Abstract
Introduction:
Adoption of conservation agriculture (CA) practices remains a key strategy for building climate resilience among smallholder farmers in dryland regions. This study examines perceived drivers of CA adoption among smallholder farmers in Gwanda District’s semi-arid environments using Zimbabwe’s Pfumvudza/Intwasa programme, the country’s flagship CA initiative, as a case study.
Methods:
A convergent parallel mixed-methods design was employed, combining quantitative surveys (380 administered; n = 307 valid responses, 80.8% response rate) with qualitative data from key informant interviews (n = 20) and focus group discussions (n = 16). Stratified random sampling was used for surveys and purposive sampling for qualitative components across eight wards. Data were analysed using SPSS for descriptive and inferential statistics and NVivo for thematic coding, with triangulation enhancing validity across sources.
Results:
Access to free or subsidized inputs emerged as the strongest adoption driver (89%), with significant gender differences (men 95%, women 85%; p = 0.005). Expected yield improvements motivated 71% of respondents, while climate stress and drought resilience, though under-reported in surveys (21%), dominated qualitative narratives as fundamental push factors. Training and technical support (24%) and community influence (33%) served as critical enablers and government policies demonstrated minimal direct motivational impact (2%), though key informants highlighted its indirect role in building programme credibility.
Conclusion:
Conservation agriculture adoption in this semi-arid context is driven primarily by material incentives and immediate survival needs rather than long-term climate resilience objectives. Heavy dependence on external input provision threatens programme sustainability, requiring deliberate transition strategies toward farmer independence. Gender-responsive interventions are essential, as women face distinct barriers necessitating intensified capacity-building support. Policy recommendations include establishing input credit schemes, strengthening extension systems, formalising institutional coordination, and developing market linkages, measures critical for advancing long-term sustainability and farmer empowerment.
1 Introduction
Climate change poses unprecedented challenges to agricultural productivity and food security in sub-Saharan Africa, with smallholder farmers in semi-arid regions particularly vulnerable to increasing temperatures, erratic rainfall patterns, and recurrent droughts (; ). Zimbabwe exemplifies these challenges, having experienced severe droughts in recent decades that have devastated traditional farming systems and deepened food insecurity (; ). In response, the Government of Zimbabwe introduced the Pfumvudza/Intwasa programme in 2020 as a climate-smart conservation agriculture initiative designed to enhance productivity, build resilience, and ensure food security among resource-constrained smallholder farmers (; ). These terms are different but related. Conservation agriculture (CA) refers to the suite of farming practices centred on minimum soil disturbance, permanent organic soil cover, and crop diversification; climate-smart agriculture (CSA) denotes the broader policy framework that promotes CA and related approaches to simultaneously enhance productivity, build resilience, and reduce emissions (); and the Pfumvudza/Intwasa programme is Zimbabwe’s specific government-led CA initiative implemented within the CSA policy context. While the three concepts are closely related, they are not synonymous and are used precisely in this paper to reflect these distinctions. The Pfumvudza/Intwasa programme, whose name translates to “new season” in Shona and Ndebele, respectively, represents a significant shift from conventional farming practices toward intensive, small-plot conservation agriculture (). The programme’s core features include concentration of limited inputs on standardized plots (typically 39 m × 16 m), precision planting using planting basins spaced at specific intervals, mulching for moisture retention, and integrated provision of seed and fertilizer packages (). By focusing resources on manageable plot sizes and employing water-harvesting techniques, the programme aims to maximize productivity per unit area while minimizing risk in drought-prone environments ().
Despite rapid initial uptake across Zimbabwe’s communal farming areas, questions persist regarding the sustainability and scalability of the programme (; ). Understanding what drives farmer participation is fundamental to evaluating programme viability, as adoption decisions reflect complex interactions between economic incentives, social influences, environmental pressures, institutional support mechanisms, and household circumstances (; ). While the Pfumvudza/Intwasa programme operates within multiple policy frameworks including the National Agriculture Policy Framework (2019-2030) and Climate-Smart Agriculture Policy (2018), evidence suggests a significant disconnect between policy formulation and effective implementation in Zimbabwe’s agricultural sector (). A recent systematic review has highlighted that these policies emphasize CA, inclusive participation, and resource distribution, yet face persistent challenges including inadequate institutional coordination, limited extension services, and funding constraints that undermine programme sustainability (). Understanding this policy-implementation gap from the farmer perspective is critical for programme refinement.
Previous research on conservation agriculture adoption in Zimbabwe and neighbouring countries identifies multiple influencing factors. demonstrated that institutional support, particularly through input provision, significantly affects adoption decisions. documented high abandonment rates among smallholder conservation agriculture adopters, attributing discontinuation to labour demands and uncertain benefits. highlighted how women farmers face gendered barriers including limited access to inputs, credit, and extension services, leading to lower adoption rates. However, these studies predominantly focus on generic conservation agriculture practices rather than the specific Pfumvudza/Intwasa model, and few employ mixed methods designs that capture both quantitative patterns and qualitative contextual insights. Furthermore, while systematic analyses have documented the role of government policies and institutional frameworks in sustaining conservation agriculture in Zimbabwe (), farmer-level perceptions of these policies as adoption drivers remain unexplored. Understanding this disconnect between formal policy frameworks and farmer motivations is critical for bridging implementation gaps and informing more responsive programme governance.
The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) provides valuable conceptual grounding for understanding adoption drivers by examining how farmers mobilize different forms of capital, (namely, financial, natural, physical, human, and social) to pursue livelihood strategies within vulnerability contexts and transforming structures (; ; ). This framework helps explain how resource access, skill development, social networks, and institutional arrangements shape technology adoption decisions. Complementing this perspective, the Climate Resilience Framework (CRF) distinguishes between absorptive capacity (coping with shocks), adaptive capacity (adjusting practices), and transformative capacity (fundamental system change), offering insights into whether programmes build genuine resilience or merely provide short-term relief (; ).
Within Zimbabwe’s specific context, transforming structures include government policies and institutional frameworks that either enable or constrain farmer access to resources and support systems. Literature reveals significant institutional coordination gaps, policy misalignment, and resource allocation inefficiencies that shape the environment within which the Pfumvudza/Intwasa programme operates (). These structural factors form the backdrop against which individual farmer adoption decisions occur, highlighting the importance of examining both policy frameworks and farmer-level motivations to understand the full adoption landscape.
This study addresses critical knowledge gaps by providing the first comprehensive mixed-methods assessment of Pfumvudza/Intwasa adoption drivers in Gwanda District, a semi-arid region typifying Natural Regions IV and V where climate vulnerability is most acute. By triangulating farmer surveys, stakeholder interviews, and focus group discussions, the study captures both the statistical prevalence of various drivers and the contextual meanings farmers attach to their participation decisions. Specific attention to gender dimensions reveals how men and women experience different pathways to adoption, informing more inclusive programme design. The study’s pragmatic focus on one district allows deep contextual understanding while generating findings relevant to similar semi-arid environments across southern Africa.
The primary research question guiding this investigation is: What are the key drivers influencing smallholder farmers’ adoption of the Pfumvudza/Intwasa programme in Gwanda District as perceived by farmers and other stakeholders? This question is operationalized through specific inquiries examining the relative importance of economic factors (input access, yield expectations), environmental factors (climate stress, soil degradation), social factors (peer influence, community mobilization), institutional factors (extension support, policy frameworks), and how these drivers vary by gender and other socio-demographic characteristics. Understanding these dynamics is essential for designing sustainable, scalable climate-smart agriculture interventions that move beyond short-term coping mechanisms toward genuine resilience building.
2 Methods
2.1 Study area
The present research was conducted in Gwanda District, Matabeleland South Province, Zimbabwe (latitude −21° 29′59.99″S, longitude 29° 29′59.99″E). The district falls across Natural Regions IV and V, characterized by semi-arid conditions with low and unpredictable rainfall patterns and frequent droughts (; ). Gwanda North receives an average annual rainfall of approximately 380 mm while Gwanda South receives 300 mm, with a rainfall season extending from October to April (). The region’s socio-economic context is dominated by small-scale subsistence crop production and livestock farming, with most households engaged in cultivation of maize, sorghum, and millet (). Soil fertility is generally low, and farmers frequently lack access to quality seeds and fertilizers (). These agro-ecological and socio-economic challenges, characterized by erratic rainfall, recurrent droughts, and resource constraints, make Gwanda District an ideal setting for evaluating CA interventions designed to enhance climate resilience among smallholder farmers.
2.2 Research philosophy and design
This study adopted a pragmatist research philosophy, prioritizing practical problem-solving over adherence to single paradigmatic positions (; ). Pragmatism allowed the integration of both quantitative and qualitative methods to comprehensively address the research questions about adoption drivers. An intrinsic case study design was employed, focusing specifically on Gwanda District as a bounded system characterized by unique socio-economic, climatic, and agricultural conditions (; ). This design enabled in-depth examination of the Pfumvudza/Intwasa programme within its real-world context.
A convergent parallel mixed-methods approach was implemented, whereby quantitative and qualitative data were collected simultaneously, analysed independently, and then integrated during interpretation (). This design facilitated triangulation across multiple data sources, enhancing validity and providing both statistical breadth and contextual depth (; ).
2.3 Population and sampling
The target population comprised smallholder farmers actively participating in the Pfumvudza/Intwasa programme and key stakeholders involved in programme implementation across Gwanda District’s 24 wards (total district population: 31,473 households (). Two complementary sampling strategies were employed.
For the quantitative survey, stratified random sampling was used to select 380 farmers from eight wards (four wards in Gwanda North, and four in Gwanda South). Sample size was determined using Cochran’s formula with 95% confidence level and 5% margin of error:
Where N = 31,473, Z = 1.96, p = 0.5, e = 0.05, yielding n ≈ 380. The eight wards were purposively selected based on active Pfumvudza/Intwasa implementation and accessibility. Within each ward, farmers were stratified by zone (Gwanda North vs. South) to account for climatic differences, then randomly selected from participation lists provided by AGRITEX officers (). Of the 380 questionnaires administered, 307 were returned fully completed and deemed suitable for analysis, yielding a response rate of 80.8%. The remaining 73 questionnaires were excluded due to incomplete responses (n = 45), withdrawal before answering all questions despite giving initial consent (n = 18), and illegible entries (n = 10). Prior to analysis, all returned questionnaires were screened for missing data and internal consistency, no imputation was applied, and only complete cases were retained.
For qualitative components, purposive sampling was used to select 20 key informants representing diverse institutional perspectives: eight frontline AGRITEX extension officers, two district/provincial agricultural heads, two NGO field officers, four traditional village heads, and four elected ward councillors (). This sample size aligns with methodological guidelines indicating that 12-20 purposively sampled interviews typically achieve thematic saturation in relatively homogeneous contexts (; ).
Sixteen focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted across the eight selected wards (two FGDs per ward), with 12–20 participants per session. This design ensured geographic representation while allowing within-ward comparison of experiences ().
2.4 Data collection instruments and procedures
Four complementary methods were employed. Semi-structured questionnaires gathered quantitative data on demographics, farming practices, yields, income, and adoption drivers, combining closed-ended items for statistical analysis with open-ended questions for qualitative insights. Questionnaires were piloted with 10 farmers, refined, and self-administered with research assistant support (; ). Key informant interviews employed semi-structured protocols to elicit stakeholder perspectives on programme implementation, policy frameworks, and institutional support. Interviews (35–60 min) were audio-recorded with consent and conducted in offices or community spaces (). Interview guides were piloted with two councillors (). FGDs facilitated dialogue on collective experiences and shared perceptions of Pfumvudza/Intwasa. FGDs followed structured guides, were moderated by a trained facilitator, lasted approximately 90 min, and were audio-recorded. One pilot FGD refined facilitation techniques (; ). Participant observations documented farming practices, field conditions, farmer-extension interactions, and implementation dynamics through structured protocols. Eight systematic observations were conducted, with field notes recorded immediately and photographs taken appropriately (; ). Data collection occurred during the 2024/2025 cropping season following ethics approval from UNISA and permission from Gwanda Rural District Council, AGRITEX, and community leaders. All participants provided informed consent with confidentiality and anonymity assured.
2.5 Data analysis
Quantitative data (n = 307) were analysed using SPSS Version 30. Descriptive statistics summarized demographics and driver prevalence. Inferential statistics included chi-square tests assessing associations between categorical variables (e.g., gender differences in driver perceptions) and paired-sample t-tests comparing pre- and post-adoption outcomes. Prior to inferential testing, the underlying assumptions of each test were verified: for chi-square tests, all expected cell frequencies were confirmed to be ≥ 5; for paired-sample t-tests, the normality of difference scores was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test and inspection of Q-Q plots, with all distributions meeting the normality assumption at p > 0.05. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05 (). Qualitative data from KIIs, FGDs, and observations were transcribed verbatim, translated where necessary, and analysed using NVivo Version 14. A hybrid coding approach combined deductive codes from research objectives with inductive codes capturing emergent themes. Thematic analysis identified patterns, with frequency and matrix queries facilitating cross-group comparisons (; ). Integration employed triangulation matrices comparing survey frequencies, FGD themes, and KII narratives for each driver category. Joint displays presented quantitative prevalence alongside qualitative explanations, revealing convergence, complementarity, and divergence across data sources (). This approach strengthened methodological rigor, producing comprehensive findings with statistical breadth and contextual depth.
3 Results
3.1 Demographic characteristics
The study engaged 307 smallholder farmers across eight wards in Gwanda District, comprising 182 females (59%) and 125 males (41%). Age distribution indicated concentration in the 46–55-year group (30%), followed by 36–45 years (25%), with minimal youth representation (18–25 years: 4%). Among females, participation peaked in the 36-45 (n = 51) and 46-55 (n = 48) age groups. Male participation was highest in the 46-55 category (n = 45). The 66+ age group showed relatively balanced gender distribution (females = 24, males = 18). Table 1 shows the age and gender distribution of survey respondents.
TABLE 1
| Gender | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | Female | Male | |
| 18-25 | 9 | 4 | 13 |
| 26-35 | 16 | 14 | 30 |
| 36-45 | 51 | 26 | 77 |
| 46-55 | 48 | 45 | 93 |
| 56-65 | 34 | 18 | 52 |
| 66+ | 24 | 18 | 42 |
| Total | 182 | 125 | 307 |
Age and gender distribution of survey respondents (n = 307), Gwanda District, Zimbabwe. Source: Primary survey data.
Key informant interviews involved 20 stakeholders: eight frontline AGRITEX extension officers (40%), two district/provincial heads (10%), two NGO field officers (10%), four traditional village heads (20%), and four ward councillors (20%). Gender distribution was 55% male and 45% female, with ages ranging from 28 to 74 years (mean ˜ 50 years). Professional experience ranged from 3 to 25 years, with extension officers averaging 12 years, village heads up to 25 years, and NGO officers 5–6 years Table 2 presents the demographic profile of KII respondents by occupation/role, gender, age group, and years in position.
TABLE 2
| Attribute | Categories | N = 20 | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Occupation/Role | AGRITEX extension officers | 8 | 40 |
| District/Provincial AGRITEX heads | 2 | 10 | |
| NGO field officers | 2 | 10 | |
| Village heads | 4 | 20 | |
| Ward councilors | 4 | 20 | |
| Total | 20 | 100% | |
| Gender | Male | 11 | 55 |
| Female | 9 | 45 | |
| Total | 20 | 100% | |
| Age groups | 20–39 years | 2 | 10 |
| 40–49 years | 7 | 35 | |
| 50–59 years | 7 | 35 | |
| 60+ years | 4 | 20 | |
| Total | 20 | 100% | |
| Years in position | 0–5 years | 3 | 15 |
| 6–10 years | 5 | 25 | |
| 11–15 years | 6 | 30 | |
| 16+ years | 6 | 30 | |
| Total | 20 | 100% |
Demographic profile of KII respondents (n = 20), Gwanda District, Zimbabwe. Source: primary data.
Sixteen focus group discussions were conducted across the eight wards (two per ward, one per village), with 10–20 participants per session. Systematic observations were conducted in each ward where FGDs occurred, ensuring comprehensive geographic coverage and enabling triangulation between reported practices and observed field conditions.
3.2 Perceived adoption drivers
Survey results revealed multiple factors motivating Pfumvudza/Intwasa participation, with access to inputs emerging as the dominant driver (89% overall). Significant gender differences were observed, with 95% of men identifying input access as a primary motivator compared to 85% of women (χ2 = 7.888, p = 0.005). Expected yield improvements and income generation motivated 71% of respondents, with no significant gender differences (women 73%, men 68%; p = 0.416).
Figure 1 shows the perceptions of factors that motivated participation in the Pfumvudza/Intwasa Programme.
FIGURE 1
Community influence and peer pressure motivated 32.6% of participants, with men (38.4%) slightly more responsive than women (29.1%), though this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.089). Training and technical support was cited by 24% of respondents with no gender differences (p = 0.693). Environmental concerns and climate resilience motivated 21% of participants, with similar patterns across genders (p = 0.521). Government policies and campaigns showed minimal influence (2%), with no gender differences (p = 0.640).
When asked to rate the importance of various drivers on a five-point scale, technical training received the highest “very important” ratings (63%), followed by access to resources (56%) and peer influence (51%). Gender differences were statistically significant for training importance (women rating higher; χ2 = 10.799, p = 0.013), awareness campaigns (women rating higher; χ2 = 11.322, p = 0.023), and local leadership support (women rating higher; χ2 = 9.611, p = 0.048). Market access opportunities and government policies received lower importance ratings, with most respondents rating them as “moderately important” at best. Figure 2 presents gender-disaggregated importance ratings for each adoption driver.
FIGURE 2
3.3 Thematic analysis of adoption drivers
3.3.1 Climate stress and drought-induced crop failures
Focus group participants consistently identified persistent drought cycles and failures of conventional farming methods as primary motivations for programme adoption. FGD5 characterized the situation: “The main driver was the persistent droughts we face here in Matabeleland South. Our traditional farming methods were no longer working with the changing climate.” FGD10 linked adoption directly to desperation following consecutive droughts: “The 2018–2019 and 2019–2020 droughts were devastating. We lost everything and had to depend on food aid. When extension workers explained that Pfumvudza could help us grow crops with minimal rainfall, we were desperate enough to try anything.”
Multiple FGDs (4, 6, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16) documented cascading drought impacts including food insecurity, livestock mortality, and humanitarian aid dependence as factors precipitating programme adoption. Village Head 1 confirmed: “Our people adopted Pfumvudza/Intwasa mainly for food security after repeated droughts, because the programme comes with free inputs, training, and promises higher yields on very small plots.”Figure 3 presents a hierarchical conceptual diagram illustrating the relationships and interconnections between climate stress, extension services, inputs, peer influence, and programme adaptability as perceived by participants across all wards. The diagram was constructed using the mind mapping and relationship visualization capabilities of NVivo version 14 (QSR International) qualitative data analysis software.
FIGURE 3
3.3.2 Extension services and institutional mobilization
Institutional support mechanisms constituted a significant adoption driver across qualitative data sources. FGD1 participants explicitly attributed motivation to extension engagement: “The lessons that we get from our extension officers are motivating us to adopt the programme.” FGD2 and FGD14 emphasized awareness meetings and described “strong push from our extension officers” in convincing community participation. FGD11 additionally documented NGO involvement, specifically identifying BICC CDS as a motivating factor.
Extension support demonstrated particular significance in areas with sandy soils and limited rainfall. FGDs 6, 12, and 15 consistently reported that practical demonstrations effectively illustrated how Pfumvudza/Intwasa techniques could enhance soil moisture retention under challenging environmental conditions. AGRITEX officers three and four highlighted their roles in providing training and technical guidance as central to farmer motivation, while Village Head three documented positive farmer responses to “technical skills from Agritex extension officers.”
3.3.3 Access to free or subsidized inputs
Free agricultural inputs emerged as a frequently cited motivational factor across focus groups. FGD7 characterized free inputs as essential: “The free inputs were our only hope; with such poor rains, buying seeds and fertilizer felt like throwing money away.” FGD12 explicitly linked participation to input access: “Free inputs were essential, so we joined so as to get them.”
Key informants corroborated these patterns. AGRITEX officers 1, 6, 7, and eight directly identified free and subsidized inputs as the main adoption incentive. Village Head four stated: “People are motivated by the free inputs.” Ward Councillor four noted that initially sceptical community members joined based on the rationale: “What do we have to lose if it's free?” Table 3 shows drivers, descriptions, and which FGDs mentioned each driver.
TABLE 3
| Driver | Description | FGDs cited (n/16) |
|---|---|---|
| Climate stress and drought | Repeated crop failures, food aid dependence, hunger, livestock losses | 9 FGDs (4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16) |
| Extension and awareness campaigns | AGRITEX demos, NGOs, chiefs/headmen encouragement | 7 FGDs (1, 2, 4, 6, 11, 14, 15) |
| Free/subsidized inputs | Seeds and fertilizer distribution reducing costs and risks | 10 FGDs (1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14) |
| Observed neighbour success | Peer influence from visible high yields | 9 FGDs (1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 13, 14, 16) |
| Adaptability to context | No need for draught power, better for sandy soils, water-saving | 5 FGDs (6, 10, 12, 13, 15) |
Key drivers of Pfumvudza/Intwasa adoption as identified through FGDs (n = 16), Gwanda District, Zimbabwe. Source: primary qualitative data.
3.3.4 Demonstrated success and peer influence
Observable positive results from early adopters strongly motivated subsequent participation. KII participants summarized farmer responses to “seeing positive results from neighbouring farmers who adopted the programme in previous cropping seasons.” FGD14 mentioned “success stories from neighbours,” while FGD1 reflected on inspiration from neighbours’ “high yields during the 2022/2023 farming season.” FGDs 2, 5, 8, 9, 13, and 16 highlighted how peer pressure and observation of tangible outcomes accelerated programme uptake.
3.3.5 Adaptability and suitability to local conditions
Several FGDs noted that Pfumvudza/Intwasa’s design features, small plots, moisture retention techniques, independence from draught power, suited resource-poor, drought-prone households. FGD15 observed: “We were attracted by the fact that we do not have livestock for draught power; with this programme even if we do not have, we are harvesting good crops for our families.” FGD13 and FGD12 pointed out that many families had lost cattle, making the draught-power independence particularly motivating.
3.4 Triangulated assessment of adoption drivers
Integration of quantitative surveys, FGDs, and KIIs revealed convergent and complementary patterns across drivers. Table 4 presents the triangulated assessment for each driver, showing survey results, FGD insights, KII insights, and the integrated interpretation.
TABLE 4
| Driver | Survey results | FGD insights | KII insights | Triangulated interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inputs | 89% (men 95.2%, women 85.2%), p = 0.005 | Described as essential lifeline during droughts | Consistently cited by AGRITEX officers, ward councilors, and village heads | Dominant driver across all sources; statistically significant and qualitative passive |
| Yield/Food security | 71%, no gender difference | Neighbor success stories and food security concerns | Strongly highlighted by (AGRITEX officers ward councillors village heads | Universal motivator, framed primarily as household food security |
| Climate/Drought stress | 21%, no gender difference | Recurring droughts as central motivating theme | NGO officers, provincial head and district head emphasise climate adaptation | Under-reported in surveys; major push factor in qualitative data |
| Training & support | 24%, no gender difference | Extension officers highly valued for practical demonstartions | AGRITEX officers and village head 3 emphasise skills transfer | Critical enabler; more prominent in qualitative than survey data |
| Community influence | 32% (men38.4%, women 29.1%), p = 0 0.089 | Peer pressure and visible neighbor yields | Ward councilors, and AGRITEX officers confirm visible results drive uptake | Social diffusion mechanism; accelerates programme uptake |
| Government policies | 2% | Rarely cited directly by participants | District head emphasizes policy consistency and long term credibility | Minimal direct motivator, creates enabling environment indirectly |
Triangulated assessment of perceived drivers of Pfumvudza/Intwasa adoption across data Sources, Gwanda District, Zimbabwe. Source: primary survey and qualitative data.
Access to inputs emerged as the strongest driver across all data sources. Survey data showed 89% citing this factor (with significant gender differences), FGDs characterized inputs as farmers’ “lifeline” during droughts, and KIIs from extension officers and community leaders consistently confirmed inputs as the principal motivator. The triangulated evidence establishes input access as the single most powerful and consistent adoption driver.
Yield expectations and food security motivated 71% of survey respondents with no gender differences. FGDs documented emphasis on observable evidence from successful neighbouring households, while KIIs highlighted yield improvement promises as central to motivation. Ward Councillor one noted observable changes in household food security patterns, with families previously exhausting food supplies by February now maintaining reserves until subsequent harvest seasons.
Climate stress and drought resilience, though under-reported in surveys (21%), dominated qualitative narratives. FGDs provided extensive accounts of repeated crop failures, persistent droughts, and consequent dependence on food aid. KIIs from technical officers emphasized climatic factors more prominently than survey responses suggested, with the District Head documenting rapid farmer recognition of water-conservation benefits and the Provincial Head confirming programme suitability for drought-prone Natural Regions IV and V.
Training and technical support showed moderate frequency in surveys (24%) but substantial emphasis in qualitative data. FGDs documented consistent recognition of extension officer contributions through practical demonstrations and ongoing technical backstopping. KIIs emphasized training significance beyond survey indicators, with the District Head noting sustained extension campaigns compared to previous short-term interventions.
Community influence and peer learning motivated 32% of survey respondents with marginally higher male responses (38% vs. 29%). FGDs documented peer influence and visible neighbour success as frequent motivators, with FGDs 1, 2, 9, and 14 citing successful neighbouring households as influential. KIIs confirmed that bumper harvests achieved in early seasons convinced entire communities to participate subsequently.
Government policies demonstrated minimal direct motivational impact in surveys (2%). Qualitative data revealed more nuanced relationships, with farmers rarely conceptualizing policy abstractly but connecting motivation to tangible programme benefits. The District Head emphasized that policy consistency from 2020 onward built farmer trust, positioning Pfumvudza/Intwasa as credible rather than another short-lived intervention.
3.5 Importance ratings and external factors
When identifying the single most important external factor facilitating implementation, climate change awareness (56%) emerged as the overall top driver, cited more frequently by women (59%) than men (52%). Availability of resources and inputs (40%) ranked second, with similar emphasis across genders. Other factors received minimal citation: community mobilization (2%), government policies (3%), expected yields (0.3%), and NGO involvement (0.3%).
Regarding underlying sustainability drivers, respondents identified four critical areas: resource availability and timeliness (emphasizing transition from subsidy dependence to self-reliance), training and extension support (embedding knowledge in communities through demonstration plots and peer networks), institutional coordination (harmonizing government, NGO, and traditional leadership roles), and community engagement for ownership (empowering village-level committees and ensuring youth participation).
4 Discussion
This study revealed that input access constituted the strongest adoption driver (indicated by 89% of respondents) with significant gender differences. This result aligns extensively with literature on agricultural technology adoption in sub-Saharan Africa. Specifically, it supports assertion that institutional support, particularly through input provision, significantly affects CA adoption in Zimbabwe. Similarly, found that despite awareness of improved practices, adoption remains constrained by limited access to quality seeds and technology, validating our finding that input access serves as a primary driver.
From a SLF perspective, input provision directly addresses critical financial capital gaps (). For smallholder farmers in Matabeleland South, limited access to cash for purchasing seeds and fertilizers represents a fundamental bottleneck. The Pfumvudza/Intwasa programme reduces this financial burden while providing essential productive assets. The significant gender difference (95% men vs. 85% women, p = 0.005) reflects differential control over household financial resources, aligning with finding that women farmers face gendered barriers including lack of access to inputs and credit, leading to lower adoption rates.
However, heavy reliance on input provision raises critical sustainability questions. Several key informants emphasized transitioning from “inputs as free handouts” to “inputs as enablers of independence,” recognizing that sustainable livelihoods require genuine asset-building rather than dependency (; ). This has a direct policy implication in that programmes must establish structured exit strategies, including input credit schemes, farmer savings groups, and progressive subsidy reduction frameworks, that actively transition beneficiaries from dependency toward agricultural self-reliance.
The apparent disconnect between survey responses (22% citing climate stress) and the prominence of drought narratives in qualitative data reveals important insights about how farmers conceptualize environmental degradation. While farmers may not articulate “climate resilience” abstractly, they experience declining natural capital directly through reduced soil fertility, water scarcity, and ecosystem degradation undermining productivity. This finding aligns with demonstration that climate change poses challenges negatively affecting smallholder farmers’ food security contributions, creating vulnerability contexts shaping livelihood strategies ().
Within the SLF, persistent droughts and “traditional farming methods no longer working” represent natural capital depletion threatening livelihood sustainability. noted that increasing drought frequency and climate-related shocks create urgency around climate-smart agriculture across southern Africa. The Pfumvudza/Intwasa programme addresses these constraints through CA techniques aiming to restore soil fertility, improve water retention, and enhance ecosystem services ().
This prioritisation underscores the urgency of reframing programme communication to explicitly connect CA practices with climate resilience outcomes, helping farmers recognise that addressing long-term natural capital stewardship also serves their immediate food security interests. Within the CRF, Pfumvudza/Intwasa appears to function primarily as an absorptive capacity intervention providing immediate relief, though sustainable resilience requires progression toward adaptive and transformative capacity (; ).
The finding that community influence motivated 33% of the participants, with men being slightly more responsive than women (38% vs. 29%), reflects social networks’ importance in technology diffusion. This finding draws on social capital within the SLF, where farmers leverage trust networks, reciprocity, and information-sharing to validate new practices and reduce adoption risks. This aligns strongly with , who found that social learning and peer effects play crucial roles in technology adoption across different African cultural contexts. demonstrated that community acceptance and social validation often determine whether farmers adopt and sustain new agricultural practices.
The qualitative emphasis on “neighbour success stories” and “visible high yields” demonstrates how social capital functions as both information transmission and risk-reduction mechanisms, where early adopters serve as crucial demonstration effects for broader community adoption. The slight gender difference reflects differential social capital configurations, with men often having broader external networks through farmer associations and market participation, while women rely more heavily on local, informal networks (; ).
However, the relatively modest overall percentage citing peer influence suggests that material incentives outweigh social factors in initial adoption decisions, contrasting with some literature emphasizing community dynamics as primary drivers and indicating that in severe resource constraint contexts, practical benefits may override social considerations ().
The finding that training and technical support motivated 24% of participants, with significant gender differences in perceived importance (women rating higher), aligns strongly with Pedzisa et al.'s (2015) emphasis on extension services as critical adoption determinants. The Pfumvudza/Intwasa programme’s extension components enhance farmers’ agricultural knowledge, skills, and capacity to implement CA techniques, directly building human capital deployable beyond specific intervention contexts (). However, documented significant weaknesses in Zimbabwe’s extension system, including inadequate staffing, limited resources, and insufficient technical capacity, constraints that may explain why only 24% of farmers cited training as a primary motivator despite its demonstrated importance in adoption success.
The gender differential in valuing training (women 68% “very important” vs. men 54%, p = 0.013) reflects differential access to technical knowledge transfer systems (). This pattern aligns with finding that women face greater barriers accessing extension services, making structured training particularly valuable for building their human capital. reinforced this by demonstrating that targeted training tailored to local contexts enhances adoption rates, particularly among previously underserved groups.
Within the Sustainable Development Framework SDF, extension support contributes to social sustainability by promoting equitable knowledge access and strengthening local capacity (; ). However, sustainability depends on institutional continuity and adequate extension system resourcing, factors key informants identified as potential vulnerabilities.
From the SLF perspective, programme training represents sustainable asset accumulation because knowledge and skills, once acquired, become part of farmers’ permanent livelihood toolkit (; ). Unlike input provision requiring annual renewal, human capital development yields long-term benefits across multiple seasons and practices, distinguishing components that fosteri genuine livelihood sustainability from those providing only temporary relief. This has a concrete policy implication: scaling lead farmer networks and community demonstration plots (where trained farmers teach peers), can embed knowledge within communities independent of external resourcing cycles. The finding that government policies had minimal direct motivational impact (2%) appears to contradict the programme’s top-down implementation approach. However, this aligns with research showing farmers respond more to tangible benefits than abstract policy frameworks. The District Head’s observation that policy consistency builds credibility over time suggests policy influence operates indirectly by creating enabling environments rather than directly motivating adoption (; ). This limited direct influence illustrates persistent disconnects between formal institutional intentions and local livelihood realities (; ). Such gaps underscore how policy frameworks, though well-intentioned, often fail aligning with everyday livelihood constraints and socio-economic contexts within which farmers operate ().
The triangulated findings reveal coordination gaps between government, NGOs, and traditional leadership affecting implementation effectiveness. These coordination challenges align with systematic review findings, which identified inadequate institutional coordination as a primary weakness undermining Pfumvudza/Intwasa sustainability. Their review documented fragmented policy environments, overlapping mandates, and weak accountability mechanisms that hinder programme expansion, patterns corroborated by the present study’s KIIs highlighting institutional duplication and unclear role delineation. KII emphasis on preventing “permanent subsidy dependence” and ensuring “targeting of genuine adopters” reflects broader debates about agricultural development approaches in Africa. The coordination challenges highlighted in KII responses reflect institutional fragmentation that can limit programme effectiveness (). From an SLF perspective, these coordination gaps represent transforming structures that constrain rather than enable livelihood improvement opportunities. Literature consistently shows effective programme implementation requires institutional arrangements facilitating rather than impeding farmers’ access to programme benefits (; ). Policymakers should therefore formalise a multi-stakeholder coordination platform, bringing together government, NGOs, and traditional leadership, with clear role delineation, shared monitoring frameworks, and joint accountability mechanisms to eliminate duplication and close implementation gaps.
This finding also has important implications for the SDF. While policy coherence supports all three sustainability pillars (economic, social, and environmental), its impact ultimately depends on how effectively policies translate into concrete benefits that farmers experience directly (; )). The disconnect between policy intentions and farmer motivations highlights the need for more participatory policy design grounded in local priorities and livelihood realities (; ).
Taken together, the consistent gender differences across multiple drivers reveal structurally distinct pathways to programme engagement for men and women. While men are primarily motivated by input access and peer influence, women place significantly greater value on training, awareness, and leadership support, reflecting their relative exclusion from conventional agricultural resource channels. This supports finding that women face greater barriers accessing agricultural innovations and require targeted, gender-responsive approaches. From a policy standpoint, these findings call for dedicated women-only training cohorts, female extension liaison officers, and women-specific input distribution channels to systematically dismantle structural barriers rather than assuming that mixed-gender programming reaches all participants equitably.
Within the SDF, social sustainability requires addressing gender inequalities and ensuring equitable access to opportunities (; ). The current findings suggest that while the programme engages both men and women, it does not yet fully address underlying gender disparities in resource access and decision-making power. Closing this gap requires not only programme-level adjustments but also broader institutional commitment to gender-transformative approaches that challenge structural inequalities in land tenure, credit access, and agricultural extension.
cautioned that while input provision serves as an effective entry point for CA adoption, dependence on external support without explicit transition strategies toward farmer independence threatens long-term sustainability. Their review emphasized that successful CA scaling requires mechanisms for transitioning farmers from input recipients to independent agricultural entrepreneurs capable of sustaining practices beyond programme support. The present study’s findings suggest this transformation remains incomplete in Gwanda District, where 89% of farmers identified input access as their primary adoption motivator. The CRF further indicates that sustainable resilience requires building adaptive capacity enabling communities to modify practices in response to changing conditions rather than relying on continuous external support (; ). The current input-focused approach may strengthen short-term coping capacity but risks limiting the development of deeper adaptive skills (; ). Policymakers should therefore design progressive subsidy reduction pathways alongside complementary market linkages and value chain development that make continued CA adoption economically viable without perpetual external support.
5 Limitations
This study relied on self-reported data which may be subject to recall bias regarding pre-adoption yields and motivations (). The study’s geographic focus on Gwanda District limits generalizability of the results to other agro-ecological zones. The cross-sectional design prevents assessment of adoption persistence over time. Future research should employ longitudinal designs tracking adoption across multiple seasons, incorporate objective yield measurements, and conduct comparative studies across districts and agro-ecological zones. Despite these constraints, the study’s methodological rigour, through triangulation of multiple data sources, contextual depth, and theoretical grounding in livelihood and resilience frameworks, provide robust insights for programme refinement and policy development across semi-arid southern Africa.
6 Conclusion
Pfumvudza/Intwasa adoption in Gwanda District is driven primarily by material incentives rather than transformational climate resilience objectives, revealing critical sustainability challenges for Zimbabwe’s flagship CA programme. This comprehensive mixed-methods assessment demonstrates that access to free or subsidized inputs constitutes the dominant driver, with significant gender differences, while expected yield improvements motivated most participants uniformly. The striking methodological divergence: where climate stress appeared minimally cited in surveys yet dominated qualitative narratives; reveals that farmers frame participation as pragmatic survival responses rather than proactive climate adaptation strategies. Training and community influence served as critical enablers, with women emphasizing capacity-building interventions while men focused on input access and peer networks. Government policies showed minimal direct motivational impact despite stakeholder assertions of their credibility-building function.
Based on the SLF perspective, the dominance of financial capital constraints over human capital development and natural capital stewardship indicates the programme addresses immediate shocks without building durable asset bases. CRF analysis reveals interventions remain confined to absorptive capacity with limited progression toward adaptive or transformative capacities. This challenges assumptions that CA programmes inherently build climate resilience, demonstrating that designs emphasizing input provision over knowledge transfer may perpetuate dependency relationships undermining long-term sustainability.
This study makes three novel contributions. First, it provides a rigorous mixed-methods triangulation of Pfumvudza/Intwasa adoption drivers, revealing that methodological approaches fundamentally shape how farmer motivations are understood. Second, it demonstrates how gender disparities operate through differential capital access pathways, thus necessitating intensified multi-domain support for women. Third, it exposes a critical policy-practice disconnect where formal frameworks remain largely invisible to the farmers they ostensibly serve, an issue existing literature has substantially undertheorized.
For successful sustainability and scalability, CA initiatives must deliberately transition farmers from input dependency toward independence through credit schemes, savings groups, and market linkages transforming subsistence into income generation. Strengthening extension systems via lead farmer networks will embed knowledge within communities, while formalizing institutional coordination can minimize duplication. Gender-responsive programming demands systematic dismantling of structural barriers constraining women’s access to resources, training, and economic opportunities. Future research should investigate policy-awareness deficits and employ longitudinal designs that track the persistence of adoption across multiple seasons. Without deliberate transitions from dependency to autonomy, CA programmes risk perpetuating extractive relationships that undermine the resilience they seek to build, transforming farmers into permanent recipients rather than empowered agents of their own food security.
Statements
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences Health Ethics Committee, University of South Africa (UNISA) (Approval No: 2024/CAES_HREC/5621). The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
Author contributions
SD: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing. MC: Project administration, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
AllenL. (2024). What are the 3 pillars of sustainability? Treehugger. Available online at: https://www.treehugger.com/what-are-the-three-pillars-of-sustainability-5189295.
2
AnderssonJ. A.D'SouzaS. (2014). From adoption claims to understanding farmers and contexts: a literature review of conservation Agriculture (CA) adoption among smallholder farmers in southern Africa. Agric. Ecosyst. and Environ.187, 116–132. 10.1016/j.agee.2013.08.008
3
AngrosinoM. (2007). Doing Ethnographic and Observational Research. London: SAGE Publications.
4
ArslanA.FloressK.LamannaC.LipperL.RosenstockT. S. (2022). A meta-analysis of the adoption of agricultural technology in Sub-Saharan Africa. PLOS Sustain. Transformation1 (7), e0000018. 10.1371/journal.pstr.0000018
5
BahadurA.LovellE.PichonF. (2016). Effectiveness in Building Resilience: Synthesis Report for Oxfam's Resilience Outcome Area. Oxford: Oxfam.
6
BaudronF.MwanzaH. M.TriompheB.BwalyaM. (2007). Conservation Agriculture in Zambia: A Case Study of Southern Province. Nairobi/Montpellier/Rome: African Conservation Tillage Network/CIRAD/FAO.
7
BeegleK.CarlettoC.HimeleinK. (2012). Reliability of Recall in Agricultural Data (English). Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group. Available online at: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/862631587131538831 (Accessed December 27, 2025).
8
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol.3 (2), 77–101. 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
9
BrymanA. (2016). Social Research Methods. 5th ed.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10
ChambersR.ConwayG. R. (1992). Sustainable rural livelihoods: practical concepts for the 21st century. IDS Discussion Paper 296. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies (IDS).
11
ChanzaN.De WitA. (2016). Enhancing climate governance through indigenous knowledge: case in sustainability science. South Afr. J. Sci.112 (3-4), 1–7. 10.17159/sajs.2016/20140286
12
ChaukeS.SobiyiK.MbohwaC. (2018). “Three pillars of sustainability: an overview,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, 2578–2579.
13
ChiguduD. (2015). Navigating policy implementation gaps in Africa: the case of Zimbabwe. Risk Gov. Control Financial Mark. and Institutions5 (3), 7–14. 10.22495/rgcv5i3art1
14
CoombsH. (2022). Case study research: single or multiple. White Paper. Cedar City: Southern Utah University.
15
CreswellJ. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. 4th ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
16
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2011). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. 2nd ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
17
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2018). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. 3rd ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
18
DFID (1999). Sustainable Livelihoods and Poverty Elimination: Background Briefing. London: DFID.
19
DubeT. (2012). Emerging issues on the sustainability of the community based rural water resources management approach in Zimbabwe: a case study of Gwanda district. Int. J. Dev. Sustain.1 (3), 644–655.
20
DubeS. S.ChitakiraM. (2025). Role of policies and institutional frameworks in sustaining conservation agriculture: a critical review of Pfumvudza/Intwasa programme in Zimbabwe. Discov. Agric.3 (1), 212. 10.1007/s44279-025-00363-9
21
FAO (2020). Crop and Food Security Assessment Mission to Zimbabwe. Harare: FAO.
22
FisherM. J.MarshallA. P. (2009). Understanding descriptive statistics. Aust. Crit. Care22 (2), 93–97. 10.1016/j.aucc.2008.11.003
23
FriendR.MacCluneK. (2013). Climate Resilience Framework: Putting Resilience into Practice.
24
GeorgeT. (2021). Research Methodology and Scientific Writing. International Edition. Switzerland: Springer Nature.
25
GillerK. E.WitterE.CorbeelsM.TittonellP. (2009). Conservation agriculture and smallholder farming in Africa: the heretics' view. Field Crops Res.114 (1), 23–34. 10.1016/j.fcr.2009.06.017
26
GiriO. P. (2024). Choosing sampling techniques and calculating sample size. Indonesian J. Teach. Sci.4 (2), 165–176. 10.17509/ijotis.v4i2.75472
27
GoZ (2019). National agricultural Policy framework 2019-2030.
28
GuestG.BunceA.JohnsonL. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods18 (1), 59–82. 10.1177/1525822x05279903
29
IPCC (2022). Climate Change: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30
JiriO.MafongoyaP.ChivengeP. (2017). Building climate change resilience through adaptation in smallholder farming systems in semi-arid Zimbabwe. Int. J. Clim. Change Strategies Manag.9 (2), 151–165. 10.1108/ijccsm-07-2016-0092
31
KapondaT.ChiwaridzoO. T. (2024). “Enhancing food security through sustainable agriculture: a case study of the Pfumvudza/Intwasa program in Zimbabwe,” in Sustainable Practices for Agriculture and Marketing Convergence (Hershey, PA: IGI Global).
32
KruegerR. A.CaseyM. A. (2015). Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. 5th ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
33
KvaleS. (2007). Doing Interviews. London: Sage Publications.
34
LittigB.GrießlerE. (2005). Social sustainability: a catchword between political pragmatism and social theory. Int. J. Sustain. Dev.8, 65–79. 10.1504/ijsd.2005.007375
35
MarshallC.RossmanG. B. (2011). Designing Qualitative Research. 5th ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
36
MashunyeE. (2024). An Analysis of the Effectiveness of Pfumvudza as a Strategy to Promote Food Security in Rural Zimbabwe: A Case of Ward 14 in Makoni District. Bindura: Bindura University of Science Education.
37
MavesereF.DzawandaB. (2023). Effectiveness of Pfumvudza as a resilient strategy against drought impacts in rural communities of Zimbabwe. Geo J.88 (3), 3455–3470. 10.1007/s10708-022-10812-3
38
MazvimaviK.TwomlowS. (2009). Socio-economic and institutional factors influencing adoption of conservation farming by vulnerable households in Zimbabwe. Agric. Syst.101 (1-2), 20–29. 10.1016/j.agsy.2009.02.002
39
MnukwaL.MdodaL.MudharaM. (2025). Assessing the adoption and impact of climate-smart agricultural practices on smallholder maize farmers' livelihoods in Sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. Front. Sustain. Food Syst.9, 1543805. 10.3389/fsufs.2025.1543805
40
MorganD. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. J. Mix. Methods Res.1 (1), 48–76. 10.1177/2345678906292462
41
MoyoS.SillM. (2014). “The Southern African environment: profiles of the SADC countries,” in Environmental Management in Southern Africa. Editor O'KeefeP. (London: Routledge). 10.4324/9781315070391
42
MuellmannS.BrandT.JürgensD.GansefortD.ZeebH. (2021). How many key informants are enough? Analysing the validity of the community readiness assessment. BMC Res. Notes14, 85. 10.1186/s13104-021-05497-9
43
MujereN. (2022). An assessment of the contribution of the Pfumvudza concept towards climate smart agriculture in Zimbabwe: a review. J. Agric. Hortic. Res.5 (2), 69–76. 10.33140/jahr.05.02.01
44
MujeyiA. (2020). “Policy and institutional dimensions in climate-smart agriculture adoption: case of rural communities in Zimbabwe,” in Handbook of Climate Change Resilience. Editor Leal FilhoW. (Cham: Springer).
45
MutenjeM. J.FarnworthC. R.StirlingC.ThierfelderC.MupangwaW.NyagumboI. (2019). A cost-benefit analysis of climate-smart agriculture options in Southern Africa: balancing gender and technology. Ecol. Econ.163, 126–137. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.05.013
46
MurphyL. (2023). The questionnaire surveying research method: pros, cons and best practices. Sci. Prepr.10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-.PP3WYS8.v1
47
MwangiM.KariukiS. (2015). Factors determining adoption of new agricultural technology by smallholder farmers in developing countries. J. Econ. Sustain. Dev.6 (5), 208–216. Available online at: https://iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JEDS/article/view/20710 (Accessed December 13, 2025).
48
NdhlovuE. (2018). Relevance of sustainable livelihood approach in Zimbabwe's land reform programme. Afr. Insight47 (4), 72–87.
49
NkalaP.MangoN.CorbeelsM.VeldwischG. J.HuisingJ. (2011). The conundrum of conservation agriculture and livelihoods in Southern Africa. Afr. J. Agric. Res.6 (24), 5520–5528.
50
NgomaH.MarenyaP.TufaA.AleneA.MatinM. A.ThierfelderC.et al (2024). Too fast or too slow: the speed and persistence of adoption of conservation agriculture in southern Africa. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change208, 123689. 10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123689
51
PalinkasL. A.HorwitzS. M.GreenC. A.WisdomJ. P.DuanN.HoagwoodK. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Adm. Policy Ment. Health42 (5), 533–544. 10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y
52
PalysT. (2016). “Purposive sampling,” The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Editor GivenL. M. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications), 2, 697–698.
53
PedzisaT.RugubeL.Winter-NelsonA.BaylisK.MazvimaviK. (2015). The intensity of adoption of conservation agriculture by smallholder farmers in Zimbabwe. Agrekon. 54 (3), 1–22. 10.1080/03031853.2015.1084939
54
PhiriK.NhliziyoM.MadzivireS. I.SitholeM.NyathiD. (2021). Understanding climate smart agriculture and the resilience of smallholder farmers in Umguza district Zimbabwe. Cogent Soc. Sci.7 (1), 1970425. 10.1080/23311886.2021.1970425
55
ScoonesI. (2015). Sustainable Livelihoods and Rural Development. Rugby: Practical Action Publishing.
56
TanyanyiwaV. I.KanyepiT.KatanhaA. (2022). “Zimbabwe's Pfumvudza agriculture programme: reality or rhetoric?,” in Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 265–280.
57
ThierfelderC.RusinamhodziL.NgwiraA. R.MupangwaW.NyagumboI.KassieG. T.et al (2015). Conservation agriculture in Southern Africa: advances in knowledge. Renew. Agric. Food Syst.30 (4), 328–348. 10.1017/S1742170513000550
58
UNDP (2015). Building Resilience in Zimbabwe: Towards a Resilience Strategic Framework. Harare: UNDP Zimbabwe.
59
VenkateshV.BrownS. A.BalaH. (2013). Bridging the qualitative-quantitative divide: guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in information systems. MIS Q.37 (1), 21–54. 10.25300/misq/2013/37.1.02
60
World Bank (2021). Zimbabwe Drought Resilience Profile. Cooperation in International Waters in Africa (CIWA). Washington, DC: World Bank.
61
YinR. K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. 6th ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
62
ZimStat (Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency) (2023). Zimbabwe 2022 Population and Housing Census Report, 2. Harare: ZimStat.
63
ZimVAC (2019). “Rural livelihoods assessment report,” Harare. Food Nutr. Counc.
Summary
Keywords
climate resilience, climate-smart agriculture, conservation agriculture, drivers, Pfumvudza/Intwasa, sustainable livelihoods
Citation
Dube SS and Chitakira M (2026) Perceived drivers of conservation agriculture adoption among smallholder farmers in a dry ecological region. Front. Environ. Sci. 14:1815994. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2026.1815994
Received
23 February 2026
Revised
22 April 2026
Accepted
29 April 2026
Published
20 May 2026
Volume
14 - 2026
Edited by
Robert Ugochukwu Onyeneke, Alex Ekwueme Federal University Ndufu-Alike, Nigeria
Reviewed by
Peter Stephen Donald Ngulube, Malawi University of Science and Technology, Malawi
Funa Moyo, National University of Science and Technology, Zimbabwe
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Dube and Chitakira.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Susan Samukele Dube, 24057681@mylife.unisa.ac.za, dubes@zou.ac.zw
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.