Your new experience awaits. Try the new design now and help us make it even better

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Sustain. Food Syst.

Sec. Agroecology and Ecosystem Services

This article is part of the Research TopicEnhancing Soil Health and Climate Resilience through Sustainable Agricultural PracticesView all 13 articles

Continued use of climate-smart agricultural practices in central Uganda cattle corridor: A farming household typology perspective

Provisionally accepted
  • 1Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda
  • 2Makerere University School of Agricultural Sciences, Kampala, Uganda
  • 3Makerere University School of Forestry Environmental and Geographical Sciences, Kampala, Uganda

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Uganda’s central cattle corridor remains highly vulnerable to climate shocks such as drought and erratic rainfall, threatening food security and agricultural productivity for smallholder farming households. Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA) practices are widely promoted as resilience-building strategies, yet their continued use remains inconsistent across farming communities due to differences in household typologies. The study examined how household typologies shape continued use of CSA practices in Uganda’s central cattle corridor by determining adoption levels, characterizing household typologies and assessing how typological differences explain variations in CSA continuity. A cross-section mixed methods design combined data from 364 households, 6 FGDs, and 12 key-informant interviews. Adoption of CSA practices fell into three categories i.e. high (>50%), moderate (25-49%) and low (<25%) with high adoption practices such as legumes in rotation (98% continuity), manuring (95%) and shade-tree planting (95%) showing use durations of 6-10years. Principal Components Analysis reduced 29 practices into 10 CSA bundles explaining 64% of total variance (KMO 0.62; Bartlett’s χ² = 1,753.21, p < 0.001). Hierarchical clustering generated four household typologies i.e. moderately resourced CSA-engaged (8.5%), mainstream selective CSA uptake (77.1%), resource-constrained livestock-oriented (12.4%) and high-resource CSA intensive (1.9%). Analysis revealed significant variation in land access (F(3,343) = 4.96, p = 0.002) and institutional support (χ²(3) = 20.29, p = 0.0001) among the developed typologies. Guided by the Resource-Based Theory (RBT), the findings show that CSA continuity is not randomly distributed but reflects how well specific practice bundles align with a household’s tangible, intangible and human resources. Resource-rich typologies tended to maintain a broader and more integrated set of CSA practices (such as soil fertility management, water harvesting and improved seed use) while resource-constrained groups focus on simpler, cost-effective options. Continuity was highest where CSA was embedded into existing farm systems and supported by complementary assets e.g. access to extension or community networks. The study advances SDGs 1,2,5&13 by showing how typology-based CSA interventions strengthen resilience, food security ang gender inclusions (SDG 2.4.1). It aligns with Uganda’s NDP IV and Vision 2040 on agro-industrialisation and climate adaptation, urging a shift from blanket to typology-informed CSA scaling and inclusive, cost-effective, and goal-aligned outcomes.

Keywords: Typologies, climate smart agriculture, CENTRAL CATTLE CORRIDOR, Continued use, LUWERO AND NAKASONGOLA

Received: 09 Jul 2025; Accepted: 24 Nov 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Galiwango, Miiro, Egeru and Turyahabwe. 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) or licensor 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: Henry Galiwango

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.