Climate Services 28 (2022) 100336
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Climate Services
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cliser
Factors that influence the use of climate information services for
agriculture: A systematic review
Devin Warner a, c, *, Stephan Moonsammy a, Jeanelle Joseph b
a
Department of Environmental Studies, Faculty of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Guyana, P. O. Box 10 1110, Turkeyen Campus, Georgetown, Guyana
Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, Faculty of Food and Agriculture, University of the West Indies, St. Augustine Campus, St. Augustine, Trinidad and
Tobago, Guyana
c
Hydrometeorological Service, Ministry of Agriculture, 18 Brickdam, Stabroek, Georgetown, Guyana
b
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Keywords:
Climate Change
Climate Information Services
Systematic Review
The use of climate information services (CIS) is widely considered as a key adaptation strategy for the agriculture
sector in dealing with the challenges posed by climate variability and climate change. Although there are several
examples of CIS programs with varying degrees of success in promoting the use of CIS in the agriculture sector,
barriers to its successful use by agricultural decision makers still exist. Through a systematic review structure,
this paper synthesizes the wealth of recent literature on climate information services to identify the common
factors that influence the use of CIS by farmers and agriculture practitioners. The synthesis identified 22 factors,
which were discussed under three (3) thematic areas, socio-cultural and demographic issues; programming
mechanism; and institutional support and resource allocation for communities. Participation and engagement
were the most readily identified in the literature synthesis and was found to be a key enabler to the use of CIS for
agriculture decision making. Other distinguishing factors were related to trust in and credibility of CIS and CIS
providers; and multi-modal communication channels; timely delivery of CIS. Key barriers to the use of CIS
included gender inequality; lack of resources and poor infrastructure; and lack of trust in CIS and CIS providers.
The factors identified in this review can be used by climate information providers as a guide to ensure the
successful utilization of CIS information products and programs by farmers and other agriculture practitioners.
1. Introduction
Scientific climate studies indicate that the climate is changing at a
rapid rate (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2018;
Meinshausen et al., 2022). Changing rainfall patterns and increasing
temperature can negatively impact climate sensitive sectors such as
agriculture (Dube et al., 2016). Food production globally is facing a
future filled with many uncertainties as the globe grapples to address the
proliferation of socio-economic issues associated with climate change.
Marginalized agriculture lands especially in countries with large rural
farming communities such as India, Bangladesh and China are experi­
encing declines in production output due to adverse weather conditions
and water shortages resulting in the foreclosure of farms and displace­
ment of farmers (Ahmad et al., 2011; Sikder and Xiaoying, 2014). The
effects felt in the agricultural sectors of these large nations especially
from the Asian region has a major impact on global food security as the
Asian market alone produces approximately-two-thirds of the world’s
food supply. The literature shows that approximately 33 % of global
agricultural systems are affected by climate variability (Ray et al.,
2015), with this value expected to increase exponentially in the near
future; further exacerbating global food security issues (Springmann
et al., 2016). In response to the well documented effects of climate
change on agriculture, extension and advisory services globally have
pioneered the research, investments and policy structure needed to
implement the use of climate information services in the agriculture
sector (Georgeson et al., 2017). According to the literature, climate in­
formation services (CIS) are regarded as a farm decision-making tool
that can be used for mitigating weather and climate related risk in
agricultural production systems (Ouédraogo et al., 2018; Vaughan et al.,
2017). Provision of CIS to end-users involve the collection, organization,
packaging, tailoring, and distribution of weather and climate informa­
tion. This includes (but not limited to) information on rainfall, tem­
perature, wind and soil conditions. CIS packages often include short,
medium and/or long-range weather and climate forecasts and
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: devinwarner25@gmail.com (D. Warner).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2022.100336
Received 27 May 2021; Received in revised form 17 September 2022; Accepted 13 October 2022
2405-8807/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/bync-nd/4.0/).
D. Warner et al.
Climate Services 28 (2022) 100336
advisories. Based on end-user needs, CIS may include other information
such as improved seed varieties or other locally appropriate climate
smart agricultural practices (World Bank, 2016). For instance, CIS may
be in the form of agro-met advisories within the seasonal forecast to
assist farmers in selection of crop varieties and planting dates (Soler
et al., 2007). CIS globally is overseen by the Global Framework for
Climate Services (Hewitt et al., 2012), which was established at the
World Climate Conference in 2009 and is administered by the World
Meteorological Organization (WMO).
Through the efforts and mobilization of the Global Framework for
Climate Services working with national meteorological agencies,
extension and advisory services and research institutions, several
methodological approaches and procedures for delivering climate in­
formation services have been developed and implemented globally. For
instance, the Participatory Integrated Climate Services for Agriculture
(PICSA) was developed out of several climate information services
projects implemented in Sub-Saharan Africa (Clarkson et al., 2019). To
date, PICSA has been successfully implemented in at least 20 countries
across Africa, Asia, the Caribbean and Latin America of which tens of
thousands of farmers have benefited. The PICSA approach can be scaled
to fit a variety of contexts and utilizes practical participatory method­
ologies with the farmer at the center of the approach (the farmer de­
cides). A PICSA assessment study by Dayamba et al. (2018) showed that
most farmers judged the approach as very useful since it stimulated them
to consider and implement various innovations based on specific cir­
cumstances and local climate. Similar to PICSA, the participatory sce­
nario planning (PSP), developed by CARE International’s Adaptation
Learning Programme (ALP), utilized a participatory approach that
supports the user to be at the center of agricultural decision-making
based on information received from the seasonal forecast (see carec
limatechange.org). The PSP approach has been documented and
implemented in Kenya, Ghana and Niger and adopted by the Agriculture
Sector Development Support Programme (ASDSP) in all 47 counties in
Kenya and other organizations in twelve (12) countries.
Another CIS intervention is the Caribbean Agrometeorological
Initiative (CAMI), which sought to increase and sustain agricultural
productivity at the farm level in the Caribbean region through improved
CIS dissemination and application by utilizing an integrated and coor­
dinated approach (CAMI, 2010). CAMI was funded by the European
Union (EU) and administered in the Caribbean region by the Caribbean
Institute for Meteorology and Hydrology (CIMH) in ten (10) countries.
For many of these countries, CAMI provided a major opportunity for
collaboration between meteorological and agricultural service staff.
CAMI partner countries have been developing climate outlook bulletins
in an effort to communicate a three-month seasonal forecast to agri­
cultural extension staff and farmers countrywide. Examples of such
products include: the Farmers Monthly Bulletin (FMB), developed for
farmers by the Agro-meteorology section of the Hydrometeorological
Service of Guyana. The purpose of the bulletin is to provide agronomic
advice to crop and livestock farmers in consideration of the climate
projections for the upcoming three-month growing season (Hydromet
Service Guyana, 2021). A post CAMI evaluation study found that
although agro-meteorological CIS products developed by CAMI country
partners are of high quality, weaknesses (relating to: communication
channels; delivery time; end-user engagement; among others) in the
dissemination of the information can affect its use by farmers and other
end-users (Vogel et al., 2017).
There are several other global examples of regions implementing CIS
products for agricultural purposes. In Latin America for instance, sea­
sonal bulletins are produced in the Regional Climate Outlook Forums
(RCOF’s) and are disseminated through mobile and online application
platforms (Baethgen et al., 2016). Through the European Union’s
Copernicus Programme, the Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S)
was developed and utilized a Climate Data Store system whereby
computational models are developed specifically to meet end user needs
in their agricultural operations (Buontempo et al., 2020). Copernicus is
an Earth observation program intended to provide fully open-access
data and other information services based on satellite and in-situ ob­
servations. Through this initiative, the global agriculture sector has the
potential to be in a better position to understand and manage weather
and climate-related risks through access to reliable and consistent
environmental data and other information products. In countries such as
Brazil and the United States, seasonal climate forecasts (SCFs) have been
used in agriculture and other land management contexts (Dessai and
Soares 2013; Hansen et al., 2011). For instance, the state of Ceará in
Brazil adopted SCFs in 1989 to manage the effects of drought. These
forecasts were used to warn farmers of the imminent El Niño southern
oscillation so that necessary preparations and precautions can be
employed. Another example is in the Southeast United States, where
SCFs of temperature and rainfall, short-term rainfall forecasts, a drought
outlook, hurricane forecasts, and a wide array of agriculture-focused
tools such as disease advisories and a planting date planner are pro­
vided by AgroClimate (see http://agroclimate.org/). AgroClimate’s
mission is to develop knowledge in agro-meteorology and transfer that
knowledge to help agriculture managers in mitigating production risks
associated with climate variability and change.
1.1. Use of agricultural climate services in agriculture
Despite the increase in climate change research and development of
various CIS, there still exists a gap between information production and
use by agricultural stakeholders (Lemos et al., 2012). Although there is
high demand for these services, widespread use of CIS by agricultural
decision makers remain low (Lemos et al., 2012; Marshall et al., 2011;
Vogel et al., 2017). Vogel et al. (2017) also pointed out that many factors
contribute to the low use of CIS in agriculture. However, these factors
are not well-known (Muema et al., 2018). Literature in climate science
communication has shown that the majority of potential climate science
research end-users are unaware of the existence of available climate
science information; have little to no access to it or fail to understand
climate science information (Lemos et al., 2012; Mcnie 2012; Sultan
et al., 2020; Vedeld et al., 2019; Weaver et al., 2013). In addition,
Mwangi et al. (2020) found that the process utilized by linear technol­
ogy diffusion models can hinder continuous use of CIS by farmers. Linear
models do not offer the opportunity for farmers to participate and be
engaged in the development process. As a result, they are viewed as
spectators in the process. The study argues that in order to enhance the
use of CIS, a shift from the conventional linear models of technology
transfer to an innovative systems approach is needed. This approach
promotes interactive learning and knowledge sharing by regarding
farmers and other relevant stakeholders as part of the development
process. The literature also shows that for the successful provision of
CIS, it is essential to bridge the gap between the traditionally divided
science-policy-practice and community experience (or ‘grass-roots’
knowledge) through user engagement and knowledge exchange (Hering
et al., 2014). This position is supported by wider policy and theoretical
discussions, which advocates that in dealing with complex problems like
climate change, various types of knowledge, beyond technology and
applied sciences are required. This mix of knowledge and skills will
consequently promote and create opportunities for interaction and
collaboration in the production of information (Kirchhoff et al., 2013a).
In this regard, there can be a possible shift from the customary loadingdock approach where CIS products are created with minimal collabo­
ration, consultation or coordination with end-users (Cash et al., 2006;
Vogel et al., 2017), to a point where farmers are no longer passive re­
ceivers of scientific information but are active participants in the CIS
provision process (especially with the integration of their intimate
knowledge and expertise of the particularities of their decision-making
process) (Vaughan and Dessai, 2014).
Climate information services is a relatively new scientific discipline.
In this discipline, most social science studies that focus primarily on enduser interaction are conducted with a multi-sectoral approach. There is a
2
D. Warner et al.
Climate Services 28 (2022) 100336
growing body of literature exploring the potential issues and empirical
evidence relating to the use of various CIS approaches specifically for the
agriculture sector. This is all in an effort to improve upon the provision
and use of these services in the agriculture sphere (Clarkson et al., 2019;
Dayamba et al., 2018; Haigh et al., 2015; McKune et al., 2018; Rosas
et al., 2016). Some recent studies have attempted systematic approaches
and literature synthesis to analyze the use of CIS and their effectiveness
in various agricultural systems (Bouroncle et al., 2019; Soares et al.,
2018). Our searches through the literature showed no study to date that
synthesized the wealth of CIS literature in order to identify the under­
lying issues related to the use of CIS by agriculture practitioners. The
objective of this study is to compile the literature published worldwide
in the discipline of climate services for agriculture and identify and
synthesize the factors that influence the use of agricultural climate in­
formation services and products. This study adopts the systematic re­
view process as presented by Pullin and Stewart (2006). It outlines a
selection criterion for articles used in the review and will present a
synthesis of the compiled articles. It further intends to present and
describe the factors that affect the use of CIS in such a manner that policy
makers and institutions overseeing CIS projects can re-strategize their
implementation approach. This can then lead to a potential enhance­
ment of the use of CIS packages and subsequently reduce weather and
climate-related risks to agricultural production systems.
factors influence the use of climate information services (CIS) for the
agricultural sector”, this paper seeks to identify and assess the factors
that influence the use of CIS at the decision-maker/end-user level in
agricultural contexts (as identified in literature on CIS and agriculture).
2.2. Literature search, selection criteria and synthesis
All literature used for this study were sourced from scholarly online
databases using specific search terms and synonyms. The search terms
and synonyms (Fig. 1) were developed and finalized after repeatedly
testing various search strings until seemingly relevant and consistent
types of publications were showing up on search results. The search
strategy combined key concepts of the research question so that more
specific accurate results can be retrieved. The search was run through
the Journal of Climate Services, Journal of Climate Risk Management,
Google Scholar and Edge Hill University database.1 The data base for the
Journal of Climate Services and Journal of Climate Risk Management
were targeted first as the research scope of these journals aligns with the
objective of this paper. The search results from these databases were
then cross checked with Google Scholar and the Edge Hill University
database and any additional articles were included in the list of litera­
ture. The searches on Google Scholar and the Edge Hill University
database yielded the largest number of publications (17,600 and 2032
respectively), of which the “first 100 hits” approach was utilized in both
instances. Going beyond this, showed overlap of results with the other
sources, and increasing irrelevance of retrieved publications.
The literature search was conducted on the August 8, 2021, in all of
the previously mentioned databases. Searches in the “Climate Services”
and “Climate Risk Management” journals of Elsevier yielded fewer
publications (205 and 212 respectively) but were later shown to be most
relevant for this review (accounting for 64 % of selected articles). The
search filters in both journals allowed for automatic exclusion of irrel­
evant articles. In order to ensure the scientific rigor in the studies
selected, the factors identified in the literature were compiled from peer
reviewed studies that used empirical evidence to draw upon the con­
clusions. As such, only peer reviewed scientific articles with an empirical
base were adopted for this study. This reduced the retrieved publications
in both journals to 130 and 196, respectively. To achieve the final list of
publications for this review, further relevance examination was con­
ducted in two stages in all four (4) sources. Titles and abstracts were first
examined, and irrelevant articles were discarded from further consid­
erations for this review. Secondly, the full text of the remaining articles
was examined, and again irrelevant articles were discarded from further
considerations. Throughout the process, an article’s relevance was
determined if the following criteria was met: 1) the study had been
published in the English language; 2) the study followed a scientific
process; 3) the study was peer-reviewed and published as a scientific
article; 4) the full text of the study was available for perusal; 5) the study
was published during the current or last decade as the most relevant
literature was needed given the rapid evolution and applications of CIS
technologies; 6) the study was concerned with any form of climate in­
formation service provision in an agricultural context (full or sectorial);
and 7) the study identified or examined at least one factor that in­
fluences the use or uptake of any climate information service at the user/
decision-maker level. After the selection process was completed, a total
of 36 publications were collected.
The final list of articles was compiled and synthesized by looking at
the stated factors in each paper that influence the use of climate infor­
mation services in agricultural contexts. In presenting the synthesis of
the literature gathered, the list was compiled on an Excel spreadsheet
outlining the publication date, authors, the geographical region where
the study occurred, the study methodology and the factors identified in
2. Methodology
Literature was identified and collected through a systematic litera­
ture review methodology based on the guidelines for systematic review
from the center for evidence-based management (CEBC guidelines)
(Pullin and Stewart, 2006). By utilizing this method, large amounts of
literature on specific, well-defined questions can be synthesized. The
CEBC review guidelines are considered useful in circumstances where
the need exists to provide an overview of the problem in question. There
are four stages of the systematic review process:
•
•
•
•
Establishment of the scope of the review and research question.
Development of the search strategy.
Literature search and selection of relevant publications.
Data extraction and synthesis.
2.1. Scope of review
CIS literature for agriculture has grown exponentially in the past
fifteen (15) years (see Amwata et al., 2018; Chiputwa et al., 2020; Fal­
loon et al., 2018; Haigh et al., 2015; Nkuba et al., 2021; Vincent et al.,
2017) with varying perspectives on the framework of what the use of CIS
entails for agriculture. In the perspective of Vogel et al. (2017), the CIS
intervention logic that aids agricultural decision-making entails infor­
mation generation; information distribution; and information uptake/
use. This perspective is often viewed as linear and that CIS for agricul­
ture should be more participatory. For instance, according to Mwangi
et al. (2020), participatory approaches consider complex processes and
non-linear systems, such as feedback loops and other complex in­
teractions occurring between and among heterogenous actors. There­
fore, a participatory approach is essential to enhance the continuous use
of CIS. For the scope of this paper, we explore CIS for agriculture liter­
ature from both the linear and participatory perspectives to give an in­
clusive insight into how each perspective can vary in terms of its
challenges and enabling factors. The use of CIS in agriculture is different
from its usefulness. The use of CIS for agricultural planning entails
consideration and action(s) taken by farmers and other agricultural
practitioners (end-users) based on agronomic advice given through CIS
packages. The usefulness of CIS packages can then be quantified and
measured based on benefits realized as a result of its use to inform
subsequent action(s) taken. In addressing the research question: “What
1
Edge Hill University Database. Accessed from https://www.edgehill.ac.
uk/ls/discover-more/.
3
D. Warner et al.
Climate Services 28 (2022) 100336
Fig. 1. Keywords organization and structure or search string.
the paper. Common factors identified across the various articles were
presented in figures and tables in the results section.
narrative framework that can be used to guide climate information
providers in better implementing CIS programs.
3. Results
4. Discussion
The literature synthesis uncovered 22 factors that the studies iden­
tified as having an influence on the use of CIS. These factors were
categorized into three (3) thematic areas; 1) social, cultural and de­
mographic issues; 2) programming mechanisms; 3) institutional support
and resource allocation for communities (as represented in Fig. 3). These
three (3) thematic areas are well documented in extension philosophy
and theoretical literature (see Barker, 2021; Chandra et al., 2018; Seguin
et al., 2018; Sousa et al., 2021) The literature compiled for the synthesis
were from studies conducted across the globe with 61 % of the articles
originating from the African region and 17 % stemming from the Asian
region (see Fig. 2).
According to the literature synthesized, user participation and
engagement (can also be referred to as “participatory engagement”) in
climate information services (CIS) provision was the most frequently
identified factor that influences the use of CIS with 33 % of the studies
highlighting it. Some of the other distinguishing factors identified by the
synthesis as having an influence on the use of CIS are: trust and credi­
bility of CIS and CIS providers (appearing in 19 % if the synthesized
literature); multi-modal communication channels (17 %); and timely
delivery of CIS (17 %). Most of the other prominent factors (in regards to
frequency of appearance) occurred within a frequency range of 8 % −
14 %. The remaining factors were identified in one or two studies (3 % −
6 %), which is an indication that these may be community based or
country specific issues or not enough empirical research was sourced
from the review process to identify a more comprehensive trend (see
Fig. 3).
The list of articles and summary of the findings presented in Table 1,
was further synthesized and elaborated upon to essentially present a
Within the literature explored for the study, there were several key
factors identified and discussed under three (3) thematic areas. Social,
cultural and demographic issues are those that relate to the character­
istics of the individuals within the community and include issues in
gender, language barriers, education levels, knowledge, attitude and
perceptions as influenced by religion, community groups and the com­
munity of practice. Programming mechanisms are the factors that are
directly related to the planning, management and delivery of the CIS
program to the communities. Factors under programming mechanisms
include communication channels; timeliness of CIS delivery; participa­
tion and engagement; trust and credibility; scale of forecast; format of
CIS; inclusion of indigenous knowledge into CIS and others. Many of
these factors are related to the quality, relevance and legitimacy of CIS.
Institutional support and resource allocation for communities are the
factors that involve the type of institutional services and resources that
are available to the community. These factors include presence of
boundary organizations, funding and livelihood assets accessible by the
community.
Understanding of CIS; gender inequality; specificity of CIS needs; and
knowledge and awareness were the most identified factors under sociocultural and demographic issues. A study by Sultan et al. (2020), in West
African nations and Senegal found that lack of understanding was one of
the most important barriers which limits the use of CIS in decisionmaking. To ensure proper interpretation and application of informa­
tion, end users’ background knowledge of CIS packages should be
considered (Rosas et al., 2016). Enhancing users’ understanding of CIS,
including its parameters, limitations and scientific uncertainty is
important to increasing its use and effectiveness for decision making
No. of articles
North America
Asia
Europe
Latin America & Caribbean
Africa
0
5
10
15
Fig. 2. Geographic distribution of articles sourced.
4
20
25
D. Warner et al.
Climate Services 28 (2022) 100336
Fig. 3. Frequency of occurrence of factors in articles synthesized.
across various sectors (Soares et al., 2018; Vincent et al., 2017). This
suggests that the need exists for forecasts to be re-interpreted and pre­
sented in a manner that matches end users’ decision-making process and
capacity to understand CIS. This position aligns with findings by Golding
et al. (2019). This is however an on-going challenge for the CIS com­
munity as scientific capabilities do not fully align with the user decisionmaking process. A possible solution to this can be through the integra­
tion of other disciplines, such as social sciences to bring additional
expertise and skills. This is consistent with findings from previous
studies (see Lemos et al., 2012; Brasseur and Gallardo, 2016).
Another important socio-cultural and demographic issue is gender
inequality. Gender inequality in the agriculture sector is a widely
documented issue especially in the African region. The challenge with
inequality in the agriculture sector predominantly stems from the in­
dustry being male dominated especially in terms of the control and ac­
cess to resources such as land and capital. The gender issue stems deeper
than just a matter of the control of resources (Jafry and Sulaiman, 2013).
Patriarchal agriculture communities are often driven by cultural norms
and ideals about gender which can shape the perceptions of the men and
women in these communities and influence their decision-making pro­
cesses in agriculture operations. The literature widely shows that access
to CIS is influenced by gender with men generally having more access
than women (Diouf et al., 2019; Diouf et al., 2020; Partey et al., 2020;
Vedeld et al., 2019). For men, literacy and their perceived social and
cultural status in the community are some of the factors influencing their
access to CIS. For women, membership in a community organization has
a positive effect on access and use of CIS. Within the literature synthe­
sized, especially for the African and Asian countries, women of agri­
cultural communities were generally not among the subscribers of CIS
packages (agro-met advisories), as they rarely owned smart phones and
mostly relied on phones owned by men and were sometimes observed
consulting with men to receive agro-met advice (Partey et al., 2020;
Vedeld et al., 2019). Further, this can affect the extent to which women
are able to engage with CIS providers to provide feedback in guiding the
development and dissemination of CIS products, based on their specific
needs. This illustrates the need for gender-equable engagement in the
development and dissemination of CIS Vedeld et al. (2019). From the
literature synthesis, men in agricultural communities were shown to be
more responsive in using CIS mainly because they had more access to
finance and control of household income to purchase mobile phones. To
build on the previous study (in 2019), Diouf et al. (2020) posited that the
overall impact of using CIS is lower for female farmers, mainly due to
inequalities in rural areas. The study found that CIS information
significantly increases farm productivity and income when suitable crop
production decisions are made. The gender inequality issue identified in
the literature can be explained by limited access to productive resources
by women in agricultural communities (particularly rural women).
These resources include access to land, inputs, credit etc. This reduces
their ability to quickly make relevant decisions after receiving CIS in­
formation. To overcome this barrier, the gender gap must be closed,
through facilitation of women’s access to land, inputs and financial re­
sources. In support of this, rural farming globally constitutes around 43
% of women, with research outlining that bridging the gender gap in
agriculture is key in solving the global hunger issues (see Villarreal,
2013).
Specificity of CIS was also identified as a key influential factor to the
use of CIS under socio-cultural and demographic issues with four (4)
studies highlighting it (Antwi-Agyei et al., 2021; Golding et al., 2019;
5
D. Warner et al.
Climate Services 28 (2022) 100336
Table 1
Articles and identified factors in the review.
Author
Year
Method
Geography
Identified Factor/s
Amarnath
et al.
Amegnalo
et al.
Amwata et al.
2018
Farmer survey
Africa
Scale of forecast
2017
Farmer survey
Africa
Timely Delivery; Accuracy
2018
Africa
Antwi-Agyei
et al.
2021
Stakeholder interview;
Questionnaire
Survey; Interview; Focus group;
discussion; workshop;
Bouroncle
et al.
Chiputwa et al.
Clarkson et al.
Dayamba et al.
Diouf et al.
Diouf et al.
Falloon et al.
2019
Stakeholder Interview
2020
2019
2018
2019
2020
2018
Gbangou et al.
Gitonga et al.
Golding et al.
Haigh et al.
Kirchhoff et al.
Kumar et al.
Lemos et al.
Mckune et al.
2020
2020
2019
2015
2015
2021
2014
2018
Mittal
2016
Mittal &
Hariharan
Muema et al.
Mwangi et al.
Naab et al.
Nkuba et al.
Ofoegbu &
New
Ouédraogo
et al.
Partey et al.
2018
Survey; Interview
Farmer survey
Farmer survey
Farmer survey
Survey; Interview
Stakeholder survey; Feedback
forms; Interview; Workshop
Evaluation of Co-produced CIS
Household survey
Stakeholder consultation, survey
Farmer survey
Stakeholder interaction
Face-to-face meeting
Stakeholder interaction
Survey; Focus group discussion;
Observation
Farmers’ electronic listening
reports; Farmer feedback
Farmers’ electronic listening
reports; Farmer feedback
Household survey
Farmer meeting
Focus group; Interview
Household survey
Interview; Questionnaire survey
Latin America
and Caribbean
Africa
Africa
Africa
Africa
Africa
Europe
Use of clear, concise and simple language, Participation and engagement; Knowledge and
awareness of CIS products
Relevance and completeness; Accessibility; Illiteracy; Climate change awareness/
perception; Timely delivery; Trust and credibility; Specificity of CIS needs; Use of clear,
concise and simple language
Use of clear, concise and simple language; Format of CIS; Trust and credibility
Radeny et al.
2019
Rosas et al.
2016
Soares et al.
2018
Sultan et al.
Vedeld et al.
2020
2019
Vincent et al.
2017
Vogel et al.
2017
Yen et al.
2019
2018
2020
2019
2021
2021
2018
2020
Stakeholder consultation;
interview;
Semi-structured interview; Focus
group discussion
Questionnaire; Focus group
discussion; Interview
Stakeholder interview; Survey
Stakeholder interview; Online
survey
Stakeholder survey
Farmer survey; Focus group;
Interview; Field observation
Semi-structured stakeholder
interview; National workshop
Semi-structured stakeholder
interview
Stakeholder dialogue
Africa
Participation and Engagement
Participation and Engagement
Participation and Engagement
Gender Inequality
Gender Inequality
Use of clear, concise and simple language; Compatibility; Format of CIS
Africa
Africa
Asia
North America
North America
Asia
North America
Africa
Participation and Engagement; Inclusion of Indigenous knowledge
Timely delivery; Lack of resources and poor infrastructure
Understanding of CIS; Participation and engagement; Specificity of CIS needs
Trust and credibility; Timely Delivery; Participation and engagement
Boundary organizations
Participation and engagement
Boundary organizations
Multi-modal communication channels; Accessibility; Understanding of CIS
Asia
Multi-modal communication channels; Timely delivery
Asia
Multi-modal communication channels
Africa
Africa
Africa
Africa
Africa
Trust and credibility
Participation and engagement
Scale of forecast
Language; Multi-modal communication channels; Inclusion of indigenous knowledge in CIS
Boundary organizations
Africa
Timely delivery; Inclusion of indigenous knowledge in CIS; Scale of forecast; Participation
and engagement; Lack of resources and poor infrastructure
Gender inequality; Multi-modal communication channels; Climate change awareness/
perception
Scale of forecast; Inclusion of indigenous knowledge in CIS
Africa
Africa
Latin America and
Caribbean
Europe
Africa
Asia
Africa
Latin America and
Caribbean
Asia
Specificity of CIS needs; Understanding of CIS
Compatibility; Trust and credibility; Understanding of CIS; Accessibility; Format of CIS;
Knowledge and awareness of CIS
Understanding of CIS; Relevance and completeness
Knowledge and awareness; Scale of forecast; Specificity of CIS needs; Multi-modal
communication channels; Participation and engagement
Understanding of CIS; Scale of forecast; Knowledge and awareness; Timely delivery; Trust
and Credibility; Boundary organizations; Accessibility
Use of clear, concise and simple language; Translation of forecast into agricultural impacts
Participation and engagement
Rosas et al., 2016; Vedeld et al., 2019). Antwi-Agyei et al. (2021) found
that misalignment between CIS information and the needs of farmers
was found to be a key barrier to the successful uptake and use of CIS for
agricultural decision-making. In this study, a key informant of Tin­
dongo, Ghana highlighted that the issue of misalignment of CIS and the
actual needs of local farmers are a constant challenge and worrying to
the farming community, as weather conditions during the farming sea­
sons are becoming more unpredictable. The informant indicated that
farmers need information such as onset of rains, dry and wet spells
among others, of which CIS packages does not include. This emphasizes
the need for CIS to be specific to the needs of the target community. In
this way, the information has the potential to increase farmers’ ability to
use the information to take action (s), and can contribute to the sus­
tained use of CIS. Studies by Golding et al. (2019); and Rosas et al.
(2016) found that in most instances, user requirements are very
individual and therefore co-development is necessary in understanding
user needs and forecasts should be tailored to meet these based on their
geographic reality. These findings imply that if CIS provision is done in
consideration of community/individual circumstances, this barrier to
the successful use of CIS for agriculture decision-making can be over­
come. This is in line with the findings from Vedeld et al. (2019), where it
was highlighted that the greatest uptake and use of CIS among farmers is
in relation to the provision of specific information such as warnings of
extreme events (heavy rainfall, hailstorms), spread of plant diseases,
among others. We therefore recommend that CIS information programs
should seek to be actively engaging with end-users to understand their
specific/community circumstances and tailor CIS information packages
to address these needs. However, limitations to active engagement and
complexities of community circumstances must be taken into consider­
ation. For instance, because CIS providers work with a limited budget
6
D. Warner et al.
Climate Services 28 (2022) 100336
and resources, financial constraints and lack of resources (human and
material) may limit the extent to which end-users can be actively
engaged. Further, community circumstances such as spoken language
and literacy levels may affect end-users’ ability to understand infor­
mation. Good communication between community leaders and CIS
providers can foster better understanding of community circumstances,
which can aid in the identification of possible solutions to these limi­
tations and complexities prior to rolling out engagement initiatives.
Three (3) studies (Amwata et al., 2018; Soares et al., 2018; Vedeld
et al., 2019) identified knowledge and awareness of CIS as an important
influential factor to the use of CIS for agricultural decision-making. An
interesting finding in a study conducted in India by Vedeld et al. (2019)
showed that even though CIS packages in the form of agro­
meteorological advisories were available and accessible in farming
communities, many local farmers were not aware of their existence
beyond weather forecasts. This suggests that little emphasis is placed in
notifying potential end-users of existing CIS information products. In a
sectoral overview of the use of CIS in Europe by Soares et al. (2018),
survey and interview respondents highlighted the lack of awareness of
CIS as a barrier to its use in decision-making and emphasized the need
for better advertising and promoting of existing CIS information pack­
ages. In light of these findings, we recommend that emphasis be placed
not only on CIS generation but also in spreading awareness of CIS and
the benefits of its use.
The least identified factors from the literature in this synthesis under
socio-cultural and demographic issues were related to climate change
awareness/perception; illiteracy of user; and local language. In a study
by Antwi-Agyei et al. (2021), lack of awareness on climate change was
highlighted as a barrier to the successful uptake and use of CIS for
agricultural decision-making. On the other hand, Partey et al. (2020)
showed that increased rainfall variability and frequency of drought had
significant influence on the use of CIS by farmers. This shows that
climate change awareness and perception may influence uptake of CIS
for two primary reasons; 1) farmers who experience negative effects of
weather and climate conditions will engage in CIS to avoid similar future
experiences; and 2) farmers lacking experience of the negative effects of
weather and climate conditions on production may perpetuate com­
placency to the impacts of climate change. Evidence from research
shows that there is significant value in using CIS to make or adjust
specific agronomic decisions (Diouf et al., 2020; Hewitt and Stone, 2021;
Jagtap et al., 2002). We therefore recommend that CIS programs should
seek to educate farmers about the changing climate in an effort to help
them understand the need for action and the value of using CIS. This
process can also be participatory through the facilitation of farmer-tofarmer exchange, whereby farmers who understand the impacts of
climate change can help foster this awareness amongst their peers.
A study conducted in Ghana by Antwi-Agyei et al. (2021) found that
high levels of illiteracy was as a key barrier to the successful uptake and
use of CIS for agricultural decision making. A stakeholder indicated that
high illiteracy of farmers due to lack of education makes it challenging
for them to understand CIS information (Agricultural Development Of­
ficer, Navrongo, September 2019). To further complicate matters,
Nkuba et al. (2021) found that only CIS information communicated in
local languages is likely to be used by agriculture decision makers. Some
societies are multi-cultural, consisting of various ethnic groups with
different spoken languages. This means that if CIS information is
communicated in only one language, it may only be used by a specific
sect of the populace. A possible solution is to conduct CIS programs in a
participatory manner. An example of one such program is the Partici­
patory Integrated Climate Services for Agriculture (PICSA). The PICSA
approach (among the most successful programs integrating climate
services into the farmers’ decision-making process) takes community
circumstances and individual needs into consideration. For instance,
PICSA utilizes drawings and symbols to aid learning in communities
where socio-cultural and demographic issues such as language barriers
and high levels of illiteracy exist. This can also improve understanding of
CIS and lead to increased CIS use by agricultural decision-makers.
Most of the identified factors from the articles in this review are
classified under programming mechanism theme (54 %), with user
participation and engagement being the most readily identified. From
the literature synthesized, twelve (12) studies highlighted participation
and engagement as a major influential factor to the use of CIS for agri­
cultural decision-making (Amwata et al., 2018; Chiputwa et al., 2020;
Clarkson et al., 2019; Dayamba et al., 2018; Gbangou et al., 2020;
Golding et al., 2019; Haigh et al., 2015; Kumar et al., 2021; Mwangi
et al., 2020; Ouédraogo et al., 2018; Vedeld et al., 2019; Yen et al.,
2019). The majority of these studies found that active user participation
and engagement is a key enabler to the effective use of CIS information.
The main principle behind active participation and engagement is that
the farmers or agriculture practitioners are the ones who best under­
stand their community circumstances, and their collective perspectives
are key for a holistic view of the transformation process (Menconi et al.,
2017) as required from the CIS intervention. Additionally, participatory
processes promote the feeling of empowerment as the farmers or prac­
titioners have a vested interest given their involvement in the materi­
alization of the CIS program in their community of practice (Amwata
et al., 2018). The success of CIS packages such as agro-met advisories in
supporting farmers’ decision-making in the context of adaptation and
risk management is likely to be highest when farmers are actively
engaged in the CIS creation and provision process (Vedeld et al., 2019).
Participatory approaches in the provision of tailored CIS packages can
enhance uptake and use of CIS in farm management decisions and boost
climate change adaptation (Chiputwa et al., 2020). Active user partici­
pation and engagement seems to have a positive effect on overcoming
other barriers to the use of CIS. For instance, Golding et al. (2019) found
that close cooperation, good communication and open dialogue, has by
itself raised decision makers’ level of trust and understanding of the
forecast, and has overall raised their confidence in making use of CIS in
decision-making. According to Kumar et al. (2021), active participation
and engagement can foster the co-production of CIS packages, which
significantly increases the uptake and use of CIS and promotes informed
agriculture decision making. CIS programs and tools such as the
Participatory Integrated Climate Services for Agriculture (PICSA);
Participatory Scenario Planning (PSP); and CS-MAP have achieved high
levels of success mainly due to the utilization of participatory methods
to overcome barriers to the use of CIS for agriculture decision making
(Clarkson et al., 2019; Dayamba et al., 2018; Yen et al., 2019). These
programs provide the necessary support to enable farmers to be at the
center of the CIS decision-making process. Through this, famers can be
stimulated to identify, plan and implement changes based on their in­
dividual circumstances. This can contribute to the sustained use/adop­
tion of CIS. Therefore, CIS providers should actively seek feedback to
understand the needs of end-users (Haigh et al., 2015) and develop CIS
programs in a participatory and engaging manner.
Seven (7) studies highlighted trust and credibility of CIS and CIS
providers as having an influence on the use of CIS for agricultural de­
cision making (Antwi-Agyei et al., 2021; Bouroncle et al., 2019; Falloon
et al., 2018; Haigh et al., 2015; Muema et al., 2018; Soares et al., 2018;
Vincent et al., 2017). The effective use of CIS will not be possible if the
farmers or participants do not trust or think the CIS provider is credible.
Trust and credibility can influence the farmers’ or agriculture practi­
tioners’ willingness to participate in the program or may influence their
willingness to learn the material offered. Mistrust in CIS information by
farmers is a key barrier to the successful uptake and use of CIS for
agricultural decision making (Antwi-Agyei et al., 2021; Falloon et al.,
2018; Haigh et al., 2015; Muema et al., 2018). Similarly, credibility of
the information is a barrier in the use of CIS for decision-making (Vin­
cent et al., 2017). Trust and credibility are built by the mutual respect
between the farming community and extension personnel especially
when the farmers can vouch for the reliability and quality of services
received. A study by Bouroncle et al. (2019), in Guatemala and
Colombia found that the use of trusted and publicly available data in the
7
D. Warner et al.
Climate Services 28 (2022) 100336
farmers highlighted that provision of precise and timely CIS packages
such as weather based agricultural advisories have allowed them to
make informed decisions regarding the use of agricultural inputs during
the sowing season. Farmers were able to save on costs for irrigation,
pesticides and herbicides. CIS providers should therefore ensure that the
information is supplied within a timeframe that allows for maximum use
in agricultural decision-making.
Five (5) sets of studies also highlighted the scale of forecast (Amar­
nath et al., 2018; Naab et al., 2019; Ouedraogo et al., 2018; Radeny
et al., 2019; Vincent et al., 2017); and the use of clear, concise and
simple language (Amwata et al., 2018; Antwi-Agyei et al., 2021; Bour­
oncle et al., 2019; Falloon et al., 2018; Vogel et al., 2017) as key
influential factors to the use of CIS for agriculture decision-making. For
climate services to be applicable in agricultural decision-making, it must
be tailored and delivered at a local scale (Amarnath et al., 2018). This
position is supported by Naab et al. (2019), who found that CIS infor­
mation based on national and regional level forecasts which are mostly
based on averages without tailoring information for the local commu­
nity was found to be problematic to use by farmers in making climatesmart decisions. Within the extension program principles and tech­
niques, different ways exist to have CIS delivered to end-users at local
scales such as farmer field school (FFS) approaches (Davis and Place,
2003). Other successful approaches, such as the Participatory Integrated
Climate Services for Agriculture (PICSA) approach, provides the neces­
sary support to enable farmers to be at the center of the decision-making
process based on local climatic conditions and their individual circum­
stances (Clarkson et al., 2019; Dayamba et al., 2018). According to
Ouedraogo et al. (2018), the production of downscaled CIS packages
was found to enable the widespread use of CIS information. Many
weather and climate advisory bulletins show national forecasts readings,
which may not be applicable for communities whose localized weather
conditions can be different from the national averages reported. CIS
information packages that are not downscaled were found to be less
effective in addressing the specific needs of farmers and pastoralists
(Radeny et al., 2019). To further support these findings, Vincent et al.
(2017) posited that downscaling of spatial information is extremely
important for CIS packages to be useful for decision-making. This is to
ensure that CIS is not generalized over a number of different
geographical (e.g., agricultural) zones and that forecasts used reflect
localized conditions. Based on these findings, it is imperative that CIS
packages use localized weather and climate scales in order to enhance
the practicality of information products for farmers and agricultural
practitioners.
When delivering tailored CIS information products, it is equally
important to ensure that the information is relatable and understand­
able. In a study conducted in Ghana, technical language used in the
communication of CIS information was highlighted as a barrier to the
successful uptake and use of CIS for agricultural decision making
(Antwi-Agyei et al., 2021). The use of clear and concise language, and
simplified presentation of information increased farmers’ (especially the
less educated) understanding and uptake of CIS information (Bouroncle
et al., 2019; Falloon et al., 2018; Vogel et al., 2017). Amwata et al.
(2018), highlighted that, farmers often complain about the use of
technical and scientific terminologies in the delivery of CIS, which de­
ters the use of the information.
Inclusion of indigenous knowledge into CIS (although classified as a
programming mechanism) also has the potential to overcome barriers
relating to socio-cultural and demographic issues. This was highlighted
by four (4) studies (Gbangou et al., 2020; Nkuba et al., 2021; Ouedraogo
et al., 2018; Radeny et al., 2019) as having an influence on the use of CIS
for agricultural decision-making. Inclusion of indigenous knowledge
was found to be an enabler to the use of CIS information (Ouedraogo
et al., 2018). A study in Uganda found that unless CIS packages such as
seasonal forecasts include indigenous knowledge (which is more
familiar and trusted), they will not be used by farmers (Nkuba et al.,
2021). In support of this, Gbangou et al. (2020), found that CIS
generation of CIS products are desirable in both countries. To enhance
uptake and use of CIS, it is critical that the information is provided by
credible sources (Soares et al., 2018). It therefore is paramount for CIS
providers to build and foster trust and consistently demonstrate the
program’s credibility to the community of practice. This has to be an
ongoing process, in which CIS providers need to take the time, effort and
resources to incorporate trust building into the program structure. To
illustrate this, Diouf et al. (2019), found that farmers in Senegal showed
an increased propensity to accessing CIS if they are confident in the
usefulness of the information provided.
Equally important is the delivery of CIS information through various
dissemination channels. Six (6) studies found that the use of multimodal communication channels in the delivery of CIS can influence its
use for agricultural decision-making (McKune et al. 2018; Mittal, 2016;
Mittal and Hariharan, 2018; Nkuba et al., 2021; Partey et al., 2020;
Vedeld et al., 2019). The literature outlined the advantages of multimodal communication channels in CIS programs and that it offers a
wider audience reach with limited resources, more depth in options, the
capacity to share a wider volume and format of climate information, and
to tap into the social networks within a community of practice (which
can enhance the sustained use of CIS by farmers and agricultural prac­
titioners) (Thakur and Chander, 2018). For instance, CIS information
delivered through mobile phones help to reduce information gaps
among farmers. By utilizing this CIS dissemination channel, more
farmers are able to access and use CIS, which can then lead to enhanced
productivity (Mittal, 2016; Mittal and Hariharan, 2018). Another
example is depicted in a study by Nkuba et al. (2021), which found that
disseminating CIS information through radio channels can increase the
use of CIS in rural areas. The main drawback to this however, is that
there is no feedback mechanism. Further to this, multi-modal commu­
nication also has a distinct advantage in the era of modern technology,
especially with mobile apps and mobile messenger services when
compared to other traditional extension services such as community
lectures and farmer field schools. This is mainly because the information
can be simplified and obtained by farmers who may not have the time to
attend a community lecture or field school. The literature outlines that
any CIS program should consider several communication channels, with
the purpose to provide first time information or to re-emphasize infor­
mation provided through training sessions. Providing a variety of
communication channels should also operate in tandem in an informa­
tion sharing system that is participatory and community/context spe­
cific. For instance, a study by McKune et al. (2018) in Senegal and Kenya
found that women farmers rely on more informal sources of CIS infor­
mation such as church groups, saving clubs and other similar informal
social networks. Therefore, gender-specific needs must be considered in
the delivery of CIS packages. Various dissemination channels that may
address the constraints women experience should be explored for the
development of a gender-responsive decision-making support service
(Partey et al., 2020). In exploring these communication channels, it is
important that the information be delivered in a timely manner, that
allows for appropriate decision-making.
Timely delivery of CIS was highlighted by five (6) studies (Ameg­
naglo et al., 2017; Antwi-Agyei et al., 2021; Gitonga et al., 2020; Haigh
et al., 2015; Mittal, 2016; Ouedraogo et al., 2018) as having an influence
on the use of CIS for agricultural decision making. Timely delivery of CIS
information was highlighted as a key barrier to the successful uptake
and use of CIS for agricultural decision-making (Antwi-Agyei et al.,
2021; Ouedraogo et al., 2018). Studies by Gitonga et al. (2020) and
Haigh et al. (2015) showed that farmers can make rational and informed
agronomic decisions if CIS packages are provided in a timely manner.
They highlighted that there is a window period in which relevant de­
cisions to take meaningful action is possible, based on the specific
timescale of the CIS. For instance, farmers prefer to receive the seasonal
climate forecasts a minimum of one month and maximum two months
before the start of the rainy season (Amegnaglo et al., 2017). This is
further supported by a study conducted in India by Mittal (2016), where
8
D. Warner et al.
Climate Services 28 (2022) 100336
information packages created with both local and scientific forecast
knowledge has a higher likelihood to be accepted, understood and used
by farmers. Further, the integration of indigenous knowledge in scien­
tific CIS packages is likely to increase trust and willingness of farmers
and pastoralists to use CIS (Radeny et al., 2019). It is therefore necessary
for CIS providers to include a component on indigenous knowledge in
CIS products to enhance its uptake and use. Indigenous knowledge
provides local specificity, which is why it is important to incorporate this
knowledge into CIS information packages. Another programming
mechanism that is influential to the use of CIS for agricultural decisionmaking is the format in which CIS is provided (Bouroncle et al., 2019;
Falloon et al., 2018; Soares et al., 2018). Format and presentation of the
information provided in CIS packages can be a key barrier or enabler to
the use of CIS across sectors (Falloon et al., 2018). A study in Guatemala
and Colombia found that non-paper-based formats were viewed as
desirable to enhance the use of CIS for agricultural decision-making
(Bouroncle et al., 2019). However, in a synoptic overview of the use
of CIS across sectors in Europe, Soares et al. (2018) found that the format
of CIS was identified as an important factor that needs to be fully un­
derstood in order to facilitate uptake and use. More empirical research is
needed to better understand the impacts of the format of CIS packages
on its use.
The least identified factors under the programming mechanism
classification are related to compatibility of CIS with in-house systems;
relevance and completeness; accuracy; and translation of forecasts to
agricultural impacts. This low yield may suggest that either these factors
do not significantly influence the use of CIS for agricultural decisionmaking or not enough empirical research was sourced from the review
process to identify a more comprehensive trend. Two (2) sets of studies
highlighted compatibility of CIS with in-house systems (Falloon et al.,
2018; Soares et al., 2018); and relevance and completeness of CIS
(Antwi-Agyei et al., 2021; Sultan et al., 2020) as influential factors in the
use of CIS for agriculture. In-house systems refer to the CIS providers
internal capacity building mechanisms and systems for outsourcing and
reallocating resources to meet organizational deficiencies. The literature
showed that CIS should be compatible with organizational in-house
systems across sectors to facilitate its uptake and use (Falloon et al.,
2018; Soares et al., 2018). This suggests that, depending on how well CIS
aligns with in-house systems, knowledge and expertise, it may have a
positive or negative influence on the use of CIS for decision-makers in
agricultural organizations. In terms of the relevance and completeness of
CIS, Sultan et al. (2020) found that an important barrier to the use of CIS
is related to the irrelevance or incompleteness of the information. Some
of which include its uncertainty, spatial resolution, lack of time horizon
and/or sectoral information. This is supported by Antwi-Agyei et al.
(2021), who found that inadequate information in CIS packages is a key
barrier to the successful uptake and use. When these types of informa­
tion are missing from CIS packages, it may leave many questions
unanswered and possibly negatively affect its use. Translation of fore­
casts to agricultural impacts (Vogel et al., 2017) and accuracy of CIS
(Amegnaglo et al., 2017) were each identified by one study. A study by
Vogel et al. (2017), in the Latin America and Caribbean region high­
lighted that the national meteorological, and the agricultural agencies
may need to further refine CIS information to convert meteorological
data into agricultural impacts in order to enhance its use for agricultural
decision-making. Many farmers and agricultural practitioners cannot
comprehend meteorological forecasts. For example, a forecast of fifty
(50) millimeters of rainfall over a given period for a particular area may
be meaningless to agricultural decision-makers. However, if information
is provided on what impacts this may have on crops or livestock, it
would be more comprehendible and relatable to farmers and prompt
them to take action to reduce risk of damage and loss of commodities.
CIS providers should constantly find ways of making information more
comprehendible and relatable to enhance its use. Translation of fore­
casts into agricultural impacts is important for boosting decisionmakers’ ability to understand CIS information. The last factor that is
discussed under program mechanism is accuracy of CIS. A study in Benin
found that farmers’ average desirable accuracy level for CIS products
such as the seasonal climate forecast is approximately 77 % (Amegnaglo
et al., 2017). This suggests that the level of accuracy of CIS products can
influence its use for agricultural decision-making. Though it is generally
well known that is it very unlikely for forecasts to achieve 100 % ac­
curacy, a high degree of accuracy is still required by decision-makers.
High accuracy level of CIS can also have a positive effect on other fac­
tors that can influence its use, such as trust in and credibility of CIS and
CIS providers. CIS providers should make every effort to test and un­
derstand accuracy levels of CIS products over time. When disseminating
CIS information products, ‘forecast skill/confidence score’ should be
included (Crane et al., 2010). This may help end-users to understand the
degree of certainty/uncertainty with which the information is being
provided. Additionally, when communicating CIS accuracy levels and
forecast certainty/uncertainty to end-users, boundary organizations
such as extension services (that bridge the gap between science and
practice) should be utilized in order to avoid complications and
misunderstanding of scientific jargon.
The least number of the identified factors from the articles in this
review are classified under institutional support and resource allocation
for communities (14 %), with presence of boundary organizations
(Kirchhoff et al., 2015; Lemos et al., 2014; Ofoegbu and New, 2021;
Vincent et al., 2017) and accessibility of CIS (Antwi-Agyei et al., 2021;
McKune et al., 2018; Soares et al., 2018; Vincent et al., 2017) being the
most readily identified factors that influence the use of CIS for agricul­
tural decision-making. Boundary organizations can increase the use of
CIS information by bridging the gap between CIS information providers
and end users (Kirchhoff et al., 2015; Ofoegbu and New, 2021). These
organizations that work at the interface between communities of experts
and communities of decision-makers are crucial in ensuring that efforts
are made for CIS to be optimally utilized by decision-makers across
various sectors (Vincent et al., 2017). Though boundary organizations
have been successful in improving the production and use of CIS (Lemos
et al., 2014), difficulties may exist in controlling the quality of infor­
mation transferred through boundary chains (Kirchhoff et al., 2015).
Boundary organizations have two (2) distinct advantages; 1) they act as
brokers between the supply and demand for CIS by translating forecasts
into climate risk warning and risk response advisory services; 2) they
improve communication among stakeholders, for example, CIS infor­
mation can be communicated to farmers through extension workers
(Jones, 2013; Kirchhoff et al., 2013b; Leith et al., 2015). CIS providers
should continually seek to collaborate with boundary organizations such
as extension services to enhance production, delivery and use of CIS by
agriculture decision-makers. These findings suggest that boundary or­
ganization may also aid in the accessibility of CIS by agricultural deci­
sion-makers.
Low accessibility to CIS information was highlighted as a key barrier
to the successful uptake and use of CIS for agricultural decision-making
CIS (Antwi-Agyei et al., 2018; Vincent et al., 2017). In a study by
McKune et al (2018), in Senegal and Kenya, all study respondents
(farmers) agreed that access to and education about CIS packages are
important to the use of CIS for agricultural decision making. The study
revealed that gender affects the access (and subsequent use) of CIS. It
was observed in many of the study sites that women do not have access
to the more formal CIS channels. Soares et al (2018), pointed out that
barriers to accessibility of CIS needs to be overcome in order to increase
the use and uptake across various sectors. This links back to the
recommendation that CIS providers should make use of multi-modal
communication channels as a possible solution to overcome these
barriers.
The lack of resources and poor infrastructure was the least identified
factor in the literature under the classification of institutional support
and resource allocation for communities. Lack of funding resources and
poor infrastructure was found to be key barriers to effective use of CIS in
agriculture (Gitonga et al., 2020; Ouedraogo et al., 2018). Majority of
9
D. Warner et al.
Climate Services 28 (2022) 100336
CIS programs are technology based and would often disseminate infor­
mation using technological platforms. Despite the advancements of in­
formation communication technologies (ICTs) globally, there are many
communities especially rural farming communities that lack the infra­
structure or services to access ICT technology, a phenomenon known as
the ‘digital divide’ (Moonsammy and Renn-Moonsammy, 2020).
Gitonga et al., (2020) outlined that some rural farming communities
have poor connectivity to broadband services and would receive infor­
mation either through radio programs, which can only facilitate a
limited format for the information shared, or through their peers. The
conundrum is that these marginalized farming communities are the ones
most vulnerable to climate change and could benefit from the type of
information provided by CIS. The issue of infrastructure and resources is
not only based on ICT technology available within the communities to
disseminate CIS, but also from the perspective that the farmers may not
be able to take action (s) based on the solutions recommended from the
CIS. For instance, Gitonga et al., (2020) also emphasized that farmers in
Namibia lacked the capacity to store grain and therefore can implement
only short-term storage of their grain in drought events even if the
insight of the climate event was provided by the CIS early. The lack of
resources and infrastructure is another area that needs more empirical
work to demonstrate the numerous examples of how this factor nega­
tively affects the use of CIS for agricultural decision-making.
Despite the study highlighting 22 specific factors, it should be noted
that these factors do not exist in isolation and several causality re­
lationships may exist between and among various factors across the
three (3) thematic areas outlined. For example, accessibility to CIS can
be attributed to gender and cultural factors in the community, CIS
providers’ ability to reach the community or the community having the
infrastructure such as telecommunication/internet services to use CIS.
Further empirical work is needed to identify the significant relationships
between all the factors identified to fully disentangle the complexities of
CIS use and adoption by farmers.
important factors influencing the use of CIS for agricultural decisionmaking. The results presented can be used as a guide for CIS facilita­
tors in the design and implementation of their CIS programs. The results
of the literature reviewed and synthesized should be able to inform CIS
research, stimulate policy decisions, identify areas in CIS programming
needing modifications and guide agricultural extension agendas in re­
gard to the development of climate information services across the
globe.
6. Conclusion
The use of CIS in agriculture has been identified as an essential
adaptation strategy to protect the agriculture sector and global food
security from the uncertainties of climate change. There has been a
growth in research, investments, resources, institutional mobilization
and policies geared towards delivering state of the art CIS to the wider
farming populations.
The reviewed literature identified 22 factors that can influence the
use of CIS for agricultural decision-making. The factors identified from
the literature synthesis were discussed under three (3) thematic areas by
which they were most related. These being social, cultural and de­
mographic issues (covering factors related to social and psychological
norms of communities such as culture, gender, knowledge, attitudes and
perception); programming mechanism (covering factors relating to CIS
program design and quality); and institutional support and resource
allocation for communities (covering factors related to community re­
sources, support services and infrastructure). User participation and
engagement was the highest identified factor and was highlighted as a
key enabler to the use of CIS for agricultural decision-making. On the
other hand, lack of trust in CIS and CIS providers; gender inequality; and
lack of resources and poor infrastructure were highlighted as key bar­
riers to the use of CIS for agricultural decision-making.
The effectiveness of CIS globally hinges on understanding the factors
that drives farmers to use the strategies outlined in CIS programs, and
climate information providers to consistently deliver and enhance the
quality of services. The factors identified in this study can provide a good
base reference for programs to assess their effectiveness and to explore
the underlying issues that may exist in their target communities. After
which, measures can be put in place to resolve them. The literature
summary further provides an indication as to the depth of research still
needed in CIS for agriculture. More empirical evidence is needed on the
social and psychological factors of the community and how these can
impact the use of CIS. It can be recommended from the synthesis of the
literature that any CIS program should be participatory, utilizing mul­
tiple communication channels and should work with boundary organi­
zations such as public extension agencies to effectively deliver the
program. CIS programs engaging in participatory management must
seek to ensure inclusivity of all demographics from the community and
assess the resource and infrastructure capacity. In communities where
inclusivity is questionable and resources and infrastructure are under­
whelming, policy interventions may be needed to bridge the indifference
gaps and re-allocate resources to manage or improve upon the limited
physical assets.
Finally, CIS programs need to consider the knowledge, attitudes and
perception of climate change amongst the community, understand how
to relate the CIS program to specific farming community needs and
prepare a program structure grounded in state-of-the-art extension
philosophy so that the program is accessible, understood and properly
supported with resources to expand.
5. Practical implications
The use of climate information services (CIS) is an effective way of
mitigating climate-related risks to agriculture. CIS packages can be
produced in varying timescales and forms depending on the specific
needs of end-users. Some of the most common time scales include: shortrange (1–7 days); medium/extended-range (1–3 weeks); seasonal (1–6
months); and long-range (annual, decadal and beyond). Products can be
in the form of seasonal forecast/outlook, farmers’ bulletin, drought
outlook bulletin, pest and disease forecast, weather briefs, engagement
activities etc. Additional information may be added to CIS packages such
as lunar calendar and tidal information in consideration of context,
circumstances and indigenous weather and climate knowledge. There
has been notable progress in climate predictions in recent decades,
which has led to the operationalization of seasonal forecasting in many
national hydrometeorological services globally. Despite these
outstanding achievements, key questions in relation to accessibility and
accuracy of forecasts, and usefulness to farmers exist. Effective and
informed decision-making is the desired result of CIS packages. CIS
tailored to the needs of the end-user should consider the varying needs
from one village/community to the next.
In order to effectively deliver CIS to farmers and agriculture practi­
tioners, the barriers to its wide-scale use need to be identified in order to
guide the policies needed to overcome them. Many times, there are plans
and strategies in place, but actual implementation proves challenging.
Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of current CIS programs,
the challenges faced at the community level and the extension philos­
ophy in delivering CIS information are critical in ensuring that the
products offered can be widely used. Over the years, these questions
have been evaluated by numerous studies suggesting that using CIS can
greatly reduce weather and climate-related agricultural damage and
loss. The literature synthesized in this review captured many of the
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Devin Warner: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis,
Investigation, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – original draft,
Writing – review & editing. Stephan Moonsammy: Conceptualization,
Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing. Jeanelle Joseph:
10
D. Warner et al.
Climate Services 28 (2022) 100336
Supervision, Writing – review & editing.
Crane, T., Rancoli, C., Paz, J., Breuer, N., Broad, K., Ingram, K., Hoogenboom, G., 2010.
Forecast skill and farmers’ skills: Seasonal climate forecasts and agricultural risk
management in the southeastern United States. Weather Clim. Soc. 2, 44–59.
Davis, K., Place, N., 2003. Non-governmental organizations as an important actor in
agricultural extension in semiarid East Africa. J. Int. Agric. Extension Educ. 10
https://doi.org/10.5191/jiaee.2003.10104.
Dayamba, D.S., Ky-Dembele, C., Bayala, J., Dorward, P., Clarkson, G., Sanogo, D., Diop
Mamadou, L., Traoré, I., Diakité, A., Nenkam, A., Binam, J.N., Ouedraogo, M.,
Zougmore, R., 2018. Assessment of the use of Participatory Integrated Climate
Services for Agriculture (PICSA) approach by farmers to manage climate risk in Mali
and Senegal. Clim. Serv. 12 (January), 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cliser.2018.07.003.
Dessai, S., Soares, B., 2013. Systematic literature review on the use of seasonal to decadal
climate and climate impacts predictions acrossEuropean sectors. Euporias (grant
agreement 308291) Deliverable 12.1, University of Leeds, Leeds. Retrieved from http
://euporias.wikidot.com/local-files/wp12-deliverab%les/D12.1_FINAL.pdf.
Diouf, N.S., Ouedraogo, I., Zougmoré, R.B., Ouedraogo, M., Partey, S.T., Gumucio, T.,
2019. Factors influencing gendered access to climate information services for
farming in Senegal. Gender, Technol. Dev. 23 (2), 93–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09718524.2019.1649790.
Diouf, N.S., Ouedraogo, M., Ouedraogo, I., Ablouka, G., Zougmoré, R., 2020. Using
seasonal forecast as an adaptation strategy: gender differential impact on yield and
income in senegal. Atmosphere 11 (10). https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11101127.
Dube, T., Moyo, P., Ncube, M., Nyathi, D., 2016. The impact of climate change on agroecological based livelihoods in Africa: a review. J. Sustain. Dev. 9 (1), 256–267.
https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v9n1p256.
Falloon, P., Soares, M.B., Manzanas, R., San-Martin, D., Liggins, F., Taylor, I., Kahana, R.,
Wilding, J., Jones, C., Comer, R., de Vreede, E., Som de Cerff, W., Buontempo, C.,
Brookshaw, A., Stanley, S., Middleham, R., Pittams, D., Lawrence, E., Bate, E.,
Richards, M., 2018. The land management tool: Developing a climate service in
Southwest UK. Clim. Services 9 (September 2017), 86–100. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cliser.2017.08.002.
Gbangou, T., Sarku, R., Van Slobbe, E., Ludwig, F., Kranjac-Berisavljevic, G.,
Paparrizos, S., 2020. Coproducing Weather Forecast Information with and for
Smallholder Farmers in Ghana: evaluation and design principles. Atmosphere 11 (9),
902. https://doi.org/10.3390/ATMOS11090902.
Georgeson, L., Maslin, M., Poessinouw, M., 2017. Global disparity in the supply of
commercial weather and climate information services. Sci. Adv. 3, e1602632.
https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1602632.
Gitonga, Z.M., Visser, M., Mulwa, C., 2020. Can climate information salvage livelihoods
in arid and semiarid lands? An evaluation of access, use and impact in Namibia.
World Dev. Perspect. 20 (August), 100239 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wdp.2020.100239.
Golding, N., Hewitt, C., Zhang, P., Liu, M., Zhang, J., Bett, P., 2019. Co-development of a
seasonal rainfall forecast service: supporting flood risk management for the Yangtze
River basin. Climate. Risk Manage. 23 (August 2018), 43–49. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.crm.2019.01.002.
Haigh, T., Takle, E., Andresen, J., Widhalm, M., Carlton, J.S., Angel, J., 2015. Mapping
the decision points and climate information use of agricultural producers across the
U.S. Corn Belt. Clim. Risk Manage. 7, 20–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
crm.2015.01.004.
Hansen, J.W., Mason, S., Sun, L., Tall, A., 2011. Review of seasonal climate forecasting
for agriculture in sub- Saharan Africa. Exp. Agric. 47, 205–240.
Hering, J.G., Dzombak, D.A., Green, S.A., Luthy, R.G., Swackhamer, D., 2014.
Engagement at the science–policy interface. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48 (19),
11031–11033.
Hewitt, C., Mason, S., Walland, D., 2012. The global framework for climate services. Nat.
Clim. Change 2, 831–832. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1745.
Hewitt, C.D., Stone, R., 2021. Climate services for managing societal risks and
opportunities. Clim. Serv. 23, 100240.
Hydromet Service Guyana., 2021. Retrieved from Hydrometeorological Service, Ministry
of Agriculture, Guyana: http://hydromet.gov.gy/.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2018. Global warming of 1.5◦C:
Summary for policymakers. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva,
Switzerland.
Jafry, T., Sulaiman, R., 2013. Gender inequality and agricultural extension. J. Agric.
Educ. Extension 19 (5), 433–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2013.824166.
Jagtap, S.S., Jones, J.W., Hildebrand, P., Letson, D., O’Brien, J.J., Podestá, G.,
Zazueta, F., 2002. Responding to stakeholder’s demands for climate information:
from research to applications in Florida. Agric. Syst. 74 (3), 415–430.
Jones, J.G., 2013. Boundary organizations: a new framework for understanding
agricultural extension work [online]. J. NACAA 6 (2) https://www.nacaa.com/jou
rnal/index.php?jid=275.
Kirchhoff, C.J., Lemos, M.C., Dessai, S., 2013a. Actionable knowledge for environmental
decision making: broadening the usability of climate science. Annu. Rev. Environ.
Resour. 38 (1), 393.
Kirchhoff, C.J., Lemos, M.C., Engle, N.L., 2013b. What influences climate information
use in water management? The role of boundary organizations and governance
regimes in Brazil and the U.S. Environ. Sci. Policy 26, 6–18. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.envsci.2012.07.001.
Kirchhoff, C.J., Lemos, M.C., Kalafatis, S., 2015. Creating synergy with boundary chains:
can they improve usability of climate information? Clim. Risk Manage. 9, 77–85.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2015.05.002.
Kumar, U., Werners, S.E., Paparrizos, S., Datta, D.K., Ludwig, F., 2021. Co-producing
climate information services with smallholder farmers in the Lower Bengal Delta:
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to fully acknowledge the support of the
Greater Guyana Initiative, a joint venture between Exxon Mobil, Hess
Corporation and China National Offshore Oil Corporation. The authors
also want to acknowledge through the Office of the Vice Chancellor of
the University of Guyana, the secretariat support for the Greater Guyana
Initiative provided by the Philanthropy Alumni and Civic Engagement
Office of the University of Guyana. The authors would also like to thank
the Faculty of Earth and Environmental Sciences of the University of
Guyana for their support in making this research possible. Finally, the
authors would like to thank the Hydrometeorological Service, Ministry
of Agriculture Guyana for their support throughout this research.
References
Ahmad, J., Alam, D., Haseen, S., 2011. Impact of climate change on agriculture and food
security in India. Int. J. Agric. Environ. Biotechnol. 4 (2), 129–137.
Amarnath, G., Simons, G.W.H., Alahacoon, N., Smakhtin, V., Sharma, B., Gismalla, Y.,
Mohammed, Y., Andriessen, M.C.M., 2018. Using smart ICT to provide weather and
water information to smallholders in Africa: the case of the Gash River Basin, Sudan.
Clim. Risk Manage. 22 (October), 52–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
crm.2018.10.001.
Amegnaglo, C.J., Anaman, K.A., Mensah-Bonsu, A., Onumah, E.E., Amoussouga Gero, F.,
2017. Contingent valuation study of the benefits of seasonal climate forecasts for
maize farmers in the Republic of Benin, West Africa. Clim. Serv. 6, 1–11. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cliser.2017.06.007.
Amwata, A., Omondi, O., Kituyi, E., 2018. Uptake and use of climate information services
to enhance agriculture and food production among smallholder farmers in Eastern
and Southern Africa Region. Int. J. Adv. Res. 6 (5), 859–873. https://doi.org/
10.21474/ijar01/7106.
Antwi-Agyei, P., Dougill, A.J., Abaidoo, R.C., 2021. Opportunities and barriers for using
climate information for building resilient agricultural systems in Sudan savannah
agro-ecological zone of north-eastern Ghana. Clim. Serv. 22, 100226 https://doi.
org/10.1016/J.CLISER.2021.100226.
Baethgen, W.E., Berterretche, M., Gimenez, A., 2016. Informing decisions and policy: the
national agricultural information system of Uruguay. Agrometeoros 24, 97–112.
Barker, S., 2021. The impact of farming systems extension on Caribbean small-farm
agriculture: the case of St Kitts and St Vincent. Trop. Agric. 98 (3).
Bouroncle, C., Müller, A., Giraldo, D., Rios, D., Imbach, P., Girón, E., Portillo, F., Boni, A.,
van Etten, J., Ramirez-Villegas, J., 2019. A systematic approach to assess climate
information products applied to agriculture and food security in Guatemala and
Colombia. Clim. Serv. 16 (April), 100137 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cliser.2019.100137.
Brasseur, G.P., Gallardo, L., 2016. Climate services: lessons learned and future prospects.
Earth’s Future 4 (3), 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015EF000338.
Buontempo, C., Thépaut, J.-N., Bergeron, C., 2020. Copernicus climate change service.
IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 509, 012005.
CAMI., 2010. Caribbean Agriculture Initiative. Retrieved from http://63.175.159.26/
~cimh/cami/.
Cash, D.W., Borck, J.C., Patt, A.G., 2006. Countering the loading-dock approach to
linking science and decision making: comparative analysis of El Niño/Southern
Oscillation (ENSO) forecasting systems. Sci. Technol. Human Values 31, 465–494.
Chandra, P., Bhattacharjee, T., Bhowmick, B., 2018. Does technology transfer training
concern for agriculture output in India? A critical study on a lateritic zone in West
Bengal. J. Agribusiness Dev. Emerg. Econ.
Chiputwa, B., Wainaina, P., Nakelse, T., Makui, P., Zougmoré, R.B., Ndiaye, O.,
Minang, P.A., 2020. Transforming climate science into usable services: the
effectiveness of co-production in promoting uptake of climate information by
smallholder farmers in Senegal. Clim. Serv. 20, 100203 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
CLISER.2020.100203.
Clarkson, G., Dorward, P., Osbahr, H., Torgbor, F., Kankam-Boadu, I., 2019. An
investigation of the effects of PICSA on smallholder farmers’ decision-making and
livelihoods when implemented at large scale – The case of Northern Ghana. Climate
Services, 14 (December 2018), 1–14. 10.1016/j.cliser.2019.02.002.
11
D. Warner et al.
Climate Services 28 (2022) 100336
how forecast visualization and communication support farmers’ decision-making.
Clim. Risk Manage. 33, 100346 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CRM.2021.100346.
Leith, P., Haward, M., Rees, C., Ogier, E., 2015. Success and evolution of a boundary
organization. Sci. Technol. Human Values 41 (3), 375–401. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0162243915601900.
Lemos, M.C., Kirchhoff, C.J., Kalafatis, S.C., Scavia, D., Rood, R.B., 2014. Moving climate
information off the shelf: boundary chains and the role of RISAs as adaptive
organizations. Weather Clim. Soc. 6 (2), 273–285. https://doi.org/10.1175/WCASD-13-00044.1.
Lemos, M., Kirchoff, C., Ramprasad, V., 2012. Narrowing the climate information
usability gap. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 789–794.
Marshall, N.A., Gordon, I.J., Ash, A.J., 2011. The reluctance of resource-users to adopt
seasonal climate forecasts to enhance resilience to climate variability on the
rangelands. Clim. Change 107, 511–529.
McKune, S., Poulsen, L., Russo, S., Devereux, T., Faas, S., McOmber, C., Ryley, T., 2018.
Reaching the end goal: do interventions to improve climate information services lead
to greater food security? Clim. Risk Manage. 22 (August 2016), 22–41. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.crm.2018.08.002.
Mcnie, E., 2012. Delivering climate services: organizational strategies and approaches for
producing useful climate-science information. Weather Clim. Soc. 5, 14–26.
Meinshausen, M., Lewis, J., McGlade, C., Gütschow, J., Nicholls, Z., Burdon, R.,
Hackmann, B., 2022. Realization of Paris Agreement pledges may limit warming just
below 2◦ C. Nature 604 (7905), 304–309.
Menconi, M.E., Grohmann, D., Mancinelli, C., 2017. European farmers and participatory
rural appraisal: a systematic literature review on experiences to optimize rural
development. Land Use Policy 60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
landusepol.2016.10.007.
Mittal, S., 2016. Role of mobile phone-enabled climate information services in genderinclusive agriculture. Gender Technol. Dev. 20 (2), 200–217. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0971852416639772.
Mittal, S., Hariharan, V.K., 2018. Mobile-based climate services impact on farmers risk
management ability in India. Clim. Risk Manage. 22 (August), 42–51. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.crm.2018.08.003.
Moonsammy, S., Renn-Moonsammy, D.-M., 2020. Social media application in agriculture
extension programming for small scale rural farmers: is knowledge impeding the
lack of adoption? J. Int. Agric. Extension Educ. 27 (3), 27–42. https://doi.org/
10.5191/jiaee.2020.27327.
Muema, E., Mburu, J., Coulibaly, J., Mutune, J., 2018. Determinants of access and
utilization of seasonal climate information services among smallholder farmers in
Makueni County, Kenya. Heliyon 4 (11), e00889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
heliyon.2018.e00889.
Mwangi, M., Kituyi, E., Ouma, G., 2020. Enhancing adoption of climate services through
an innovation systems approach. Sci. African 8, e00445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
sciaf.2020.e00445.
Naab, F.Z., Abubakari, Z., Ahmed, A., 2019. The role of climate services in agricultural
productivity in Ghana: the perspectives of farmers and institutions. Clim. Serv. 13
(November 2018), 24–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2019.01.007.
Nkuba, M.R., Chanda, R., Mmopelwa, G., Mangheni, M.N., Lesolle, D., Adedoyin, A.,
Mujuni, G., 2021. Determinants of pastoralists’ use of indigenous knowledge and
scientific forecasts in Rwenzori region, Western Uganda. Clim. Services 23, 100242.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CLISER.2021.100242.
Ofoegbu, C., New, M., 2021. Collaboration relations in climate information production
and dissemination to subsistence farmers in Namibia. Environ. Manage. 67 (1),
133–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01383-5.
Ouédraogo, M., Barry, S., Zougmoré, R., Partey, S., Somé, L., Baki, G., 2018. Farmers’
willingness to pay for climate information services: evidence from cowpea and
sesame producers in Northern Burkina Faso. Sustainability 10 (3), 611.
Partey, S.T., Dakorah, A.D., Zougmoré, R.B., Ouédraogo, M., Nyasimi, M., Nikoi, G.K.,
Huyer, S., 2020. Gender and climate risk management: evidence of climate
information use in Ghana. Clim. Change 158 (1), 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10584-018-2239-6.
Pullin, A.S., Stewart, G.B., 2006. Guidelines for systematic review in conservation and
environmental management. Conserv. Biol. 20 (6), 1647–1656. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00485.x.
Radeny, M., Desalegn, A., Mubiru, D., Kyazze, F., Mahoo, H., Recha, J., Kimeli, P.,
Solomon, D., 2019. Indigenous knowledge for seasonal weather and climate
forecasting across East Africa. 509–526.
Ray, D.K., Gerber, J.S., MacDonald, G.K., West, P.C., 2015. Climate variation explains a
third of global crop yield variability. Nat. Commun. 6, 5989. https://doi.org/
10.1038/ncomms6989.
Rosas, G., Gubler, S., Oria, C., Acuña, D., Avalos, G., Begert, M., Castillo, E., CrociMaspoli, M., Cubas, F., Dapozzo, M., Díaz, A., van Geijtenbeek, D., Jacques, M.,
Konzelmann, T., Lavado, W., Matos, A., Mauchle, F., Rohrer, M., Rossa, A.,
Villegas, E., 2016. Towards implementing climate services in Peru – The project
CLIMANDES. Clim. Serv. 4, 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2016.10.001.
Seguin, R.A., McGuirt, J.T., Jilcott Pitts, S.B., Garner, J., Hanson, K.L., Kolodinsky, J.,
Sitaker, M., 2018. Knowledge and experience related to community supported
agriculture and local foods among nutrition educators. J. Hunger Environ. Nutr. 15
(2), 251–263.
Sikder, R., Xiaoying, J., 2014. Climate change impact and agriculture of Bangladesh.
J. Environ. Earth Sci. 4 (1), 35–40.
Soares, M., Alexander, M., Dessai, S., 2018. Sectoral use of climate information in
Europe: a synoptic overview. Clim. Serv. 9, 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cliser.2017.06.001.
Soler, C., Sentelhas, P., Hoogenboom, G., 2007. Application of the CSM-CERES-Maize
model for planting date evaluation and yield forecasting for maize grown off-season
in a subtropical environment. Eur. J. Agron. 27 (2), 165–177.
Sousa, R.D., Boranbayeva, A., Satpayeva, Z., Gassanova, A., 2021. Management of
successful technology transfer in agriculture: the case of Kazakhstan. Probl. Perspect.
Manage. 19 (3), 488.
Springmann, M., Mason-D’Croz, D., Robinson, S., Garnett, T., Godfray, H.C.J., Gollin, D.,
Rayner, M., Ballon, P., Scarborough, P., 2016. Global and regional health effects of
future food production under climate change: a modelling study. Lancet 387,
1937–1946. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736 (15)01156-3.
Sultan, B., Lejeune, Q., Menke, I., Maskell, G., Lee, K., Noblet, M., Sy, I., Roudier, P.,
2020. Current needs for climate services in West Africa: results from two stakeholder
surveys. Clim. Serv. 18 (July 2019) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2020.100166.
Thakur, D., Chander, M., 2018. Social media in agricultural extension: benefits and
challenges under Indian Context. Asian J. Agric. Extension Econ. Sociol. 27 (2), 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.9734/AJAEES/2018/44086.
Vaughan, C., Dessai, S., 2014. Climate services for society: origins, institutional
arrangements, and design elements for an evaluation framework. Wiley Interdiscip.
Rev. Clim. Change 5, 587–603.
Vaughan, C., Dessai, S., Hewitt, C., Baethgen, W., Terra, R., Berterretche, M., 2017.
Creating an enabling environment for investment in climate services: the case of
Uruguay’s National Agricultural Information System. Clim. Serv. 8, 62–71.
Vedeld, T., Mathur, M., Bharti, N., 2019. How can co-creation improve the engagement
of farmers in weather and climate services (WCS) in India. Clim. Serv. 15 (April),
100103 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2019.100103.
Villarreal, M., 2013. Decreasing gender inequality in agriculture: key to eradicating
hunger. Retrieved August 29, 2021, from Brown J. World Affairs 20 (1), 169–177.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/24590892.
Vincent, K., Dougill, A.J., Dixon, J.L., Stringer, L.C., Cull, T., 2017. Identifying climate
services needs for national planning: insights from Malawi. Clim. Policy 17 (2),
189–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2015.1075374.
Vogel, J., Letson, D., Herrick, C., 2017. A framework for climate services evaluation and
its application to the Caribbean Agrometeorological Initiative. Clim. Services 6
(September 2016), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2017.07.003.
Weaver, C., Lempert, R., Brown, C., Hall, J., Revell, D., Sarewitz, D., 2013. Improving the
contribution of climate model information to decision-making: the value and
demands of robust decision frameworks. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 4 (1),
39–60.
World Bank, 2016. Climate Information Services Providers in Kenya. World Bank,
Washington, DC, USA. Report Number 103186-KE.
Yen, B.T., Son, N.H., Tung, L.T., Amjath-Babu, T.S., Sebastian, L., 2019. Development of
a participatory approach for mapping climate risks and adaptive interventions (CSMAP) in Vietnam’s Mekong River Delta. Clim. Risk Manage. 24 (April), 59–70.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2019.04.004.
12