Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Apr 8;7(4):e06653.
doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06653. eCollection 2021 Apr.

Is investment in Climate-Smart-agricultural practices the option for the future? Cost and benefit analysis evidence from Ghana

Stanley Karanja Ng'ang'a  1 , Vail Miller  2 , Evan Girvetz  3
Affiliations

Is investment in Climate-Smart-agricultural practices the option for the future? Cost and benefit analysis evidence from Ghana

Stanley Karanja Ng'ang'a et al. Heliyon. .

Abstract

A majority of smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) countries depend to a large extent on agriculture for food security and income. Efforts aimed at improving farm-related profitability are therefore important to improving livelihoods among smallholder farmers. In Ghana, for example, smallholder farmers that depend on agriculture face serious risks especially those related to climate change and variability and soil degradation. Notwithstanding these dangers, evidence of the published literature on how best to tackle these challenges is limited. Over the recent decades, however, there has been advancement by programs channelling resources into Climate-Smart Agricultural (CSA) practices to improving smallholder livelihoods and food security. The interest in advancing investment in CSA practices is a key pathway that has the potential to significantly reduce the negative effect of climate change and variability risks on smallholder farmers livelihoods. Investing in CSA practices is also a key pathway to improving farm yield per unit area. Consequently, smallholder farmers are adopting and implementing CSA practices. Despite that, a gap still exists on the profitability of undertaking such an investment, as this is key in determining the sustainability of CSA practices. On this basis, the present study undertook a detailed cost-benefit analysis (CBA) of seven CSA practices identified with smallholder farmers in the coastal savannah agro-ecological zone of Ghana. A total of 48 smallholder farmers that had adopted these practices were studied. Three CBA indicators namely the net present value (NPV), internal rate of return (IRR) and payback period (PP) were assessed for each of the seven CSA practices. The results showed that out of the seven CSA practices examined, six of them were profitably suitable for adoption and scaling up from the perspective of smallholder farmers as well as the public perspective. The finding from this study, therefore, fill the current information gap in the literature on the costs and benefits of adopting CSA practices on household livelihoods in Ghana. Such a finding is critical to the promotion and scaling up the adoption of CSA practices by smallholder farmers and serve as a basis of formulating appropriate guidelines and policies for supporting CSA practices.

Keywords: Climate-Smart; Decision; Externalities; Livelihoods; Practice; Smallholders; Yield.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
A map of Ghana showing the main agro-ecological zones.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The linear plateau response function (Source: Beattie and Taylor, 1993).
Figure 3
Figure 3
The proposed shape that the physical response function is assumed to take during the lifespan of a CSA practice.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Cumulative distribution of the value per unit change in on-farm biodiversity per hectare per year.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Installation, maintenance and operation costs for the studied climate-smart agricultural practices.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Ackerman F., Heinzerling L. Pricing the priceless: cost-benefit analysis of environmental protection. Univ. PA. Law Rev. 2002;150:1553.
    1. Aguilera M.B. The impact of social capital on labor force participation: evidence from the 2000 social capital benchmark survey. Soc. Sci. Q. 2002;83:853–874.
    1. Akudugu M.A., Guo E., Dadzie S.K. Adoption of modern agricultural production technologies by farm households in Ghana: what factors influence their decisions? J. Biol. Agric. Healthc. 2012;2:1–13.
    1. Atkinson G. The Tools of Policy Formulation: Actors, Capacities, Venues and Effects. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.; 2015. Cost-benefit analysis: a tool that is both useful and influential? pp. 142–160.
    1. Atkinson G., Mourato S. 2015. Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment.

LinkOut - more resources