Upscaling the Uptake of Climate-Smart Agriculture in Semi-Arid Areas of South Africa

Abstract

Efforts to counteract climate change-induced challenges and increase agricultural productivity are growing across Africa. The Southern African region has observed a continuous myriad of weather extremes and hazard occurrences, impacting agrifood systems. The decline in agrifood systems results in food insecurities. The adoption of Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA) technologies is key to building climate-resilient agricultural systems. CSA adoption is limited by several factors, including a lack of institutional support, deficiencies in policy integration, and insufficient numbers of agricultural advisors. This study was conducted in semi-arid areas in the Free State and Limpopo provinces, South Africa. This manuscript presents the upscaling of CSA towards the enhancement of sustainable agrifood systems. The respondents included of 196 smallholder farmers and 125 agricultural advisors who participated in CSA training. CSA practices include agroecological cropping systems and micro-catchments. Technology transfer requires qualitative and quantitative approaches for adoption efficacy. The CSA Acceptance Model has missing factors that were modified, including usability, profitability, sustainability, and the perceived cost of acceptance. The participatory living laboratory approach was key to using demonstration trials, on-farm training, and training of intermediaries. Through the effectiveness of technology transfer and reciprocal systems, smallholder farmers can transition to commercial levels and contribute to sustainable agrifood systems.

1. Introduction

The world population is expected to increase continuously, reaching 8.5 billion by 2030, 9.7 billion by 2050, and 10.4 billion by 2100 [1]. This population growth creates a pressing need for greater agricultural production and productivity [2,3,4], as well as improvements in food safety, nutritional value, and food security [5,6,7]. In South Africa, the population is projected to rise by about 25% by 2050, reaching approximately 79 million, compared to 63 million in 2025 [8]. Rapid population growth places significant pressure on agricultural resources and contributes to global food security challenges, particularly by diminishing land suitable for farming [9]. Competing land use activities lead to a reduction in land available for subsistence and smallholder farming in many areas of South Africa. Farmers are losing valuable cultivable land due to urban development and inadequate land use management by local municipalities [10,11]. Population pressure arises from the growing human population and the decreasing availability of high-potential agricultural land [1,2].

South Africa’s agricultural community includes a diverse range of farmers, from subsistence and smallholder farmers who cultivate crops in homesteads or rural areas to large-scale commercial farmers engaged in agro-processing [3,4,5]. Concerns about the declining availability of water have grown significantly, driven by increased water demand, climate extremes, irregular rainfall patterns, and seasonal changes [6,7,8]. To sustain agricultural production amid severe climatic challenges, such as extended dry spells worsened by drought, it is essential to support crop producers in adopting water conservation practices and improving crop water productivity [9,10].

Agricultural practices include various techniques for crop cultivation and livestock management, focusing on sustainable systems, land–water use, and pest control [11,12]. These practices depend on environmental factors like soil conditions, topography, temperature, and rainfall [13,14]. Crop yield and livestock adaptability are influenced by genetic makeup, soil types, drainage, organic material, and texture [12,13,14]. The availability of arable land is also affected by climate, soil properties, fertility, and water availability, while agricultural commodities need adequate space, sunlight, temperature, and humidity to grow [12,14,15].

Agricultural productivity is closely linked to soil texture and composition [11,12,16,17]. For example, clay soil significantly affects crop yields due to its densely packed particles, high mineral content, and high water-holding capacity. However, they also exhibit poor aeration, slow warming rates, and high heat retention, all of which influence crop selection and performance [18]. Understanding specific soil conditions and adapting farming practices accordingly is crucial for maximizing agricultural output. In agroecosystems, particularly those in semi-arid and tropical regions, reductions in soil organic matter are often accelerated when soil is disturbed for agricultural use [19].

South Africa and the broader Sub-Saharan region continue to experience extreme weather events with increasing frequency and intensity [20,21,22,23]. These conditions significantly affect agricultural yields, influencing every stage from soil health and crop growth to post-harvest processes [24]. These extreme weather events vary based on meteorological parameters [25]. For instance, prolonged dry spells result in water scarcity and reduced yields [26]; excessive rainfall can drown crops and deplete soil nutrients; high temperatures reduce photosynthesis, leading to lower productivity [27,28]; and late or early frosts can damage plants and decrease yields. Severe storms can devastate fields, damaging both crops and infrastructure, while strong winds can cause physical damage to plants, erode soils, and destroy farm infrastructure [12,15,16,29]. These weather extremes not only lead to crop yield losses but also significantly reduce overall agricultural productivity, contributing to food shortages, declining food quality and safety, and rising food prices due to inflation [16,29,30,31]. In semi-arid regions, dryland crop production occurs where aridity indices range from 0.2 to 0.5 for both winter and summer precipitation, making these systems particularly vulnerable to climatic stressors [32].

Climate change presents numerous challenges, hazards, and risks across the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region, evidenced by the increasing frequency of extreme weather events such as severe frosts, heatwaves, floods, droughts, storm winds, and hailstorms [33]. These events pose complex threats that, due to their multifaceted nature, cause widespread damage to ecological systems, agroecosystems, agroforests, and socioeconomic structures [34,35,36]. In South Africa, the climate crisis is manifesting through erratic precipitation patterns, heightened water sector vulnerabilities, prolonged wet and dry spells, and frequent crop failures due to unpredictable rainfall distribution, waterlogging, and drought-affected soils. South Africa’s agroecosystems are significantly impacted by drought, which leads to dry soils, reduced yields, and accelerated soil degradation [37,38,39,40]. According to [38], water balance in clay and duplex soils in semi-arid areas can be improved using climate-smart agricultural practices that enhance rainwater capture and crop water-use efficiency. Maximizing rainfall utilization for rainfed agriculture is fundamentally tied to the productivity of soil-plant-atmosphere interactions per unit of rainfall [32,38]. Furthermore, understanding the thermo-hydro-mechanical behavior of soils underscores the interconnected influence of soil moisture, temperature regimes, and mechanical stress on soil properties and agricultural response [32,41]. As such, climate-smart practices must be selected and applied based on soil types, local environmental conditions, ecotypes, crop types, and crop suitability.

The fundamental principle of efficient crop precipitation usage depends on optimizing soil water balance components and proper pre-planting planning. The crucial management phases in rainfed production occur between harvesting and planting (subscript f) and throughout the growing season (subscript g) [32]. According to [33], and supported by [32], and [34], for crop production purposes, precipitation can be distributed into different components as follows:

P_g = T_g ± R_g ± D_g ± E_g ± ∆W_g

(1)

where P_g is the seasonal precipitation during the growing season (mm); T_g is the plant root water uptake, which equates to the transpiration loss through evaporation from the plant canopy (mm); R_g refers to runoff (+) or run-on (−) on the soil surface throughout the growing season; D_g refers to deep water drainage beyond the deepest roots (+) and upward flux into the rooting zone (−) (mm); E_g is amount of water evaporated from the soil surface during the growing season (mm); and ΔW_g represents the seasonal change in root zone soil water content (mm). Negative values indicate drier conditions at the end of the seasons, and positive values indicate the retention of soil water content within the root zone. The soil water balance during the fallowing phase of the rain storage can be represented as follows:

∆W_f = P_f ± R_f ± D_f − E_f − T_f

(2)

Therefore, the soil water balance can be arranged in the following manner:

T_g = P_g ± ∆W_g ± R_g ± D_g − E_g

(3)

This means that optimization of the amount of water is necessary for transpiration (T) for maximum plant productivity. In South Africa and other African countries, a varied collection of soil, water, crop, and climate management practices has been tested and applied to achieve optimal crop productivity [35,36]. These practices and techniques face multifaceted barriers to further implementation and expansion, such as access to funding, engineering localized mechanization, community buy-in to developed practices and tools, and determining the life cycle assessment of practices, reduction in farmed area and size, lack of and/or poor farm infrastructure, and increases in agricultural inputs and crop production costs [37,38,39,40]. Regarding CSA awareness, farmers’ knowledge and adoption upscaling in South Africa and many African countries are also lacking [36,38,41].

CSA practices and technologies vary based on farmers’ preferences and their ability to adopt them [42,43,44]. For example, in the Australian context, climate-smart landscaping is characterized by three key features at the farm scale: diversity of land use and its management to achieve social, economic, and ecological impacts [43,44]. In Sub-Saharan Africa, the adoption of climate-smart agricultural practices can mitigate the negative impact of climate change on agriculture by decreasing greenhouse gas emissions and improving soil health [45]. In Southern Africa, this involves the adoption of crop diversification and the use of stress-tolerant cultivars, management of natural resource management technologies, implementation of adaptation and mitigation strategies, and the use of weather forecasting and seasonal predictions [46,47].

This research aimed to assess the extent of climate-smart agriculture adoption at the farm level. It focused on identifying the types of practices established and preferred by farmers. This study considered the following key aspects: the types of practices adopted by farmers, climate-smart agriculture awareness and training, the introduction of mechanized in-field rainwater harvesting, and shear-reversible ploughing. The objective was to identify and address existing gaps in agricultural system management and the adoption of climate-smart agriculture within smallholder farmer settings. Additionally, this research examined the potential for upscaling proven climate-smart agrarian practices for effective water-soil-plant-livestock management. This study addressed critical issues aligned with the principles of climate-smart agriculture, aiming to promote sustainable production, enhance food security and nutrition, assess the adoptability of various adaptation options, and minimize greenhouse gas emissions.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Description of Study Area

This study was conducted in two South African provinces, Free State (Figure 1b) and Limpopo (Figure 1c). The selected sites are located in different agroecological zones and at different altitudes. The Limpopo province proximity is within 24° S 29° E. The province experiences a subtropical climate, which is characterized by hot, humid summers and mild, dry winters. The province entails three prominent climatic zones, the low veld, the middle veld and high veld, which are both semi-arid, and the escarpment, which is sub-humid. The Limpopo province experiences summer rains with about 560 mm to 1000 mm annual rainfall from October to April based on the agroecological zone. The winters are frost-free, with air temperatures ranging from 5 °C to 10 °C, the summer average air temperature is 27 °C, and extreme daily temperatures rise to 48 °C [48]. The topographic variation has a mean altitude ranging from 436 m in the eastern low veld to about 1800 m in the north-eastern escarpment of the province.

The Free State province is located at 28° S 27° E. It is characterized by warm to hot summers, starting around December and lasting until February, and cool to cold winters from June to August. The province experiences most of its precipitation during the summer season with brief thunderstorms, hailstorms, and snowfall in the eastern part. It is located at a high altitude of around 1300 m, which signifies the occurrence of cooler temperatures. The province is considered semi-arid, with annual rainfall decreasing to the west. During summer, it is hot and humid, with an average air temperature of 23 °C. The western part of the province has an average air temperature of 32 °C. The climate in the province varies from warm to temperate, with an annual rainfall ranging from 380 mm in the far west, 560 mm in the middle part, and about 1020 mm in the east.

Figure 1a indicates the annual rainfall projections for 2050. The precipitation projection indicates the intensification of extreme weather conditions and agricultural risks and hazards, which threaten food security, nutrition, systems, and income security for smallholder farmers [49]. To counteract the adverse effects of weather extremes and increase agricultural productivity, the adoption of climate-smart practices and technologies is required.

2.2. Data Collection

The research stakeholders were identified with the assistance of research experts, local agricultural advisors, and their extensions. Data collection was directed at an earmarked group of smallholder farmers and local agricultural advisors from a district at the municipal ward level.

Agricultural advisors in the field assisted with filling out the questionnaires in Lejweleputswa and Mangaung districts in the Free State, Waterberg, and Sekhukhune districts in the Limpopo province. Those who were interviewed met the following selection criteria:

○

Smallholder farmers who were actively involved in crop production (vegetable-to-grain production and mixed farming);

○

Those who demonstrated a willingness to adopt CSA practices and technologies.

Interviews were conducted with randomly selected smallholder farmers in the selected study area. The total number of smallholder farmers interviewed was 196, the number of Agricultural Advisors trained on CSA was 125, and both provinces were included. Formal and informal interviews were conducted using a structured questionnaire with randomly selected households in the selected districts. The questionnaire was used to better understand the participants’ perceptions of the use of CSA practices and technologies for sustainable agroecosystems and food production. Two sets of questionnaires (one for farmers and one for agricultural advisors) were used. The questions were divided into three sections, namely characterization of household demographics, climate adaptation information, and application of CSA practices and technologies. The questions used in the questionnaire were grouped into two sets: closed-ended and open-ended questions. The interviews were conducted with randomly selected households in the study area using the native language by experienced researchers.

Qualitative and quantitative data were collected with the structured questionnaire. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), version 28, was used for the analysis of quantitative data. Qualitative data were analyzed by creating themes and coding responses accordingly. The statistics for numerical data included measures of central tendency. The central tendency results are written means ± standard deviations unless stated otherwise. Frequency tables were produced for all categorical data (multiple-choice-like questions). The percentage includes all interviewees. Tables were integrated at the researcher’s discretion. Percentages were rounded off to 2 digits. Statistical significance was accepted at p ≤ 0.05. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the sample data, and predictions were made for various parameters. The sample data were used to test the hypotheses and draw conclusions.

2.3. Research Approach

This case study highlights multidisciplinary and stakeholder action for impact through climate-smart agriculture practices and technology adoption and expansion to deserving agroecosystems and smallholder farmers. Figure 2 shows the climate-smart theoretical framework for the enhancement of agricultural productivity, food security, and nutrition. The framework elucidates an understanding of policy for agricultural growth, sustainability, and resilience. It incorporates the extent of agroecosystem vulnerability, natural resource management, and improved food systems and security.

These CSA practices and technologies are necessary to counteract the effects of adverse weather, exacerbated by climate change, which is disrupting agricultural productivity, food security, and nutrition, particularly for resource-poor farmers, smallholders, and rural areas. This study inherently adopted a research approach that was based on theoretical and practical demonstrations and evidence. This study approach encapsulated the provision of CSA awareness, education, exposure to different practices, upskilling, and empowering of both farmers and agricultural advisors. CSA training for extension practitioners is vital since their services have a distinctive role as the source of information and knowledge for farmers and the overall agrarian fraternity. This study further included a comparative analysis of CSA case studies, the relevance of Participatory Living Laboratories (PLL), and the Technology Acceptance Model.

3. Results

3.1. Training of Agricultural Advisors

The CSA training and workshops focused on various key topics and the biophysical environment, encompassing the biotic and abiotic factors that interact to shape the biosphere and its agroecosystems. The survey results demonstrated that climate change projections were utilized by the respondents, but those who had access to these data were ill-equipped to interpret and apply them. The climate change projections were unreliable and not point-specific. The Free State (n = 30) and Limpopo (95) agricultural advisors and extension practitioners responded to the survey, and one-on-one interviews (n = 125) on CSA knowledge were conducted to support agricultural management and planning in their respective areas of operations. Qualitative analyses of the workshop dialogue transcripts for essential themes were characterized and complemented with descriptive statistics (

Table 1. Background statistics for 125 respondents who participated in the CSA training for agricultural advisors.

Variables	Classes	Frequency	Valid Percentage (%)	X2 Value	p-Value
Gender	Female	88	70.4	3.91	0.04
	Male	37	29.6
Age	22–32	28	22.4
	33–43	36	28.8	0.33	0.95
	44–54	28	22.4
	55–66	33	26.4
Education	Matriculation	125	100	35.87	<0.001
	Tertiary qualifications	78	62.4
Agricultural Commodity	Crop production	76	60.8
	Livestock	55	44
	Agroforestry	10	8
	Horticulture	15	12
	Mixed farming	33	26.4
	Other	15	12

).

The responses from the respondents indicated that there was an existing latent demand for climate services, climate projection interpretation at the local level, and timely access to the latest seasonal predictions. The investigation presents key themes recommended, as well as challenges and barriers to the use of CSA:

(i)

Climate risks and hazards, together with the key stakeholders, to deliver agricultural-based solutions;

(ii)

The seasonal precision of the temporal aggregation of climate data from climate models, its interpretation, and application for agricultural use;

(iii)

The CSA practices and technology selection, usability, and relevance for agricultural management and productivity toward food and nutrition-secure communities.

A total of 125 agricultural advisors who engaged in the survey and dialogues indicated the need to upscale CSA technologies that were found to be suitable for their area of practice. The results show that the respondents were mostly female (70.4%), and within an age category ranging from 33 to 43 years (28.80%). Notably, the study areas had diversified agricultural commodities, the most popular being crop production (60.80%) and animal production (44%). The 10% agroforestry commodity and mixed farming (26.40%) specifies a gradual increase in the adoption of long-term CSA practice.

Overall, in both provinces, the agricultural advisors emphasized the essential role of CSA technologies and practices in assisting smallholder farmers to manage natural resources, reduce risks, and increase productivity.

3.2. Smallholder Demographic Profiles and Dissemination Tools

3.2.1. Demographic Profile

A sample of 196 farmers was interviewed to ascertain the extent of climate-smart agriculture practices and technology adoption in the semi-arid communities of the Limpopo and Free State provinces. The contextualization of the statistical analysis of the qualitative data indicates that the smallholder farmers were represented by 53% males and 46% females, and about 72% indicated that they were influential household decision-makers, mostly regarding agricultural activities. The remaining 28% consisted of family representatives, youth-led projects, nursery owners, and agro-processors. A significant percentage of the participants, 40.30%, were literate and had obtained matriculation, 36% had obtained post-graduate education, and 23.4% had only a primary education. Interestingly, observations indicated that 32% were retired community members who sought greener pastures in the agricultural sector. The dominating home languages were Sesotho (33.16%), Sepedi (38.77%), and Nguni (21.43%), and 6.63% incorporated other South African languages (Figure 3). The sampled representatives ranged in age from 23 to 78 years, and the dominate age category was from 22 to 32 years, including 31.12% of the respondents. Elderly participants were observed to be highly influential in technological adoption, expansion, and knowledge.

Due to the nature of this study, determining the accessibility to water and the willingness for CSA adoption was fundamental. A total of 31.12% of the participants indicated a lack of water accessibility, followed by 32% who were uncertain about water accessibility since they had no agricultural-related priorities for water use, and only 36.73% highlighted access to water availability for supplementary irrigation during dry spells. The water sources were mentioned to be accessible from the nearby river with water rights, groundwater accessibility, and water harvesting into farm dams. Given the climate conditions in the semi-arid areas, a significant 57.65% indicated willingness to implement one or two CSA practices or technologies; 27.04% were not certain, with this decision based on other interrelated factors that significantly hinder uptake in the longer-term; and 15.30% of the participants were somewhat hesitant based on the following reasons: CSA practices and technology are highly labor intensive, expenses incurred with its uptake, it requires a longer duration for well-establishment, and being uninformed with the transitional processes to new technologies (Figure 3).

3.2.2. Interpretation of Knowledge Dissemination Tools

The effectiveness of CSA knowledge dissemination tools in this study was assessed based on their ability to promote knowledge acquisition, shift attitudes and mindsets, and lead to observable changes in practices and profitability on farms. Effective dissemination was characterized by the use of targeted and tailored agro-advisories that incorporated practical strategies for applying knowledge.

As illustrated in Figure 4, the histogram and dot chart compare the effectiveness (%) and rating (1–10) of various dissemination tools. Information days and workshops emerged as the most effective and highly rated tools, achieving approximately 95% effectiveness and a perfect rating of 10. Manuals and popular papers followed closely, with around 90% effectiveness and a rating of 7. Similarly, localized study groups and community-based research demonstrated strong performance, each exceeding 80% effectiveness, with ratings of between 7 and 8.

An interesting observation is the high rating of the farmer–advisor–researcher approach, which, while not the most effective overall, still showed substantial impact compared to the farmer–researcher method, which had only moderate effectiveness despite receiving a good rating. At the other end of the spectrum, on-farm field schools showed low to moderate effectiveness and only a modest rating. This may be attributed to the farmers’ limited familiarity with this particular approach.

3.3. Upscaling of Climate-Smart Practices and Technologies

Cropping Systems

Agroecological cropping systems and practices are designed to resemble natural processes, reduce reliance on external inputs, improve diversification, and enhance soil health and the entire agroecosystem [50]. Most farmers in the study area had practiced crop rotation, intercropping (maize and legumes, maize and pumpkins), cover cropping (maize with grass species), livestock integration, green manure, reduced tillage, and agroforestry. The agroecological transition redresses agricultural challenges exacerbated by conventional practices, such as soil disturbances, high use of synthetic fertilizers, and monocropping. The adoption of agroecological cropping systems enhances ecological processes, including water use efficiency, biodiversification, recycling organic matter for composting, the flow of energy within food webs, and recycling of nutrients within the agroecosystem.

Agricultural scientists indicate that cropping systems such as conservation agriculture (CA) and regenerative agriculture (RA) are key to promoting soil health, biodiversity, and crop water use efficiency. Adopting CA practices requires a thorough start at a small scale and extension when scientific evidence and optimal productivity are reached. Many studies confirm that the adoption rate of CA was guided by the improvement of awareness, skills, and knowledge. Agroecological distribution ascertains crop suitability and performance in a particular environment. For example, dry-tolerant crops such as sorghum and stooling rye thrive in temperatures ranging from 15 °C to 20 °C but can tolerate a temperature range of 3 °C to 31 °C. When well managed and established, they tolerate cold conditions down to −35 °C. They grow well in annual rainfall of 600 mm to 1000 mm. When well established, they can grow in as little as 400 mm and are relatively drought tolerant.

3.4. In-Field Water Harvesting

In-Field Water Harvesting (IFWH) is one of the most used techniques in Southern Africa in areas characterized by prolonged dry spells, high clay, and duplex soil types. It is an innovative technique that combines water harvesting basins, minimum soil disturbance, mulching, and crop diversification. Water harvesting technique design has several benefits, such as a reduction in run-off while promoting run-on. The evaporation rate can be significantly decreased, mostly during dense crop canopy stages, to enhance flowering. This results in an increase in soil water content within the planted field and higher crop yields [40,51,52,53].

The study area’s smallholder farmers used a variety of in-field water harvesting or micro-catchment systems, including planting pits, raised ridges, triangular bunds, semi-circular bunds, and semi-lunars. The hydrological conceptual model of water dynamics on an agricultural field integrates rainfall-runoff processes, soil infiltration, and plant-water interactions to illustrate the functionality of in-field water harvesting systems. The micro-catchment directs rainfall within the plant basins and serves as a primary surface water input, with the slope gener-ating overland runoff that flows along the sloping length from the ridge to the basin. In the runoff area, a portion of the water infiltrates into the soil profile, contributing to subsurface storage, deep percolation, and evaporative losses, as expressed in Equations (1)–(3). The plant basins range from 1.5 m² (3 m * 0.5 m) to 2 m² (4 m * 0.5 m) and are determined by the type of basin, the slope, and soil type.

As runoff accumulates in the plant basin, additional infiltration occurs into the root zone, sustaining plant water uptake and driving evapotranspiration, while surplus water percolates below the root depth. Evaporation from the soil surface further influences water loss within the basin. This integrated model underscores the spatial heterogeneity of water distribution and highlights the delicate balance among surface flow, soil water retention, and atmospheric losses, providing a robust framework for optimizing water management and enhancing crop resilience under rainfed agro-ecosystems.

Initially, micro-catchment techniques were designed in backyard gardens, but research and engineering led to the manufacturing of mechanization to enable crop production on larger croplands. For example, the reversible shear plough constructs ridges, while the basin plough designs pits. When the two ploughs are utilized, a highly effective IFWH technique is designed, resulting in minimal soil disturbance while enabling water catchment.

3.5. Various Factors Affecting CSA Practices and Technology

The key factors influencing CSA practices and technology adoption may vary depending on the selected participants and the environmental conditions of a specific area. When smallholder farmers and agricultural advisors were asked about the factors affecting CSA practices and technology, the results indicated that institutional support, access to technology, and cultural attitudes are viewed as crucial in promoting CSA adoption. Conversely, although socio-economic factors are important, they were perceived as less influential in comparison. This insight could guide policymakers and agricultural advisors to concentrate their interventions on areas that have the most significant impact on farmers. The trend analysis showed a positive relationship with the regression line y = 6.6044x + 63.302, with an R² value of 0.467, suggesting a moderate correlation, although some factors are highly likely to influence perceptions.

In

Table 2. Descriptive statistics on smallholder farmers’ perceptions of the adoption of CSA technologies and practices.

Smallholder Farmer (n = 196)	CSA Adoption is Viable	CSA is More Productive	Sufficient Resources to Produce	CSA Knowledge Applicability	On-Farm Infrastructure is Effective	Sufficient Support to Adopt CSA	Market Access for the Produce
Mean	4,30	1,68	2,75	4,05	1,64	2,02	3,38
Median	5,00	1,00	2,00	5,00	1,00	1,00	4,00
Mode	5	1	1	5	1	1	5
Std. deviation	1,134	1,269	1,699	1,221	1,137	1,368	1,658
Range	4	4	4	4	4	4	4
Minimum	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Maximum	5	5	5	5	5	5	5

, the descriptive statistics on smallholders’ perceptions indicate that most farmers agree on the strong viability of CSA adoption, as evidenced by the low standard deviation (1.134). However, a significant majority of the farmers disagreed with the notion that CSA is more productive, citing other factors that affect its adoption. They expressed a need for support to acquire the necessary resources for CSA adoption and believed that with the provision of these resources and an upgrade of infrastructure, CSA could be effectively implemented in their context.

3.5.1. Socio-Economic Factors

Farmers’ education, knowledge, and training significantly influence the willingness and the ability to adopt CSA practices. A well-informed and resourceful farmer enables informed decision-making to select the best adaptation strategies. For example, secured land ownership and rights enhance long-term investments in establishing CSA technologies and sustainable land management. CSA technologies and practices, such as designing micro-catchments, mulching, and composting, can be labor-intensive and time-consuming.

Most of the smallholder farmers interviewed (53.57%) were female. Gender is an essential factor in on-farm decision-making and technology adoption, as it is subjective, grounded, and based on family structure and principles as well as socio-economic status. The issues of market accessibility and price inducements are major indicators for technology uptake and sustainable crop production.

3.5.2. Cultural and Behavioral Factors

The ethnic groups in the selected study site had no significant differences in traditional practices and beliefs. In some instances, cultural and indigenous knowledge can play a role in facilitating or hindering the rate of adoption. Farmer-to-farmer knowledge exchange had a significant functional role when deciding on whether to adopt CSA practices, as well as which practices and technologies were most suitable in their locality. In both studies, many agricultural practices were subjective and rooted in traditional knowledge passed down from generation to generation and key community informants. This included methods of land preparation, crop cultivation practices, livestock pasture management systems, and control of diseases and pests. Cultural values are highly related to food types, preferences, nutritional value, and environmental sustainability. Several studies have confirmed the findings from this study: that it is not possible to engineer and control the behavior of complex humans, psychological influences, and ecological systems [54,55]. The farmers (57.65%) demonstrated a willingness to adopt CSA practices and technologies; 27.04% showed indecision in whether to adopt or remain a non-adopter; and only 15.04% were decisive in refraining from adoption. The high number of farmers willing to adopt exhibited behavioral shifts that are important to realize in adoption practices:

✓

From neglected to highly productive land

✓

From unprofitable practices to sustainable agroecosystems

✓

From fixed preferences to domains of knowledge and CSA practices

✓

From individual farming to integrated community-based cooperatives

✓

From unsustainable practices to nature-dependent sustainable agroecological systems

3.5.3. Environmental Factors

The selected study areas are located in semi-arid areas with an annual rainfall average of between 200 and 600 mm, and 83% of the farmers operated on soils with clay contents ranging from 60% to 80%. The selection of CSA technology depends on soil type and quality. The fluctuations in temperature, rainfall patterns, and the occurrence of extreme weather events influence the importance and the CSA adaptation interventions suitable to mitigate the adverse effects. Water accessibility and reliability have a significant effect on the rate of water-efficient technology adoption, such as drip irrigation and drought-resistant crop varieties. Smallholder farmers dependent on rainfed crop production are most vulnerable to prolonged dry spells, which result in crop failure. Some of the smallholder farmers had water reliability and could provide supplementary irrigation (36.73%), while 31.12% were highly affected by water scarcity and lacked the means to access other water resources. A portion (32.14%) of smallholder farmers indicated the necessity for reliable water resource accessibility; however, they could produce crops under vulnerable environmental conditions. The adoption of CSA necessitates the enhancement of local biodiversity and ecological services utilized for income generation.

3.5.4. Technological Factors

Key technological CSA factors include availability, affordability, compatibility, and complexity of implementation, as well as farmers’ perceived ease of use, profitability, and usefulness. In the study area, the specific technological factors relevant to CSA are dependent on local agroecological zones, crop type selection, crop cultivar, cropping systems, water-efficient micro-catchments, mulching, soil health and fertility, and dependency on nature-based solutions.

As a key social element, the highest level of formal education was tested among smallholder farmers.

Most smallholder farmers (40.31%) matriculated and obtained some form of post-graduation qualifications. Less than a quarter (23.47%) had only completed primary schooling, and 36.22% had completed matriculation. Smallholder farmers and agricultural advisors with higher levels of education were more likely to adopt a variety of CSA practices and technologies. This is because awareness transforms knowledge, mindset, attitudes, and enhances the capabilities of the adopter. Adoption of the CSA approach provides adopters with stronger on-farm problem identification and solving skills. Technology knowledge enables critical thinking and endorsement of effective use of knowledge applications. With 23.47% of smallholder farmers having a primary level education, there is a need to promote agricultural advisor training for the emancipation of ill-informed farmers. Education standards have a significant impact on the adoption of CSA technologies and practices through numerous interdependent factors:

✓

Well-informed smallholder farmers and intermediaries are more likely to seek out knowledge on the use of CSA practices and technologies effectively.

✓

Informed smallholder farmers are more likely to be aware of the existence of new technologies and their integration into on-farm operations.

✓

Higher knowledge levels foster a greater willingness to adopt CSA practices and technologies.

✓

Knowledge levels improve economic opportunities, providing individuals with the financial means to purchase and maintain new technologies.

✓

Key informants and knowledgeable intermediaries serve as role models, influencing others in the community to adopt water-efficient technologies.

✓

High knowledge levels correlate with great technological literacy, enabling smallholder farmers to gain optimal crop productivity.

3.5.5. Institutional and Policy Factors

Institutional and policy factors create the environment necessary for the upscaling and sustainable adoption of CSA. Several key influences, such as the following, affect these institutional factors:

✓

Accessibility of agricultural extension services and farming training in disseminating knowledge about CSA practices and technology, and confidence among farmers to adopt new methods (e.g., drought-tolerant seeds, agroforestry, conservation agriculture);

✓

Strong collaborations with research institutions for developing tailor-made climate-resilient solutions to local conditions;

✓

Accessibility of affordable credit, agricultural grants, and insurance to promote investments in CSA technologies (e.g., improved cultivars, seeds, and irrigation systems);

✓

Reliable accessibility to the market and infrastructure to influence the profitability of CSA products, proper storage, and transportation;

✓

Land tenure security encourages farmers to invest in CSA practices with long-term benefits, such as agroforestry, silvopasture, and soil conservation;

✓

Policy alignment ensures that climate, agriculture, and economic development goals support national climate adaptation strategies.

4. Upscaling CSA Adoption

4.1. Modeling the Uptake of CSA Practices and Technologies

The design of CSA interventions requires a fundamental understanding of natural resource management, and its capabilities based on agroecological zones. South African agroecologies incorporate humid, moist subhumid, dry subhumid, semi-arid, and arid zones [56]. In South Africa’s semi-arid regions, such as the Northern Cape, Eastern Cape, Free State, and Limpopo, CSA is essential due to irregular rainfall, high temperatures, and increasing drought risk, pests and disease outbreaks, and other risks and hazards.

The CSA technology acceptance model (TAM) indicates factors encompassing the adoption of new knowledge, practices, and technologies. This study focused on reviewing and modifying models and designing a suitable model that could be applied to the study area. The ultimate purpose of the model is to reach the endpoint where the most affected communities adopt and benefit from CSA technologies. This investigation identified several factors influencing the adoption of CSA technologies by smallholder farmers: (1) relative advantage, referring to innovations that improve existing alternatives; (2) complexity, or how difficult the innovation is to understand and utilize; (3) trialability, or the extent to which an innovation to be tested to determine pros and cons; (4) observability, or how visible and attractive its benefits are to non-users; and (5) compatibility, the extent to which the innovation is consistent with the needs of the adopters (Figure 5). The model also incorporated three additional factors: (6) the extent to which the innovation is sustainable over time and preserves soil health; (7) the usability of the technology and its ability to maximize poor farmers’ use of natural resources; and (8) the extent to which the innovation produces optimal agricultural produce (Figure 5).

The CSA innovation and its model require consistency in key concepts towards ensuring a high rate of adoption by the target and affected farming groups. The key concepts related to the following: (a) the extent of knowledge generation including local or indigenous and science-based knowledge systems, (b) the platforms that are designed to share knowledge with the target groups, (c) how the knowledge is packaged and disseminated with the provision of two-way feedback to the farming communities, and lastly, (d) the various channels of information distributed and made available to all stakeholders in the farming community. CSA practices vary in resource intensity and are selected based on resource availability, local agroecological zones, and implementation feasibility. The perceived usefulness of CSA reflects the confidence that adopting these technologies and practices will improve agricultural efficiency, enhance the quality and quantity of produce, and increase profitability.

The perceived cost of adoption relates to the financial investment required for implementation, which influences the long-term sustainability of the innovation. Additionally, the perceived ease of use refers to how effortlessly a particular practice can be implemented. Farmers can choose and adopt CSA practices that best align with their agricultural goals, ultimately influencing innovation acceptance and the rate of adoption. The extent of CSA adoption is shaped by both societal and economic factors, including resource availability, environmental conditions, awareness and perception, affordability, willingness to invest, and perceived usefulness.

4.2. Participatory Living Laboratory in CSA

Climate-induced agroecosystem challenges require a multidisciplinary approach to address relevant aspects of agricultural risks and hazards. The context of PLL in CSA provides a community agricultural initiative where a multidisciplinary team and local farmers collaborate to address the issue of crop failure in semi-arid areas. The main objective of using PLL was to promote CSA practices, such as IFWH, conservation agriculture, and drought-resistant crops. On-farm demonstration trials and farmer training were held concurrently to build local resilience, strengthen knowledge co-creation, and support policy integration. The PLL activities used with farmer participation were seasonal climate predictions, climate risk mapping, exploration of early warning systems, and farmer field schools for discussing trial outcomes and reiteration of practices adopted.

This study identified several similarities and differences in terms of approaches, challenges, and implementation. There are some similarities in the broad categories of CSA practices, but there are also differences in the specific techniques adopted depending on the local context and farmer preferences. In both provinces, similarities are focused on hunger for CSA knowledge, requirements for institutional support, water use efficiency, soil conservation practices, biodiversification, and pasture–livestock management.

Table 3. Differences between the semi-arid regions in selected regions.

Feature	Free State Province	Limpopo Province
Rainfall	Moderate but erratic (300–600 mm/year)	Slightly higher rainfall (600–800 mm/year)
Temperature	Severe frost, below 0 °C in July/August	Frost-free planting occurs year-round
Soil water retention	Lower; CSA focuses more on water conservation (e.g., mulching, IFWH)	Better retention allows for slightly diverse cropping systems
Crop diversity	Limited to drought-tolerant crops and cultivars	Greater flexibility in crop choices
Grazing systems	Pastoralism is more dominant; rotational grazing and silvopasture management	Mixed crop-livestock systems are more common, e.g., fodder integration
Water management	Emphasis on rainwater harvesting, micro-irrigation, and micro-catchment	More potential for small-scale irrigation or supplemental irrigation
Risk management	Higher risk of crop failure; CSA must prioritize resilience	Moderate risk for crop failure; CSA promotes both resilience and modest intensification

presents the differences occurring in the semi-arid and the sub-semi-arid regions.

4.3. CSA Comparative Analysis

The comparative analysis was used to explore CSA technologies and practices established in different regions and countries. We also looked at how technologies contribute to sustainable agricultural development while addressing climate variability and change.

Table 4. Comparative analysis of international CSA case studies.

Region/ Country	Policy Framework	Technologies/ Practices	Institutional Support	Key Challenges	Climate Impact Focus
India	National Mission for Sustainable Agric.	Drought-resistant crops, micro-irrigation, conservation agriculture	ICAR, Krishi Vigyan Kendras	Fragmented farms, uneven access to CSA technology	Drought, flood resilience
United States	USDA Climate Hubs	Precision agriculture, no-till, rotational grazing, carbon farming	USDA, NRCS, private sector	Political pushback, scale of emissions, high-tech cost	Carbon sequestration, resilience to drought/floods
Brazil	Low-Carbon Agriculture Plan	Integrated crop–livestock–forestry pasture restoration, bio-inputs	EMBRAPA, Ministry of Agriculture	Deforestation pressures, land tenure issues	Emissions reduction, forest conservation
Kenya	Kenya CSA Strategy	Agroforestry, rainwater harvesting, conservation tillage, drought-tolerant seeds	Ministry of Agriculture, NGOs	Capital constraints, smallholder fragmentation	Drought, soil erosion, crop failure
Netherlands	Dutch Climate Agreement	Precision agriculture, vertical farming, renewable energy in agri-systems	Wageningen UR, EU, private sector	Energy-intensive tech, land scarcity	Emissions neutrality, methane reduction in livestock
South Africa	Agriculture Master Plan	Climate-smart grazing, conservation agriculture, smart irrigation, indigenous knowledge systems	ARC, DEFF, CSIR, local cooperatives	Water scarcity, socio-economic inequality, dual agri-economy	Water stress, drought resilience, carbon-neutral development
Sahel (e.g., Niger, Mali)	CSA Regional Program	Farmer-managed natural regeneration, agroforestry, pits, composting	IFAD, FAO, regional alliances, NGOs	Desertification, extreme poverty, fragile ecosystems	Combating desertification, resilience to erratic rainfall
Middle East (e.g., Jordan, Israel)	Desert Agriculture Initiatives	Drip irrigation, salt-tolerant crops, hydroponics, wastewater reuse	ICARDA, national R&D centers	Extreme water scarcity, salinity, conflict-affected zones	Water efficiency, heat stress tolerance
Australia	National CSA Framework	Rotational grazing, carbon farming, perennial crops, digital monitoring systems	CSIRO, RDCs, State Depts of Agriculture	Bushfires, extreme weather, rural decline	Drought adaptation, fire resilience, carbon sequestration

presents a structured summary and content for CSA case studies implemented in different regions. The South African uniqueness is demonstrated by its National Agricultural Master Plan, which integrates science-based and indigenous knowledge domains. The best CSA innovations are relatively aligned with Water-Smart and Climate-Smart innovations [58,59,60].

5. Limitations of This Study

In the selected study areas, the adoption of CSA is constrained by several interrelated challenges. A major barrier is the limited access of most smallholder farmers to finance and credit, which hinders their ability to invest in CSA technologies. In remote regions, low awareness of CSA practices, compounded by inadequate advisory and extension services, further impedes adoption. Policy and institutional shortcomings also limit the upscaling and effective implementation of CSA initiatives.

Additionally, many studies take a top-down approach that neglects indigenous knowledge and local innovations, leading to lower adoption rates. CSA research is often tied to short-term donor-funded projects, which lack the time and resources needed to evaluate long-term impacts or sustainability. Additionally, studies frequently fail to adequately assess the trade-offs involved in implementing CSA practices, resulting in an incomplete understanding of their broader implications. There is also a notable scarcity of long-term research that evaluates CSA interventions across multiple seasons and climate cycles. This gap limits insights into the durability and adaptability of CSA under evolving climate conditions. Overall, methodological and conceptual limitations underscore the need for more holistic, inclusive, and long-term research approaches to better inform CSA policy and practice.

6. Conclusions

This study provides insights into CSA practices and technologies in the semi-arid agro-ecological zone and the importance of the upscaling these technologies for the enhancement of agricultural productivity, environmental conditions, food security, and socio-economic status. This study identified farmer typologies based on CSA practices and technology targeting. Smallholder farmers in semi-arid areas face a myriad of agricultural and climatic challenges, requiring CSA knowledge, funding support for technology upscaling, tailored interventions, and well-structured communication methods.

The increase in adoption of CSA increases its three pillars—production, adaptation, and mitigation—thus increasing vegetation productivity, biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reducing water run-off and land degradation within the croplands. Smallholder farmers implementing agroecological cropping systems prioritize sustainability, socio-ecological balance, and livelihoods. Crop diversification, water management, and soil health are key to sustainable agroecosystems. The integration of livestock, crop production, and agroforestry enhances biodiversity and provides manure for soil fertility and weed control. The types of micro-catchments were designed based on the slope and the clay content of the soil. IFWH technology has proven to be highly effective for agricultural and pastoral productivity. The success of the technology is determined by the principles of technology and the knowledge transfer used.

The use of technology transfer tools leads to concrete findings on the innovation enhancement; for example, the modification of CSA practices and technologies to reach optimal agricultural productivity. Technology transfer must be oriented to smallholder farmers, together with other key stakeholders for co-creation and understanding of localized environmental conditions, allowing for reciprocal learning and knowledge sharing.

Participatory living laboratories have proven to be effective tools, as they incorporate various disciplines, bringing different perspectives to the challenges and facilitating the development of locally based solutions. In this specific case study, which is affected by a myriad of climate-related risks, this participatory process has aided in establishing CSA techniques and practices as an adaptation strategy. This collaborative approach fosters a range of innovations that are locally applicable for crop productivity. This approach ensures that CSA strategies are not only scientifically sound but also locally adapted, socially inclusive, and practically feasible.

While farmers recognize the potential and relevance of CSA, their adoption is hindered by low productivity perceptions, inadequate infrastructure, and lack of institutional support. Addressing these bottlenecks, such as improving on-farm infrastructure, and technical support, and demonstrating CSA productivity benefits, is critical for broader CSA uptake. The policy intervention must address productivity doubts, infrastructure gaps, and support system deficiencies. A multi-dimensional approach combining infrastructure investment, knowledge dissemination, institutional strengthening, and market support will be crucial for unlocking the potential of CSA among smallholders.