Factors supporting the adoption of soil conservation practices: Evidence from Ecuadorian smallholder farmers

Abstract

The modernization of agricultural practices has been widespread in South America since the 1970s. The main practices implemented included the use of fertilizers and phytosanitary control based on synthetic elements, and agricultural mechanization for plowing. These activities affect soil quality and make soils more dependent on fertilizer imports throughout the continent. At the same time, the intensification of agricultural activity also increased CO 2 emissions in South America from less than 150 thousand gigagrams in 1977 to more than 280 thousand gigagrams in 2017, which translates into a greater burden of agriculture on the environment. Ecuador is one of the South American countries that share several social, climatic, and topographic characteristics common in the region; therefore, it is interesting to study the factors that help mitigate soil erosion processes resulting from agricultural activity.For this purpose, this study performs the estimation of a Tobit model with the information of the agricultural units with seasonal crops present in the Continuous Agricultural Surface and Production Survey of 2018. For the model approach, the number of soil conservation practices (SCP) in each farm is considered as the dependent variable. The estimation results show that there is a positive relationship between farms that are managed by women and the number of SCP implemented: the same result was obtained with respect to agricultural investment by local governments. However, it was found that farms with government technical assistance implemented fewer SCPs, which opens the debate on the importance of soil conservation in public policy.

A global systematic literature review on sustainable soil management practices (1994–2022)

“…A few studies from the recent years discussed the adoption level or adoption intensity as the number of adopted practices. They utilized areas under SSMP for the case of determinants of adoption intensity (Mairura et al, 2022; Oduniyi et al, 2023; Tapia & Bermeo, 2022; Teshager Abeje et al, 2019; Yang & Sang, 2020). Socio‐economic, infrastructural and institutional factors, farm characteristics and social networks, characteristics of the technologies were considered as obvious determinants of SSMP diffusion in all over the years (Amusa et al, 2016; Anik et al, 2022; Aznar‐Sánchez et al, 2020; Cary et al, 2002; Issahaku & Abdul‐Rahaman, 2019; Lobry de Bruyn & Andrews, 2016; Mwaura et al, 2021; Nyangena, 2008; Oduniyi et al, 2023; Pender & Gebremedhin, 2008; Prager & Posthumus, 2010; Schneider et al, 2012; Skaalsveen et al, 2020; Teshager Abeje et al, 2019).…”

“…Subsequently, many researchers have made efforts to address both adoption probability and intensity determinants. Adoption intensity is often defined as the number of adopted practices, as seen in studies by Mairura et al (2022), Tapia and Bermeo (2022), Oduniyi et al (2023), and Teshager Abeje et al (2019). Mwaura et al (2021) focused on adoption intensity by considering the area under the usage of mulch and manure.…”

“…Despite of evidence of benefits, there is low adoption of sustainable farm practices, especially low adoption of SSMP. The low adoption of sustainable farm practices limits interventions for reversing the detrimental trend of soil and environmental degradation (Olum et al, 2020; Tapia & Bermeo, 2022; Teshager Abeje et al, 2019; Yang & Sang, 2020). Recent reviews reported on the drivers of SSMP adoption from different geographic and environmental contexts.…”

Agroecosystem services: From general assessment to policy implications

“…Evidently, there is a great potential of these agricultural practices to influence a wide array of agroecosystem services (Schipanski et al., 2014). However, many of these measures are to be adopted by farmers, and their decision may be influenced by socio‐economic, cultural and demographic, as well as psychological factors (Kassie et al., 2009; Kerse, 2018; Knowler & Bradshaw, 2007; Shiferaw et al., 2009; Singaña Tapia & Satama Bermeo, 2022; Teklewold et al., 2013; Timberlake et al., 2022; Winthrop, 2014). Adopting novel practices often implies additional costs, but at the same time, it can generate additional benefits for farmers (Takatsuka et al., 2011).…”