Replacing tobacco with alternative crops for sustainable development: understanding smallholder farmers' perspectives in Uganda

Almost 5.3 million hectares of land across the globe are dedicated to tobacco, with more than 75% allocated to growing activities. However, tobacco farming is often linked with social, economic, and environmental problems. Tobacco farmers are largely attracted by the ease of access to input credit and guaranteed produce markets, but also largely challenged by tobacco's labor-intensive nature, which accelerates occupational health hazards and prolonged liquidity constraints with the risk of entrapment in debt. The mixed-methods approach in this study uses the exploratory sequential method to examine farmers' willingness to shift from tobacco farming to alternative crops. Data were collected through face-to-face and in-depth interviews in tobacco-growing areas of Hoima district. Descriptive analysis and a t-test were conducted to characterize tobacco farmers, the binary probit model used to examine factors influencing tobacco farmers' willingness to shift, and the multinomial logistic regression used to identify crop attributes that farmers prioritize while selecting potential alternatives. Results indicate that the majority of tobacco farmers (73%) were willing to shift to alternative crops. Tobacco farmers with willingness to shift were, on average, younger and had fewer household members. Having land ownership rights (p < 0.01) and being female (p < 0.05) had a statistically significant positive effect, whereas distance to tobacco markets and access to input credit were negatively associated with farmers' willingness to shift to alternative crops (p < 0.01). Farmers' preferences for potentially alternative crops such as maize, rice, beans, and cassava were influenced by different crop-specific attributes. The study therefore suggests that strengthening land ownership rights and increasing access to input credit and well-structured markets for non-tobacco (alternative) crops are likely to facilitate smallholder farmer transitions from tobacco. Policy interventions should facilitate access to crop options with specific attributes suitable for previously tobacco-grown areas, as well as inclusive and appropriate technologies that reduce labor burdens, targeting the youth and women as catalysts for transition. Additionally, the collaborative multisectoral approach presents strategic opportunities to address tobacco's negative economic, environmental, and health impacts, leveraging coordinated efforts to achieve sustainable development and meet the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO-FCTC) goals.

1 Introduction

Worldwide, 67 percent of the 60 million people employed in the tobacco industry work in leaf cultivation and processing (Rowe, 2019). Estimates indicate that almost 5.3 million hectares of the world's agricultural land is utilized by the tobacco industry (Zafeiridou et al., 2018). Tobacco growing is responsible for irreversible costs to farmers and their families arising from long hours of hard labor, harassment in work activities, staggering debt, exposure to nicotine and agrochemicals, as well as poor health (Bechard et al., 2023). Evidence suggests that tobacco accounts for more than 8 million deaths worldwide every year, with more than 80% of deaths occurring in low- and middle-income countries (Reitsma et al., 2017; Hammerich et al., 2022; WHO, 2023a).

The burden of tobacco-related deaths in Africa increased from 150,000 in 1990 to over 215,000 in 2016, representing an estimated 70% increase in mortality. This makes tobacco one of the greatest public health threats the world has ever faced, with more deaths recorded in Africa, and mostly Eastern Africa (Moutawakkil et al., 2024). Tobacco farming is deleterious to the environment and the health of farm workers, yet it also provides a tenuous economic livelihood for smallholder farmers (Clark et al., 2020; Chingosho et al., 2021; Phetphum and Lencucha, 2025). Accordingly, farmers are largely victims, rather than beneficiaries, of the tobacco subsector (Chingosho et al., 2021). Tobacco farming endangers food security and contributes to environmental degradation, with its effects linked to social and health problems, as well as the perpetuation of farmers' entrapment in the cycle of poverty (Zafeiridou et al., 2018; Ali et al., 2023; Li et al., 2018; Sibanda and Tsuyuki, 2024). Additionally, previous research substantiates that tobacco, together with unhealthy foods, remains a leading cause of non-communicable diseases (NCDs), a growing global concern in developing countries (Lencucha et al., 2020; Meghani et al., 2021).

The global shift of tobacco farming to developing countries, and Africa in particular, is evident (WHO, 2023b; Nguenha et al., 2024; Lee et al., 2016). As a result, tobacco production has decreased globally, but with a significant increase in Africa over the recent years and the industry continues to significantly profit from producing and selling tobacco (Drope et al., 2025). The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that global tobacco leaf production dropped by 4.6%, but rose by 35.7% in Africa between 2005 and 2020. Similarly, the global area under tobacco farming declined by 15.8%, while it increased by 19.8% in Africa. The shift in tobacco production raises significant concerns regarding health, environmental impact, and food and nutritional security across the African continent. Between 1990 and 2023, tobacco production has been increasing in Africa, with the East African region accounting for the largest output (84.9%). Tobacco quantities produced consistently grew in East Africa, while all other regions combined recorded declines over the same period. In East Africa, Uganda comes second after Tanzania in tobacco leaf production, with annual average estimates of 23.2 and 52.8 tons, respectively (FAO, 2025).

Tobacco farming persists in developing countries where the health, economic, and environmental burden is greatest and expected to increase in subsequent years (Phetphum and Lencucha, 2025). Associated with negative trade-offs therefore, tobacco farming and the entire tobacco lifecycle turn out to be a serious threat to sustainable development (Matthes and Zatoński, 2019). The systematic shift results from a global process of trade liberalization that ushered in a new phase for export growth, as well as comparably low production costs and a less stringent regulatory environment in developing countries (Appau et al., 2019; Egbe et al., 2022; Mirza et al., 2019). In Uganda, land devoted to tobacco farming was 0.15% of agricultural land in 2020, down from 0.11% in 2000 (WHO, 2023a). However, the export value of tobacco leaf remained unstable and generally reduced from US$ 20,301 to US$ 16,967 thousand between the same period. In terms of quantity, tobacco formal exports reduced from 31,135 MT in 2018 to 14,989 MT in 2023 partly explained by the subsequent strict national regulations to control tobacco (UBOS, 2023; Nakamatte et al., 2025). Nonetheless, the tobacco industry in developing countries continues to grow amidst institutionalisation and enforcement of tobacco control (Promphakping et al., 2021). This is partly because of the inadequate investment in effective tobacco control where uneven and inconsistent implementation of proven measures continually expose emerging economies to the damaging effects of tobacco (Monshi and Ibrahim, 2021; Egbe et al., 2022).

Perpetual tobacco leaf supply facilitates the negative effects of tobacco, such as the growing burden of NCDs across all socio-economic strata that overwhelms Uganda's health system (Meghani et al., 2021). Consequently, tobacco farming emerges as an important concern for tobacco control efforts (Appau et al., 2019; Lencucha et al., 2022). Efforts to reduce tobacco consumption are not sufficient, and a multipronged approach that encompasses the supply side, where farmer decisions on the adoption of sustainable farming practices that are often influenced by economic, social, and environmental trade-offs, presents an essential strategy to achieve the well-intended World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) tobacco control outcomes (Sidhoum et al., 2022; Feliciano, 2022). A number of relevant line ministries are either less engaged or not formally engaged in the development, promotion, and active implementation of tobacco control measures (Wanyonyi et al., 2020). Yet, a multisectoral approach beyond health actors, as proposed by the 1978 Alma-Ata Declaration, presents enormous opportunities to improve health outcomes (Sanni et al., 2018; Male et al., 2022).

To this effect, Article 17 of the WHO FCTC, obligates member states including Uganda to promote, as appropriate, economically viable alternative livelihood options for tobacco farmers and workers. While the tobacco industry nearly controls the supply chain, Uganda's policy and institutional context partly diminishes its power in the country, where the government through its line ministry—the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF)—neither prioritizes tobacco among the national strategic crops nor provides any financial, technical, and extension service support for the tobacco subsector (Wanyonyi et al., 2020). Amidst the several significant sustainability challenges that the tobacco sub sector faced, Uganda established the Tobacco Control Act (TCA) in 2015 as the primary regulatory framework for tobacco control and enacted its implementing regulations in 2019 to strengthen enforcement. Similarly, research efforts to find viable alternative livelihoods align with the broader agenda towards adopting sustainable agricultural practices and improving health among farming communities in Uganda.

Research evidence indicates that alternative crops are more profitable compared to tobacco farming when opportunity costs are accounted for, including unpaid family labour, an important pull factor to facilitate sustainable shift from tobacco growing. Previous studies in Uganda suggest coffee, cassava, rice, maize, groundnuts, and beans as potential crop alternatives, with only a few farmers found to have the willingness to stop tobacco growing (Wan et al., 2022; Nakamatte et al., 2025; Chune et al., 2022; Karemani and Nuwaha, 2019). Uganda's fourth National Development Plan currently fosters the agro-industrialization agenda to increase market value of strategic agricultural commodities with potential to replace tobacco and hence, the opportunity to improve food and nutritional security, increase employment and household incomes, and stimulate rural development through value addition and diversification of exports (NPA, 2024). In other countries, more commodities have been suggested, and initiatives implemented, including the Tobacco-Free Farms initiative that supports farmer transition from tobacco to healthier and more ecologically sustainable crops (World Health Organization, 2022).

On the whole, however, there is little evidence that Ugandan tobacco farmers have the willingness to shift to alternative crops, in view of the socio-economic circumstances as well as biophysical environments that influence their crop choice and transformation in agricultural activities (Le et al., 2024). Naturally, however, the promotion of economically viable crops as alternative livelihood activities to complement tobacco demand reduction measures requires that farmers have the will to replace tobacco with identified crops (Lencucha et al., 2020). This is consistent with diversification theories that advocate for the integration of views and interests of targeted communities in policy formulation and implementation processes to achieve a successful transition to sustainable livelihoods when promoting “alternative livelihoods” (Abere and Lameed, 2018; Kapembwa et al., 2021). The contribution of this study, therefore, is to understand (i) farmers' willingness to shift from tobacco to alternative crops, (ii) the farmers willing (or not willing) to shift from tobacco farming, (iii) factors that influence tobacco farmers' willingness to shift to alternative crops, and (iv) the specific attributes for selecting crops identified as potential replacements for tobacco. The materials and methods used to answer these questions are described in Section 2. The results are presented in Section 3, a synthesis and discussion of findings in Section 4, while Section 5 presents the study conclusion.

2 Methodology

2.1 Data collection

The study was conducted in the Greater Hoima district of Uganda which covers a total land area of 5,735.3 km², with 67% being arable land. A mixed research design was used to collect qualitative and quantitative data in a sequential approach, renowned for resulting in well-validated and substantiated findings (Dawadi et al., 2021). In the first phase, we conducted semi-structured interviews and focused group discussions (FGDs) to obtain qualitative data (De Marinis and Sali, 2022). Individual expertise of, and dependence on tobacco growing as a major livelihood source guided the selection of farmers for FGDs, while key informants were selected based on their knowledge of people's livelihoods in tobacco farming communities, as well as their capacity to influence policy decisions, engage in public resource allocation, and deliver services at the decentralized level.

A total of seven key informant interviews (KIIs) were conducted, and six farmer FGDs were organized by gender (two for males only in Bulyango (FGD1) and Kigorobya (FGD2), two for females only in Budaka (FGD3) and Kitooke (FGD4), and two for both males and females in Kisaaru (FGD5) and Kyabisagazi (FGD6)), since women tend to be responsible for more of the tobacco work than men (Clark et al., 2023). On average, there were 11 participants per FGD, making a total of 67 FGD study participants, with participation of the subcounty agricultural officers and community leaders. During FGDs, participants were asked to state whether they were interested in shifting from tobacco to alternative crops. Those willing to shift were further asked to identify potential alternative crops and prioritize the specific attributes they would consider when selecting alternatives to tobacco using the pairwise ranking technique. The direct matrix scoring method was used to rank identified potential alternatives based on a set of attributes that they themselves identified as important in the selection process. Qualitative data collected from the in-depth interviews held with the subcounty agricultural officer (KII1), community development officer (KII2), district health inspector (KII3), chairperson of the production and natural resources committee (KII4), district commercial officer (KII5), community opinion leader (KII6), and district production and marketing officer (KII7), as well as the focused group discussions held with farmers, were used to understand the smallholder farmers' perspective of potential alternative enterprises to tobacco. Qualitative findings guided the construction of the quantitative data collection instrument by first exploring farmers' willingness to shift from tobacco to identify the key variables, themes, and attributes for transiting as well as prioritizing potential alternatives, which were then transformed into measurable questions for the quantitative survey.

The household survey questionnaire using the computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) tool was used to collect farm-level data during the field survey. A multistage sampling technique was followed to collect quantitative cross-sectional data from 384 tobacco farmers [study participants (SP)] who primarily grew tobacco and any other crops such as rice, maize, beans, and cassava for commercial purposes. The sample size n was calculated based on a proportion (Khalid, 2024). The z-score, as the corresponding value of the 95% level of confidence. p being the proportion of target farmers in the population, and 0.5 was used in sample determination, a figure suggested to maximize variance in a population and produce the maximum sample size. This study used a sampling error of ±5%, the range in which the true value of the population was estimated to fall.

$\begin{array}{r}n=\frac{z^2\left[p(1-p)\right]}{e^2}.=\frac{{1.96}^2\left[0.5(1-0.5)\right]}{{0.05}^2}\\ =384farmhouseholds\end{array}$

From each of the two counties namely Bugahya and Buhaguzi counties in Hoima district, two leading tobacco-growing sub counties were purposively selected. From each subcounty (Figure 1), two parishes were randomly selected. Using the developed lists of tobacco farmers, the proportional stratified random sampling method was used to select study participants from each parish, namely, Kapaapi (18) and Kijongo (87) from Kigorobya subcounty, Budaka (10) and Bulyango (70) from Kitoba subcounty, Bubogo (77) and Igwanjura (26) from Kabwoya subcounty, and Butoole (51) and Kyangwali (45) from Kyangwali subcounty.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Map showing study locations in Hoima district.

2.2 Data analysis

Descriptive statistical analysis was conducted using various basic statistical measures, including mean, standard deviation, frequencies, and percentages. In addition, different analytical techniques were employed, including the independent-sample t-test and chi-square test to analyze the general characteristics of sampled tobacco farmers, as well as the binary probit regression and the multinomial logit models.

2.2.1 The probit model

To examine the factors that influence tobacco farmers' willingness to shift from tobacco to alternative crops, a discrete choice probit model based on random utility theory was applied. The binary dependent variable, y, takes the value of 1 if the farmer is willing to shift from tobacco to alternative crops and 0 otherwise. The model outcomes can be given a latent variable interpretation to provide a link with the linear regression model. Since y is the observed binary outcome in which a farmer prefers an alternative crop to tobacco or not, the underlying continuous unobservable or latent variable y^* is expressed as the following single index model:

$\begin{array}{ll}{y}^{*}=x^{\prime }\beta +\mu & (1)\end{array}$

Although y^* is unobservable, we can observe that

$\begin{array}{ll}y=\{\begin{array}{c}1,y^{*}>0\\ 0,y^{*}\le 0\end{array}& (2)\end{array}$

Using binary models, x is a vector of the underlying predictor variables hypothesized to drive a farmer's willingness to shift, or preference for an alternative crop to tobacco, based on literature review (Wan et al., 2022; Karemani and Nuwaha, 2016). β is the vector of parameters to be estimated that measures the effects of various explanatory variables on farmers' preference for an alternative crop to tobacco. μ is a normally distributed disturbance term with a zero mean and constant standard deviation of σ₁, and the disturbance term captures all unmeasured variables that influence the likelihood of farmers preferring an alternative crop. Therefore, the probability p_i of a farmer willing or not willing to shift to an alternative crop from tobacco can be expressed as in Equation 3, where φ represents the cumulative distribution of a standard normal random variable.

$\begin{array}{r}{p}_i=prob(Y_i=1|X)={\displaystyle {\int }_{-\infty }^{{\displaystyle x_i^{\prime }}\beta }}{(2\pi )}^{1/2}exp(-\frac{t^2}{2})dt\\ =\text{ Φ}({\displaystyle x_i^{\prime }}\beta )& (3)\end{array}$

The probit model overcomes the problems of other models because of its ability to generate bounded probability estimates for each observation. The relationship between a specific variable and the outcome of the probability is interpreted by means of the marginal effect, which accounts for the partial change in the probability. The marginal effect associated with continuous independent variables X_k on the probability P(Y_i = 1|X), holding other variables constant, can be derived as

$\begin{array}{ll}\frac{{\partial p}_i}{{\partial x}_{ik}}=\varnothing ({\displaystyle x_i^{\prime }}\beta ){\beta }_k& (4)\end{array}$

where φ represents the probability density function of a standard normal variable. On the other hand, the marginal effects of the dummy independent variables are analyzed by comparing the probabilities that result when the dummy variables take their two different values while holding all other independent variables at their sample mean values. Such an effect can be derived as in Equation 5. The marginal effects provide insights into how the predictor variables shift the probability of preferring alternative crops to tobacco. Using Stata version 15, marginal effects were calculated for each variable while holding other variables constant at their sample mean values.

$\begin{array}{ll}\text{Δ}=\text{Φ}(\overline{x}\beta ,d=1)-\text{Φ}(\overline{x}\beta ,d=0)& (5)\end{array}$

Diagnostic tests were performed to detect the presence and severity of the multicollinearity problem by computing the variance inflation factors (VIFs). Overall, the mean VIF value for all the explanatory variables used in the probit regression model was 8.6. The VIF values for membership in a farmer group (1.1), sex of farmers (1.4), off farm income (1.5), access to credit (2.0), health (2.4), and associating tobacco with environmental issues (3.0) fell in the acceptable range of 1 to 4, indicating low collinearity. Though with moderate VIFs falling between the range of 5–10 (Midi et al., 2010), tobacco farm size (4.9), age of farmers (5.9), and household size (8.2) were not dropped, as this does not discount the regression analyses according to (O'Brien 2007). However, variables representing experience in tobacco growing (10.7), education (11.8), tobacco unit price (12.0), association of tobacco with food insecurity problems (12.8), marital status (12.9), land ownership rights (21.4), and distance to the tobacco market (25.8) had their VIFs falling between the range of 10–30. These were not dropped since VIFs between 10 and 30 do not, by themselves, discount the results of the regression analyses (O'Brien, 2007) and may also be related to farmers' preference for an alternative crop to tobacco. We estimated the probit model with cluster-robust standard errors to account for sample selection bias and to control for heteroscedasticity. To examine whether the observed proportions of events are similar to the predicted probabilities of occurrence in subgroups of the model population, we conducted the Hosmer–Lemeshow test for goodness of fit (Boateng and Abaye, 2019). The p-value of 0.251 suggests a good fit to the data and, therefore, good overall model fit. In addition, the model predicted 73.9% of the sample correctly.

2.2.2 Multinomial logit model

We used the multinomial logit model to assess farmers' preferences for alternative crops. The model is commonly applied when there are multiple outcomes for the variable being examined (Wulff, 2015). This model is suitable for analysing responses that are not ordered and involve more than two options. The model estimates multiple equations simultaneously with each comparing one category to a baseline category (El-Habil, 2012), and can be expressed as follows:

$\begin{array}{ll}Log({\pi }_i/{\pi }_j)={\alpha }_i+{\beta }_{i}x,i=1,....j& (6)\end{array}$

The dependent variable in the study was categorized as 1 (beans), 2 (rice), 3 (maize), or 4 (cassava), and the predicted probabilities were obtained as follows:

$\begin{array}{ll}{p}_{ij}=Pr(y_i=j|x_i)=\frac{exp({\displaystyle x_i^{\prime }}{\beta }_j)}{{\displaystyle {\sum }_{j=0}^3}exp{({\displaystyle x_i^{\prime }}{\beta }_j)}^{\prime }}& (7)\end{array}$

Setting β = 0 for the base category and computing the predicted probabilities yields Equations 8, 9 to assess the relationship between a predictor and each outcome.

$\begin{array}{ll}{p}_{ij}=Pr(y_i=0|x_i)=\frac{exp({\displaystyle x_i^{\prime }}0)}{exp({\displaystyle x_i^{\prime }}0)+{\displaystyle {\sum }_{j=0}^3}exp({\displaystyle x_i^{\prime }}{\beta }_j)}& (8)\end{array}$

$\begin{array}{ll}{p}_{ij}=Pr(y_i=0|x_i)=\frac{1}{1+{\displaystyle {\sum }_{j=0}^3}exp({\displaystyle x_i^{\prime }}{\beta }_j)}& (9)\end{array}$

The model estimates the effect of the individual variables on the probability of choosing a crop alternative to tobacco. While predicted probabilities provide very informative graphical information about the direction and magnitude of the relationship, it may be difficult to precisely determine whether a relationship can truly be established, especially at places where the curve is flat. This implies that interpreting the coefficient will be misleading. To quantify the change in predicted probabilities therefore, marginal effects were estimated. The marginal effects are defined as the slope of the prediction function at a given value of the explanatory variable and thus inform us about the change in predicted probabilities due to a change in a particular predictor. Changes in discrete independent variables are conventionally calculated by allowing the predictor to vary between two values while holding all of the remaining predictors constant at their mean values. For a dummy variable X_k, the discrete change in the predicted probabilities is given by

$\begin{array}{ll}\frac{\text{Δ}{p}_{ij}}{\text{Δ}{x}_{ik}}=Pr(y=m|\stackrel{-}{X},X_{ik}=1)-Pry=m|\stackrel{-}{X},X_{ik}=0)& (10)\end{array}$

The model does a good job of predicting the mean, where the means of the predicted probabilities closely correspond to the actual frequencies of the four crop categories in the dependent variable. With the LR test giving the LR chi2 (63) = 235.22 and p < 0.000, the model containing the full set of predictors represents a significant improvement, indicating a 37% improvement in fit relative to the null model. This implies that the test is statistically significant, with at least one population slope being non-zero. The generalized Hosmer–Lemeshow test of goodness-of-fit for the multinomial logistic regression model yielded a p-value of 0.84, implying that the model provides a reasonable fit to the data.

3 Results

3.1 Socio-demographic characteristics of smallholder tobacco farmers

Table 1 indicates that the majority of tobacco farmers were male (82%). On average, tobacco farmers were 40 years old and had attained lower primary education. The independent two-sample t-test revealed that the average age of farmers with willingness to shift and farmers not willing to shift was significantly different (p < 0.1), whereas education level was not significantly different between the two groups (p ≥ 0.1).

Table 1

Table 1. Descriptive characteristics of tobacco farming households, disaggregated by willingness to shift to alternative crops.

“The labour-intensive nature of tobacco explains a high school dropout rate among tobacco farming households. Particularly, the harvesting period becomes highly interruptive where all family labour is exploited to avoid produce losses but at the cost of school attendance with a number of school-going children leaving school without completing their education” KII4, KII5, KII7.

The majority of tobacco farmers possess land ownership rights (95%) and grow tobacco on averagely half a hectare, with over 10 years of farming experience. The chi-square test revealed that possession of land ownership rights for farmers who were willing to shift and those not willing to shift was significantly different (p < 0.05). Similarly, the independent two-sample t-test indicated that the average land under tobacco growing for farmers who were willing to shift and those not willing to shift was significantly different (p < 0.1). However, tobacco farming experience was not significantly different between the two groups (p ≥ 0.1). Tobacco farming households were, on average, composed of eight members. Results indicate that the number of household members of farmers with willingness to shift and those not willing to shift was significantly different (p < 0.05). At the household level, more male (68%) than female adult members were involved in tobacco farming activities.

Results also indicate that most farmers associated tobacco with food insecurity situations (92%) because most of their time and family labor is spent on tobacco farms amidst limitations in access to arable land. Notably, the independent two-sample t-test revealed that the number of days spent on tobacco farming activities in a production cycle for farmers with willingness to shift and those not willing to shift was significantly different (p < 0.1). This is consistent with qualitative findings where key informants illustrated that the share of accessible arable land to undertake farming, including food crop production, has increasingly reduced over the years across tobacco farming communities.

“Tobacco growing requires large amounts of land yet we, being smallholder farmers, have small amounts of land. In the past, people could freely encroach the hills of Bunyoro kingdom to do farming, but that provision is no more. In addition, a good number of farmers, especially internal migrants, do not have land but rather rent to grow tobacco”, KII2, KII6 & KII7.

Most farmers (60%) associated tobacco with negative effects on the environment in view of the intensive logging and agrochemical use on tobacco farms. Results revealed that associating tobacco with negative effects was significantly different (p < 0.01) between farmers who were willing and those not willing to shift. Consultative discussions with key informants clearly illustrated that tobacco was not environmentally friendly, with evidence of massive wetland and forest destruction across tobacco farming communities.

“The adverse effect of tobacco growing on the environment is serious and real! During the previous tobacco nursery bed verification exercise, the District Tobacco Task Force found out that ninety nine percent, if not all, of the tobacco beds are established in wet lands, or directly in streams! As farmers seek for reliable water sources, the rate of water pollution increases comparably higher in tobacco than non-tobacco farming communities!”, KII2, KII4, KII5, KII7.

Tobacco is a heavy feeder with a high requirement of nutrients. This explains farmers' preference for virgin land and hence the encroachment on the forests resource in the district just to grow tobacco. In addition, the curing process exacerbates tree cutting because it requires farmers to either make barns and, or gather firewood dependent on the tobacco varieties grown”, KII3, KII4, KII7.

The high rate of deforestation partly due to tobacco related activities has contributed to the climatic variations in the local context. In the past, the first season ran from February to May, but more recently rains starting in either March or late April. The seasons have become unpredictable further affecting overall agricultural production and productivity since most farmers practice rain-fed agriculture”, KII1, KII2.

Over half of the farmers associated tobacco with occupational health complications (52%). Tobacco-growing activities often involve long hours of bending, as well as repetitive postures that cause health complications with advancing age. Farmers constrained by storage space to safeguard their produce from theft often sleep with produce during the curing period, which increases exposure to tobacco toxins over time. The continued exposure to agrochemicals throughout the growing season, handling of fresh tobacco leaves at harvest, and exposure to its dust during sorting, curing, and grading activities are further linked to miscarriages among women, respiratory issues, and green tobacco sickness. These gradually deteriorate tobacco farmers' health, with increasing chronic respiratory problems, including coughs, cases of chest pains, eye problems, hernias, and a few cited cases of tuberculosis. Discussions further revealed that tobacco work often caused sexual dysfunction among men which largely affected marital satisfaction in tobacco growing families mainly during the harvesting and marketing periods when men intensely get involved in tedious activities of bailing as well as the on and off-loading tobacco bails.

“Even if you have not suffered from the cancer, the smell itself is dangerous since some people sleep with tobacco in their houses for fear of theft and sudden fires”, KII3, KII5.

Women recounted that,

“[we] break [our] backs working to grow tobacco yet earn very little”, FGD3.

Other study participants argued that,

“Farmers inhale the smell of raw, uncured tobacco as they move through a tobacco field at the time of harvest, often resulting into nicotine poisoning. We have had skin related cases, chronic respiratory problems as well as miscarriages complaints due to tobacco, making it a real health problem”, KII2, KII3, KII7.

Despite farmer sensitizations by the Ministry of Health on the health effects of tobacco, farmers do not use nose masks when handling tobacco leaves continually exposing their lungs to the tobacco smell. Whereas company workers wear protective gear, our farmers handling tobacco at the farm level completely neglect the use of protective gear often wetting their hands and exposed skin with tobacco sap” KII3.

Most of the tobacco farmers did not belong to farmer groups (98%), while a few farmers had obtained input credit (43%) in the previous production cycle. A few of the sampled tobacco farmers who were not willing to shift to alternative crops attributed their choice to the ease of access to input credit in the form of seed, agrochemicals, tractor services, barn construction, and produce transportation amidst constraints to raise capital for investment. As illustrated in Figure 2, farmers' ratings indicated that tobacco significantly outperformed other crops in terms of access to production credit (p < 0.01). Results indicate that access to input credit for farmers with willingness to shift and those farmers not willing to shift was significantly different (p < 0.01). Another important pull factor was tobacco's stable produce market, typical of lump-sum and prompt payments (79.8%), guaranteed and fixed pricing structures (68.3%), as well as high produce prices (61.5%) compared to non-tobacco (alternative) crops. Figure 3 indicates that access to markets was significantly better for tobacco produce than for non-tobacco crops (p < 0.01). In addition, the mean distance to tobacco markets for farmers who were willing and those not willing to shift was significantly different (p < 0.01).

Figure 2

Figure 2. Tobacco farmers' rating of access to input credit by crop.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Tobacco farmers' rating of access to market by crop.

3.2 Farmers' willingness to replace tobacco with alternative crops

Results indicate that most of the sampled farmers (73%) were willing to shift from tobacco. This is consistent with qualitative results where the majority participants, namely 49 out of the 67 focus group discussants, were willing to shift from tobacco growing to alternative crops. The estimated coefficients and marginal effects of the probit model suggest that different variables were statistically significant at the 5% (p < 0.05) and 1% (p < 0.01) levels in influencing farmers' likelihood of shifting from tobacco to alternative crops (Table 2). Results indicate that having land ownership rights is positively and significantly associated with the farmers' willingness to shift to alternative crops (_p_ > 0.01). Tobacco farmers who have land ownership rights are more likely to shift to alternative crops, holding other factors constant. The marginal effect estimate indicated that farmers with land ownership rights were 32% more likely to shift to alternative crops than those farmers who have no land ownership rights. In addition, gender is positively and significantly associated with the likelihood of shifting from tobacco to alternative crops (p < 0.05). Female farmers were more likely to shift to alternative crops than male farmers, holding other factors constant. The marginal effect of gender indicated that being a female farmer increased the probability of shifting from tobacco to alternative crops by 11% compared to being a male farmer.

Table 2

Table 2. Factors influencing tobacco farmers' willingness to shift to alternative crops.

On the other hand, distance to tobacco markets and access to input credit had a negative and significant effect on the likelihood of shifting from tobacco growing to alternative crops (p > 0.01). The marginal effect suggests that each additional kilometer in the distance from tobacco markets reduced the probability of shifting to alternative crops by 13%. The marginal effect of access to input credit showed that tobacco farmers with access to input credit were 17% less likely to shift to alternative crops than those with no access to input credit. Similarly, associating tobacco with environmental damage negatively and significantly related with farmers' likelihood to shift to alternative crops (p > 0.05). Farmers who associated tobacco with negative effects on the environment were 12% less likely to shift to alternative crops, holding other factors constant. From the local actors' viewpoint, enforcement gaps in promoting environmental restoration and conservation practices at community level amidst by industry tactics that downplay environmental impacts deprive tobacco farmers of the necessary information regards tobacco farming and its consequences on the environment.

Whereas government distributes improved seed for alternative crops at a free cost, the negative effects of tobacco farming have not been well articulated to farming communities owing to the environmental conservation and restoration efforts are still lacking. Moreover, the weak enforcement and monitoring mechanisms to at the local level leave farmers unaware of the detrimental effects of their farming actions on existing natural resources”, KII4.

3.3 Attributes that influence tobacco farmers' choice of alternative crops

During the focused group discussions, farmers identified potential alternative crops and prioritized factors they would consider while selecting alternative crops to tobacco. The priority factor was the labor requirement in a production cycle (Table 3). Farmers indicated preference for alternative crops that required comparatively less labor throughout the production cycle. Other factors included the availability of stable and attractive produce prices, the crop's ability to tolerate drought, ease of management for pre- and post-harvest activities, and ease of access to markets and production inputs for alternative crops.

Table 3

Table 3. Summary of pairwise rankings for criteria considered important when selecting alternative crops to tobacco.

While it emerged as an important pull factor for the continued growing of tobacco, access to input credit was the least prioritized when choosing alternative crops to tobacco. This was related to farmers' long experience with the stringent tobacco contractual arrangements that come with excess input packages often charged at above-market rates, as well as the associated market malfunctions that turn into recurring overburdening debts.

“When tobacco is still in the garden, plants appear overly leafy that farmers anticipate to earn a lot of money. After harvesting however, cured tobacco leaves are sorted, compressed and bailed into a few bundles. It is at marketing when the company agent declares the farmer's total loan amount obtained in form production inputs and balances for payment that some farmers are left with negative margins compelling them to start the following year production cycle with deficits under obligation to repay debt”, KII6, KII7.

In addition, tobacco farmers experience prolonged liquidity constraints owing to the long production process and high manual labor involvement, which deprives many of an opportunity to venture into off-farm income-generating activities. On the other instances, a few companies often delayed to make payments for the farmers' produce. This further increases tobacco farmers' credit burden when they source small loans from money lenders and other informal sources to meet their day-to-day household needs, often offering standing tobacco crops as collateral with an agreement to pay back a specified quantity of tobacco at the time of harvest.

“…give me 10,000 Ugandan shillings (~USD 2.8) and in return, I will give you four or five kilograms of tobacco at harvest”, KII6.

Similarly, farmers accessing credit in agreement to pay back cash also face financial strains, as tobacco farming households contend with the expensive interest rates usually charged. In these tobacco farming communities, private money lenders charge a 100% interest rate for simple loans. “Even if you inquire from other people, Akutwara emitwaro etano, ajakuleta ikumi meaning one who borrows UGX 50,000/= (13.9 USD) will pay back UGX 100,000/= (27.8 USD)”, KII6.

Faced with financial constraints, coupled with heavy deductions at the point of sale often facilitated by information asymmetry regarding company input prices, production risks in growing tobacco steadily increase.

“Companies deduct our money without clear information on prices of inputs which result into heavy loans and consequently, low pay at sale. In the previous production cycle for instance, a friend was left with 50,000/= (13.9 USD) only, after a full year of growing tobacco yet with 3 wives and a debt from labourers who had been working on his farm”, SP197.

While tobacco is credited for having well-structured markets, discussions with farmers revealed malfunctions associated with the tobacco market, including the manipulation of tobacco produce grades. Check graders who buy tobacco leaf on behalf of contracting companies assign low grades to farmers' produce, often disregarding the visual grade displays in markets as well as the farmers' extensive practical knowledge and accumulated experience in differentiating tobacco's several produce grades. These consistent leaf-purchasing practices inevitably amount to inescapable bribery within tobacco markets, at a renowned rate of 100 Uganda shillings (~0.03 USD) per kilogram.

“Leaf graders determine the grade to offer a farmer, without room for negotiation unless a bribe is involved. Otherwise, there will not be any other buyer for your produce yet markets close within a stipulated time frame. Sometimes, leaf graders themselves contaminate our produce with feathers to maliciously distort the quality of produce and create an environment for bribe negotiations”, FGD1, SP184, SP185, SP323, SP363, SP368, SP369.

Tobacco farmers also argued that the degraded transport facilities partly deteriorate the quality of produce during transit. However, it is the farmers who take on the associated losses when check graders assign low grades to produce with deteriorated quality, often resulting in low produce prices and revenues for the majority of farmers who depend on company transportation services.

“On rainy days, perforated tarpaulins expose our produce to moisture during transit which instead becomes a farmer's loss when check graders assign low grades to such rehydrated produce at marketing!” FGD6, SP62, SP94, SP138.

As a result, the exchange of bribery between farmers and company agents or check graders, purportedly at the back of company authorities, remains unchecked along the bureaucratic marketing system of tobacco. Bribery prevails as farmers, in their low bargaining power position, seek genuine grading while check graders take advantage of their final discretion powers of assigning produce grades to extort money from them. Tobacco farmers also argued that recruited check graders had less expertise and skill in grading tobacco produce. In addition, farmers incur security costs in the form of discretionary payments to company transporters, including loaders and off-loaders, to watch over their produce bales against theft during transit to defined market centers.

“Even if tobacco is allegedly known to have good marketing procedures, there are other challenges involved. While some leaf buyers are less skilled at grading the produce, tobacco also has many grades necessitating one to pay something (bribe) to acquire a better grade, and consequently the competitive unit prices. If you do not give money to leaf buyers, your top-grade tobacco can easily be bought at a lower price which is a disadvantage to farmers”, KII6, SP313, SP328, SP368, SP369.

“Tobacco markets are centralized thus distantly located from most farmers' farm households. After reaching the market therefore, you must sell your produce even amidst cheating transactions because you have no transport means and money to as carry your produce back home. So, you just accept!”, SP111, SP354, KII2.

3.4 Potential alternative crops to tobacco

Crops that farmers considered to be potential alternatives to tobacco included both food and cash crops such as coffee, cocoa, maize, millet, groundnuts, cassava, banana, sweet potato, rice, yams, and beans. The listed crops were scored in the order of importance, and crops largely with the dual function of food security and income generation were prioritized for further assessment. Key informants, in their position of policy formulation and facilitating implementation, suggested crops such as coffee, cocoa, rice, maize, beans, and banana for their prioritization at the district level as strategic commodities to improve people's livelihoods with enormous economic, environmental, and health opportunities.

Prioritization of potential alternatives with farmers using the direct matrix scoring method generated four crops, namely maize, rice, beans, and cassava, as the most suitable alternative crops to tobacco (Table 4). Maize scored highly due to the ease of access to credit and ease of storage. Other important attributes included existing agro-processing technologies, suitability of soils, the ability to tolerate drought, resistance to pests and diseases, and lower labor requirements. Farmers scored rice as the second most promising crop alternative to tobacco because of its high produce prices and the readily available market. However, it scored zero for its susceptibility to drought conditions. Beans ranked third as a potential crop alternative due to the associated ease of agronomic practices. In fourth position, cassava was identified as a suitable alternative crop to tobacco mainly because of its unique tolerance to drought, but also due to lower labor requirements, its ability to perform in marginalized soils, resistance to pests and diseases, as well as the ease of access and availability of inputs.

Table 4

Table 4. Potential alternative crops to tobacco identified using the direct matrix ranking technique.

Quantitative data showed that the majority of the farmers preferred maize (38.4%) as a potential alternative to tobacco, followed by rice (37.6%), cassava (12.4%), and beans (11.6%). Results from the multinomial logistic regression also reveal that there is a significant relationship between crop attributes and the farmers' choice of an alternative crop to tobacco. Table 5 indicates that lower labor requirements (p > 0.1) and drought resistance (p > 0.01) are positively associated with the farmers' probability of choosing maize as an alternative to tobacco. The lower labor attribute is positively associated with selecting maize (p > 0.1) and negatively associated with selecting rice (p > 0.05) as an alternative to tobacco.

Table 5

Table 5. The marginal effect of predictor variables on the probability of choosing alternative crops to tobacco.

Access to reliable produce markets is positively associated with choosing rice as an alternative to tobacco but negatively associated with choosing either beans or cassava (p > 0.01). Similarly, access to high produce prices increases the probability of farmers choosing rice as an alternative to tobacco by 22% (p > 0.01) while indicating a negative association with choosing other crops. Considering the suitability of soils for alternative crops, farmers were more likely to select cassava by 13% (p > 0.1) and less likely to choose rice by 23% (p > 0.05). Drought resistance is positively associated with choosing maize but negatively associated with choosing rice or beans as an alternative to tobacco (p > 0.01).

In addition, ease of crop management is closely associated with choosing cassava (p > 0.01). Duality of crops increases farmers' probability of selecting cassava but reduces the likelihood of selecting rice as an alternative to tobacco (p > 0.05). Study findings showed that the probability of choosing beans would significantly reduce for female farmers by 10% (p > 0.05) and instead increase for farmers operating on large farms (p > 0.05). However, there was no significant relationship between farmer or household-level characteristics and selecting other crop choices as alternatives to tobacco.

4 Discussion

Study findings indicate that tobacco farmers are, on average, of middle age, a crucial demographic for ensuring the future sustainability and competitiveness of the agricultural sector. The study also reveals that, most farmers are willing to shift from tobacco to alternative crops despite financial and informational barriers (Khoso et al., 2025). Tobacco farmers who need crop alternatives are, on average, younger than their counterparts who do not need alternatives, similar to previous findings that older farmers are less likely to invest resources in alternative crops (Wan et al., 2022). Nonetheless, young farmers often face a number of challenges that threaten potential advancements in the development of the agricultural sector, including limited access to land, credit, extension services, and poor market bargaining power, which calls for targeted policy interventions to achieve transformative change in agrifood systems for prioritized alternative crops (Borda et al., 2023).

Tobacco farmers have attained only about 4 years of formal education, implying that the labor-intensive nature of tobacco farm work is done at the expense of farmers' education and lifelong learning opportunities, conflicting with Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 4 (von Eichborn, 2020). Therefore, low education attainment presents a specific problem that traps tobacco farmers in the cycle of poverty (Kulik et al., 2017). Because farmer education provides opportunities for learning sustainable farming approaches, promoting alternative crops that are comparatively less labor-intensive can better contribute to farmers' livelihoods and rural development (Privóczki et al., 2017). Overall, tobacco farming households were averagely composed of more members well above the average household size of four persons per household at national and regional levels. Study findings indicate that, tobacco farmers who need crop alternatives have fewer household members compared to their counterparts who do not need alternative crops. This could be explained by the fact that tobacco farm households take advantage of more members as a cheap source of farm labor required to meet the intensive tobacco labor demands (Sahadewo et al., 2020a).

Being a cash crop, tobacco is a male-dominated crop. It is, however, worth noting that women in households growing cash crops, particularly tobacco, are more likely to be disempowered, which exacerbates gender inequality and undermines food security, irreconcilable with achieving SDGs 4 and 2, respectively (Mahofa et al., 2022). This could explain why female farmers were more likely to shift from the labor-intensive tobacco crop to alternative crops. As women culturally take on the brunt of household responsibilities along with their husbands' labor obligations, the labor-intensive nature of tobacco activities only intensifies their workload. Previous research indicates that women hold agency in decision-making processes regarding tobacco agriculture when mobilizing their labor toward its farming (Clark et al., 2023). As a result, women experience a disproportionate burden of tobacco farm work, which advances gender inequalities against SDG 5. The significant positive likelihood implies that female farmers are better off engaging in alternative agricultural activities that are less labor-intensive, with the opportunity to protect their labor human rights and work from safe occupational conditions in line with SDG 8 (Von Eichborn et al., 2022).

Despite the degraded company transportation services typical of produce theft and leaking tarpaulins that expose produce to unfavorable weather conditions, tobacco farmers who live far from the markets were not willing to shift to alternative crops. This is due to contractual farming arrangements that ensure the transportation of farmers' leaf to the market because access to markets has a deep impact on farmers' decisions regarding crop choices and technology adoption (Perosa et al., 2024). The continued attraction to growing tobacco amidst production and marketing challenges reveals the weak development of resilient infrastructure, innovative processes, and agro-industrial arrangements for non-tobacco agri-food chains in tobacco-growing communities. Li et al. (2019) suggest that the availability of produce transport is an important incentive for tobacco farmers who live farther from economic centers, presenting a guarantee of making sales at the end of every production cycle. In other words, farmers' decision to continually grow tobacco is attributed to their ability to sell their crop, unlike the market uncertainties often faced with alternative crops (Clark et al., 2020). Nonetheless, the readily available tobacco markets are also typical of malfunctions that increase farmers' transactional costs in a production cycle. From another perspective, this represent negative farming experiences that lead to the farmer consideration of switching to alternative crops (Phetphum et al., 2024).

Having land ownership rights also has a significant and positive influence on farmers' willingness to shift to alternative crops. This is because having land ownership rights is likely to allow tobacco farmers to venture into growing alternative crops for a livelihood (Sahadewo et al., 2020b). However, most of the tobacco farmers have very limited land property but also limited access to arable land (Kienle et al., 2015). While this reduces the odds of reallocating the limited land resource to non-tobacco crops from the farmer's perspective, the fact that tobacco farmers largely operate on small plots of land increases the potential to directly transform their livelihoods when governments pursue Article 17 (Lencucha, 2023). Regularization of land rights to improve tenure security strategically allows for land reallocation from tobacco to sustainable crop farming systems that would generate nutrient-dense foods aligned with achieving SDG 2 and the national food and nutrition policy (Kulik et al., 2017; Carrilho et al., 2024). This substantiates the need for actionable land tenure strategies and policies that promote farmer adoption of alternative crops to counteract the risk of food insecurity and land degradation.

The study also reveals an inverse relationship between the environmental concern and farmers' willingness to shift to alternative crops. Farmers dependent on tobacco for their livelihood prioritize seasonal proceeds to meet immediate needs over long-term environmental sustainability yet again associate alternative crops with lower financial viability (Appau et al., 2020). As farmers focus on economic aspects of tobacco farming therefore, the environmental awareness continually gets outweighed. Besides, the industry's afforestation program partly enhances farmer satisfaction that tobacco-related environmental damages are effectively addressed yet broader conservation needs of the environment remain unmet due to limited biodiversity of the planted tree species. The industry's program instead aligns with greenwashing activities aimed at creating a perception of responsibility and improving its public image to stakeholders. In reality, the complicated tobacco farming process involves land clearing sometimes using the slash-and-burn methods, the heavy use of pesticides, growth regulators and chemical fertilizers, encroachment on forest and wetland resources, as well as the intensive logging for curing. In addition, evidence suggests that tobacco farming annually contributes 24.8% of the 84 Mt CO₂ equivalent to climate change on a larger scale (Zafeiridou et al., 2018). While tobacco farming activities adversely damage the environment, disrupt the ecosystem and accelerate climate change, the information deficit among tobacco farmers about these impacts amidst weak regulatory and enforcement practices as well as the industry tactics that discredit the environmental concern fosters farmer prioritization of economic necessity over long-term environmental sustainability. Undue attention to protect the environment not only disregard Article 18 of the WHO FCTC but also jeopardizes the achievement of SDG 15 targets that require the sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems and SDG 13 that calls for action to combat climate change. Yet farmer awareness of tobacco farming impacts with support of sustainable alternative livelihoods presents opportunity to restore biodiversity, protect land resources, reduce carbon emissions, and advance food security and nutrition development targets within tobacco-growing areas (Kulik et al., 2017). Although not significant, factors such as experience, off-farm income, marital status, and land size allocated to tobacco growing indicate a logical relationship with farmers' willingness to shift to alternative crops (Sibanda and Tsuyuki, 2024; Wan et al., 2022).

In addition, most of the farmers associate tobacco farming with occupational health hazards. The intensive use of agrochemicals in tobacco fields, amidst limited use of protective gear, the high nicotine exposure when tobacco farmers share space with their produce, coupled with the tedious nature of tobacco farm work, not only facilitates unsafe and insecure working environments but also infringes on farmers' labor rights, which is at odds with SDG 8. These circumstances not only continue to violate Article 18 of the WHO FCTC but also undermine Article 39 of the Ugandan Constitution that guarantees every person the right to a clean and healthy environment. In addition, associating tobacco with occupational health hazards undermines the opportunities for achieving SDG 3 targets and the WHO Constitution that calls for health equity and wellbeing aimed at reducing premature mortality (Amri et al., 2023; Ranabhat et al., 2019).

Clearly, tobacco's multidimensional impacts on farmers extend beyond economic issues to social, health, and environmental problems, which justifies the central role of a multisectoral approach in policy formulation processes intended to meet FCTC goals for tobacco control and NCD reduction (Sanni et al., 2018). Specifically, promoting alternative (non-tobacco) crops is one effective approach controlling non-communicable diseases but also building sustainable, healthy and often local food systems (Lencucha et al., 2018; Lencucha, 2023). To increase the success and viability of alternative crops, therefore, farmer priority attributes for potential alternatives, such as access to reliable markets, attractive produce prices, drought resistance, suitability to marginalized soils, less labor intensity, ease of storage and management, as well as the dual function of food security and income generation, need to be given precedence in development initiatives aimed at promoting non-tobacco crops. This suggests that an interaction of institutional factors, as well as crop-specific challenges and benefits of alternative crops, centrally shapes farmers' transition from tobacco growing (Clark et al., 2020).

In other words, farmers select alternative crops based on appropriateness at the farm level, production input availability and support, and crop viability from economic, environmental, and social perspectives. For instance, choosing maize is associated with opportunities for input credit and tolerance to drought, making it capable of coping with recent changes in climate and their impacts. This increases the viability of maize as an alternative crop relative to the high vulnerability of tobacco to climate variations (Liu et al., 2024). Rice is selected for its comparatively high produce prices and access to a reliable market. This is because farmers seek high-value crops with commercialization opportunities and thus see its potential to replace tobacco. Recent advancements driven by government strategies and international partnerships in Uganda's rice value chain, such as high-yielding upland rice varieties, value addition technologies, and increasing cross-border trade within the East African Community, provide opportunities for wider and more stable markets for rice as a potential alternative crop. On the other hand, the probability of farmers choosing rice decreases due to its susceptibility to drought and the unconducive soil structure previously used for tobacco cultivation.

Choosing cassava is attributed to its ability to thrive in marginalized soils that have been deteriorated by tobacco-growing agronomic practices (Liu et al., 2024), the ease of access to inputs from either previous harvests or farmer seed exchange networks, and the ease of management. This further highlights the challenges farmers face in sourcing or accessing agricultural inputs, leading to a preference for crop alternatives that either require less input use or offer several opportunities for accessing agricultural inputs. Choosing beans is associated with having access to large farms, owing to the positive effect that large-scale operations have on productivity, as well as net returns due to a greater decline in production costs (Begum et al., 2023). On the other hand, female farmers are less likely to choose beans partly because of their gendered role in ensuring household food security and the sociocultural perception of beans as a unique commodity with significant potential for food rather than as a cash crop.

Overall, farm labor requirements are an important factor that guide farmers' shift from tobacco to alternative crops. This could be attributed to its labor-intensive nature, where activities commonly commence with seedbed preparations in December and continue through the following year to the months of July or August when marketing starts, compromising farmers' time for leisure and non-tobacco farming activities (Clark et al., 2020; Klein et al., 2019). While companies provide tractor credit services for primary and secondary plowing, all other farm activities employ a manual labor force. As a result, exceptionally high labor requirements raise the opportunity costs of growing tobacco, even beyond economic terms, to food security and health-related concerns (Sahadewo et al., 2020a; Phetphum et al., 2024). Consequently, tobacco farming households find it difficult to earn a decent living from tobacco farming, often irreconcilable with SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 8 (von Eichborn, 2020). This is consistent with previous research that illustrates the detrimental economic impact of tobacco farming, implying that the associated benefits, after accounting for production costs including labor, are very limited (Lencucha et al., 2022).

Reflecting on a complex interplay of economic factors, health considerations, and environmental sustainability aspects and their interaction with farmer willingness to shift from tobacco, findings provide empirical basis for promoting sustainable crops with potential to support local economies and improve the health and environmental well-being of tobacco farming communities. Implementing the WHO FCTC, an international treaty that clearly aligns with the 2030 Agenda, through a multisectoral approach presents an opportunity to reduce the burden that tobacco imposes on sustainable development (Nilsson et al., 2016). In line with diversification theories, targeted support with an engendered perspective to facilitate access to affordable finance, access to attractive markets, as well as collaborations with relevant actors to attract expertise, resources, and skills development, are central to achieving a successful transition to sustainable crop alternatives (Kapembwa et al., 2021).

We used a mixed-methods approach, which enhances the understanding of underlying diverse perspectives from interviews and discussions when converged with prevalence or statistical trends, adding depth and breadth to the study with reliable evidence to support policy decisions (Wasti et al., 2022). However, having applied a cross-sectional study design, the study was susceptible to sampling bias, specifically the case of recall bias associated with self-reported data captured at one specific point in time, and it was also unable to assess incidence (Wang and Cheng, 2020). Because shifting away from tobacco is not straightforward yet is important for promoting a healthy farming population in line with the WHO's Health for All slogan (Amri et al., 2023), the need for longitudinal studies to establish how tobacco farmers' willingness to shift changes over time, together with how the change is associated with health outcomes, cannot be overemphasized in the formulation of comprehensive evidence-based policies within a multisectoral approach. In addition, the inverse relationship found between willingness to shift and negative effects on the environment triggers the need for further research to understand the complexities of tobacco farmers' behavior in view of sustainable farming practices.

5 Conclusion

Despite increased regulatory measures in efforts to control tobacco, farmers continue to participate in tobacco farming. Tobacco farming is associated with immeasurable challenges but also has social, economic, and environmental implications for farmers' livelihoods. To facilitate a smooth unidirectional transition from tobacco to alternative crop farming, this study sought to understand farmers' willingness to shift from tobacco farming to alternative crops, examine factors that influence tobacco farmers' willingness to shift, and understand the specific attributes for selecting crops identified as potential replacements for tobacco. Findings suggest that most tobacco farmers are willing to shift to alternative crops, depending on demographic, economic, and institutional factors. Tobacco's high farm labor requirement, along with its related health burdens, drives farmers' willingness to shift to alternative crops. In addition, innovative institutional arrangements that enhance farmers' access and permanence in value-adding markets with entrepreneurial initiatives for alternative commodities, access to affordable finance for production, appropriate crop-specific technologies, as well as transportation infrastructure to allow farmer engagement in optimal trade or arbitrage are necessary for achieving the WHO FCTC objectives. Strengthening land ownership rights through registration of customary land tenure systems cannot be overemphasized at improving security and usage land rights for the youth and female farmers so as to facilitate the transition and advance gender equality, women's empowerment and improved household food security in the affected communities. In addition, farmer-targeted tobacco awareness community programs are central to increasing their knowledge and understanding of the adverse non-economic consequences of tobacco farming in view of sustainability.

Furthermore, promoting alternative crops leverages the WHO FCTC to smoothen the abandonment of tobacco with provision of new opportunities that improve farmer livelihoods and catalyse sustainable development. Owing to the multidimensional implications of tobacco farming, this study suggests multisectoral partnerships to attract expertise and resources central to formulating policies that advance social, health, economic, and environmental sustainability through the promotion of alternative crops. The holistic approach builds on the comprehensive legislative and regulatory framework to institutionalize policy changes and integrate the full implementation of the WHO FCTC into the fulfillment of national, regional, and global development plans for sustainable development. Leveraging tobacco farmers' willingness to shift to alternative crops, therefore, relevant stakeholders from government ministries, departments and agencies of agriculture, finance, lands, trade, gender, education, health as well as information and guidance should develop multifaceted interventions that support transition to crop alternatives, along with an enabling environment for entrepreneurial development among tobacco-growing areas.

Data availability statement

The datasets presented in this study can be found in online repositories. The names of the repository/repositories and accession number(s) can be found in the article/Supplementary material.

Ethics statement

The studies involving humans were approved by School of Health Sciences Research and Ethics Committee (SHSREC) of Makerere University. 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

IN: Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Data curation, Visualization, Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing. JI: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. JK: Validation, Writing – review & editing, Supervision.

Funding

The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article.

Acknowledgments

Sincere appreciation is extended to my academic advisors for their invaluable contributions and support that greatly enhanced the quality of this research. Special thanks to all study participants, including farmers, the leadership community, and technical officials from Hoima district and subcounty local governments.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research 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) declare that no Gen AI was 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.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2025.1667492/full#supplementary-material

References

Abere, S. A., and Lameed, G. A. (2018). Alternative livelihood programs in Africa: a substitute or an added portfolio? World News Nat Sci. 16, 67–74.

Google Scholar

Ali, Y., Shahrier, M., Al, A., Ara, I., Javed, A., Fattah, A., et al. (2023). Environmental impact assessment of tobacco farming in northern Bangladesh. Heliyon. 9:e14505. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14505

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Amri, M., Enright, T., O'Campo, P., Di Ruggiero, E., Siddiqi, A., Bump, J. B., et al. (2023). Health promotion, the social determinants of health, and urban health: what does a critical discourse analysis of World Health Organization texts reveal about health equity? BMC Glob. Public Heal. 1, 1–14. doi: 10.1186/s44263-023-00023-4

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Appau, A., Drope, J., Goma, F., Magati, P., Labonte, R., Makoka, D., et al. (2020). Explaining why farmers grow tobacco: evidence from Malawi, Kenya, and Zambia. Nicotine Tob. Res. 22, 2238–2245. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntz173

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Appau, A., Witoelar, F., and Chavez, J. J. (2019). Why do farmers grow tobacco? A qualitative exploration of farmers perspectives in Indonesia and Philippines. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 16:2330. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16132330

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bechard, E., Silverstein, J., and Walke, J. (2023). What are the impacts of concern about climate change on the emo-tional dimensions of parents' mental health? A literature review. J. Heal. Care Commun. 8:41. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4524397

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Begum, R., Sharmin, S., Mitra, S., Akhi, K., Deb, L., Kamruzzaman, M., et al. (2023). Production risk and technical inefficiency of bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) cultivation in Bangladesh: do socio-economic factors matter? Soc. Sci. Humanit. Open 7:100417. doi: 10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100417

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Boateng, E. Y., and Abaye, D. A. A. (2019). Review of the logistic regression model with emphasis on medical research. J. Data Anal. Inf. Process, 07, 190–207. doi: 10.4236/jdaip.2019.74012

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Borda, Á. J., Sárvári, B., and Balogh, J. M. (2023). Generation change in agriculture: a systematic review of the literature. Economies 11:129. doi: 10.3390/economies11050129

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Carrilho, J., Dgedge, G., dos Santos, P. M. P., and Trindade, J. (2024). Sustainable land use: Policy implications of systematic land regularization in Mozambique. Land Use Policy 138, 107046. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.107046

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Chingosho, R., Dare, C., and Walbeek, C. (2021). Van. Tobacco farming and current debt status among smallholder farmers in Manicaland province in Zimbabwe. Tob. Control. 30, 610–615. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2020-055825

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Chune, M. D., Takoy, M. M., and Peter, O. (2022). Analysis of technical efficiency and its determinants among tobacco producers in Uganda: an application of data envelopment analysis. Int. J. Agril. Res. Innov. Tech. 12, 24–29. doi: 10.3329/ijarit.v12i1.61027

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Clark, M., Cunguara, B., Bialous, S., Rice, K., Drope, J., Labonte, R., et al. (2023). Foregrounding women and household dynamics to inform Article 17: a qualitative description analysis of tobacco farming households in Mozambique. Tob. Control. 33(e2), e185–e191 doi: 10.1136/tc-2022-057881

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Clark, M., Magati, P., Drope, J., Labonte, R., and Lencucha, R. (2020). Understanding alternatives to tobacco production in kenya: a qualitative analysis at the sub-national level. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17, 1–14. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17062033

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Dawadi, S., Shrestha, S., and Giri, R. A. (2021). Mixed-Methods Research: a Discussion on its Types, Challenges, and Criticisms. J. Pract. Stud. Educ. 2, 25–36. doi: 10.46809/jpse.v2i2.20

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

De Marinis, P., and Sali, G. (2022). Simplified pairwise ranking for prioritisation of agricultural development intervention in Masisi, Democratic Republic of Congo. Dev. Pract. 33, 59–75. doi: 10.1080/09614524.2022.2054952

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Drope, J., Hamill, S., Drope, J., and Hamill, S. (Eds.). (2025). The Tobacco Atlas. New York. Country profile: Uganda. Available online at: https://tobaccoatlas.org/factsheets/uganda/ (Accessed October 31, 2025).

Google Scholar

Egbe, C. O., Magati, P., Wanyonyi, E., Sessou, L., Owusu-Dabo, E., Ayo-Yusuf, O. A., et al. (2022). Landscape of tobacco control in sub-Saharan Africa. Tob. Control. 31, 153–159. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-056540

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

El-Habil, A. M. (2012). An application on multinomial logistic regression model. Pakistan J. Stat. Oper. Res. 8, 271–291. doi: 10.18187/pjsor.v8i2.234

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

FAO (2025). FAOSTAT. Available online at: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL (Accessed April 14, 2025).

Google Scholar

Feliciano, D. (2022). Factors influencing the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices: the case of seven horticultural farms in the United Kingdom. Scottish Geogr. J. 138, 291–320. doi: 10.1080/14702541.2022.2151041

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hammerich, A., El-Awa, F., Latif, N. A., El-Gohary, S., and Borrero, M. D. L. (2022). Tobacco is a threat to the environment and human health. East Mediterr. Heal. J. 28, 319–320. doi: 10.26719/2022.28.5.319

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kapembwa, S., Gardiner, A., and Pétursson, J. G. (2021). Small-scale fishing: income, vulnerability and livelihood strategies at Lake Itezhi-Tezhi, Zambia. Dev. South. Afr. 38, 331–352. doi: 10.1080/0376835X.2020.1746636

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Karemani, A., and Nuwaha, F. (2016). Willingness to stop growing of tobacco in Uganda. J. Glob. Oncol. 2:4077. doi: 10.1200/JGO.2016.004077

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Karemani, A., and Nuwaha, F. (2019). Willingness to Stop Growing Tobacco in Uganda. J. Glob. Oncol. 5, 17–21. doi: 10.1200/JGO.18.00242

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Khalid S. (2024) How to choose a sampling technique and determine sample size for research?: A simplified guide for researchers. Oral Onco Rep, 12, 100662. 10.1016/j.oor.2024.100662.

Google Scholar

Khoso, A. R., Jintu, G., Chen, Q., Sheikh, M. J., Suyuhan, W., and Bhutto, S. (2025). Ecological and health impacts of tobacco farming in Pakistan: A mixed-methods approach toward a sustainable pathway for agricultural transition. Tob. Induc. Dis. 23, 10–18332.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Kienle, U., Manos, B., and Jungbluth, T. (2015). Alternatives to tobacco cultivation-towards an evidence based approach. Land Use Policy. 45, 199–203. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.01.009

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Klein, A., Kamwaza, C., Chisusu, D., Nyirenda, M. C., and Kayange, E. (2019). Rural Perspectives on Alternatives to Tobacco Farming and Environmental Degradation in Malawi. Report No.: No.1. New York, NY: Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW)

Google Scholar

Kulik, M. C., Bialous, A. S., Munthali, S., and Max, W. (2017). Policy and practice: tobacco growing and the sustainable development goals, Malawi. Bull. World Heal. Organ. 95:362–367. doi: 10.2471/BLT.16.175596

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Le, T. H. L., Kristiansen, P., Vo, B., Moss, J., and Welch, M. (2024). Understanding factors influencing farmers' crop choice and agricultural transformation in the Upper Vietnamese Mekong Delta. Agric. Syst. 216:103899. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2024.103899

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lee, K., Botero, N. C., and Novotny, T. (2016). ‘Manage and mitigate punitive regulatory measures, enhance the corporate image, influence public policy': industry efforts to shape understanding of tobacco- attributable deforestation. Global. Health. 12, 1–12. doi: 10.1186/s12992-016-0192-6

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lencucha, R. (2023). Future of farming must be food not tobacco. Tob. Control. 32, 269–270. doi: 10.1136/tc-2023-058004

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lencucha, R., Drope, J., Magati, P., and Sahadewo, G. A. (2022). Tobacco farming: overcoming an understated impediment to comprehensive tobacco control. Tob. Control. 31, 308–312. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-056564

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lencucha, R., Dubé, L., Blouin, C., Hennis, A., Pardon, M., Drager, N., et al. (2018). Fostering the catalyst role of government in advancing healthy food environments. Int. J. Heal Policy Manag. 7, 485–490. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2018.10

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lencucha, R., Pal, N. E., Appau, A., Thow, A. M., and Drope, J. (2020). Government policy and agricultural production: a scoping review to inform research and policy on healthy agricultural commodities. Global. Health 16, 1–15. doi: 10.1186/s12992-020-0542-2

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Li, J., Zhang, Z., Jin, X., Chen, J., Zhang, S., He, Z., et al. (2018). Exploring the socioeconomic and ecological consequences of cash crop cultivation for policy implications. Land Use Policy 76, 46–57. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.04.009

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Li, Q., Magati, P., Lencucha, R., Labonte, R., Makoka, D., Drope, J., et al. (2019). The economic geography of Kenyan tobacco farmers' livelihood decisions. Nicotine Tob. Res. 21, 1711–4. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntz011

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Liu, W., Chen, X., Zhao, Y., and Shi, H. (2024). Effects of green manuring on chemical characteristics and microecology of tobacco-growing soil in central henan. BMC Microbiol. 25:42. doi: 10.1186/s12866-025-03742-w

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mahofa, G., Sukume, C., and Mutyasira, V. (2022). Agricultural commercialisation, gender relations and women's empowerment in smallholder farm households: evidence from Zimbabwe. Brighton: Agricultural Policy Research in Africa.

Google Scholar

Male, D., Ralston, R., Nyamurungi, K., and Collin, J. (2022). “That is a Ministry of Health thing”: Article 5.3 implementation in Uganda and the challenge of whole-of-government accountability. Tob. Control. 31, s12–s17. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-057049

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Matthes, B. K., and Zatoński, M. (2019). Tobacco control and sustainable development: shared challenges and future opportunities. J. Health Inequal. 5, 71–79. doi: 10.5114/jhi.2019.87840

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Meghani, A., Ssemugabo, C., Pariyo, G., Hyder, A. A., Rutebemberwa, E., Gibson, D. G., et al. (2021). Curbing the rise of noncommunicable diseases in Uganda: perspectives of policy actors. Glob. Heal. Sci. Pract. 9, 149–159. doi: 10.9745/GHSP-D-20-00051

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Midi, H., Bagheri, A., and Imon, A. H. M. R. (2010). The application of robust multicollinerity diagnostic method based on robust coefficient determination to a non-collinear data. J. Appl. Sci. 10, 611–619. doi: 10.3923/jas.2010.611.619

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mirza, M., Rodriguez-iglesias, G., and Blecher, E. (2019). Why Tobacco Control Doesn't Hurt Farmers: Decoupling Domestic Cigarette Consumption and Leaf Production (A Tobacconomics White Paper). Chicago, IL: Tobacconomics. Available online at: https://www.economicsforhealth.org/files/research/536/Farming-Tobacco-White-Paper_v1.6-3.pdf (Accessed October 18, 2025).

Google Scholar

Monshi, S. S., and Ibrahim, J. (2021). Implementation of tobacco control measures in the Gulf Cooperation Council countries, 2008–2020. Subst. Abus. Treat. Prev. Policy. 16, 1–10. doi: 10.1186/s13011-021-00393-8

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Moutawakkil, S. G., El-Ammari, A., El Malki, H., Ragala, M. E. A., El Rhazi, K., Zarrouq, B., et al. (2024). Prevalence of Tobacco Products' Use and Associated Factors Among Adolescents in Morocco: A Systematic Review. Subst. Use Res. Treat. 18, 1–21. doi: 10.1177/29768357241272370

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Nakamatte, I., Ilukor, J., and Bonabana, J. (2025). Economic feasibility and impacts of replacing tobacco with alternative crops in smallholder cropping systems: evidence from Uganda. Agrekon. 64, 50–71. doi: 10.1080/03031853.2024.2441129

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Nguenha, N., Rodriguez, C., Drope, J., Bialous, S. A., Cunguara, B., Lencucha, R., et al. (2024). Tobacco policy (in)coherence in Mozambique: an examination of national and subnational stakeholder perspectives. Health Policy Plan. 39, 333–343. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czae010

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Nilsson, M., Griggs, D., and Visbeck, M. (2016). Policy: map the interactions between sustainable development goals. Nature 534, 320–322. doi: 10.1038/534320a

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

NPA (2024). Fourth National Development Plan (NDP IV) 2025/26 - 2029/30. Uganda: NPA.

Google Scholar

O'Brien, R. M. A. (2007). Caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Qual. Quant. 41, 673–690. doi: 10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Perosa, B. B., da Bicudo Silva, R. F., and Batistella, M. (2024). Market access and agricultural diversification: an analysis of Brazilian municipalities. Land. 13, 1–13. doi: 10.3390/land13010061

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Phetphum, C., and Lencucha, R. (2025). The impacts on the economy, health, and environment resulting from tobacco cultivation: a cross-sectional survey of tobacco farmer perspectives in Thailand. Tob. Induc. Dis. 23, 1–11. doi: 10.18332/tid/204301

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Phetphum, C., Wangwonsin, A., Prajongjeep, A., and Simsin, S. (2024). Perspectives of push-pull-mooring effects on a desire for switching to alternative crops among tobacco farmers in Thailand: a qualitative study. Tob. Induc. Dis. 22:1–11. doi: 10.18332/tid/175685

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Privóczki, Z. I., Borbély, C., and Bodnár, K. (2017). Young farmers and sustainable development. Rev. Agric. Rural. Dev. 6, 113–117. doi: 10.14232/rard.2017.1-2.113-117

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Promphakping, B., Chamaratana, T., Somaboot, P., Weeranakin, P., Promphakping, N., Phatchaney, K., et al. (2021). Why does tobacco agriculture in Thailand persist? For. Soc. 5, 543–58. doi: 10.24259/fs.v5i2.13587

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ranabhat, C. L., Kim, C. B., Park, M. B., and Jakovljevic, M. (2019). Situation, impacts, and future challenges of tobacco control policies for youth: an explorative systematic policy review. Front. Pharmacol. 10, 1–13. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2019.00981

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Reitsma, M. B., Fullman, N., Ng, M., Salama, J. S., Abajobir, A., Abate, K. H., et al. (2017). Smoking prevalence and attributable disease burden in 195 countries and territories, 1990-2015: a systematic analysis from the global burden of disease study 2015. Lancet. 389, 1885–1906. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30819-X

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rowe, M. (2019). Smoke signals. Framework Convention Alliance. Available online at: https://www.fctc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Dossier-Tobacco-Geographical-UK-Article.pdf (Accessed October 31, 2025).

Google Scholar

Sahadewo, G. A., Drope, J., Witoelar, F., Li, Q., and Lencucha, R. (2020a). The Economics of Tobacco Farming in Indonesia: Results from Two Waves of a Farm-Level Survey. Chicago, IL: American Cancer Society.

Google Scholar

Sahadewo, G. A., Drope, J., Witoelar, F., Li, Q., and Lencucha, R. (2020b). The Economics of Tobacco Farming in Indonesia: 3rd Wave Tobacco Farmers Survey. Chicago, IL: Tobacconomics.

Google Scholar

Sanni, S., Hongoro, C., Ndinda, C., and Wisdom, J. P. (2018). Assessment of the multi-sectoral approach to tobacco control policies in South Africa and Togo. BMC Public Health. 18:962. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5829-3

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sibanda, S., and Tsuyuki, S. (2024). Determinants of tobacco cultivation and the associated impacts of adoption in Hurungwe District, Zimbabwe. Agric. Sci. 15, 505–531. doi: 10.4236/as.2024.154029

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sidhoum, A. A., Hervé Dakpo, K., and Latruffe, L. (2022). Trade-offs between economic, environmental and social sustainability on farms using a latent class frontier efficiency model: evidence for Spanish crop farms. PLoS ONE 17, 1–17. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261190

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

UBOS (2023). Uganda Statistical Abstract. Kampala: UBOS

Google Scholar

von Eichborn, S. (2020). Discover how sustainable development, children's rights and tobacco control are linked. Tob Prev Cessat. 6, 1–3. doi: 10.18332/tpc/120152

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Von Eichborn, S., Schaller, K., Ulbricht, S., Renzulli, C., Rosemeyer, M. C., Rosen, D., et al. (2022). Women's Rights and Tobacco Control. Berlin: Berlin Working Group on Environment and Development (BLUE 21 e.V.)

Google Scholar

Wan, X., Jin, J., Ran, S., Guan, T., and Qiu, X. (2022). Are Farmers Willing to Substitute Tobacco Cultivation? Evidence From Lichuan City, China. Nicotine Tob. Res. 24:942. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntac034

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Wang, X., and Cheng, Z. (2020). Cross-sectional studies: strengths, weaknesses, and recommendations. Chest. 158, S65–S71. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.03.012

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Wanyonyi, E., Talibita, M., Kirigwajo, M., and Rusoke, T. (2020). “Africa Tobacco Industry Monitoring (ATIM),” Country Report: Uganda, eds. O. Ayo-Yusuf and P. Chirawu. Available online at: https://www.atim.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/2020-ATIMCountry-Uganda-2020FINAL.pdf (Accessed October 18, 2025).

Google Scholar

Wasti, S. P., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E., Sathian, B., and Banerjee, I. (2022). The growing importance of mixed-methods research in health. Nepal J. Epidemiol. 12, 1175–1178. doi: 10.3126/nje.v12i1.43633

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

WHO (2023a). Africa Tobacco Industry Monitiring (ATIM) country Report 2020: Uganda. Geneva: WHO

Google Scholar

WHO (2023b). World No Tobacco Day 2023: Grow Food, not Tobacco. Medicine Today, Vol. 3. Geneva, p. 7. Available online at: https://www.who.int/europe/news-room/events/item/2023/05/31/default-calendar/world-no-tobacco-day-2023–we-need-food–not-tobacco doi: 10.53127/tblg-2023-A001 (Accessed October 31, 2025).

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

World Health Organization (2022). Cultivating tobacco-free farms. Cultivating tobacco-free farms. Bull. World Health Organ. 100, 754–755. doi: 10.2471/BLT.22.021222

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Wulff, J. N. (2015). Interpreting results from the multinomial logit model: demonstrated by foreign market entry. Organ. Res. Methods 18, 300–325. doi: 10.1177/1094428114560024

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zafeiridou, M., Hopkinson, N. S., and Voulvoulis, N. (2018). Cigarette smoking: an assessment of tobacco's global environmental footprint across its entire supply chain, and policy strategies to reduce it. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52, 8087–8094. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.8b01533

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar