Authors : Bridget Chooma; Dr. Mabele Siatwinda

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 7 - July

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/4su9m6jt

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/y73zyv77

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26jul1166

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : Climate change is one of the significant threats to agricultural productivity and food security in sub-Saharan Africa, whereby smallholder farmers that depend entirely on rain-fed agriculture are more susceptible to climate change than other farming communities. In Zambia, increasing climate variability increases the need for relevant and appropriate climate information to inform decisions related to agriculture. Agricultural extension plays a critical role in facilitating the use of climate information in making appropriate decisions that increase the adaptive capacity of farmers and promote Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA). Although a lot of resources have been devoted to providing climate information services, little research has been done to compare the effectiveness of different models of extension in providing climate information. The present study seeks to evaluate the effectiveness of different extension delivery models in disseminating climate information and how they influence CSA adoption by smallholder farmers in Kasenengwa and Monze districts in Zambia. The research adopts a convergent mixed methods research approach whereby a combination of quantitative household surveys, key informant interviews, and focus group discussions was conducted. Findings reveal that participatory models of extension, such as Farmer Field Schools, PICSA, and lead farmer models, perform better compared to traditional non-participatory approaches in the promotion of CSA adoption. However, institutional constraints, including inadequacy in extension staffing, poor coordination among institutions, inadequate transportation network, and lack of ICT connectivity, limit the efficacy of extension service delivery.

Keywords : Climate-Smart Agriculture, Agricultural Extension, Climate Information Services, Climate Adaptation, Smallholder Farmers, Zambia.

References :

1. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE Publications.
2. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
3. Davis, K. (2020). Agricultural extension in transition: Challenges and opportunities for developing countries. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 26(2), 105–120.
4. Dinku, T., Clarkson, G., & Hansen, J. W. (2021). Climate services for resilient agriculture in Africa. Frontiers in Climate, 3, 657914.
5. Food and Agriculture Organization. (2019). Climate-smart agriculture sourcebook (2nd ed.). FAO.
6. Food and Agriculture Organization. (2022). The State of Food and Agriculture 2022: Leveraging automation in agriculture for transforming agrifood systems. FAO.
7. Faure, G., Desjeux, Y., & Gasselin, P. (2020). New challenges in agricultural advisory services from a research perspective. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 26(2), 179–190.
8. Hansen, J. W., Vaughan, C., & Dinku, T. (2019). Climate services can support African farmers' adaptation to climate change. Nature Climate Change, 9(5), 337–339.
9. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2022). Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Cambridge University Press.
10. Kpadonou, R. (2020). Determinants of Climate-Smart Agriculture adoption in sub-Saharan Africa: A review of empirical evidence.
11. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
12. Scoones, I. (2021). Sustainable livelihoods and rural development. Practical Action Publishing.
13. Vaughan, C., & Dessai, S. (2014). Climate services for society: Origins, institutional arrangements, and design elements for an evaluation framework. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5(5), 587–603.
14. World Meteorological Organization. (2021). State of climate services 2021. World Meteorological Organization.