieties) (Khatri-Chhetri et al. 2017; Jones et al. 2023;
Tadesse and Ahmed 2023; Li et al. 2024; Vishnoi and Kumar 2024).
CSA technologies are linked to many outcomes, including enhancing farm productiv-
ity (Mossie 2022; Balasundram et al. 2023), boosting rural incomes (Dhaoui et al. 2020;
Khoza et al. 2021; Awotide et al. 2022), alleviating poverty (Azzarri and Signorelli 2020;
Kilombele et al. 2023), enhancing soil fertility (Ogieriakhi and Woodward 2022), and miti-
gating the negative environmental impacts of agriculture (Food and Agriculture Organiza-
tion [FAO] 2018). Several empirical studies have analyzed the effects of CSA technologies
on various economic and environmental outcomes. For example, Tabe-Ojong et al. (2023)
found that CSA adoption increases crop yields and food security for farmers in Ghana,
Mali, and Nigeria. Tadesse and Ahmed (2023) found that CSA adoption improves soil fer-
tility and dietary diversity in Ethiopia. Similarly, the use of drought-tolerant seeds has been
found to enhance maize productivity (Simtowe et al. 2019; Olagunju et al. 2020), increase
farm income (Fentie and Beyene 2019; Abebe et al. 2023), and improve food security
(Khoza et al. 2021; Awotide et al. 2022). Adopting row planting and zero tillage technolo-
gies has increased farm output and income (Fentie and Beyene 2019; Tamirat 2020; Mos-
sie 2022) and lowered global warming in Africa (Keil et al. 2020).
While significant progress has been made in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) towards the adop-
tion of CSA technologies such as drought-tolerant seeds, row planting, and zero tillage, there
is little information on how CSA technologies should be promoted and disseminated in Afri-
can countries such as Ghana (Ehiakpor et al. 2021; Balasundram et al. 2023). One of the
impediments to the effective dissemination and adoption of CSA technologies is a lack of
communication infrastructure. Only 30% of the SSA population is estimated to be active
users of information and communication technologies (ICTs) (Goedde et al. 2021; Onyeneke
et al. 2023). This low ICT usage is attributed to a lack of institutional support, communi-
cation infrastructure development, high technology costs, and a lack of digital skills (Cari-
olle 2021; Klerkx et al. 2019; Li et al. 2021). Nonetheless, the growth of mobile phones in the
last decade has been a positive story in ICT, particularly in SSA (Adenubi et al. 2021).
Leveraging the growth of mobile phones and other ICTs, research and policy on digital
advisory services (DAS) are gaining traction in SSA to reduce information asymmetry and
provide climate-smart information to smallholder farmers (Adenubi et al. 2021; Asongu
et al. 2019; Tchamyou et al. 2018). DASs are tools and platforms that integrate climate
information into agricultural decision-making processes, including mobile applications,
radios, online platforms, and extension services to promote knowledge exchange and aid
farmers in adopting CSA technologies (FAO 2023). Thus, encouraging farmers to adopt
new agricultural technologies, including CSA, through DAS remains a top priority for the

13
Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2024) 29:19 Page 3 of 24 19

government and non-governmental organizations in many developing countries, including

Ghana (Khoza et al. 2021; Ngigi and Muange 2022). For example, policies promoting DAS
include the IFAD’s Rural Poverty Stimulus Facility, which provided personalized agricul-
tural advice to 1.7 million small-scale producers in Kenya, Nigeria, and Pakistan, including
women and youth, to improve productivity, profitability, and environmental sustainability
during COVID-19. Several studies have shown that adopting information technologies can
improve crop performance (Ogutu et al. 2014; Khan et al. 2022), increase farm income (Ma
et al. 2020; Khan et al. 2022), and aid rural advancement (Ma et al. 2022; Spielman et al.
2021). Mobile phones and emails have also improved peasant crop production (Otter and
Theuvsen 2014; Deng et al. 2019; Spielman et al. 2021). Implementing ICT-based market
information systems has also increased resource utilization (Ogutu et al. 2014).
However, empirical evidence linking DAS use and CSA technology adoption by small-
holder farmers is scarce. Only a few studies have focused on this area; these include Singh
et al. (2019, who found that Agro-Advisory Services, a type of DAS, aided farmers’ adop-
tion of climate-smart practices in India, whereas Amith et al. (2022) found that Agromet
Advisory Services aided farmers’ adoption of climate-smart practices in India. Aside from
the studies in India, there is a lack of studies in other countries, particularly Ghana, that
assess the linkage between DSA and CSA.
This study, therefore, aims to contribute to the literature by (i) investigating the impacts
of DAS use on CSA technology adoption in Ghana and (ii) estimating the disaggregated
impacts of DAS use, taking gender and geographical location into consideration. The
research specifically contributes to the literature in three ways. First, it examines the impact
of DAS use on CSA technology adoption in Ghana, the first to do so. We use a recursive
bivariate probit (RBP) model to address the self-selection bias issues when farmers choose
to use DAS. Second, we investigate the average treatment effect of DAS use on CSA tech-
nology adoption and estimate the disaggregated impacts of DAS use, taking gender and
geographical location into account. As shown in the previous studies (Taylor and Silver
2019; Leng et al. 2020; Nikam et al. 2022), gender gaps and geographical differences exist
in the use of DAS and are likely to impact the adoption of CSA technology adoption dif-
ferently. Given the significant differences in demographic and institutional conditions and
information technology infrastructure across Ghanaian regions, we hypothesize that these
differences will influence DAS use and CSA technology adoption. The findings of this
study can provide decision-makers and policymakers with information and insights into
how farmers in various regions use DAS to adopt CSA technologies. It can inform the
development of strategies to improve farmers’ use of DAS, encouraging the adoption of
CSA technologies and ensuring food security.
We focus on maize production because it is one of the most important cereal crops glob-
ally, alongside rice and wheat (Ranum et al. 2014; Pauw 2022; Ankrah et al. 2023). In
Ghana, maize is important as a staple food, being widely consumed across various regions
(Ankrah et al. 2023; Prah et al. 2023). Maize cultivation covers over 14% of the total cul-
tivated land in the country, playing a vital role in improving rural livelihoods (Pauw 2022;
Ankrah et al. 2023). In 2021, the country achieved a record high production of 3.5 million
metric tons, marking the highest output since 2010 (Ankrah et al. 2023; Prah et al. 2023).
Ghana’s maize yield is among the lowest globally, with estimates ranging from 1.2 to 1.8
tonnes per hectare (Asante et al. 2019; Obour et al. 2022; Prah et al. 2023). However, it is
estimated that Ghana could yield 4 to 6 tonnes per hectare (MoFA 2015; Wongnaa et al.
2019; Obour et al. 2022). Adopting improved practices and techniques, such as CSA tech-
nologies (drought-tolerant seeds, row planting, and zero tillage) via DAS, could contribute
to such yield targets.

13
 19 Page 4 of 24 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2024) 29:19

This paper is organized in the following ways: Conceptual framework is the next sec-
tion. Section 3 presents the methodology comprised of the study sites, data and descrip-
tive statistics, and analytical strategy. Section 4 presents empirical results and discussion,
whereas Section 5 encompasses the conclusion and policy implications.

2 Conceptual framework

Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between the use of DAS and CSA technologies, high-
lighting how farmers’ decisions can conceptually influence the adoption of CSA technolo-
gies. DAS use can reduce the information asymmetry associated with CSA technologies and
encourage farmers to adopt climate-smart practices and technologies (Amith et al. 2022;
Fernando 2021; Kumar et al. 2022). Given the vulnerability of farming systems to climate
change, such as changes in temperature and rainfall patterns, as well as the occurrence of
droughts, farmers frequently seek advice to mitigate these risks, as these factors can have a
negative impact on crop yields (Makate et al. 2019a; Antwi-Agyei and Stringer 2021). This
shapes farmers’ information needs and information-seeking behavior, motivating them to
seek advisory services to implement certain climate-smart technologies (Amadu et al. 2020;
Khoza et al. 2021). Such information is commonly facilitated through traditional agricul-
tural extension agencies and diverse information technologies, including television, radio,
smartphones, computers, and the internet (Ma et al. 2020; Ngigi and Muange 2022).

Fig. 1   Conceptual framework

13
Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2024) 29:19 Page 5 of 24 19

DAS can significantly increase CSA technology adoption by providing critical informa-
tion, fostering social capital, and promoting stakeholder communication, thereby improving
learning opportunities and the adoption process (Eakin et al. 2015; Aldosari et al. 2019).
Thus, access to appropriate advisory services, enabled by smartphones and computers, is
crucial for farmers to incorporate CSA technologies and improve crop yields effectively.
Farmers’ utilization of DAS is determined by various factors, including farmers’ char-
acteristics, farm level, institutional and location factors, and communication infrastructure
(Spielman et al. 2021; Dhanya et al. 2022; Khan et al. 2022). Empirical studies indicate
that farmers with higher levels of literacy, income, farming experience, family size, credit
access, asset value, farm size, and membership in farmer-based groups are more likely to
access farming-related information through ICTs (Raza et al. 2020; Nikam et al. 2022).
Digital literacy is crucial for farmers to use ICT tools in agriculture effectively (Khan et al.
2022). Farmers who lack essential reading and writing skills may struggle to access and
utilize information provided through advanced DAS, such as smartphone applications and
social media (Khan et al. 2022; Leng et al. 2020; Singh et al. 2019). As shown by studies in
Africa, access to information through DAS can also improve smallholder farmers’ aware-
ness of weather and production shocks, leading to increased adoption of CSA technologies
(Weniga et al. 2019; Antwi-Agyei and Stringer 2021; Kumar et al. 2022).
In addition to the factors influencing farmers’ decisions to use DAS, farmers’ socio-
economic, institutional, and location attributes can also affect their adoption of CSA tech-
nologies. Farmers’ characteristics such as age, gender, household size, plot size, income,
experience, and education level have been found to influence their decision to adopt CSA
technologies (Makate et al. 2019a; Simtowe et al. 2019; Weniga et al. 2019). Furthermore,
institutional factors (i.e., access to credit, farmer-based groups, extension services, and
road accessibility) play a crucial role in the adoption of CSA technologies (Makate et al.
2019a; Amadu et al. 2020; Khoza et al. 2021; Ma et al. 2022; Ngigi and Muange 2022).
For instance, access to credit can ease the financial burden associated with adopting CSA
technologies, as farmers may use the obtained credit to purchase ICTs such as smartphones
and computers (Ma et al. 2022). As a network, farmer groups may facilitate known exter-
nalities, such as interactions among network members that can influence individual behav-
ior to adopt CSA technologies (Khoza et al. 2021; Addai et al. 2021). Moreover, farmer
groups may assist farmers in making informed decisions concerning crop management,
technology choice, and marketing (Gangopadhyay et al. 2019; Nikam et al. 2022).

3 Methodology

3.1 Study area and sampling methods

The data used for analysis in this study were collected between August and December
2021, focusing on maize farmers in Ghana’s Brong Ahafo, Ashanti, and Northern regions.
Figure 2 shows the map of the study area. The study considered three agroecological
zones: Transition (Nkoranza, Ejura-Sekyeredumasi, and Kintampo South districts), Guinea
Savannah (Zabzugu and East Gonja districts), and semi-deciduous forest zones (Ejisu-
Juaben district). Farmers were selected using a multistage sampling technique, starting
with a purposive selection of the three regions with high maize production in Ghana. Two
high-producing maize districts were selected from each region, including Nkoranza and
Kintampo South from Bono East, Ejisu-Juaben and Ejura-Sekyeredumasi from Ashanti,

13
 19 Page 6 of 24 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2024) 29:19

Fig. 2  Map of the study area

Zabzugu and East Gonja from the Northern region (MoFA 2015), and eight purposefully
selected communities from each district. Between 60 and 70 maize farmers were randomly
selected from each community, resulting in a sample size of 3197 maize farmers, with
2765 male-headed households and 432 female-headed households.
We employed positivism and quantitative research design. We used a structured ques-
tionnaire to gather data on farmer and farm-level characteristics, institutional and CSA
technologies, production and weather shocks, and location variables in the study area.
Before the formal survey, 50 maize farmers were interviewed in two selected communities,
Ejura and Onwe (see Appendix Table 5). Based on the feedback from the pre-test survey,
we improved the questionnaire. Enumerators fluent in both English and regional dialects
were hired to assist with data collection.

3.2 Analytical strategy

The study estimates the impact of DAS use on the adoption of CSA technologies while
accounting for personal and farm-level factors. DAS is not a random assignment but a
self-selection case (Rajkhowa and Qaim 2021; Bonou-Zin et al. 2022). Various personal
and household characteristics and socioeconomic and institutional factors influence maize
farmers’ decisions. The non-randomness generates the potential endogeneity issue of the
DAS use variable. Failing to address the endogeneity issue when estimating the impact of
DAS use on adopting CSA technologies would generate biased estimates.
Earlier studies have suggested various methods for analyzing the impact of a binary
endogenous variable (e.g., DAS use in the present study) on farmers’ binary decisions
about technology adoption. These include the propensity score matching (PSM) model

13
Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2024) 29:19 Page 7 of 24 19

(Garcia Iglesias 2022; Zwane et al. 2022; Abebe et al. 2023), endogenous switching
probit (ESP) model (Lokshin and Sajaia 2011; Li et al. 2020; Wu et al. 2023), and
recursive bivariate probit (RBP) model (Li et al. 2019; Addai et al. 2021; Ma and Zhu
2021; Ngigi and Muange 2022). The PSM technique fails to account for endogeneity
issues emanating from unobserved factors. At the same time, the ESP model cannot
estimate the direct effect of DAS use on the adoption of CSA technologies. In com-
parison, the RBP model is an effective approach that addresses endogeneity issues from
both observed and unobserved factors and can estimate a direct marginal effect of DAS
use on the adoption of CSA technologies (i.e., row planting, drought-tolerant seed, and
zero tillage). In addition, it is appropriate for such estimations where both treatment and
outcome variables are binary. Therefore, the RBP model is employed.
Following previous studies (Thuo et al. 2014; Ma et al. 2018; Li et al. 2019; Ma and
Zhu 2021), the two empirical specifications of the RBP model can be written as follows:
{
∗ 1 if DAS(𝜑)∗i > 0
DAS(𝜑)i = 𝛽i Wi + 𝜂i Ii + 𝜀i , DASi =
0 if DAS(𝜑)∗i ≤ 0 (1)

{
1 if CSA(𝜑)∗i > 0
CSA(𝜑)∗i = 𝜄i DASi + Wi 𝜇i + 𝜛i , CSAi = (2)
0 if CSA(𝜑)∗i ≤ 0

where DAS(𝜑)∗i and CSAT(𝜑)∗i are the latent variables that ith farmer uses DAS through a
mobile phone or computer and adopts the CSA technologies such as row planting, respec-
tively. Also, the latent variables are observed by DASi (1 if a farmer uses DAS and 0 for
not using DAS) and CSAi (1 if the farmer adopts an identified CSA technology and 0 for
not adopting any). Wi denotes a set of explanatory factors such as socioeconomic variables
(gender, age, education, marital status, household size and asset value), farm-level fac-
tors (farm size, perceived drought stress, perceived pest and disease), institutional factors
(farmer-based organization and farm distance) and location variables. Ii is the instrumen-
tal variable for the identification of the RBP model. The parameters to be estimated are
𝛽i , 𝜂i , 𝜄i , and 𝜇i𝜀i and 𝜛i are the disturbance terms. Our explanatory variables are selected
based on the theoretical and empirical literature of previous studies (Makate et al. 2019b;
Weniga et al. 2019; Oyetunde Usman et al. 2020; Addai et al. 2021; Awotide et al. 2022;
Damota et al. 2022; Mossie 2022).
In Eq. (1), we used the perceived high costs of DAS in the community as an instrumen-
tal variable (IV). The employed IV is measured as a dummy, which equals 1 if farmers per-
ceive DAS in the community as a high cost and 0 for those who perceive it as a low cost.
We expect that the IV influences the farmers’ decisions to use DAS directly; however, we
do not expect the adoption of CSA technologies. Following Ma and Zhu (2021), we esti-
mated individual probit models for Eqs. (1) and (2) and verified that the employed IV was
statistically significant only in the DAS use equation and not in the CAS adoption equation.
We estimated Eqs. (1) and (2) simultaneously using the full information maximum
likelihood estimator (FIMLE). This estimation (procedure ) generates a correlation term
between the two disturbance terms, 𝜌𝜀𝜛 = corr 𝜀i , 𝜛i . Based on Ma and Zhu (2021),
the DAS variable is endogenous when the coefficient of 𝜌𝜀𝜛 is statistically significant.
The significance of 𝜌𝜀𝜛 also suggests that farmers’ decisions to use of DAS and their
decisions to adopt CSA technologies are simultaneously affected by the same unobserved
factors (e.g., innate ability, motivations and aspirations) captured by the error terms.

13
 19 Page 8 of 24 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2024) 29:19

Subsequently, we estimate the average treatment effect on the treated (ATT) to illustrate
further how using DAS influences the adoption of CSA technologies (i.e., row planting,
drought-tolerant seeds, and zero tillage). We specify the ATT as follows:
NDASi
1 ∑[ ( ) ) ]
ATT = Pr Hik = 1 ||DASi = 1 − Pr(Hik = 0|DASi = 1) (5)
NDASi i=1
( ) )
where NDASi is the treated sample size. Pr Hik = 1 ||DASi = 1 is the predicted
CSA adoption probability for CSA technologies users in an observed context, and
Pr(Hik = 0|DASi = 1) is the predicted probability that a farmer uses a CSA technology in
a counterfactual context. Furthermore, the disaggregated impacts were obtained through a
post-estimation from the RBP model.

4 Results and discussion

4.1 Descriptive results

Table 1 presents the measurements and summary statistics of the variables used in the anal-
ysis. It can be observed that 64% of the farmers in our sample used DAS. Adoption rates
of drought-tolerant seeds, zero tillage, and row planting were 61.3%, 63.9%, and 58.3%,
respectively. The average age of farmers was 47.49 years, with most of them being males
(86.5%). On average, farmers spent 8.91 years of schooling. About 86.6% of farmers were
married, while 55% belonged to farmer-based organizations (FBOs). The average family
size was 6.67. Farmers cultivated less than 4.87 acres of land on average, and the distance
from residence to the nearest farm was 6.74 km. The average asset value was 4963.78
Ghanaian cedi (GHS). Furthermore, 48.5% of the farmers perceived drought stress, while
56.2% perceived pest and disease occurrence during maize production.
Table 2 presents the mean differences in the observed characteristics between DAS users
and non-users. There is a statistically significant difference between the two groups. Compared
to non-users, DAS users were more likely to adopt drought-tolerant seeds, zero tillage, and row
planting. The average age of DAS users was 46.18 years, significantly lower than the 48.23
years of non-users. Most non-users of DAS (89.3%) were males, and 86.7% of DAS users
were married. Compared to non-users, DAS users operated on a smaller farmland acreage.
Regarding education, DAS users have 0.318 years more of schooling than non-users. The dif-
ference in asset value between the two groups was statistically significant, with DAS users
having a higher asset value than non-users. Drought stress was perceived by less than half of
DAS users (49.6%), which is insignificant when compared to non-users (44.6%). However,
non-users (71.7%) perceived higher pest and disease incidence than DAS users (47.5%). Most
DAS users (59.8%) belonged to farmer-based organizations and perceived DAS in their com-
munities to be expensive compared to non-users. According to the regional dummies, most
farmers were from Brong Ahafo and Ashanti and primarily used the DAS.

4.2 Empirical results

Table 3 shows the determinants of DAS use and CSA technology adoption, estimated using
the RBP model. The significance of 𝜌𝜖𝜛 presented in the lower parts of Table 3 verify the

13
 Table 1  Definitions and descriptive statistics of variables
Variables Measurement Mean Std. dev. Expected sign

Dependent variables
DAS use 1 if a farmer uses CSA technologies via mobile phones, tablets or computers; 0 = otherwise 0.641 0.479
Drought-tolerant seeds 1 if farmer adopts drought-tolerant seeds; 0 = otherwise 0.613 0.487
Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change

Zero tillage 1 if a farmer adopts zero tillage; 0 = otherwise 0.639 0.480

Row planting 1 if farmer adopts row planting; 0 = otherwise 0.583 0.372
Independent variables
Age Age of the farmer in years 47.49 10.65 +/−
Gender 1 if a farmer is a male; 0 = otherwise 0.865 0.340 +/−
(2024) 29:19

Education Years of education 8.91 3.75 +

Marital status 1 if a farmer is married; 0 = otherwise 0.866 0.339 +
Household size Number of household members in persons 6.67 3.51 +
Farm size Total farmland under maize production in acres 4.87 2.89 +
Farm distance Distance from residence to the nearest farm in kilometers 6.74 4.40 −
Asset value Total value of the assets in 1,000 Ghana cedis 4.964 0.517 +
Perceived drought stress 1 if a farmer perceived drought stress during maize production; 0 = otherwise 0.485 0.379 +
Perceived pest and disease 1if farmer perceived pest and disease stress during maize production; 0 = otherwise 0.562 0.496 +
FBO membership 1 if a farmer has a membership in Farmer Based Organization; 0 = otherwise 0.550 0.497 +
Brong Ahafo 1 = a household is located in the Brong Ahafo region; 0 = otherwise 0.360 0.499 +
Northern 1 = a household is located in the Northern region; 0 = otherwise 0.300 0.459 +
Ashanti 1 = a household is located in the Ashanti region; 0 = otherwise 0.340 0.473 +
Perceived high costs 1 if a farmer perceived a high cost for CSA technologies in the community, 0 = otherwise 0.442 0.267 −
Page 9 of 24

Field data, 2021

19

13
 19 Page 10 of 24 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2024) 29:19

Table 2  Mean difference in the selected variables between DAS users and non-users
Variables DAS users Non-users Mean difference
Mean S.D. Mean S.D.

Drought-tolerant seed 0.684 0.464 0.485 0.441 0.199***

Zero tillage 0.691 0.461 0.545 0.498 0.145***
Row planting 0.490 0.401 0.319 0.291 0.17***
Age 46.18 10.98 48.23 9.90 2.04***
Gender 0.850 0.356 0.893 0.308 −0.04***
Education 9.12 3.32 8.80 3.96 0.318**
Marital status 0.867 0.338 0.864 0.342 0.003
Household size 5.91 3.06 7.09 3.67 −1.17***
Farm size 4.73 2.17 5.12 3.74 −0.39**
Farm distance 6.33 3.80 6.97 4.68 −0.634***
Asset value 5.138 0.136 4.651 217.85 0.487***
Perceived drought stress 0.496 0.437 0.446 0.275 0.050
Perceived pest and disease 0.475 0.499 0.717 0.450 −0.24***
FBO membership 0.598 0.490 0.402 0.499 0.132***
Brong Ahafo 0.428 0.321 0.420 0.211 0.07***
Northern 0.263 0.440 0.373 0.483 −0.11***
Ashanti 0.313 0.401 0.199 0.394 0.22***
Perceived high costs 0.276 0.447 0.251 0.434 0.025

***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1. S.D refers to standard deviation

appropriateness of using the RBP model. Because the estimation of the coefficients in the
RBP model (see Table 6 in the Appendix for reference) is not straightforward in interpreta-
tion, we calculate and present the marginal effects results in Table 3 to improve our under-
standing. In the next section, we first discuss the determinants of DAS use and CSA tech-
nology adoption. Finally, we explore disaggregated results regarding the impact of DAS
use on CSA technology adoption by gender and location.

4.2.1 Determinants of DAS use

Columns 2, 4, and 6 of Table 3 present the results reporting the factors influencing farmers’
decisions to use DAS. The age of the farmers has a negative and significant effect on the
likelihood of using DAS. The marginal effects estimate suggests that a 1-year increase in
age would reduce the probability of using DAS by 6.9–9.1%. Compared with their younger
counterparts, older farmers are more conservative regarding the adoption of innovative
technologies such as digital services. This is consistent with the findings of Onyeneke et al.
(2023). Education significantly increases the likelihood of using DAS by 4.1–4.5%. Educa-
tion improves farmers’ understanding of the benefits of new technologies such as DAS,
motivating them to adopt it. This is consistent with the findings of Ma and Zhu (2021),
who found a positive relationship between education and internet use in China.
The size of the household had a positive and significant impact on the likelihood of
using DAS. The estimates show that an extra increase in household members would

13
 Table 3  Marginal effects of DAS use and control variables on the adoption of CSA technologies
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Variables DAS use Row planting adoption DAS use Zero tillage adoption DAS use Drought-tolerant
seed adoption

DAS use 0.124*** 0.042*** 0.046***

(0.012) (0.007) (0.021)
Age −0.089** 0.022 −0.091** −0.180*** −0.069* 0.031
Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change

(0.039) (0.036) (0.041) (0.034) (0.040) (0.037)

Gender −0.051* 0.031 −0.015 0.001 −0.038 −0.020
(0.027) (0.022) (0.023) (0.020) (0.026) (0.025)
Education 0.043*** −0.013 0.041*** −0.009 0.045*** 0.090***
(0.016) (0.014) (0.012) (0.010) (0.016) (0.016)
(2024) 29:19

Marital status 0.004 −0.002 −0.023 0.042 0.003 0.027

(0.027) (0.023) (0.025) (0.028) (0.027) (0.025)
Household size 0.078*** −0.076*** 0.074*** −0.002 0.086*** 0.047***
(0.016) (0.014) (0.015) (0.013) (0.015) (0.016)
Farm size −0.019 0.035*** −0.016 −0.024** −0.013 0.033***
(0.015) (0.013) (0.014) (0.012) (0.014) (0.010)
Distance to farm −0.032*** −0.004 −0.040*** −0.029*** −0.042*** 0.005
(0.011) (0.010) (0.010) (0.009) (0.011) (0.014)
Asset value 0.014 0.001 0.002 0.004** 0.008*** 0.005
(0.023) (0.002) (0.003) (0.002) (0.002) (0.006)
Perceived drought stress 0.094*** 0.075*** 0.111*** 0.201*** 0.112*** 0.241***
(0.018) (0.015) (0.017) (0.014) (0.018) (0.021)
Perceived pest and disease 0.175*** 0.091*** 0.167*** 0.131*** 0.160*** 0.072***
Page 11 of 24

(0.017) (0.018) (0.017) (0.014) (0.017) (0.021)

FBO membership 0.091*** −0.017 0.105*** 0.102*** 0.100*** 0.086***
19

(0.016) (0.018) (0.016) (0.013) (0.016) (0.015)

13
 Table 3  (continued)
19

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Variables DAS use Row planting adoption DAS use Zero tillage adoption DAS use Drought-tolerant

13
seed adoption

Brong Ahafo 0.065*** 0.066*** 0.072*** −0.049*** 0.067*** 0.028

Page 12 of 24

(0.017) (0.015) (0.017) (0.014) (0.017) (0.017)

Ashanti 0.260*** −0.101*** 0.250*** 0.268*** 0.250*** 0.144***
(0.018) (0.025) (0.018) (0.014) (0.018) (0.024)
Perceived high costs −0.017*** −0.040*** −0.060***
(0.006) (0.012) (0.016)
𝜌𝜀𝜛 −0.846*** (0.128) −0.930*** (0.217) −0.823*** (0.095)
ATT​ 0.388*** (0.144) 0.249*** (0.083) 0.472*** (0.080)
Observations 3197 3197 3197
Log-pseudo likelihood −375.09 −347.90 −364.38
Wald ­chi2 (27) 506.12***, p = 0.000 348.37***, p = 0.000 643.46***
Wald test 𝜌𝜀𝜛=chi2 (1) 7.51***, p = 0.006 13.21***, p = 0.000 15.57***, p = 0.000

ME is the marginal effect. Standard errors are in parentheses. ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1. ATT denote average treatment effects on treated. The northern region is used
as a base group
Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change
(2024) 29:19
Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2024) 29:19 Page 13 of 24 19

increase the probability of adopting DAS by 7.4–8.6%. A larger household also means a
richer labor endowment and better income gains, allowing more members to be exposed
to smartphone or computer use than small households. Besides, larger households have
more diverse information needs and can benefit from the tailored advice provided by DAS
(Ainembabazi and Mugisha 2014). A 1-km increase in the distance from farmers’ resi-
dences to the nearest farm reduces the probability of their DAS use by 3.2–4.2%. This is
because longer distances are associated with higher transaction costs, making them less
likely to use DAS (Fryer Jr and Levitt 2004; Fernando 2021). Farmers’ asset value posi-
tively and significantly influences their decision to use DAS. Assets serve as a proxy
for resource endowment and wealth. This finding is consistent with Meier zu Selhausen
(2016), who discovered that farmers with more resources, such as land and livestock, could
easily convert them into cash to obtain DAS. This is typical in rural areas of African coun-
tries, where assets serve as a means to an end in the event of production failures (Addai
et al. 2021). This finding is consistent with the findings of Wossen et al. (2017), who
claimed that assets allow farmers to adopt new agricultural technologies.
Furthermore, the results suggest that farmers who perceive the occurrence of pests and
diseases are more likely to use DAS. These results are similar to the findings of Teklewold
et al. (2013), who found that the presence of pests and diseases increases the adoption of
agricultural technologies in Ethiopia. Furthermore, weather shocks such as drought stress
increase the likelihood of utilizing DAS. Specifically, farmers who experience drought
stress during maize production are more likely to seek advisory services. This supports
previous research that droughts positively influence the adoption of agricultural technolo-
gies (Teklewold et al. 2013; Wainaina et al. 2016; Makate et al. 2019a; Jha et al. 2020).
Being a member of a farmer-based organization has a significant and positive influence on
the likelihood of using DAS. FBOs, which are regarded as crucial institutional advance-
ments, have the potential to alleviate the constraints that prevent smallholder farmers from
accessing novel agricultural technologies (Ma and Abdulai 2016; Zhou et al. 2023). Com-
pared to the base Northern region, farmers in Ghana’s Brong Ahafo and Ashanti regions
have a higher tendency to utilize DAS. However, the perceived high cost associated with
such services negatively and significantly affects their utilization. This suggests that when
DAS is more affordable and accessible, farmers are more likely to use it. Similar results
have been observed in Nigeria (Wossen et al. 2017) and India (Rajkhowa and Qaim 2021).

4.2.2 Determinants of CSA technology adoption

The estimated impacts of DAS use and control variables on the adoption of CSA technol-
ogy are presented in columns 3, 5, and 7 of Table 3. DAS use positively impacts farmers’
decisions to adopt all three CSA technologies. Specifically, using DAS increases the prob-
abilities of adopting row planting, zero tillage, and drought-tolerant seeds by 12.4%, 4.2%,
and 4.6%, respectively. This confirms the findings of Singh et al. (2019) and Jha et al.
(2020). Furthermore, because of the ease of access to information and resources through
the internet, people in the digital era are more aware of the benefits and importance of
using DAS, increasing the likelihood of CSA technology adoption. Prior studies have also
highlighted the numerous benefits of using DAS for agricultural development (Amith et al.
2022; Kumar et al. 2022; Singh et al. 2019, 2020; Vrain et al. 2022). For instance, Singh
et al. (2020) opined that DAS offers data-driven insights and analysis that support farm-
ers in making more informed decisions. By utilizing DAS, farmers become aware of CAS
technologies to respond proactively to climate variability and extreme weather events.

13
 19 Page 14 of 24 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2024) 29:19

Farmers can better anticipate and mitigate potential risks, thereby increasing the likelihood
of successfully adopting and implementing CSA technologies. Vrain et al. (2022) indicated
that DAS enhances farmers’ knowledge and skills related to CSA technologies. It allows
them to access expert advice and peer-to-peer learning platforms and facilitates knowledge
transfer and capacity building in CSA practices.
The results also suggest that the adoption of drought-tolerant seeds, zero tillage, and row
planting by farmers is positively influenced by a variety of factors, including age, education,
household size, FBO membership, farm size, perceived drought stress, perceived pest and dis-
ease incidence, and location. For instance, the last column of Table 3 shows that farmers with
higher levels of education are 9% more likely to adopt drought-tolerant seeds. This result is
consistent with the findings of Makate et al. (2019a) and Amadu et al. (2020). Furthermore,
membership in a farmer-based organization increases the probability of adopting zero till-
age and drought-tolerant seeds by 10.2% and 8.6%, respectively, which is consistent with the
results of previous studies (Addai et al. 2021; Manda et al. 2020; Ma et al. 2018). The farm
size significantly and positively impacts the adoption of CSA technologies during maize pro-
duction. Specifically, farmers cultivating larger farms are 3.5% and 3.3% more likely to adopt
row planting and drought-tolerant seeds. However, the adoption of zero tillage decreases as the
size of the farmland increases. This finding is consistent with the results of a study by Ma and
Abdulai (2019), which suggested that the adoption of new technology involves risks that may
result in productivity loss in the absence of technical assistance. As a result, the possibility of
adoption decreases as farm size increases. Additionally, the cost of adopting new technologies
may be a factor, as farmers may struggle to invest the necessary capital to develop new farm
acres and acquire new technologies (Meena et al. 2016; Brown et al. 2019).
Moreover, the results reveal that farmers who face greater weather-related challenges,
such as drought stress and pest and disease outbreaks, are more likely to adopt climate-smart
technologies such as row planting, zero tillage, and drought-tolerant seeds. Specifically, farm-
ers are 24.1% more likely to adopt drought-tolerant seeds when under severe drought stress.
In addition, when there are high pest and disease outbreaks, farmers are 7.2% and 9.1% more
likely to adopt drought-tolerant seeds and row planting, respectively. The distance between
the farmer’s homestead and the nearest farm negatively and significantly influenced the adop-
tion of only zero-tollage technologies. This could be attributed to the labor-intensive nature of
land preparation, which could increase production costs and the likelihood of adopting zero
tillage. Farmers in the Ashanti and Brong Ahafo regions are more likely to adopt row plant-
ing and drought-tolerant seeds relative to the Northern region. On the other hand, farmers in
the Brong Ahafo region were found to be less likely to adopt zero tillage, possibly because
they in Brong Ahafo prefer no-tillage of their lands for crop production.
The marginal effects in Table 3 only show how farmers’ decisions to use DAS affect
the adoption of drought-tolerant seeds, zero tillage, and row planting if they were previ-
ously non-users but became users. We used Chiburis et al. (2012) approach to estimate the
impact of DAS on the adoption of CSA technologies and gain a better understanding. The
approach uses bootstrapping to reduce sampling noise in the sample, resulting in a more
accurate average treatment effect on the treated (ATT) estimates. It also considers selec-
tion bias between users and non-users of DAS, as they differ significantly in observed and
unobserved factors. Based on the results in Table 3, farmers who use DAS are more likely
to adopt row planting, zero tillage, and drought-tolerant seeds by 38.8%, 24.9%, and 47.2%,
respectively. The marginal effects, which examine the likelihood of farmers adopting these
practices upon using DAS, are distinct from the ATT estimates, which measure the causal
relationship between adopting and utilizing CSA technologies. Similar findings were made
by Lanfranchi and Pekovic (2014) and Ma et al. (2018).

13
Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2024) 29:19 Page 15 of 24 19

Our findings demonstrate the significant influence of DAS in the adoption of CSA technolo-
gies, specifically row planting, zero tillage, and drought-tolerant seeds. These adaptation options
are highlighted in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment
Report (AR6) in 2023 (IPCC 2023). The report proposes that smallholder farmers can enhance
their agricultural output and welfare by adopting improved cultivars, implementing on-farm
water management and storage systems, conserving soil moisture, utilizing irrigation tech-
niques, practising agroforestry, implementing community-based adaptation strategies, diversi-
fying agriculture at the farm and landscape level, and adopting sustainable land management
approaches, among other options (IPCC 2023). Hence, our study adds to the increasing body of
evidence regarding the significance of these adaptation strategies in addressing climate change.

4.3 Disaggregated analyses by gender and location

Previous studies have shown that males and females have different decision-making when
adopting improved agricultural technologies (Doss 2018; Paudel et al. 2020; Tambo et al.
2021). In addition, location-based spatial effects exist in technology adoption (Fang and
Richards 2018; Zheng et al. 2021). Therefore, we further looked at the impact of DAS use on
the adoption of CSA technologies, disaggregated by gender and location. This helps enrich
our understanding of the relationship between DAS use and CSA technology adoption.
Columns 2 and 3 of Table 4 present the gendered differentials in the impact of DAS
use on CSA technology adoption. Compared to previous studies (Ma and Zhu 2021; Vatsa
et al. 2022), our results show a minimal difference in the marginal effect of both male and
female farmers. However, these differences are significant. Hence, we need to appreciate
these differences to deepen our understanding of the relationship between DAS use and
CSA technology adoption. Subsequently, the results reveal that DAS use by male farmers
has a greater impact on the adoption of zero tillage and drought-tolerant seeds, increasing
the probabilities of their adoption by 2.5 and 3.6%, respectively. However, DAS use by
female farmers has a greater impact on the adoption of row planting, with a probability
value of 2.4%, against the male counterparts, with a probability of 1.5%. In Ghana, men are
more involved in agricultural activities than women, which may explain why they are more
likely to adopt CSA technologies after using DAS.
The last three columns of Table 4 show the location-based effects of DSA use on CSA tech-
nology adoption. The results show that DAS use has the largest impact on row planting adop-
tion and tolerant seed adoption for farmers in the Brong Ahafo region, while DAS use’s impact
on zero tillage adoption is the largest for farmers in the Northern region. Specifically, farmers
Table 4  Disaggregated analyses by gender and locations
Variable Gender Locations
Male Female Ashanti Brong Ahafo Northern

Impact of DAS use on row planting adoption

DAS use 0.015*** (0.005) 0.024*** (0.007) 0.151*** (0.033) 0.261*** (0.022) 0.198*** (0.027)
Impact of DAS use on zero tillage adoption
DAS use 0.025*** (0.009) 0.023*** (0.005) 0.169*** (0.035) 0.267*** (0.023) 0.340* (0.200)
Impact of DAS use on drought-tolerant seed adoption
DAS use 0.036*** (0.011) 0.034*** (0.012) 0.153*** (0.035) 0.270*** (0.023) 0.144*** (0.028)
Sample size 2660 407 1036 1120 911

Standard errors are in parentheses. *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1. Source: Field data, 2021

13
 19 Page 16 of 24 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2024) 29:19

in the Brong Ahafo region are 26.1% and 27% more likely to adopt row planting and tolerant
seeds, respectively. Farmers in the Northern region are 34% more likely to adopt zero tillage.

5 Conclusions and policy implications

This paper evaluates the impact of DAS use on the adoption of CSA technologies using a
random sample of 3197 maize farmers in Ghana. Since maize farmers self-select and their
decision to use DAS may be influenced by both observed and unobserved variables, an
RBP model was used to mitigate selection bias and to obtain unbiased estimates.
The adoption of CSA technologies (i.e., drought-tolerant seeds, zero tillage, and row plant-
ing) was significant between DAS users and non-users without accounting for other factors.
The empirical RBP model results show an inverse selection bias due to unobserved factors. The
results show that the main factors influencing the decision to use DAS are age, gender, education,
family size, asset value, distance to farm, the perceived incidence of pests and disease, drought
stress, farmer-based organization, and locations. After controlling for selection bias, the results
show that DAS increases the likelihood of adopting drought-tolerant seeds, zero tillage, and row
planting by 4.6, 4.2, and 12.4%, respectively. Furthermore, age, education, household size, FBO
membership, farm size, perceived drought stress, perceived pest and disease incidence, and loca-
tion significantly impacted the adoption of row planting, drought-tolerant seeds, and zero till-
age. The average treatment effect on the treated confirms that maize farmers who use DAS are
38.8, 24.9, and 47.2% more likely to adopt row planting, zero tillage, and drought-tolerant seeds,
respectively. The disaggregated estimates confirm that the impacts of DAS use on adopting row
planting, drought-tolerant seeds, and zero tillage are heterogeneous between male and female
maize farmers and geographical locations. Furthermore, the estimates show that the use of DAS
encourages the adoption of CSA technologies among rural maize farmers in Ghana.
Our research highlights the significance of using DAS via smartphones in agriculture.
Our findings suggest that agricultural stakeholders, including government and non-govern-
mental organizations, should encourage and promote the use of DAS among maize farm-
ers. This would contribute positively to the development of rural agriculture and improve
the livelihoods of maize farmers by enabling them to access up-to-date information on
maize production, as well as adopt CSA technologies such as drought-tolerant seeds, row
planting, and zero tillage, all of which can enhance maize productivity. Furthermore, our
study shows that the use of DAS substantially impacts the adoption of selected CSA tech-
nologies. Therefore, extension officers and farmer-based groups should encourage farmers
to use DAS and help identify the challenges that impede farmers from using this service.
They should also educate farmers on the benefits of using DAS as a reliable source of
information on climate-smart technologies, which can help to spur adoption. The govern-
ment should set up and improve existing digital hubs/infrastructure and demonstration
centers in rural areas where farmers can access and experience DAS technologies firsthand.
The limitation of the study is that empirical analyses are based on 1-year cross-sec-
tional data. This precludes us from investigating the dynamic relationships between DAS
use and adoption of CSA technologies over time. Furthermore, the study does not examine
the impact of DAS use on the intensity of CSA technology adoption. Little is known about
the cost and revenue of DAS users in adopting CSA technologies compared to non-users.
Finally, the RBP model does not give the determinants of the impact of DAS on the adop-
tion of CSA technologies among users and non-users.

13
 Appendix
Tables 5 and 6

Table 5  Distribution of maize farmers in selected regions

Region District Population Communities

Ashanti Ejura-Sekyeredumasi 20,253 Sekyeredumase, Ejura, Ajamasu, Bisu, Tarkoso,

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change

Juaho, Mbanaa, Asuogya

Ejisu 6409 Onwe, Achiase, Bonwire, Donyina, Achinakrom,
Tikrom, Akyawkrom, Amoam Achiase
Bono East Kintampo South 19,971 Jema Nkwanta, Nante, Ntankoro, Apesika,
Krabonso, Tawiakrom, Tafo
(2024) 29:19

Nkoranza 10,635 Odumasi, Bodom, Konkompe, Dwenewoho,

Sikaa, Manso, Buabeng, Baafi
Northern Zabzugu 1807 Gbandi, Woribogu, Nakpali, Wieshini, Ojoeja,
Subruni, Dagbabani, New Nyankpala
East Gonja 5130 Salaga, Kpembe, Masaka, Kalande, Makango,
Yankanjia, Yayayili, Akyenteteyi

Ministry of Food and Agriculture, 2021; Field survey, 2021

Page 17 of 24
19

13
 Table 6  Impacts of DAS use and control variables on the adoption of CSA technologies: coefficients estimates of the RBP model
19

Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

DAS use Row planting adoption DAS use Zero tillage adoption DAS use Drought-tolerant seed

13
adoption

DAS use 0.148*** 0.136*** 0.980***

Page 18 of 24

(0.014) (0.033) (0.151)

Age −0.270** 0.069 −0.277** −0.582*** −0.208* 0.093
(0.120) (0.112) (0.125) (0.109) (0.120) (0.110)
Gender −0.156* 0.095 −0.047 0.003 −0.115 −0.058
(0.082) (0.070) (0.071) (0.064) (0.080) (0.072)
Education 0.131*** −0.043 0.126*** -0.028 0.138*** 0.270***
(0.049) (0.044) (0.037) (0.034) (0.050) (0.046)
Marital status 0.012 −0.002 −0.069 0.136* 0.009 0.080
(0.081) (0.072) (0.075) (0.070) (0.081) (0.074)
Household size 0.238*** −0.236*** 0.226*** −0.008 0.260*** 0.140***
(0.049) (0.044) (0.045) (0.043) (0.047) (0.048)
Farm size −0.059 0.110*** −0.050 −0.079** −0.040 0.098***
(0.045) (0.039) (0.044) (0.039) (0.044) (0.030)
Distance to farm −0.098*** −0.011 −0.120*** −0.092*** −0.128*** 0.014
(0.033) (0.032) (0.031) (0.028) (0.033) (0.041)
Asset value 0.045 0.032 0.072 0.014** 0.065*** 0.025
Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change

(0.072) (0.063) (0.070) (0.006) (0.017) (0.063)

Perceived drought stress 0.287*** 0.234*** 0.337*** 0.650*** 0.339*** 0.712***
(0.055) (0.049) (0.052) (0.048) (0.056) (0.059)
Perceived pest and 0.533*** 0.282*** 0.507*** 0.424*** 0.486*** 0.214***
disease (0.055) (0.061) (0.053) (0.047) (0.054) (0.065)
(2024) 29:19
 Table 6  (continued)
Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
DAS use Row planting adoption DAS use Zero tillage adoption DAS use Drought-tolerant seed
adoption

FBO membership 0.279*** −0.054 0.318*** 0.332*** 0.303*** 0.254***

(0.050) (0.054) (0.049) (0.044) (0.050) (0.046)
Brong Ahafo 0.199*** 0.206*** 0.218*** −0.157*** 0.204*** 0.082
Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change

(0.053) (0.047) (0.052) (0.046) (0.053) (0.051)

Ashanti 0.791*** −0.313*** 0.761*** 0.870*** 0.759*** 0.424***
(0.059) (0.084) (0.058) (0.052) (0.060) (0.074)
Perceived high costs −0.051*** −0.122*** −0.183***
(0.004) (0.035) (0.047)
(2024) 29:19

Constant −0.143*** −0.124*** −0.162*** −0.137*** −0.146*** −0.421

(0.047) (0.044) (0.047) (0.041) (0.047) (0.426)

Standard errors are in parentheses. ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, * p < 0.1
Page 19 of 24
19

13
 19 Page 20 of 24 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2024) 29:19

Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the extension staff of the Ministry of Food
and Agriculture in the study districts for their delightful support during the data collection. In addition,
the authors would like to acknowledge the Asian Development Bank Institute (ADBI) Virtual Conference
on “Climate-smart Agriculture: Adoption, Impacts, and Implications for Sustainable Development” held on
10–11 October 2023.

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

Data availability The data that support the findings of this study are available from Bright Asante
upon request.

Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors declare no competing interests.

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 Com-
mons 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/.

References
Abebe F, Wheeler SA, Zuo A et al (2023) The welfare enhancing effects of agricultural innovation plat-
forms and soil monitoring tools on farming household outcomes in southeastern Africa. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1080/​14735​903.​2023.​21845​86
Addai KN, Temoso O, Ng’ombe JN (2021) Participation in farmer organizations and adoption of farm-
ing technologies among rice farmers in Ghana. Int J Soc Econ 49:529–545. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​
IJSE-​06-​2021-​0337
Adenubi O, Temoso O, Abdulaleem I (2021) Has mobile phone technology aided the growth of agricultural
productivity in sub-Saharan Africa? South Afr J Econ Manag Sci 24:1–9. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4102/​
sajems.​v24i1.​3744
Ainembabazi JH, Mugisha J (2014) The role of farming experience on the adoption of agricultural technolo-
gies: evidence from smallholder farmers in Uganda. J Dev Stud 50:666–679. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​
00220​388.​2013.​874556
Aldosari F, Al Shunaifi MS, Ullah MA et al (2019) Farmers’ perceptions regarding the use of Informa-
tion and Communication Technology (ICT) in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, northern Pakistan. J Saudi Soc
Agric Sci 18:211–217. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jssas.​2017.​05.​004
Amadu FO, Mcnamara PE, Miller DC (2020) Understanding the adoption of climate-smart agriculture: a
farm-level typology with empirical evidence from southern Malawi. World Dev 126:104692. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​world​dev.​2019.​104692
Amith G, Ramesh., Avinash G et al (2022) Agromet advisory services for climate smart agriculture. J Exp
Agric Int 44:1–7. https://​doi.​org/​10.​9734/​jeai/​2022/​v44i4​30810
Ankrah DA, Kwapong NA, Manteaw SA, Agyarko FF (2023) Sustainable cereal production: a spatial ana-
lytical approach using the Ghana living standards survey. Heliyon 9:e17831. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
heliy​on.​2023.​e17831
Antwi-Agyei P, Stringer LC (2021) Improving the effectiveness of agricultural extension services in sup-
porting farmers to adapt to climate change: insights from northeastern Ghana. Clim Risk Manag
32:100304. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​crm.​2021.​100304
Asante BO, Temoso O, Addai KN, Villano RA (2019) Evaluating productivity gaps in maize production
across different agroecological zones in Ghana. Agric Syst 176:102650. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
agsy.​2019.​102650

13
Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2024) 29:19 Page 21 of 24 19

Asongu S, le Roux S, Nwachukwu J, Pyke C (2019) Reducing information asymmetry with ICT: a critical
review of loan price and quantity effects in Africa. Int J Manag Financ 15:130–163. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1108/​IJMF-​01-​2018-​0027
Awotide BA, Ogunniyi A, Olagunju KO et al (2022) Evaluating the heterogeneous impacts of adoption of
climate-smart agricultural technologies on rural households’ welfare in Mali. Agriculture 12:1–17.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​agric​ultur​e1211​1853
Azzarri C, Signorelli S (2020) Climate and poverty in Africa South of the Sahara. World Dev 125:104691.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​world​dev.​2019.​104691
Balasundram SK, Shamshiri RR, Sridhara S, Rizan N (2023) The role of digital agriculture in mitigating
climate change and ensuring food security: an overview. Sustainability 15:5325. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
3390/​su150​65325
Bonou-Zin RDC, Hinnoul LC, Ayedoun AO, Obossou EAR (2022) Impact of the agricultural advisory ser-
vice on the productivity of maize and cotton in the cotton-growing zone of North Benin. J Agric Ext
Rural Dev 14:120–131. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5897/​jaerd​2022.​1316
Brown B, Nuberg I, Llewellyn R (2019) From interest to implementation: exploring farmer progression of
conservation agriculture in Eastern and Southern Africa. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10668-​019-​00340-5
Cariolle J (2021) International connectivity and the digital divide in Sub-Saharan Africa. Inf Econ Policy
55. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​infoe​copol.​2020.​100901
Chiburis RC, Das J, Lokshin M (2012) A practical comparison of the bivariate probit and linear IV estima-
tors. Econ Lett 117:762–766. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​econl​et.​2012.​08.​037
Damota DD, Zone D, Gelu DG, Orkaido K (2022) Determinants of smallholder farmers participation on
wheat row planting and its impact on wheat yield: the case in Mari Mansa Woreda. Recent Trends
Data Min Bus 3:1–13
Deng X, Xu D, Zeng M, Qi Y (2019) Does internet use help reduce rural cropland abandonment? Evidence
from China. Land Use Policy 89:104243. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​landu​sepol.​2019.​104243
Dhanya P, Geethalakshmi V, Ramanathan S et al (2022) Impacts and climate change adaptation of agrome-
teorological services among the maize farmers of West Tamil Nadu. AgriEngineering 4:1030–1053.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​agrie​ngine​ering​40400​65
Dhaoui O, Nikolaou K, Mattas K, Baourakis G (2020) Consumers’ attitude towards alternative distribution
channels of fresh fruits and vegetables in Crete. Br Food J 122:2823–2840. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​
BFJ-​05-​2019-​0342
Doss CR (2018) Women and agricultural productivity: reframing the issues. Dev Policy Rev 36:35–50.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​dpr.​12243
Eakin H, Wightman PM, Hsu D et al (2015) Information and communication technologies and climate
change adaptation in Latin America and the Caribbean: a framework for action. Clim Dev 7:208–222.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​17565​529.​2014.​951021
Ehiakpor DS, Danso-Abbeam G, Mubashiru Y (2021) Adoption of interrelated sustainable agricultural
practices among smallholder farmers in Ghana. Land Use Policy 101:105142
Fang D, Richards TJ (2018) New maize variety adoption in Mozambique: a spatial approach. Can J Agric
Econ 66:469–488. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​cjag.​12166
Fentie A, Beyene AD (2019) Climate-smart agricultural practices and welfare of rural smallholders in
Ethiopia: does planting method matter? Land Use Policy 85:387–396. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​landu​
sepol.​2019.​04.​020
FAO (2018) Climate smart agriculture -building resilient to climate change. In Springer. Retrieved from:
http://​www.​our-​africa.​org/​mali/​clima​te-​agric​ulture. Accessed Aug 2023
Fernando AN (2021) Seeking the treated: the impact of mobile extension on farmer information exchange in
India. J Dev Econ 153:102713. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jdeve​co.​2021.​102713
Food and Agriculture Organization (2023) Guide on digital agricultural extension and advisory services
– use of smartphone applications by smallholder farmers. Rome. Retrieved from: https://​doi.​org/​10.​
4060/​cc402​2en. Accessed Aug 2023
Fryer RG Jr, Levitt SD (2004) The causes and consequences of distinctively black names. Q J Econ
CV(4):829–850. http://​price​theory.​uchic​ago.​edu/​levitt/​Papers/​Fryer​Levit​t2004.​pdf
Gangopadhyay PK, Khatri-Chhetri A, Shirsath PB, Aggarwal PK (2019) Spatial targeting of ICT-based
weather and agro-advisory services for climate risk management in agriculture. Clim Change
154:241–256. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10584-​019-​02426-5
Garcia Iglesias D (2022) Propensity score matching underestimates real treatment effect, in a simulated
theoretical multivariate model. Mathematics 10:1–8. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​math1​00915​47
Goedde L, McCullough R (2021) How digital tools can help transform African agri-food systems. McK-
insey. Retrieved from: https://​nouri​shing​africa.​com/​docum​ents/​16118​33593​How-​digit​al-​tools-​
can-​help-​trans​form-​Afric​an-​agri-​food-​syste​ms-​v2.​pdf. Accessed Jan 2023

13
 19 Page 22 of 24 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2024) 29:19

IPCC (2023) Intergovernmental panel on climate change, AR6 synthesis report: climate change 2023.
Retrieved from: https://​www.​ipcc.​ch/​report/​sixth-​asses​sment-​report-​cycle/. Accessed Jul 2023
Jha S, Kaechele H, Lana M et al (2020) Exploring farmers’ perceptions of agricultural technologies: a
case study from Tanzania. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​su120​30998
Jones K, Nowak A, Berglund E et al (2023) Evidence supports the potential for climate-smart agricul-
ture in Tanzania. Glob Food Sec 36:100666. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​gfs.​2022.​100666
Keil A, Mitra A, McDonald A, Malik RK (2020) Zero-tillage wheat provides stable yield and economic
benefits under diverse growing season climates in the Eastern Indo-Gangetic plains. Int J Agric
Sustain 567–593. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​14735​903.​2020.​17944​90
Khan NA, Ma W, Owusu V, Shah AA (2022) Does ICT-based farm advisory improve farmers’ adaptation
to climate change? Evidence from Pakistan. Clim Dev 1–16. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​17565​529.​2022.​
21432​32
Khatri-Chhetri A, Aggarwal PK, Joshi PK, Vyas S (2017) Farmers’ prioritization of climate-smart agri-
culture (CSA) technologies. Agric Syst 151:184–191. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​agsy.​2016.​10.​005
Khoza S, de Beer LT, van Niekerk D, Nemakonde L (2021) A gender-differentiated analysis of climate-
smart agriculture adoption by smallholder farmers: application of the extended technology accept-
ance model. Gend Technol Dev 25:1–21. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​09718​524.​2020.​18303​38
Kilombele H, Feleke S, Abdoulaye T et al (2023) Maize productivity and household welfare impacts of
mobile money usage in Tanzania. Int J Financ Stud 11:27. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​ijfs1​10100​27
Klerkx L, Jakku E, Labarthe P (2019) A review of social science on digital agriculture, smart farming
and agriculture 4.0: new contributions and a future research agenda. NJAS - Wageningen J Life
Sci 90–91:100315. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​njas.​2019.​100315
Kumar A, Malik JS, Kamboj M (2022) Relevance of extension advisory services in climate smart agri-
culture: a review. Mausam 73:695–705. https://​doi.​org/​10.​54302/​mausam.​v73i3.​5937
Lanfranchi J, Pekovic S (2014) How green is my firm? Workers’ attitudes and behaviors towards job in
environmentally-related firms. Ecol Econ 100:16–29. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ecole​con.​2013.​12.​019
Leng C, Ma W, Tang J, Zhu Z (2020) ICT adoption and income diversification among rural households
in China. Appl Econ 52:3614–3628. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​00036​846.​2020.​17153​38
Li C, Poskitt DS, Zhao X (2019) The bivariate probit model, maximum likelihood estimation, pseudo true param-
eters and partial identification. J Econom 209:94–113. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jecon​om.​2018.​07.​009
Li C, Ma W, Mishra AK, Gao L (2020) Access to credit and farmland rental market participation: evi-
dence from rural China. China Econ Rev 63:101523. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​chieco.​2020.​101523
Li X, Guo H, Jin S et al (2021) Do farmers gain internet dividends from E-commerce adoption? Evi-
dence from China. Food Policy 101:102024. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​foodp​ol.​2021.​102024
Li J, Ma W, Zhu H (2024) A systematic literature review of factors influencing the adoption of climate-
smart agricultural practices. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht
Lokshin M, Sajaia Z (2011) Impact of interventions on discrete outcomes: maximum likelihood estima-
tion of the binary choice models with binary endogenous regressors. Stata J 11:368–385. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1177/​15368​67x11​01100​303
Ma W, Abdulai A (2016) Does cooperative membership improve household welfare? Evidence from
apple farmers in China. Food Policy 58:94–102. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​foodp​ol.​2015.​12.​002
Ma W, Abdulai A (2019) IPM adoption, cooperative membership and farm economic performance:
insight from apple farmers in China. China Agric Econ Rev 11:218–236. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​
CAER-​12-​2017-​0251
Ma W, Zhu Z (2021) Internet use and willingness to participate in garbage classification: an investigation
of Chinese residents. Appl Econ Lett 28:788–793. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​13504​851.​2020.​17817​66
Ma W, Abdulai A, Goetz R (2018) Agricultural cooperatives and investment in organic soil amendments
and chemical fertilizer in China. Am J Agric Econ 100:502–520. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​ajae/​aax079
Ma W, Grafton RQ, Renwick A (2020) Smartphone use and income growth in rural China: empirical results
and policy implications. Electron Commer Res 20:713–736. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10660-​018-​9323-x
Ma W, Qiu H, Rahut DB (2022) Rural development in the digital age: does information and communication
technology adoption contribute to credit access and income growth in rural China? Rev Dev Econ
1421–1444. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​rode.​12943
Makate C, Makate M, Mango N, Siziba S (2019a) Increasing resilience of smallholder farmers to climate
change through multiple adoption of proven climate-smart agriculture innovations. Lessons from
Southern Africa. J Environ Manage 231:858–868. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jenvm​an.​2018.​10.​069
Makate C, Makate M, Mutenje M et al (2019b) Synergistic impacts of agricultural credit and exten-
sion on adoption of climate-smart agricultural technologies in southern Africa. Environ Dev
32:100458. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​envdev.​2019.​100458

13
Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2024) 29:19 Page 23 of 24 19

Manda J, Khonje MG, Alene AD et al (2020) Does cooperative membership increase and accelerate
agricultural technology adoption? Empirical evidence from Zambia. Technol Forecast Soc Change
158:120160. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​techf​ore.​2020.​120160
Meena M, Rajesh T, Beer K (2016) Adoption and impact of zero tillage in the rice-wheat production
system of Haryana. Indian J Agric Res 50:584–588. https://​doi.​org/​10.​18805/​ijare.​v50i6.​6677
Meier zu Selhausen F (2016) What determines women’s participation in collective action? Evidence
from a western Ugandan Coffee Cooperative. Fem Econ 22:130–157. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​
13545​701.​2015.​10889​60
MoFA (2015) Agriculture in Ghana. Facts and figures. Statistical Research and Information Directorate
(SRID) 121. Retrieved from: https://​mofa.​gov.​gh/​site/​images/​pdf/​AGRIC​ULTURE-​IN-​GHANA-​
Facts-​and-​Figur​es-​2015.​pdf . Accessed Jul 2023
Mossie WA (2022) The impact of climate-smart agriculture technology on productivity: does row planting
matter? Evidence from Southern Ethiopia. Sci World J 2022. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1155/​2022/​32182​87
Ngigi MW, Muange EN (2022) Access to climate information services and climate-smart agriculture in
Kenya: a gender-based analysis. Clim Change. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10584-​022-​03445-5
Nikam V, Ashok A, Pal S (2022) Farmers’ information needs, access and its impact: evidence from dif-
ferent cotton producing regions in the Maharashtra state of India. Agric Syst 196:103317. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​agsy.​2021.​103317
Obour PB, Arthur IK, Owusu K (2022) The 2020 maize production failure in Ghana: a case study of
Ejura-Sekyedumase municipality. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​su140​63514
Ogieriakhi MO, Woodward RT (2022) Understanding why farmers adopt soil conservation tillage: a sys-
tematic review. Soil Secur 9:100077. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​soisec.​2022.​100077
Ogutu SO, Okello JJ, Otieno DJ (2014) Impact of information and communication technology-based market
information services on smallholder farm input use and productivity: the case of Kenya. World Dev
64:311–321. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​world​dev.​2014.​06.​011
Olagunju KO, Ogunniyi AI, Awotide BA et al (2020) Evaluating the distributional impacts of drought-
tolerant maize varieties on productivity and welfare outcomes: an instrumental variable quantile
treatment effects approach. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​17565​529.​2019.​17014​01
Onyeneke RU, Ankrah DA, Atta-Ankomah R, Agyarko FF, Onyeneke CJ, Nejad JG (2023) Information
and communication technologies and agricultural production: New Evidence from Africa. Appl
Sci 13:3918. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​app13​063918
Otter V, Theuvsen L (2014) ICT and farm productivity: evidence from the Chilean agricultural export
sector. Proc - Ser Gesellschaft fur Inf P 226:113–116
Oyetunde Usman Z, Oluseyi Olagunju K, Rafiat Ogunpaimo O (2020) Determinants of adoption of mul-
tiple sustainable agricultural practices among smallholder farmers in Nigeria. Int Soil Water Con-
serv Res. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​iswcr.​2020.​10.​007
Paudel GP, Gartaula H, Rahut DB, Craufurd P (2020) Gender differentiated small-scale farm mechani-
zation in Nepal hills: an application of exogenous switching treatment regression. Technol Soc
61:101250. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​techs​oc.​2020.​101250
Pauw K (2022) A review of Ghana’s planting for food and jobs program: implementation, impacts, ben-
efits, and costs. Food Secur. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12571-​022-​01287-8
Prah S, Asante BO, Aidoo R et al (2023) Cogent Food & Agriculture Impact of agricultural policy inter-
vention on yield and profitability of maize farmers: the case of Planting for Food and Jobs (PFJ)
programme in Ghana. Cogent Food Agric 9. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​23311​932.​2023.​22499​28
Rajkhowa P, Qaim M (2021) Personalized digital extension services and agricultural performance: evidence
from smallholder farmers in India. PLoS ONE 16:1–23. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1371/​journ​al.​pone.​02593​19
Ranum P, Peña-Rosas JP, Garcia-Casal MN (2014) Global maize production, utilization, and consump-
tion. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1312:105–112. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​nyas.​12396
Raza MH, Khan GA, Shahbaz B, Saleem MF (2020) Effectiveness of information and communication
technologies as information source among farmers in Pakistan. Pakistan J Agric Sci 57:281–288.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​21162/​PAKJAS/​19.​8292
Simtowe F, Marenya P, Amondo E et al (2019) Heterogeneous seed access and information exposure:
implications for the adoption of drought-tolerant maize varieties in Uganda. Agric Food Econ 7.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s40100-​019-​0135-7
Singh RJ, Chauhan JK, Singh R et al (2019) Application of mobile phone agro-advisory services in
climate-smart agriculture: an empirical study with structural equation modelling. 19:75–81
Singh R, Singh R, Singh N et al (2020) Application of smart phone agro-advisory services of m4agri-
NEI in climate smart natural resource management in agriculture by tribal farmers of Meghalaya:
an empirical study with structural equation modeling. J Agric Ecol 09:67–77. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
53911/​jae.​2020.​9108

13
 19 Page 24 of 24 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2024) 29:19

Spielman D, Lecoutere E, Makhija S, Van Campenhout B (2021) Information and Communications

Technology (ICT) and agricultural extension in developing countries. Annu Rev Resour Econ
13:177–201. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1146/​annur​ev-​resou​rce-​101520-​080657
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.​gloen​vcha.​2023.​102697
Tadesse B, Ahmed M (2023) Impact of adoption of climate smart agricultural practices to minimize
production risk in Ethiopia: a systematic review. J Agric Food Res 13:100655. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​jafr.​2023.​100655
Tambo JA, Matimelo M, Ndhlovu M et al (2021) Gender-differentiated impacts of plant clinics on maize
productivity and food security: evidence from Zambia. World Dev 145:105519. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​world​dev.​2021.​105519
Tamirat N (2020) Impact Analysis of Row Planting Teff Crop Technology on Household Welfare:a case
study of Smallholder Farmers of Duna District in Hadiya Zone, Ethiopia. J Econ Sustain Dev
11:4–9. https://​doi.​org/​10.​7176/​jesd/​11-5-​02
Taylor K, Silver L (2019) Smartphone ownership is growing rapidly around the world, but not always
equally. Pew Res Cent 47. Retrieved from: https://​www.​pewre​search.​org/​global/​2019/​02/​05/​smart​
phone-​owner​ship-​is-​growi​ng-​rapid​lyaro​und-​the-​world-​but-​not-​always-​equal​ly/%​0A http://​www.​
pewgl​obal.​org/​2019/​02/​05/​smart​phone-​owner​ship-​isgro​wing-​rapid​ly-​around-​t he-​world-​but-​not-​
always-​equal​ly/. Accessed Aug 2023
Tchamyou VS, Asongu SA, Nwachukwu C (2018) Effects of asymmetric information on market timing in the
mutual fund industry. Int J Manag Financ 14:542–557. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​IJMF-​09-​2017-​0187
Teklewold H, Kassie M, Shiferaw B, Köhlin G (2013) Cropping system diversification, conservation till-
age and modern seed adoption in Ethiopia: impacts on household income, agrochemical use and
demand for labor. Ecol Econ 93:85–93. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ecole​con.​2013.​05.​002
Thuo M, Bell AA, Bravo-Ureta BE et al (2014) Effects of social network factors on information acquisi-
tion and adoption of improved groundnut varieties: the case of Uganda and Kenya. Agric Hum
Values 31:339–353. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10460-​014-​9486-6
Vatsa P, Li J, Luu PQ, Botero-R JC (2022) Internet use and consumption diversity: evidence from rural
China. Rev Dev Econ 1–22. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​rode.​12935
Vishnoi S, Kumar R (2024) Climate smart agriculture for sustainable productivity and healthy land-
scapes. Environ Sci Policy 151:103600. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​envsci.​2023.​103600
Vrain E, Wilson C, Kerr L, Wilson M (2022) Social influence in the adoption of digital consumer innova-
tions for climate change. Energy Policy 162:112800. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​enpol.​2022.​112800
Wainaina P, Tongruksawattana S, Qaim M (2016) Tradeoffs and complementarities in the adoption of
improved seeds, fertilizer, and natural resource management technologies in Kenya. Agric Econ
(United Kingdom) 47:351–362. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​agec.​12235
Weniga AS, Gordon C, Boon E, Musah-Issah Surugu J (2019) Determinants of climate smart agricul-
ture (CSA) adoption among smallholder food crop farmers in the Techiman Municipality, Ghana.
Ghana J Geogr 11:124–139
Wongnaa CA, Awunyo-Vitor D, Mensah A, Adams F (2019) Profit efficiency among maize farmers
and implications for poverty alleviation and food security in Ghana. Sci Afr 6. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​sciaf.​2019.​e00206
Wossen T, Abdoulaye T, Alene A et al (2017) Impacts of extension access and cooperative member-
ship on technology adoption and household welfare. J Rural Stud 54:223–233. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​jrurs​tud.​2017.​06.​022
Wu F, Guo X, Guo X (2023) Cooperative membership and new technology adoption of family farms:
evidence from China. Ann Public Coop Econ 1–21. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​apce.​12433
Zheng H, Ma W, Li G (2021) Learning from neighboring farmers: does spatial dependence affect adop-
tion of drought-tolerant wheat varieties in China? Can J Agric Econ Can D’agroeconomie 69:519–
537. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​cjag.​12294
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/​17565​529.​
2023.​22183​33
Zwane T, Biyase M, Rooderick S (2022) Assessing the impact of social grants on household wel-
fare using propensity score matching approach. Int J Dev Issues. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​
IJDI-​01-​2022-​0024

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

13