MULUNGUSHI UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES
BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS.
Socio-economic factors affecting the adaption of integrated farming system by small scale
farmers in Maheba refugee settlement of Kalumbila district Northwestern province.
A research proposal submitted in partial fulfillment for the award of a Degree of Bachelor of
Science in Agricultural Economics.
BY
MIYANDA MALAMBO.
2025
Contents
Chapter 1 .............................................................................................................................. 4
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 4
Background. ...................................................................................................................................4
Problem statement. ............................................................................................................... 5
Justification of the Study ................................................................................................................6
Significance of the study. ................................................................................................................6
Study Objectives. ...........................................................................................................................7
Main Objective. ..............................................................................................................................7
Specific objectives. .........................................................................................................................7
Research Questions. .......................................................................................................................7
Study Hypothesis. ..........................................................................................................................7
Alternative hypothesis....................................................................................................................7
Null hypothesis ..............................................................................................................................8
Study Limitations. ..........................................................................................................................8
Study Outline. ................................................................................................................................8
Chapter 2 .............................................................................................................................. 8
Literature review............................................................................................................................8
Definition of key terms. ..................................................................................................................8
Brief Overview of Integrated farming system. .................................................................................9
Theoretical Review ....................................................................................................................... 10
Review of Methodology ............................................................................................................... 11
Previous research findings ............................................................................................................ 11
Conclusion. .................................................................................................................................. 13
Chapter 3. ........................................................................................................................... 13
Methodology....................................................................................................................... 13
Introduction. ................................................................................................................................ 13
Study Area. .................................................................................................................................. 13
Data Sources ................................................................................................................................ 14
2|Page
Sampling procedures. ................................................................................................................... 14
Ethics statement .......................................................................................................................... 15
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 15
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 16
References ................................................................................................................................... 17
APPENDICES .............................................................................. Ошибка! Закладка не определена.
3|Page
Chapter 1
Introduction
Background.
Agriculture is the backbone of Zambia’s economy, contributing approximately 20% to the Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) and employing over 70% of the rural population (Jayne et al., 2014).
However, small-scale farmers dominate the sector, and they often face low productivity due to
poor soil management, dependence on chemical inputs, and lack of modern farming techniques
(Giller et al., 2009). In regions such as Northwestern Province, where Meheba Refugee
Settlement is located, agriculture is mainly rain-fed, making farmers highly susceptible to climate
change impacts (Rockström et al., 2008).
Despite Zambia experiencing strong economic growth in the recent past, agriculture has not
performed well. In order to fully exploit agriculture, Zambia has developed well-articulated
agricultural policies and strategies which emphasize objectives such as attainment of food
security, maximizing farmer’s incomes, promoting sustainable agriculture, and enhancing private
sector roles in input and output markets. (United Nations sdg platforms).
Zambia’s small scale farmers produce the bulk of the country’s food needs roughly 80 percent as
well as a number of cash crops. Yet climate challenges, poor infrastructure and inadequate input
use undermine productivity, profitability and sustainability. The land locked southern African
country is prone to both draught and floods, and some overuse of land resources has degraded
soils making it hard for farmers to get more from their land.(FAO)
In order to address the problem of soil degradation, climate change and reduced crop
productivity, several actors emerged in the development of improved agricultural technologies
during the1980s-1990s (Kabamba and Kankolongo 2009). These technologies include integrated
farming system.
Integrated farming system (IFS) entails a holistic approach to farming aimed at meeting the
multiple demands (impart from resilience, farmer livelihoods, food security, ecosystem services,
and making farms adaptive and resilient, etc.). IFS is characterized by temporal and spatial mixing
of crops, livestock, fisheries, and allied activities in a single farm.
It is hypothesized that these complex farms are more productive at a system level, are less
vulnerable to volatility, and produce less negative externalities than simplified farms. Thereby,
they cater the needs of small and marginal farmers, who are the backbone of agriculture.
In sub Saharan countries, the development of IFS is capable of producing half of the world’s
cereals and third of beef and dairy, making it a livelihood for one billion people. The increase in
demand for food needs is driving the intensification of crops and livestock in small holder farming
4|Page
systems in Africa. The integration of crop and livestock systems contributes to ecologically and
economically sustainable growth.
Established in 1971, Meheba Refugee Settlement is one of Africa’s largest refugee settlements,
housing displaced populations from Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Rwanda,
and other neighboring countries (UNHCR, 2020). The settlement covers an area of approximately
720 km², with significant portions allocated for agriculture. However, agricultural productivity in
Meheba remains low due to poor soil conditions, limited access to farming inputs, and reliance
on traditional farming methods (FAO, 2021).
Problem statement.
The challenges of population growth, land degradation, and increasing food insecurity in Zambia
present significant obstacles to sustainable development, particularly for small-scale farmers.
Approximately 65% of agricultural land in sub-Saharan Africa, including Zambia, is affected by soil
degradation (Giller et al., 2009; Rockstorm et al., 2008). This alarming trend can be attributed to
the widespread adoption of monoculture agriculture, introduced during colonial times, which
prioritizes crops such as maize—non-indigenous to the region—over more diversified,
sustainable agricultural practices. The continued reliance on chemicals, including pesticides,
fertilizers, and herbicides, has exacerbated soil fertility loss, reduced crop yields, and weakened
the resilience of ecosystems.
In response to these issues, the Integrated Farming System (IFS) has emerged as a potential
solution to restore balance in the agricultural landscape. IFS is an agro ecological approach that
emphasizes working with, rather than against, nature, promoting soil health and reducing
dependency on synthetic chemicals. This approach encourages the diversification of farming
activities to include crop rotation, agroforestry, and livestock integration, which collectively
enhance soil fertility, biodiversity, and overall farm productivity.
However, despite the promising benefits of IFS, its adoption in Zambia remains limited. The
concept of integrated farming is relatively new in the country, and there is limited understanding
of the factors influencing its uptake, particularly among farmers who have received formal
training. While traditional farming methods in Zambia might inherently exhibit some elements of
integration due to minimal access to synthetic chemicals, the formal execution of IFS practices
remains underexplored. As small-scale farmers continue to face rising challenges, including low
yields, poor soil health, and food insecurity, it is crucial to understand whether the adoption of
IFS can empower these farmers to achieve financial self-sufficiency, improve food security, and
maintain their traditional ways of life.
This research aims to address the gaps in knowledge surrounding the adoption of Integrated
Farming Systems in Zambia, focusing on small-scale farmers who have received formal training
in these techniques. Specifically, it will explore the potential of IFS to improve food security,
5|Page
enhance soil fertility, and promote environmental sustainability, thereby providing a viable
alternative to the unsustainable monoculture practices currently in use.
Justification of the Study
Zambia, like many other sub-Saharan African countries, faces critical challenges of population growth,
land degradation, and food insecurity, which disproportionately affect small-scale farmers (Jayne et al.,
2014). Over 65% of agricultural land in sub-Saharan Africa, including Zambia, is subject to soil degradation,
mainly due to unsustainable farming practices such as mono-cropping and excessive chemical use (Giller
et al., 2009; Rockström et al., 2008). The widespread adoption of maize monoculture, introduced during
colonial rule, has led to severe depletion of soil nutrients, increased reliance on synthetic fertilizers, and
declining agricultural productivity (Sitko & Jayne, 2014). This farming system has resulted in reduced crop
yields, poor soil health, and increased vulnerability to climate change, further exacerbating food insecurity
(FAO, 2021).
Integrated Farming Systems (IFS) offer a sustainable alternative to conventional monoculture by
promoting biodiversity, improving soil fertility, and reducing dependency on chemical inputs (Pretty et al.,
2018). This system aligns with the principles of agroecology, which emphasize working with nature rather
than against it, thereby ensuring long-term sustainability (Altieri & Nicholls, 2017). Studies have shown
that IFS can enhance soil quality, increase crop diversification, and improve household food security,
making it a viable solution for small-scale farmers in Zambia (Tittonell & Giller, 2013). Furthermore,
implementing IFS can help achieve Sustainable Development Goal 2 (Zero Hunger) by increasing
agricultural resilience and productivity in a sustainable manner (United Nations, 2019).
Given the urgent need to address soil degradation and food insecurity in Zambia, this study is essential in
exploring the potential benefits of Integrated Farming Systems. By assessing their effectiveness and
feasibility, the research will contribute valuable insights for policymakers, agricultural extension services,
and farmers seeking sustainable solutions to improve food production while preserving soil health.
Significance of the study.
This research will outline the factors that affect the adoption of integrated farming system among
small scale farmers in Maheba refugee settlement.
The findings of this research will help the government through the ministry of agriculture and
other NGOs in the settlement to adjust their approach towards the implementation and
educating of integrated farmers in Maheba refugee settlement.
6|Page
The research will outline practical recommendations based on the findings of this research, these
recommendations will enable both the NGOs and the farmers to find solutions to the challenges
faced in practicing integrated farming.
Study Objectives.
Main Objective.
To identify the socio-economic factors that affect the adoption of integrated farming system
in Maheba refugee settlement.
Specific objectives.

To determine the level of knowledge acquired by small scale farmers in the settlement
with regard to IFS.

To determine the probability of farmers adopting integrated farming in Maheba refugee
settlement.

To determine the extent of adoption of IFS techniques by small scale farmers in Maheba
refugee settlement.

To find out the farmer’s perception and feelings about IFS practices in the settlement.
Research Questions.

Do the farmers in the settlement have knowledge about integrated farming system?

Is information about integrated farming system accessible to the farmers in the
settlement?

Does the study population understand conventional agriculture and its potential
contribution to climate change and soil degradation?
Study Hypothesis.
Alternative hypothesis
Adoption of IFS techniques has significant impact on the agricultural production of
small scale farmers in Maheba refugee settlement.
7|Page
Null hypothesis
Adoption of IFS techniques has no significant impact on the agricultural production of
small scale farmers in Maheba refugee settlement.
Study Limitations.
Little information available about similar research conducted in Maheba refugee settlement will
limit this research to depend only on the research conducted from other areas.
The study population consists of vulnerable and marginalized farmers, therefore some farmers
could not be willing to share information due to protection policy within the refugee settlement.
Study Outline.
This section above highlighted, the background of the study, the statement of the problem which
isolated the main reason of conducting this research, the significance of the study, study
objectives, research questions, study hypothesis and the limitation of the study where potential
research hindrances were highlighted.
Chapter 2
Literature review.
Integrated Farming Systems (IFS) have gained attention as a sustainable approach to agriculture,
especially in regions affected by land degradation, food insecurity, and socio-economic
challenges (Pretty et al., 2018). In Zambia, small-scale farmers, including those in refugee
settlements such as Meheba, face significant agricultural challenges due to monoculture
practices, climate variability, and limited access to resources (FAO, 2021). This literature review
explores the concept of IFS, its benefits, adoption challenges, and relevance to small-scale
farmers in Zambia, particularly in the Meheba Refugee Settlement.
Definition of key terms.
Adoption; is defined as a decision to make full use of an innovation as the best course of action
ounce the individual has known and assessed the attributes of the innovation. (Rodgers, 2003)
Integrated farming system (IFS) is an interdependent, interrelated often interlocking production
system based on few crop, animals, and related subsidiary enterprise in such a way that maximize
the utilization of nutrients of each system and minimize the negative effect of these enterprises
8|Page
on the environment. (Amit Kumar et al, 2018). It can also be defined as a holistic production
management system that avoids the use of synthetic fertilizers, pesticides and genetically
modified organisms, minimizes pollution of the air, water and soil and optimizes the health and
productivity of interdependent communities of plants, animals and people.( Third world network
(TWN), Ching 2007).
Integrated farming system; can further be defined as “neo-traditional food system’’ because it
uses scientific investigation to improve traditional farming practices. Traditional farming
practices involves multi-cropping techniques, natural methods of food preservation and storage
like drying and salting and other measures that reduce risks.
Climate Smart Agriculture; is an integrated approach to managing landscapes, cropland,
livestock, forests and fisheries, that addresses the interlinked challenges of food security and
climate change.
Brief Overview of Integrated farming system.
The IFS model combines various compatible enterprises such as crops (field crops, horticultural
crops), agroforestry (agri-silvi culture, agri-horticulture, agri-pastoral, silvi-pastoral, hortipastoral), livestock (dairy, pigs, poultry, small ruminants), fishery, mushroom and bee culture in
an synergistic way so that the wastes of one process becomes the input for other processes for
optimum farm productivity.(Soumya Dash et al, 2021).
Integrated farming system boasts with a variety of advantages ranging from increased
productivity per unit area by virtue of intensification and allied enterprises.
Integration of different production systems provides an opportunity to solve malnutrition
problems in our county, integrated farming system also improves soil fertility and soil physical
structure from appropriate crop rotations and using cover crops and organic compost and
minimizes nutrient loses.
IFS reduces the production cost of components through input recycling from the by-products
Of allied enterprises. The recycling of wastes for production helps to avoid pilling of wastes
And consequent pollution.
9|Page
Theoretical Review.
The adoption of integrated farming system instead of any individual crop or livestock enterprising
will not only sustain the livelihood but also provided food security especially at small and marginal
scale of farming.
Banca et al. (2011) undertook a comprehensive, empirical meta-analysis of 217 individual studies
on CA globally. Their empirical analysis showed that improved agronomic practices such as cover
crops, crop rotations (especially with legumes) and improved varieties have increased cereal
yields by 116% on average across the studies consulted. Similarly, reduced tillage and crop
residue management is associated with a 106% increase, and agroforestry techniques with a 69%
increase. Tillage management and agroforestry were found to be particularly beneficial in dry
agricultural areas.
It should be noted, however, that Pretty et al. (2006) purposely selected ‘best practice’ examples,
and both Pretty et al. (2006) and Banca et al. (2011) mainly consider those studies examining
practices actively promoted by various IFS projects, as opposed to ‘spontaneous’ adoption among
farmers not directly involved in promotion projects.
Hence, although there is general agreement that some of the IFS practices can improve yields
under at least some circumstances, a debate continues over what and how extensive these
circumstances are in practice.
There are a number of reasons why IFS may not be suitable in particular contexts (Lal et al., 2004;
Knowler and Bradshaw, 2007; Gowing and Palmer, 2008; Giller et al., 2009; McCarthy et al., 2011;
Nkala et al., 2011). For instance, crop residues are often used as animal feed: the benefits of
mulching with crop residues may not be worth the trade-off of reduced livestock numbers.
Similarly, there may be a trade-off between labor saved on tillage and labor spent on increased
weeding, in the absence of herbicides. These authors also raise questions about which specific
element(s) of IFS drive yield improvements as many published studies do not vary only one factor,
but instead examine the effects of IFS overall (Gowing and Palmer, 2008; Giller et al., 2009). This
often includes confounding changes to herbicide and fertilizer regimes. While proponents of IFS
10 | P a g e
argue that the method is ‘holistic’, and thus cannot be reduced to a single element, such
disaggregated information is necessary for refinement and extension of the IFS approach.
Review of Methodology
Previous research findings
The Brazilian Amazon and Cerrado contain both frontier and developed agribusiness contexts,
which span low input, sprawling cattle ranching, to small-scale fruit and horticulture farming, to
intensive soy and corn production. Interviews with farm operators and local experts in Acre,
Rondônia, Pará, and Mato Grosso from 2014-2018 (Cortner et al. 2019), found that there is nearly
universal agreement among integrated system adopters that these systems help to:
a)
Increase the competitiveness of cattle ranching, particularly in light of decreasing land
availability and growth of the crop sector;
b)
Increase cattle productivity, especially where pastures are highly degraded;
c)
Increase farm income by adding value to both crop and livestock operations and
diversifying revenue streams; and
d)
Increase farmer adaptability and reduce risk to market and weather variability.
However, farmers cited numerous drawbacks and barriers to adoption (Figure 2).
In regions that are farther from existing consolidated soy and corn production areas, there is an
absence of silos to store grains and multinational traders to create competitive market access
conditions. Poor road quality increases the costs associated with accessing these resources.
Farmers reported that it was difficult to find or train skilled labor to work in integrated systems.
Many also cited an inability to access credit to cover the costs and risks of establishing an
integrated system. For example, in Mato Grosso, establishing an integrated farm can cost
$863/ha vs. $174/ha for conventional ranching (Reis et al. 2019). Low credit access is exacerbated
by land title documentation challenges, particularly in Pará, ranchers expressed an aversion to
taking on debt or taking risks given the uncertainty about returns, as well as little desire to take
on greater managerial intensity as other reasons for not adopting.
11 | P a g e
Farmers still believe that they should be rewarded for the climate mitigation benefits that their
sustainable intensification efforts are providing by receiving a payment for environmental
services. Spatial analysis of adoption patterns at the state level in Mato Grosso has shown that
adopters of integrated systems are more educated and have better access to technical assistance
and sector information than continuous crop farmers or ranchers (Gil, Garrett, and Berger 2016).
This analysis also found that farmers located in close proximity Embrapa research and
demonstration units had significantly higher adoption of these systems.
However, the financial constraints (lack of required finance, high cost of inputs) emerged as
major limitations in adopting crop- livestock integrated system at Madhya Pradesh (Pandey et
al., 2019) due to high initial investment forthe establishment of animal shed, purchase of
livestock, etc. Further, biophysical constraints for adoption the IFS systems like non-availability
of quality planting material, lack of skills and knowledge of new
crops
such
availability of veterinary service formed the major constraints in adopting the
fodder,
and
crop-livestock
system at Salem District of Tamil Nadu (Pushpa, 2010). Moreover, sociocultural constraints viz.,
idiosyncratic character and attitude of the farmers is found as the major criteria in adopting an
IFS system (Purnomo et al., 2021) in Indonesia, and farmers are resilient to change and found
laggards in the adoption of new technology, improved crops, and livestock breeds.
Nearly 30% of scheduled caste farmers at the surveyed location in Southern Karnataka, India, did
not have a favorable attitude toward IFS adoption (Kumar & Narayanagowda, 2017).Hence,
anchoring suitable motivation and encouraging through training and demonstration along with
credit facilities and ensured supply of required quality planting materials, the farmer's attitude
and adoption of integrated farming systems could be modified appropriately. Nevertheless, there
is inadequate policy or institutional support for adoption of IFS in relationships between land
holding size and livelihoods for farmers and laborers. For example, IFS provides higher yields but
lower absolute levels of marketable produce raises questions about the sustainability of their
livelihoods. The small and marginal farm family should explore both agricultural and nonagricultural source of income (through value addition) to achieve sustainable livelihood.
12 | P a g e
Second, there was a limited study on type of production and their associate environmental
implications. Assessing particular farm sizes, type of enterprises, and recycling methods in the
IFS would enable better identification of scale-specific relationships between farm size and
environmentalimpacts. Finally, few studies have considered comprehensive ecosystem services
provided by different type of IFS systems like homestead farming, agroforestry
based,
and
livestock based. Future research should further investigate well-being for laborers, farmers,
consumers, and their interaction with farm size and with other social and environmental
outcomes.
Conclusion.
This research will evaluate the small scale farmer’s perspective on integrated farming system, it
will assess the adoption levels of integrated farming among the Host community and the Former
refugees. The potential of the farmers to practice integrated farming will be assessed based on
the availability of livestock and other compatible enterprises on individual farms.
Chapter 3.
Methodology.
Introduction.
This section outlines the methodologies which will be applied and used in this research, the study
will highlight information on the study site, research design to be used, sampling methods and
type of data analysis to be used.
Study Area.
The study will be conducted in Maheba refugee settlement in Kalumbila district of Northwestern
province.
13 | P a g e
Data Sources
The data used in this study will be obtained from the food and agriculture organization FAO
Integrated production and pest management in Africa report 2014 (IPPM). This study will utilize
data on farmers and key informants who will answer the questions on IFS practices and factors
affecting adoption of integrated farming system in the study Area.
Sampling procedures.
The respondents for this study will be household members involved in farming, ensuring that both the
host community and former refugee groups are represented in the sample. To achieve this, a stratified
random sampling method will be employed, dividing the population into two strata: the host community
and the former refugee population.
A proportional number of respondents will be selected from each group based on their representation in
the camp’s overall population, ensuring that both communities are adequately represented. Additionally,
cluster sampling will be used, with the camp divided into blocks, and villages within each block serving as
clusters. A random selection of villages will be made using simple random sampling without replacement,
which will help to ensure a diverse range of respondents from different areas of the camp, reducing bias
in the study. The sample size will be determined using the
formula , (n=N1+N(e)2n = {N}{1 +
N(e)^2}n=1+N(e)2N).
Where: n = required sample size, N = total population size, e= margin of error (typically 0.05 for a 95%
confidence level) the sample size will be proportionally selected from each block, which takes into account
the total population size and a margin of error of 0.05 (for a 95% confidence level). The sample size will
14 | P a g e
be proportionally selected from each block, reflecting the distribution of the population across the various
villages within the camp. Data collection will involve semi-structured interviews with small-scale farmers
and key informants, such as community leaders and agricultural extension officers, to explore the
adoption of Integrated Farming Systems (IFS) and its impacts on soil health, food security, and farmer
livelihoods. The interviews will be conducted in English, with the option for respondents to use Luvale or
Swahili, the prominent local languages, ensuring full understanding and participation.
Ethics statement
The participants in study will be well protected from risks and other distasteful occurrences they
may face in the administration of questionnaire in particular. Formal consent for participation will
be obtained verbally from each study participant after the study objectives have been interpreted
to them in their local language. Study participants will be assured of anonymity and
confidentiality.
Data Analysis
For the data analysis, Chi-square (χ²) tests will be used to examine the relationships between
categorical variables. This statistical method will allow for the testing of hypotheses regarding
the association between the adoption of Integrated Farming Systems (IFS) and various factors,
such as community type (host community vs. former refugees), farming practices, food security
levels, and soil health.
To perform the Chi-square test, the observed frequencies from the data will be compared with
the expected frequencies, assuming there is no association between the variables. The Chisquare statistic will be calculated using the formula:
χ2=∑ (Oi−Ei) 2Ei\chi^2 = \sum \frac {(O_i - E_i) ^2} {E_i}
Where:


OiO_i = observed frequency for category ii
EiE_i = expected frequency for category ii
The analysis will be performed using statistical software such as SPSS. The significance level will
be set at 0.05, meaning that a p-value less than 0.05 will indicate strong evidence against the null
hypothesis. Additionally, the effect size (Cramér’s V) will be calculated to assess the strength of
the association between the variables, with values closer to 1 indicating a stronger association.
15 | P a g e
The results from the Chi-square tests will be presented in contingency tables and interpreted to
draw conclusions about the factors influencing the adoption of IFS and its impacts on food
security and soil health among small-scale farmers in Maheba Refugee Camp.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this research will explore the adoption of Integrated Farming Systems (IFS) among
small-scale farmers in Maheba Refugee Camp, Kalumbila District, with a focus on its impact on
soil health, food security, and overall farmer livelihoods. By using a cross-sectional design,
stratified random sampling, and the Chi-square statistical test, the study will assess the factors
influencing the adoption of IFS and examine whether it leads to significant improvements in food
security and soil health.
Through this research, valuable insights will be gained regarding the role of IFS in addressing the
challenges faced by small-scale farmers, particularly in the context of population growth, land
degradation, and food insecurity. It will also contribute to understanding how different
community groups—host community members and former refugees—adopt and benefit from
IFS practices. The findings will be essential for guiding future agricultural policies and
interventions aimed at promoting sustainable farming practices in Zambia and similar contexts
across sub-Saharan Africa.
Ultimately, the results will provide evidence-based recommendations for policymakers,
agricultural extension services, and community leaders on how to enhance food security and soil
health through the widespread adoption of Integrated Farming Systems.
16 | P a g e
References
Giller, K. E., et al. (2009). 'Competing or Complementary Principles in Agroecosystem
Management?'. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 133(3), 160-173.
Rockstorm, J., et al. (2008). 'Reducing Risks to Food Security and Vulnerability from Climate
Change and Land Degradation in Sub-Saharan Africa'. Global Environmental Change, 18(2), 141146.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2014). 'The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2014'.
FAO, Rome.
World Bank. (2017). 'Agriculture and Rural Development in Zambia'. The World Bank,
Washington, D.C.
Altieri, M. A. & Nicholls, C. I. (2017) 'Agroecology: A Transdisciplinary, Participatory and ActionOriented Approach', Agronomy, 7(3), p. 51.
FAO (2021) the State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2021. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations.
Giller, K. E., Witter, E., Corbeels, M. & Tittonell, P. (2009) 'Conservation agriculture and
smallholder farming in Africa: The heretics' view', Field Crops Research, 114(1), pp. 23-34.
Jayne, T. S., Chamberlin, J. & Headey, D. D. (2014) 'Land pressures, the evolution of farming
systems, and development strategies in Africa: A synthesis', Food Policy, 48, pp. 1-17.
Pretty, J., Toulmin, C. & Williams, S. (2018) 'Sustainable intensification in African agriculture',
International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 16(1), pp. 1-18.
Rockström, J., Steffen, W. & Noone, K. (2008) 'Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating
Space for Humanity', Ecology and Society, 14(2), p. 32.
Sitko, N. J. & Jayne, T. S. (2014) 'Structural transformation or elite land capture? The growth of
“emergent” farmers in Zambia', Food Policy, 48, pp. 194-202.
Tittonell, P. & Giller, K. E. (2013) 'When yield gaps are poverty traps: The paradigm of ecological
intensification in African smallholder agriculture', Field Crops Research, 143, pp. 76-90.
UNHCR (2020) Zambia: Refugee Livelihoods and Economic Inclusion. United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees.
17 | P a g e