Climate-smart agriculture: what is it good for?

By Marcus Taylor. 2018

307 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, General Agricultural and Biological Sciences

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/fa2456616dc36c59801ac2e0d3a23d1dea19e965

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology

1. Evan D. G. Fraser
2. Lindsay C. Stringer
3. E. Simelton

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

1. James Hansen
2. Evan D. G. Fraser
3. Lindsay C. Stringer
4. E. Simelton

In General Agricultural and Biological Sciences

1. Evan D. G. Fraser
2. B. Campbell
3. James Hansen
4. Lindsay C. Stringer
5. E. Simelton
6. A. Dougill

Citations in the corpus

• Constraints for adopting climate-smart agricultural practices among smallholder farmers in Southeast Kenya (2021, background): “The main critique of CSA concerns its technically oriented nature, as it fails to consider for example labour advances, consumption patterns, and land tenure questions (Taylor, 2018).”
• Food and Earth Systems: Priorities for Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation for Agriculture and Food Systems (2019, background): “Despite the ability for CSA to provide holistic approaches to development, implementation is often constrained to market-oriented technical fixes, and thus does not live up to its stated aims [156].”
• Adaptation and development pathways for different types of farmers (2019, background): “For instance, from an equity perspective, technological change impacts diverse social classes and gender differently (Taylor, 2018).”