Bioecosystems towards sustainable agricultural extension delivery: effects of various factors

Abstract

This review aims to explore factors that enhance the sustainability of agricultural extension systems in the traditional institution bioecosystem to deliver educational information. The study was based on a purposive sampling criterion for research articles from journal websites. One hundred and eighty-seven articles from 2015 to 2023 were reviewed. One hundred and fifty-three were double-reviewed articles from journals, twenty reports from trusted government and private websites, and fourteen web-based articles were synthesized according to the listed keywords and the overall objective. From the analysis, this study demonstrates that the literature attested to the interconnected relationship between traditional institutions and other market players, although inevitable negative consequences do occur. The findings also show that sustainability, value addition, innovation, collaboration, cooperation, and partnerships are critical factors in the extension bioecosystems in traditional institutions. This review study concludes that traditional institutions can enhance agricultural extension to provide sustainable rural development as long as the service providers harmonize the relationship with the local community to increase buy-in. Win–win commercial relations trigger value addition, innovations, collaborations, and sustainability for policy markets, politicians, researchers, and farmers.

Full text

Vol.:(0123456789)
Environment, Development and Sustainability
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03555-9
1 3
REVIEW
Bioecosystems towardssustainable agricultural extension
delivery: effects ofvarious factors
EnockSiankwilimba1 · ChisoniMumba2 · BernardMudendaHang’ombe3·
JoshuaMunkombwe1· JacquelineHiddlestone‑Mumford4 ·
MunyaradziA.Dzvimbo5,6· MdEnamulHoque7
Received: 6 June 2022 / Accepted: 28 June 2023
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2023
Abstract
This review aims to explore factors that enhance the sustainability of agricultural exten-
sion systems in the traditional institution bioecosystem to deliver educational information.
The study was based on a purposive sampling criterion for research articles from journal
websites. One hundred and eighty-seven articles from 2015 to 2023 were reviewed. One
hundred and fifty-three were double-reviewed articles from journals, twenty reports from
trusted government and private websites, and fourteen web-based articles were synthesized
according to the listed keywords and the overall objective. From the analysis, this study
demonstrates that the literature attested to the interconnected relationship between tradi-
tional institutions and other market players, although inevitable negative consequences do
occur. The findings also show that sustainability, value addition, innovation, collaboration,
cooperation, and partnerships are critical factors in the extension bioecosystems in tradi-
tional institutions. This review study concludes that traditional institutions can enhance
agricultural extension to provide sustainable rural development as long as the service pro-
viders harmonize the relationship with the local community to increase buy-in. Win–win
commercial relations trigger value addition, innovations, collaborations, and sustainability
for policy markets, politicians, researchers, and farmers.
Keywords Traditional farming institution· Sustainable· Agricultural extension services·
Market system· Ecosystem· Value addition· Scalability· Smallholder farmers
1 Introduction
Understanding why extension delivery systems have failed, even after receiving a large
investment of resources in the implementation phase, is the focus of various studies. Agri-
cultural extension at community, region, country, and international levels has been funded
for many years, yet the results remain disappointing (Butterfield etal., 2019). Smallholder
farmers continue to record low production and productivity and are worse off. Hunger
is projected to worsen by 2050 as the global population grows to over 9.8 billion people
(Bjornlund et al., 2020; FAO etal., 2021). Several theories and frameworks have been
Extended author information available on the last page of the article

E.Siankwilimba et al.
1 3
used to explain, evaluate, and predict how extension helps rural and food security develop-
ment (Bawden, 1992; Ortiz etal., 2013; Taye, 2013), but unfortunately, the situation has
not improved. In Bronfenbrenner’s development model, for instance, one’s well-being is
influenced by the nature and effectiveness of their relationships with others, including fam-
ily, neighbours, and institutional institutions to sustain humanity (Boon etal., 2012). This
model is firmly rooted in social, economic, ecological, and environmental systems (bioeco-
system) and sustainability agriculture systems, yet it is highly affected by many factors that
hinder its functionality for the benefit of both human beings and natural ecosystems.
Climate change and COVID-19 are two variables that many scholars have advanced as
the leading disrupters of poor extension service provision as they affect all extension eco-
system players in a cascading manner (Nchanji etal., 2021). As with Africa, the focus of
this paper, climate change, is considered a key impact in the developing regions in Asia
(Amoo & Fagbenle, 2020), where, for example, agricultural practices are leading to a
potential 6–18% reduction in crop yield in the arid and semi-arid areas in Pakistan, with
lack of water being a key contributor by 2025 (Arif etal., 2019; Ullah, 2017). Other schol-
ars blame smallholder farmers for their poor livelihoods, claiming they are too entrenched
in their traditions and customs to adopt new information and technologies (Asiedu-Darko,
2014; Burniston etal., 2015).
Multinationals and multilateral companies have blamed politicians and their counter-
part governments, particularly in developing countries. Claims are made that developing
country governments contribute to the underdevelopment of agriculture and extension
services due to poor funding that fails to meet the Malabo Declaration for Comprehen-
sive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP). The CAADP requires an
annual signed budget of 10% of funding to be allocated to the agriculture threshold (Afri-
can Union Department of Rural Economy & Agriculture, 2020; Resnick etal., 2020). The
Malabo Declaration sought to accelerate agricultural growth and transformation for shared
prosperity and improved livelihood (African Union Department of Rural Economic and
Agriculture, 2020). Moreover, one of the commitments by member countries in the Com-
prehensive African Agricultural Development Programme is to enhance investment finance
in agriculture. However, systems thinker Sterman and his colleagues have documented that
most extension systems operate in complex environments intertwined with manufactured
rules and regulations that govern locals and their livelihoods (Sterman etal., 2015). The
report by Chambers (1994) aligns with Sterman’s (2015) more recent study. Chambers
(1994) attributed the failure to achieve better results when working with a traditional setup
to a topdown extension participatory approach that denies the local people the opportunity
to participate fully in planning and execution. Others blame the local leadership’s rigidity
in adapting to new information and technologies.
Chambers (1994) found that local problems require local or home-grown solutions from
local people who are actively engaged in the process. However, Möller etal. (2020) also
contend that today’s extension and marketing ecosystems have a "theory-praxis" gap or
a lack of practical relevance to core decision-making concerns. Much attention is paid to
strategy methods and practical features, but there is not enough theory or theorizing. As a
result, there is also too little stagnation and too much method-driven extension.
Although these problems have continued to surge, the World Bank, the International
Monetary Fund (IMF), Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), China, and many more
donor communities, including developing countries where the problems reside, have spent
significant resources on correcting the situation (Vaidyanathan etal., 2021). Even though
there have been interventions by market players to address the situation, it appears little
progress has been recorded thus far. Moreover, researchers have found that people often do

Bioecosystems towardssustainable agricultural extension…
1 3
not know what is wrong and as such end up treating the symptoms, leaving the root causes
intact (Gazoni & Silva, 2021; Mumba etal., 2017).
While the goals of agricultural extension services have largely remained the same since
their origin, their scope and definition have drastically expanded in recent decades (Ceddia
& Zepharovich, 2019). Agricultural advisory services in developing countries have grown
to play a much more holistic and facilitative role, with field employees working as advi-
sors, facilitators, knowledge brokers, and information conduits (Ashraf etal., 2019). The
scope of agricultural consulting services has also broadened to recognize the necessity to
look beyond technical solutions to the institutional environment in which technologies are
developed and disseminated (Jeong & Choi, 2020; Riahi etal., 2017). In addition to train-
ing and message distribution, extension advisory services are now characterized as assist-
ing farmers in organizing and acting collectively, tackling processing and marketing diffi-
culties, and engaging with a wide range of service providers and rural groups. Farmers are
treated as collaborators and partners in technology development rather than passive recipi-
ents (Butterfield etal., 2019). As Davis etal. (2020) state, the number of organizations that
provide advisory services, such as government agencies, non-governmental organizations,
and the private sector, has grown. In recent years, carbon credit businesses have taken place
between developed and developing countries to advance sustainable agriculture, economic,
social, and environmental development within the bioecosystem (Woo etal., 2023; Liu
etal., 2022; Zeweld etal., 2020).To better understand how the traditional institution bio-
ecosystem can deliver sustainable educational information as a bioecosystem, this review
explores the factors around the sustainability of agricultural extension systems.
1.1 Public interest statement
The current interest in agricultural extension service provision is part of a more significant
movement in thought that emphasizes agriculture’s role in enhancing the sustainability of
all market players, predominantly rural. However, there are many challenges in achieving
a sustainable and functional extension delivery ecosystem (Baffoe-Bonnie etal., 2021).
With their limited view of extension service supply in today’s corporate environment, com-
ponents of general extension information services and business extensions are becoming
obsolete for strategic management (Möller etal., 2020). Farmers were treated as research
objects in the past extension delivery ecosystem, dipped in various problems that needed to
be treated after being diagnosed by outsiders. With the set standards being faulty, this kind
of orientation gave rise to systemic resistance to change by the traditional institutions.
This approach underscores the ongoing need for agricultural extension services to
increase agricultural production, improve food security and rural livelihoods, and pro-
mote agriculture as a pro-poor economic growth engine (Siankwilimba, 2019). In addition,
changes in the global food and agricultural systems, such as the rise of supermarkets and
the growing importance of standards and labels, as well as the growth of non-farm rural
employment and agribusiness, all require the use of sustainable agricultural and agribusi-
ness practices. Taking a cursory look at some of the most highly cited contemporary agri-
cultural extension writing reveals how underlying megatrends, particularly digitalization,
globalization, and environmental awareness, coupled with the COVID-19 pandemic, are
making today’s business environment inherently volatile, systemic, and complex (Siank-
wilimba etal., 2021). While increasing contextual complexity it appears a small number
of managerially extended staff still offer transformations that stand out, but their impacts
have low uptake. This paper endeavours to encourage service providers and scholars to

E.Siankwilimba et al.
1 3
concentrate on where strategic extension practice will be in the future rather than where
it has been. The study seeks to help to make the traditional institutional ecosystems more
functional and sustainable for agricultural extension as a tool of human and natural envi-
ronment development.
2 Methodology
We sourced peer-reviewed research articles and official government and reputable reports
from 2015 to 2023 to identify the factors affecting the sustainability of agricultural exten-
sion services within the traditional institutional bioecosystem setting. Search parameters
included "traditional agricultural extension bioecosystem" in "agricultural market system"
and "effects" of "sustainability, value addition, scalability, innovation system, risks associ-
ated with market participation, impact of armed conflict on agricultural ecosystem, hybrid
extension communication, benefits of participatory extension systems, systems of formal
and informal rules and regulations" in Google Scholar and Scopus. Of the results returned,
we focussed on the 187 papers published between 2015 and 2023, as these are closer to the
topic at hand. From these, we utilized 13 published studies under the thematic areas that
focussed on clear and well-defined agricultural traditional extension terms. These terms
include traditional farming organizations, sustainable agricultural extension services, mar-
ket systems, ecosystems, adding value, and being able to grow.
Inclusion criteria were based on the papers’ importance, impact rating, and citations
accrued. Also included were twenty research reports from trusted government and private
websites across the globe to validate the data. The exclusion criteria were based on the
irrelevant parts of the paper, based on the weight of the authors and the source thereof. The
research is qualitatively based on themes to guide the flow and discussion.
In a traditional institutional setting, information about extension has been managed in a
sustainable way by looking at a number of factors. Each piece of writing was subjected to
a thorough evaluation of suitability for inclusion, based on the concept of sustainability in
agricultural traditional extension ecosystem institution studies. Both Tschumi and Hagan
(2008) and the Springfield Centre (2014) advanced the market system approach. This was
combined with the authors’ conceptual framework, shown in Fig. 1 and progressed in
Fig.2 to commence and then further discuss the conceptualization. The article’s relevance
formed the inclusion strategy, while its unreachability informed the exclusion strategy.
Past research has demonstrated a pattern of significant themes to guide the respective
study. Areas that stood out as particularly relevant to sustainable agricultural extension in
the traditional institution ecosystem included: definition of agricultural extension sustain-
ability, value addition, innovation, scalability, support systems, rules and regulations, core
functions, collaboration, and partnerships. Researchers have found that the agricultural
extension ecosystem continues to be in a phase of change to achieve the listed themes. It
demonstrates that an agricultural market extension system is a multi-function, multi-player
arrangement that includes the core function of exchange through which goods and services
are delivered, as well as the supporting functions and rules that are performed and shaped
by a variety of market players (Springfield Centre, 2014).
Of note, the methodology utilized for this study, rather than following a systematic
review or discourse analysis approach, focusses on the traditional extension ecosystem
papers released between 2015 and 2023. Further, while the study utilized global publica-
tions, the findings were biased in favour of the smallholder extension service ecosystem.

Bioecosystems towardssustainable agricultural extension…
1 3
Fig. 1 Conceptual framework adapted from Tschumi and Hagan (2008, p. 28) and the Springfield Centre
(2014, p. 3) market systems framework
Fig. 2 Framework showing the agricultural extension ecosystem for analysis of factors affecting agricultural
extension sustainability in the traditional smallholder institution

E.Siankwilimba et al.
1 3
Table1 shows the distribution of cited papers. Of the 187 papers cited in this paper, 28
were offered in the introduction section, followed by participatory agricultural extension
ecosystems at 20, collaboration and partnership at 18, cultural extension business ecosys-
tem framework at 17, hybrid extension communication at 15, and the least cited section
was conclusion with one paper.
In a traditional institutional setting, information about extension has been managed
in a sustainable way by looking at a number of factors. It is moving from non-functional
to functional pathway inquiry. The functional extension ecosystem is premised on a
win–win situation for all market players involved in agricultural product and provisional
service development. Table2 demonstrates that these factors are important in determin-
ing the long-term viability of agricultural extension in the traditional institution extension
ecosystem.
3 Discussion
3.1 Agricultural extension business bioecosystem framework
In addressing the descriptive assessment of the factors affecting the sustainability of
agricultural extension delivery in traditional institution ecosystems, a market ecosys-
tem framework was designed and employed in this study. Market system is defined as the
multi-player, multi-function arrangement consisting of three primary sets of functions
(core, rules, and supporting) performed by various parties (private sector, government, rep-
resentative organizations, civil society, etc) through which trade occurs, evolves, adapts,
Table 1 Distribution of cited papers for this study
Section Citations
Introduction 28
Public interest statement  4
Methodology 12
Cultural extension business ecosystem framework 17
Sustainability of extension services  7
Deepening and broadening the scale 7
System of value addition 13
Collaboration and partnerships 18
Innovation system 9
Risk associated with market participation 5
Participatory agriculture extension ecosystem in traditional 20
Impact of armed conflict on agricultural ecosystem 12
Benefits of participatory extension systems 5
Hybrid extension communication 15
Systems of formal and informal rules and regulations 8
Information and knowledge on disease control and management 6
Conclusion 1
Total 187

Bioecosystems towardssustainable agricultural extension…
1 3
Table 2 Existing market systems approach
Core function demand and supply sources
of commercialization
Rules and regulations for sustainability Supporting services for value addition,
innovation and scalability
References
Service providers that are national and
global orientation collaborate with
farmers
Consumer behaviour is influenced by
cultural distinctiveness coordination
Research, education training and promo-
tion tied to technology and financing
determine the scale of the extension
services
Bartikowski and Walsh (2015); Davies
etal. (2020)
Local service providers interacted with
global service providers to service the
farmers
Traditional cultural uniqueness enlightens
farmers and extension service provid-
ers’ behaviour
Communication and technology infra-
structure through digital extension
unlock the potential of local firms
Tu etal. (2012); Springfield Centre (2014)
The globalization of information delivery
systems put in place to service small-
holder farmers
Farmers prefer global extension service
providers’ extension training moderated
by technology transfers
Experiential training and learning
coupled with access to improved
technology foster development in the
traditional ecosystem
Springfield Centre (2014); Gammoh etal.
(2011); Todaro & Smith (2015)
Consignment extension service providers
enter into a commercial relationship
with tribal farmers
The distribution of decision-making
responsibilities is influenced by tradi-
tional cultural competency
In-depth interviews and a survey
determine the commercial relationship
between players
Cross and Gilly (2014); Balanova (2020);
Galière etal. (2019)
Consignment-based service providers
enter into a contract with traditional
institutions to foster commercial exten-
sion relationships cultural orientations
Farmers differentiate between foreign and
global extension service providers
The ability to pay for the services and
products offered to the smallholder
farmers is a measure of contractual
adherence-change of cultural behaviour
Zhou (2010); Kipnis etal. (2012)

E.Siankwilimba et al.
1 3
and expands. A framework for examining both conventionally defined marketplaces and
essential services. This framework recognizes the commercial interactions of service pro-
viders and producers as critical to sustainable extension delivery for increased agricultural
production and productivity (Zhou, 2010). In the context of business, an ecosystem refers
to a set of interconnected businesses that rely on each other’s operations (Jacobides etal.,
2018). Business ecosystems are synonymous with "smart networks", which, according to
Zeng (2019), are emerging to address complicated challenges for all players involved in
agribusiness with the environmental and economic lenses at play. In this regard, smart net-
works are the underlying theoretical framework underpinning this research study. When
it comes to the operation of the business ecosystem, two major strategies are critical to
fostering a sustainable extension ecosystem. Balanova (2020) submitted that network coor-
dination and transparency in information processing and sharing are vital to sustaining
agricultural business. A coordinated system allows all players to trust the business deci-
sions made and implemented. These are managed by rules and functions that support the
core function of the business. However, the core function of an extension ecosystem hinges
on four (4) primary actors, namely: a leading company to provide leadership direction;
complementary companies to help the lead company provide complete solutions; supply-
side users (to supply improved technology and information); and demand-side users (to
acquire improved technologies and information to enhance production and productivity)
(Balanova, 2020).
Furthermore, an extension ecosystem stipulates that in a smallholder agricultural mar-
ket, the extension service providers and traditional farmers are at the core of the mar-
ket, and therefore the flow of information should be transparent, supported by functions
and rules (Springfield Centre, 2014). These functions and rules come from the industry,
designed by the government and other market players. In contrast, the informal market is
culturally designed and undocumented but respected and followed by governing traditional
institutions or communities (Galière et al., 2019). Therefore, information dissemination
is the core mandate of agricultural extension services, coupled with innovation diffusion
and knowledge acquisition. The framework identifies four sets of conditions to consider
when deciding on these characteristics: the policy situation; the capability of potential ser-
vice providers; the type of farming systems and market access of farm households; and the
nature of local communities, including their ability to cooperate (Davis & Spielman, 2017).
The framework recommends examining the performance and impact of agricultural con-
sulting services using an impact chain method. The chain method plays a role in the ana-
lytical framework for this study as their interactions with advisory services are important to
their performance and impact on the world.
The framework can evaluate change processes from a dynamic perspective across
time and is further solidified by advocating for sustainability, scale, value addition,
collaboration, and innovation among market players (Mihai & Iatu, 2020). Here, a sus-
tainable extension and advisory system is defined as "the entire range of organizations
that support and facilitate people engaged in agricultural production in solving prob-
lems and obtaining information, skills, and technologies to improve their livelihoods
and well-being" (Issahakuet al., 2016, p.109). The extension service and technology
should effectively help meet the objectives and target set to deliver quality agricultural
services through regular interaction with farmers. Interactions such as raising aware-
ness and conducting physical or digital meetings and visits, as advanced by Lenaghan
and Heffern (2021). Britain, Sweden, and the USA have used a similar framework
called “making markets work for the poor” (M4P) to reach out to thousands of small-
holder rural marginalized farmers in the areas of education, agriculture and livestock,

Bioecosystems towardssustainable agricultural extension…
1 3
business development, and health in most developing countries such as Zambia, Zim-
babwe, Mozambique, Cambodia, Bangladesh, Kenya, and many more (Springfield
Centre, 2014). Cooper etal. (2021) sought to use a systems framework to help identify
improvements that benefit both producers and consumers while avoiding trade-offs in a
market system.
Cooper et al. (2021) use the notion of “win–win” as a lens to view the compli-
cated trade-offs involved in climate-wise agriculture, trade liberalization, and sustain-
able resource use, stemming from the worldwide need to accomplish progress across
numerous and often competing social–ecological aspects that also affect the traditional
institutional ecosystem (Cooper etal., 2021). It can be argued that such frameworks
place service providers and farmers under an obligation to align and respect the rules
and laws governing the extension ecosystem for sustainability. Therefore, the two feed-
back loops to and from the service providers and the farmers are highly monitored by
the government and other neutral facilitators in the market space. The framework also
promotes strategic alliances to solve underlying causes of inherent, deep-rooted prob-
lems (Chamlou, 2018). Farmers’ economic perspectives also play a role in adopting
and using sustainable agricultural practices by giving them access to money.
Emeana et al. (2020) conducted an exploratory review study on business exten-
sion. The findings suggest that when service implementers overlook the target users’
literacy, skills, culture, and desires, services are likely to fail to achieve their intended
purpose or be abandoned. As shown in Fig.2, the findings of this study indicate that
in order to improve the sustainability of mobile agriservices, the implementers should
build the services with the users in mind, carefully analyse and understand the target
environment, and design for scalability and long-term purpose. While it is necessary to
protect the privacy and security of users, it is also necessary to investigate the possibil-
ity of repurposing or improving existing initiatives, and projects must be data-driven
and preserved as open source. Policymakers can help the long-term success of mobile
agribusiness services by ensuring that both users and implementers secure the best
policies possible. This will assist everyone to work together to make money.
Therefore, to summarize, the agricultural extension business ecosystem provides
value-added services and products collaboratively, at scale and innovatively with the
help of support functions and rules and regulations in the mix (Balanova, 2020).
According to Fig.2, unsustainable extension systems only examined business deal-
ings between private product suppliers and farmers who were only interested in sell-
ing crops, livestock, and livestock-related services to the private sector. As a result,
there was a single transaction between the farmers and the private product suppliers.
The green side of Fig.2 demonstrates that the private sector invests in embedded ser-
vices like extension, promotion, and training in addition to selling standalone prod-
ucts. In essence, the products that are sold to the farmers are enhanced using tech-
nologies. In addition, through a contract known as a "forward contract", the buyers can
provide market access and availability at a reasonable price. According to Samboko
etal. (2018), one way that a better market helps farmers with whom one has a business
relationship is through improved financial products. For instance, Ziestman (2014) and
Morris (2017) developed systems to ensure farmers have the knowledge required to
identify soil metrics that allow them to identify and monitor the biological and chemi-
cal properties of soil in order to provide efficient solutions for sustainable agricultural
management when faced with degraded soils.

E.Siankwilimba et al.
1 3
3.2 Sustainability ofextension services
Attaining sustainability in the agricultural extension ecosystem is critical for agricul-
tural growth. A more general definition of the term "sustainability" is fulfilling the
wants and ambitions of the present generation without jeopardizing the potential of
nature to regenerate in order to satisfy the requirements of future generations (Caffaro
etal., 2019). Studies have advanced various ecological, social, cultural, technological,
political, institutional, and economic factors responsible for achieving sustainable exten-
sion in traditional smallholder institution ecosystems (Galière etal., 2019; Salehi etal.,
2015). However, research has established that the extension service ecosystem does not
function well enough to post dividends to all market players. For example, in the 2020
marketing season, Syngenta and International seed companies (SeedCo) posted profits
on their accounts, while most farmers in Southern Africa had low yields despite receiv-
ing extension services and buying from them (Syngenta, 2020; International, 2021).
A subsidy programme in Malawi indicates that farmers have not made any profits
from it, but those who received seed and extension services had higher yields than their
counterparts who only received seed without extension services (Ragasa & Mazunda,
2018). Therefore, it is expected that even smallholder farmers will have made gains.
In any intervention, subsidies must be seen as catalytic to the long-term development
of a commercial market that will be sustained beyond the life of the subsidy and not
for political reasons. Agricultural knowledge and information systems (AKIS) should
be defined as "a collection of agricultural organizations and/or individuals, as well as
the links and interactions between them, engaged in such processes as the generation,
transformation, transmission, storage, retrieval; integration; diffusion; and utilization
of knowledge and information" to work synergistically to achieve the objectives of the
system (Niels Röling & van de Fliert, 1994; Niels Röling etal., 2012). Table3 repre-
sents the extension market players and their business models in the traditional institu-
tion ecosystem.
These players have their own-defined roles and responsibilities in the agricultural exten-
sion service provision bioecosystem.
3.3 Deepening andbroadening thescale
The broader and deeper the extension service goes into the market ecosystem, the greater
the traditional institutions’ accessibility, availability, affordability, and utilization offer a
long-lasting impact on society. Therefore, extension service must be measured in terms of
scale and reach. Extension service providers should assess their need to demonstrate the
ability to improve market access for large numbers of smallholders and allow service pro-
viders to join in the market space. Teklewold etal. (2019) found that the number of farmers
should be disaggregated by gender and youth to leave no one behind.
Numerous research studies have examined various factors influencing the scalabil-
ity and stability of extension service systems in the agricultural ecosystem. For example,
Birner etal. (2009) discovered that the nature of the technology, stage of adoption, farm-
ers’ literacy level, type of farming system, socio-economic factors, and the farmers’ social
capital, which is dependent on their ability to cooperate, all influence the appropriateness
of advisory methods. Adult education and principles have been used in many studies to
help assess which approaches work and which do not. Studies have sought to determine

Bioecosystems towardssustainable agricultural extension…
1 3
Table 3 Extension market players and their business models in the traditional institution ecosystem
Core function Business model Examples of companies
Inputs Producers of seeds, fertilizers, veterinary medicines, chemicals
or importers and distributors of these products and services.
Breeding using improved genetics, including inter-breeding,
artificial insemination, and suppliers of breeding stock (bulls
and heifers)
Suppliers of pasture seed for fodder development
Milling companies, Bimeda Veterinary service
Commercial farmers, Semen Companies enable access to semen and related artificial
insemination vet services
Seed companies such as Monsanto, Pannar, Pioneer, SeedCo, Syngenta
Producers Grow different crops and raise livestock until they are ready for
market. They own herds of cattle that they attempt to grow for
sale or reproduction
Beef buyers, Beef Processors, and Smallholder farmers
Aggregators Buy crops, livestock, fish, and transport them to the market Crop traders, Livestock Cattle traders: agents of processors, abattoirs, rural entrepreneurs
Processors Feedlots—fatten cattle
Abattoirs—Slaughter cattle
Meat Processors—process carcasses, packaging the end product
Crop processors—buy and process crops in finished products
Product processors such as beef and crop processors
Many supermarkets have in-store butcheries—SPAR, Shoprite, Pick n Pay
Retailers Sell finished goods to consumers Butchers, supermarkets, restaurants

E.Siankwilimba et al.
1 3
what makes people want to participate and what kind of adult education orientation is in
the strategy being used.
According to previous research, the five different approaches to adult learning that
should never be compromised in the rural extension delivery system are humanist, behav-
iourist, social learning, cognitive, and critical reflection (Zabaniotou, 2020). Furthermore,
according to Daum and Birner (2020), because the humanistic approach emphasizes
respect for an individual variety, each person will be highly valued and encouraged to con-
tribute while meeting their needs. The instructor employs stimulus and reaction to change
the pupils’ behaviour in a behaviourist method. The social learning orientation emphasizes
learning in social circumstances, with the idea that people learn best from similar people.
Adults are educated using a cognitive approach that promotes critical thinking and logical
reasoning. The learner is at the heart of the process. Finally, students can use their abil-
ity to address difficulties by using a critical reflection approach to learning. Most advice
service approaches have traditionally been founded on the behaviourist paradigm. On the
other hand, social learning and critical reflection methodologies are now used in farmer
field schools and other group-based and participatory advisory procedures. Adult educa-
tion initiatives differ greatly from standard agricultural advisory service strategies.
Other research has revealed that scalability in extension delivery systems occurs when
regulations encourage private investment in initiatives that positively impact the broader
market structure in which they operate. Increased physical access to markets combined
with the delivery of information and extension, price information, and greater transpar-
ency and security of trade are all examples of positive influences that have the potential
to significantly improve the participation of the lower end of the market, which typically
suffers from information asymmetry and lower levels of “power” in its business transac-
tions. Using Total Quality Management, Quality Circles, Results-based Management, Best
Value, Benchmarking, and so on, the quality of the extension services and products is in
both the public and private sectors that can be assessed (Copetti etal., 2021).
To increase scalability and reach, some studies have deliberately included strategies that
facilitate the participation of women and youth in agricultural extension services. Products
have been designed with gender alignment and orientation. For example, Granzow etal.
(2021) discovered that reducing product packages would allow women and youth access to
fertilizers and walking tractors, as many women in remote areas were found to not access
extensions and technologies due to financial constraints. According to Munguzwe and
Miyanda (2020), crops such as cowpeas, groundnuts, sugar beans, fresh fruits, and veg-
etables are grown by women and youth. However, though such interventions have proven
to be skewed towards women and youth, research has found that once the market opens,
males have resorted to following it as a cash-spinning market, overtaking the women again.
The greater the number of farmers able to access the products with improved information
flow, the better the economy of scale will be for the growth of the service providers.
3.4 System ofvalue addition
The firm’s success relies on the value it creates(Granskog etal., 2021). A constructive
commercial relationship with the smallholder market is more than simply a buy or sell
transaction. It should incorporate knowledge transfer, extension, and confidence-building
support from the market. In addition, new players such as non-governmental organiza-
tions (NGOs), farmer organizations, and community-based organizations have entered the
environment to supply and finance advisory services. Private sector enterprises provide

Bioecosystems towardssustainable agricultural extension…
1 3
embedded consulting services, interwoven into commercial activities such as selling inputs
or contract farming (Katz& Shapiro, 1994). Innovative guidance methods, such as group-
based and interactive approaches, have gained traction in recent years, and the emergence
of COVID-19 has exacerbated this trend. As a result, it is critical to remember that digital
information sharing complements traditional extensions. In most developments, the avail-
ability of information and communication technology (ICTs) has opened up a flood of new
options for providing advisory services. According to Haggag’s (2021) study, even though
smartphones have many functions and applications, most farmers only use them to receive
text messages and conduct mobile money transactions. Smallholder farmers have found
that hybrid extension services are the most effective.
In the Namwala district of the Southern Province, Sichibalo etal. (2021) conducted
a study to determine tick resistance to the chemical compounds Amitraz and Cyperme-
thrin acaricides (chemicals that kill ticks). The findings revealed that widespread usage
of acaricides resulted in some ticks developing resistance. The results indicated that mas-
sive misuse of the acaricides led to some ticks building resistance. However, no ticks were
found resisting the lethal effects of the chemical. Therefore, the study established that poor
grazing rotations for cattle could be fuelling the development of acaricide resistance. The
misuse and improper application of acaricides could result from extension service provid-
ers’ being interested in just selling their products to farmers without offering after-sales
services and monitoring the effectiveness of their products at the farmer or community
level. In agreement with Sichabalo etal.’s (2021)study, Kariuki et al. (2021) conducted
a study on food safety and found that many consumers lack enough information to invest
in essential food safety products. For example, the impact of alerting consumers on which
maize flour brands meet the regulatory requirement for aflatoxin, a carcinogenic fungal by-
product, is being studied in Kenya. Providing information about safer brands alone has lit-
tle impact on consumption. However, when the same information is combined with a test
on the household’s maize flour, the likelihood of consuming a safer brand is 76% greater
than in the comparison group. Providing information on the relative riskiness of alternative
foods may help customers make safer decisions.
Dupas and Miguel (2016) summarized experimental studies in low-income countries
that show how information can lead to healthier choices, including safer water sources,
water treatment, and reduced sexual risk taking. It appears that specific relative risk infor-
mation outperforms conventional suggestions when well used. A comprehensive assess-
ment of risk communication strategies in health care indicated that delivering personalized
risk estimations outperformed general risk information (Delmastro & Zollo, 2021). Food
safety issues may be more beneficial than information about healthy nutrients (van’t Riet &
Ruiter, 2013; Biggs etal., 2021).
A study, whose main aim was to evaluate the impact of agricultural extension on the
productivity of smallholder sugarcane farmers in East Java, was conducted by Correa etal.
(2021). According to their study findings, farmers who took part in the agricultural exten-
sion had an average annual production of 9.05 tons more than farmers who did not take
part in the agricultural extension. To stimulate farmers’ engagement in agricultural exten-
sion, it is necessary to increase both the frequency and quality of agricultural extension
services. However, when it comes to plantation crops, the number of extension workers
is limited. To counteract this, the government can choose to hire more extension workers.
Chinsinga etal. (2021) studied the underlying dynamics of agricultural commerciali-
zation in Malawi, especially among smallholder farmers. Two hundred and forty families
were interviewed in 2006/07 in Mchinji and Ntchisi districts as part of the FISP study. After
ten years, in 2018/2019, these families were resurveyed to learn about their experiences

E.Siankwilimba et al.
1 3
with agricultural commercialization. According to the research findings, agriculture com-
mercialization is a complicated process, characterized by various cyclic continuities and
discontinuities that occur throughout time. According to Chinsinga etal. (2021), politics,
economics, social issues, and even culture influenced the continuity and discontinuity of
commercialization in Malawi, affecting farmers in rural Malawi who rely on agriculture for
a living.
Therefore, extension services must aim to offer what the market needs to add value to
women and men farmers participating in that market opportunity and not simply involve
them as research objects and buyers. Such elements of added value can include, but are not
limited to, the provision of extension and training, assured off-take/contracted production,
facilitation of access to finance and other market services that provide farmers with the
technical knowledge, confidence, and support to be able to maximize the market opportu-
nity provided by the successful service providers.
Many studies have pinpointed factors that create added value in the agricultural exten-
sion ecosystem (Siankwilimba etal., 2022). They indicate that value is usually created
by focussing on the benefits of agribusiness products and services that reach smallholder
farmers and arise from quality, functionality, time, place, form, and ease of use or posses-
sion, as shown in Fig.3. The interconnection of these components enhances value in the
agricultural extension ecosystem (Danso-Abbeam etal., 2018; Lu & Dudensing, 2015).
The relationship between the beneficiary farmers and the price they receive for a prod-
uct or service is called “consumer value”. The higher the consumer value, the more ben-
efits concerning the price the farmer is willing to pay. This does not always imply that a
Fig. 3 Components of value addition in extension ecosystem

Bioecosystems towardssustainable agricultural extension…
1 3
low price equals more value. Although the price of a product may be high, people perceive
it to be valued if the associated benefits are also high. Consumer value is created as a result
of this engagement, and one has the opportunity to add value to their offering.
3.5 Collaboration andpartnerships
Providing extension service in a smallholder farmer’s ecosystem has evolved over the years.
Because no firm can provide a single solution to smallholder farmers’ complex problems,
collaborations have come into play. Multiple problems necessitate multiple relationships
from various stakeholders to solve (Head, 2019). As a result, strategic alliances between
traditional institutions and input and service providers such as crop livestock, poultry, fish-
eries, and extension researchers can be beneficial in providing a multi-pronged supportive
environment for long-term growth (Hasimuna etal., 2023). According to Porter (1990), a
company has a competitive edge over its market competitors if it provides more value than
they do. Platform ecosystem players must fulfil specific actor roles within the platform to
create value.
Despite their dynamic nature, a participative process should view these positions early
in the platform design. In addition, the donor communities and governments are encour-
aged to foster agricultural development in the rural sector. Past research has indicated that
national and international attempts to reinvigorate agricultural extension services have
resulted in several institutional reforms (Davis etal., 2020), informed by market-led and
demand-driven perspectives. Traditional extension methods of public sector agricultural
advisory services are being transformed through decentralization, deconcentrating, con-
tracting/outsourcing, public–private partnerships, collaboration, and privatization models
for effective and efficient service delivery (Davis etal., 2020).
For example, the issue of malnutrition has plagued humankind for many decades. Cur-
rently, it is estimated that two (2) billion individuals are malnourished, experiencing hunger
and/or being overweight or obese (World Resources Institute, 2021). In addition, COVID-
19, climate change, and environmental degradation are all listed as contributors to the die-
tary crisis humankind is experiencing globally. To find the final solution to this scourge,
the Food and Land Use Coalition (FOLU), Food System Economics Commission (FSEC),
and EAT decided to hold a virtual meeting bringing together all the different stakeholders
involved in the food ecosystem, such as producers, civil society, research organizations,
the private sector, and governments (World Resources Institute, 2021b). It meeting was
based on the UN Food System Summit (UNFSS) and COP26. The Nutrition for Growth
Summit (N4G) aims to find a long-term solution that connects nutrition to how food grows,
is consumed, is distributed, and is used so that more people have access to inexpensive,
nutritious food. In the past, many such collaborative system approaches have successfully
fought zoonotic diseases under the One Health approach (Magouras etal., 2020) and the
current COVID-19 fight (Konda et al., 2020). Strategic alliances are developing major
initiatives to integrate improved nutrition outcomes for smallholder households and rural
communities into agricultural markets as part of a collaborative effort. Market actors have
collaborated to offer technologies and market incentives to produce nutritious foods on
farms and develop nutritious food products, associated distribution structures, and nutri-
tion messaging appropriate for a "bottom of the pyramid" rural food market (Howell etal.,
2018).
For good collaboration to occur, there must be a common problem and at least one per-
son or company in charge. Leading organizations should embrace the concept of dynamic

E.Siankwilimba et al.
1 3
and collaborative business ecosystems, according to Möller etal. (2020) and Siankwilimba
(2019), which are distinguished by their potential to emerge from their particular indus-
tries with a new method of arranging economic activity. However, truly complex contexts
are made up of nested systems with several interacting parts, and the interactions between
these elements are often nonlinear, meaning that tiny changes can have big consequences
for the entire extension ecosystem (Siankwilimba, 2021). Collaborations or strategic alli-
ances allow for developing strategies that alter the setting to provide greater value for sys-
temic difficulties. Furthermore, driven by environmental challenges and rising inequality,
the last decade has been resonant with calls to reset capitalism (Miles, 2019) and broaden
the responsibilities of commercial firms to maximize their total societal impact and share
value for the benefit of all industry players (Islamic Development Bank, 2020).
A study by Munkombwe et al. (2012) on smallholder farmers’ adoption of weather
index insurance (WII) indicates that many researchers have made efforts to add value to
climate change issues affecting farming businesses. The study found that over 52% of farm-
ers invest in the WII by paying premiums to cover their crops against crop losses wrought
by drought and floods. In agreement, Adeyinka etal. (2022) posit that smallholder farm-
ers receive pay-outs as compensation for losses caused by bad weather conditions via
agricultural WII from nations implementing weather index insurance globally. This has
worked where the extension has evolved to allow value addition to the traditional exten-
sion services, which have been responsible for huge losses among smallholder farmers,
especially women and youth. Munkombwe etal. (2022) and Adeyinka etal. (2022) found
that WII interventions help rural farmers because many developing countries have different
climates.
Without adding value to traditional risks affecting smallholder farmers, many are likely
to continue their low productivity and production year after year. According to Carter etal.
(2017), uninsured risks are considered a brake on investment and productivity growth in
developing and least-developed nations and thus a major impediment to poverty eradica-
tion. Farmers, for example, may be able to manage risks better, preserve assets, and engage
in more productive activities by using financial protection choices such as insurance value
addition (Croppenstedt etal., 2018). Developing risk transfer mechanisms as value-added
services to assist countries to cope with projected increases in the variety and severity of
uncovered climate threats should be considered an important field of research in the con-
text of global change. Collaboration, as shown in Fig.4, has multiple benefits to partici-
pants of the traditional extension ecosystem.
3.6 Innovation system
The creation of new business models and technology that can benefit the market and the
creative use of any financial assistance requested is encouraged. In most extension ecosys-
tems, innovative guidance methods such as group-based and interactive approaches have
gained traction. The availability of information and communication technologies (ICTs)
has created a flood of new opportunities for providing advisory services (Barnes, 2020).
The word "ecosystem" has been coined to describe the rising number of institutional
options for providing training, promotions, and facilitation of various agricultural advisory
services (Small etal., 2017). The internet of things (IoT), fifth-generation internet, robot-
ics, gene technology, and industry 4.0 (Siankwilimba etal., 2021), to name a few examples,
have high expectations from businesses and society (Lyu & Liu, 2021). In addition, digital

Bioecosystems towardssustainable agricultural extension…
1 3
data have risen enormously, backed by more complicated analytics, sometimes known as
artificial intelligence or AI (Hileman etal., 2020).
Parlasca etal. (2020) and Parlasca (2021) claim that the recent development of mobile
phones in rural Africa shows that interest in mobile financial services (MFS), such as
mobile money and mobile banking, has surged. According to the media, such services
are often touted as potential instruments for cultivating agricultural financing, particularly
among smallholders whom conventional financial institutions generally neglect. However,
there are little empirical data to support the actual usage of MFS for agricultural operations
at this time. Specifically, we examined the usage of mobile payments, mobile savings, and
mobile loans among the agricultural community in Kenya, using nationally representative
data from the country. According to our research, more than 80% of farmers utilize mobile
money, but only 15% use this innovation for payments connected to agriculture.
The World Bank (Olafsen, 2020) argued that digital platforms are digital systems and
interfaces (for example, online and mobile-based sites, applications, and software) that
enable governments, people, and businesses to communicate, transact, and deliver services
via digital channels. Digital public sector platforms are frequently part of larger e-govern-
ment systems that aim to improve openness, accountability, and efficiency in government
administration and service delivery by leveraging information and communications tech-
nology (ICT). Producers and customers or users create value through digital engagement
supported by digital private sector platforms. People, businesses, and governments use dig-
ital platforms in many areas of their lives and can make money from them. These include
health care, education, commerce, transportation, and public services(Jansen etal., 2010).
According to the USDA Agricultural Statistics Service, less than 1% of farmers utilize
mobile loans for agricultural investments. Farmers who participate in contemporary sup-
ply chains have excellent use rates, although conventional banking services are typically
equally available and far more vital to their livelihoods. In general, the usage of MFS for
agriculture is lower than usually anticipated, demonstrating that these services have not yet
had a revolutionary influence on smallholder farming in the developing world. As Kenya is
Fig. 4 Impact of collaboration in the traditional extension ecosystem

E.Siankwilimba et al.
1 3
one of the African nations with the most rapid growth in MFS, this general conclusion is
likely to be applicable to other African countries.
In summary of the above and adapted from Balanova (2019), Fig.5 offers a summary
of the range of extension business ecosystem factors affecting extension service in a tradi-
tional institution.
3.7 Risks associated withmarket participation
Commenting on digital technology’s ability to enable the traditional ecosystem to partici-
pate in the market, FAO (2020) posits that such innovations have been used to both benefit
and disadvantage. For example, the use of blockchain to enhance efficiency and transpar-
ency has been instrumental in instilling trust between parties involved in the business. By
lowering transaction costs and entry obstacles, digital technology can empower all value
chain operators, including smallholder farmers in developing nations. At the same time,
digital technologies have the potential to exclude smallholder farmers from markets who
cannot afford the early costs of entering the digital economy or who lack the necessary
skills. Exclusion from the digital economy could exacerbate the problems that smallholders
currently face, jeopardizing the smallholder farm sector and the lives of millions of people
in developing countries’ rural areas. For illiterate smallholder farmers, the risk of being
excluded from an increasingly digital economy is great. While some technologies may help
illiterate farmers be more inclusive, it is important to keep up our efforts to ensure every-
one can use the internet fully and effectively.
Fig. 5 Extension business ecosystem summarizing the factors affecting extension service in a traditional
institution (Source: adapted from the business ecosystem of Balanova (2019)

Bioecosystems towardssustainable agricultural extension…
1 3
Digital technology may have the unintended consequence of excluding people from
markets. Failure to follow contract requirements in agriculture can happen for various rea-
sons. For example, due to adverse weather occurrences, pests, illnesses, or a shortage of
funding, a producer may fail to meet responsibilities to deliver specified amounts or meet
quality requirements. The immutable, public, and permanent character of blockchain may
work against smallholder farmers, who are particularly vulnerable to such challenges. This
could create a new information asymmetry, preventing farmers from accessing markets
and limiting their livelihood options. It is unknown whether and how blockchain-based
agents could adapt to such possible issues and other smallholder farming specificities. The
digitalization of businesses is projected to impact agricultural labour markets significantly.
Other forms of manual farm occupations and some intermediary services may be reduced
or eliminated due to automation, adding to the impact of structural transformation on rural
labour. New job opportunities will be weighted towards the higher end of the skills spec-
trum. As technology advances, more advanced abilities will be required to cultivate and
participate effectively in agrifood value chains. High-skilled workers will have more job
prospects, but low-skilled individuals will be increasingly marginalized.
According to FAO (2020), both farmers and labourers will need to be able to access
digital technology and have the ability to use it to participate effectively in agrifood
value chains. It is important to build workers’ skills and teach them how to use technol-
ogy at all levels of the agrifood value chain system (Vasconez etal., 2019). From the
inside and out, blockchain is an extremely secure value-based system. The decentralized
and encoded nature of the blockchain prevents anyone from altering the information
Fig. 6 The anatomy of blockchain technology ecosystems enhancing transparency. Also shown are the
properties of Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) system (Source: modified from Euromoney learning,
2020)

E.Siankwilimba et al.
1 3
after it has been created unless an agreement is formed against it. Furthermore, the
framework’s decentralized design eliminates the central expert, allowing every player to
disrupt the system and attack the database as shown in Fig.6.
Many scholars have found that blockchain enhances dependability, or trustworthiness,
in that players can make and validate exchanges without the involvement of a third-party
using information recorded on a blockchain, reducing the risk of disapproved transac-
tions. In addition, the more a database grows, the more difficult it becomes to corrupt and
the easier to build a solid structure. It is also a transparent system because it allows every
player to completely control data and exchanges due to the record structure’s appropriate
and decentralized character. The operation is not hampered by the presence of a focussed
specialist or any other outsider. The information sent and stored on the blockchain is com-
plete, precise, consistent, and easy for each person to understand.
Additionally, blockchain transactions take less time to complete when compared to
traditional banking procedures that take days to complete an exchange. With no outsiders
involved in the transactions, the time taken to complete transactions is reduced to minutes,
making the entire process efficient and secure. There are also reduced transaction fees and
no overhead expenses for trading resources as there are no outsider delegates to reduce
the overall value-based expense in a blockchain environment. Sharma (2020) reports that
the agricultural sector, particularly the smallholder system, is also being transformed by
blockchain technology. The blockchain-based decentralized approach would eliminate the
need for a central authority to store agricultural market data. Another use of blockchain
in agriculture is sharing patient market information while boosting transparency. It can
encrypt market data, which can later be used in an economic shock, such as the COVID-19
or climate change. Figure7 identifies the range of benefits derived from the use of block-
chain technology. Figure7 demonstrates how the advantages of blockchain technologies
Fig. 7 Blockchain operational system (Source: modified from Research Global, 2022)

Bioecosystems towardssustainable agricultural extension…
1 3
are interconnected and interdependent. Because business relationships are built on trans-
parency, only unchangeable copies are permitted, and there is no third party involved in
the system, these advantages include real-time tracking and operations, built-in security
features, less component failure, lower costs, and trusted transactions.
3.8 Participatory agricultural extension ecosystem intraditional institutions’
ecosystem
The degree to which extension systems and local farmers collaborate might differ signifi-
cantly depending on how "ownership" of the intervention process is divided and integrated
into and between the two parties. Recent years have seen a rise in the number of extension
service initiatives that include local people as participants, with the goals of such involve-
ment ranging from legitimizing foreigners’ work and using local knowledge to developing
local capacity for innovative creation and change (Gebrehiwot, 2015; Minet etal., 2017).
Critically, it is vital to strengthen the ability of marginalized groups to communicate and
negotiate for their interests. The type of involvement that emerges will have a significant
impact on the research process and the roles of both farmers and researchers. This includes
planning, monitoring, and evaluating the learning process, among other things.
Extension services are interconnected with the local farmers’ rules and governance
systems earmarked for transformation. In many cases, the battle remains to attain posi-
tive relations that foster desired behaviour change for the farming communities. In many
parts of developing countries, rules and regulations form the networks of power and influ-
ence (Mores & Hunter, 2018). Even though most farmers do not think these things are
very important, they are still important to the government. Conversely, according to an
investigation conducted by the University of Leiden into similar buildings in Africa, their
significance cannot be overstated (Innovation Forum, 2020). Nyanga etal. (2019) assert
that there is widespread recognition that many agricultural development extension pro-
grammes in Africa have tended to be top-down and have failed to consider the opinions of
smallholder farming communities, which is a significant problem. This is precisely what
Chambers and Conway (1992) and Chambers (1994) have been stating over the years, that
a bottom-up approach to an extension delivery system is required.
Consequently, such extension programmes could be one reason farmers have remained
stagnant in their agricultural development. It is required that extension workers do market
scanning before they deliver their messages and products to farmers to harmonize with
local knowledge and products. For example, Snapp and Pound (2017) report that mountain
agricultural systems in Chiang Mai, in Northern Thailand, have been an excellent example
of where local institutions have used sustainable conservation pest control methods to fos-
ter sustainable crop production. The system is called netted farming, which has increased
integrated pest control and organic production when used with other techniques. As a
result, various tropical pests are being controlled without pesticides, and flawless crops can
be produced for a market that demands excellent quality. In addition to creating innova-
tive techniques for managing foliar pests, farmers are also developing novel methods for
controlling soil-borne pests. Compost preparations and bio-fumigants are being tested to
improve the soil’s health in planting beds and promote healthy crop growth. In such a situ-
ation, extension systems, blinded by their top-down approach, may conflict with the local
communities in pushing for the green economy advocated by many systems thinkers and
practitioners (Butterfield etal., 2019; Raworth, 2017).

E.Siankwilimba et al.
1 3
To achieve sustainable development in extension delivery systems, it has been deter-
mined that increased engagement from local stakeholders in innovation systems, both in
their development and in their expansion, should be considered (Tschumi & Hagan, 2008).
Many reviewed reports have highlighted that extension workers must continue collaborat-
ing with farming leaders following the introduction of an invention to enhance their local
performance through inclusive participation (Mwongera etal., 2017). Therefore, this is
considered a broader approach that seeks to understand the interplay between biophysi-
cal, technological, social–cultural, economic, institutional, and political dimensions from
farm to community and institutional levels, rather than alleviating biophysical and tech-
nological constraints at the plot level (Burns, 2016). Brown etal. (2018) and Cinner etal.
(2018) found that community leadership plays an essential role in promoting conservation
agriculture and that there is a need for significantly more community participation, and
particularly community leadership, in overcoming community and institutional barriers to
technology uptake (Chandra etal., 2017). Studies have revealed that, without the involve-
ment of the local authorities in their development, projects fail to succeed and achieve
their mandate (Andrachuk etal., 2018; Faure etal., 2012; Malamure, 2017). Brown etal.
(2018) claim that the necessity for increased participatory involvement and local adapta-
tion to accomplish sustainable intensification of African smallholder agricultural systems
becomes more apparent when one better understands local views. Therefore, extension ser-
vices should take care of the culture and traditional rules governing the people the project
intends to serve if it were to be sustainable and prosperous. However, traditional authority
defines the characteristics of modern Africa’s social and political environment, allowing
people to participate in agricultural extension development. Traditional leadership plays a
significant role in organizing people’s lives locally in African nations, despite the contem-
porary state institutions (Innovation Forum, 2020).
3.9 Impact ofarmed conflict onagricultural ecosystem
Several studies have shown the impact of conflict on the agricultural development and
growth of the traditional smallholder farmer system globally. For example, Adelaja etal.
(2020) explore the influence of conflict on smallholder farmers’ ability to scale up in two
non-traditional conflict zones of Nigeria’s Kaduna and Ogun states. The study results indi-
cated that increasing conflict intensity decreases farmers’ ability to expand from small to
bigger landholdings, especially farm-led expansion supported by off-farm activity. Coupled
with drought, it negatively impacts farm transition, with a greater impact on farm-based
transition than non-farm-based change. It is clear that conflicts harm non-conflict zones
and hinder smallholder farmers’ capacity to scale up. Unless extension education, assets,
and off-farm earning prospects are well designed to help smallholder farmers migrate to
larger-scale farming, the situation remains precarious (Adelaja etal., 2020).
Armed conflicts typically have a global agricultural commodity impact. It has both
direct and indirect negative and positive impacts on developed and developing countries’
populations’ food security. For instance, the IMF warned that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine
could disrupt global food supplies by preventing Ukrainian farmers from planting crops,
particularly wheat, which is a major export crop (United Nations, 2022). The Russian inva-
sion of Ukraine will further destabilize global markets, affecting grain supplies in the short
term and producers in the coming planting season. This might exacerbate high food price
inflation, causing major problems for low-income net food importers, who have faced ris-
ing malnutrition rates due to pandemic disruptions.

Bioecosystems towardssustainable agricultural extension…
1 3
According to Vladyslav Rashkovan, the IMF’s alternate executive director for Ukraine
(United Nations, 2022), hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian people seek food, housing,
water, and peace in neighbouring countries. The Russia-Ukraine war is Europe’s largest
exodus since the 1990s Balkan wars, with 280,000 refugees heading to Poland, 94,000 to
Hungary, 40,000 to Moldova, and 30,000 to Romania, and other countries disrupting the
food supply chain. The UN highlighted that humanitarian workers would be unable to keep
up with the influx of Ukrainian refugees, who will join those from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq,
Ethiopia, and other countries that have not enjoyed peace to ensure food security (United
Nations, 2022).
According to RelifeWeb (2022), about 1 million women and children have already left
Ukraine because of the recent war between Russia and Ukraine. In addition, because of
the freezing winter weather, another 160,000 people have been internally displaced across
Ukraine. As the attack continues, these figures are projected to rise dramatically, eras-
ing considerable achievements in gender equality and women’s rights. Ukraine is one of
Europe’s poorest countries, with women disproportionately affected. Working-aged women
in Ukraine have much lower employment and economic engagement than men. The con-
flict further affects the productivity and production of the very poor women, youth, and
women. The report indicates that the impact on women is higher because they account for
72.2% of the women involved in receiving social assistance.
Past studies in the 2021 Global Report on Food Crises indicate that at least 155 million
people in 55 countries or territories were in crisis in 2020, up almost 20 million from 2019
(FSIN, 2021; Dago, 2021). Furthermore, the 2021 Global Report states that 15.8 million
children are wasted globally, with 75.2 million stunted, and as such, conflict and political
instability are cited as one of the key causes of food insecurity, with 100 million people
living in conflict-affected countries out of the 155 million acutely hungry people (Dago,
2021).
Dago (2021) and FSIN (2021) have barely submitted that protracted conflicts are at the
centre of six of the ten worst food catastrophes the world has ever experienced, especially
in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, Arab Republic, Nigeria
(including 15 states and the federal capital territory), Ethiopia, and South Sudan, positing
a rising number of internally displaced people (IDPs) in all six countries by 2020. Land-
holm etal. (2019) added that other developing countries like Burkina Faso, South Sudan,
and Yemen were plagued by conflict and insecurity, which has caused food and income
insecurity for their populations. Food poverty can be a source of violence and instability,
especially in areas with widespread disparities and weak institutions.
An armed conflict is defined as a "contested disagreement involving government and/or
territory in which the use of armed force by two parties, one of whom is the government
of a state, outcomes in at least 25 battle-related deaths in a calendar year” (Uppsala Uni-
versity, 2022). In this respect, the UCDP definition of armed conflict distinguishes "state-
based conflict" or "intrastate conflict" from "interstate conflict", or conflict between coun-
tries (George etal., 2021). Civil conflict is the most common type of conflict on a global
scale. Due to the rapid growth of numerous causes at both the international and national
levels, their numbers have expanded dramatically, notably since the 1970s (Arias etal.,
2018). Their onset, severity, and longevity result from a confluence of cultural, social,
political, military, and geopolitical elements (Adelaja etal., 2020). Ethnic and religious
differences, discrimination and marginalization, bad governance, inadequate governmental
capacity, population pressure, fast urbanization, poverty, and youth unemployment are key
factors of civil strife (FAO, 2012).

E.Siankwilimba et al.
1 3
Russia and Ukraine are important players in world food production as they contribute
a quarter of the global grain trade globally. Russia is the world’s top wheat exporter,
and Ukraine is sixth, making the conflict going around the world of global economic
importance. They provide 19% of the world’s barley, 14% of wheat, and 4% of maize,
accounting for about one-third of worldwide cereal exports, as shown in Fig.8.
Russia and Ukraine also supply rapeseed and sunflower oil, with a combined market
share of 52%. Russia also dominates the global fertilizer supply. Fertilizer is an impor-
tant input globally in the production of crops and livestock in most countries. There-
fore, disruptions in the Ukrainian and Russian grain and oilseed supply chains and
Russian export restrictions will impact food security for all players globally. This is
Fig. 8 Global production of cereals by countries (tons of wheat and coarse grains) (Source: adapted from
Elkin etal., 2022)
Fig. 9 Importing African and Asian countries at risk of grain insecurity due to the Russian Ukraine conflict
(Source: data from Elkin etal. (2022) report)

Bioecosystems towardssustainable agricultural extension…
1 3
especially true for the 50 countries that import 30% or more of their wheat from Russia
and Ukraine, as shown in Figs.9 and 10. Many are food-deficit countries in Northern
Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. In addition, Russia supplies over 50% of the fertilizer
to many European and Central Asian countries, and shortages could spell doom globally
in the 2022 and 2023 farming seasons.
From Figs.9 and 10, it is clear that Egypt is the world’s top wheat importer. Wheat is
a staple food in the USA, accounting for 35–39% of total calorie intake in recent years.
Imports account for approximately 62% of total wheat consumption. Egypt imports 12
to 13 million tons per year. Egypt’s 105 million-strong population is rising at a 1.9%
annual rate, increasing its reliance on food imports. In addition, cereal crop imports
have consistently increased over the last three decades, outpacing domestic production.
Further to this, Abay etal. (2022) have reported that many countries have started to
react to rising food costs by implementing export limitations on top of Russia’s export
tax regime implemented in 2021. For example, Moldova, Serbia, and Hungary have
banned some grain exports, and Indonesia is limiting supplies. These developments,
coupled with Russian and Ukrainian export interruptions, will likely push prices higher.
Even under the most hopeful scenarios, global wheat prices would stay high through
2023, given the constraints on increasing production. Abay etal.’s (2022) discussion
further indicates that Egypt imports wheat for about $3 billion a year and has an unsus-
tainable food import dependency. The increase in prices by roughly $5.7 billion has
consequently forced the government to subsidize the manufacturing of 150 loaves of
bread per month for millions of people at $3.24 billion per year.
However, the war between Russia and Ukraine has had both negative and positive
impacts on the economic, social, and environmental consequences globally due to its
political attachment. Much of the debate was attributed to increased hunger in develop-
ing countries, especially in Africa. However, Europe and Asian countries also suffered
due to this war calamity being waged between the two Russias and Ukraine. As such, to
mitigate the standoff brought by Ukraine and Russia’s failure to export the grain, Rus-
sia, Ukraine, and the United Nations signed an agreement to allow grain to be exported
Fig. 10 Egypt’s wheat imports in a million metric tons from other countries (blue), Russia (red), and
Ukraine (Orange) (Source: Abay etal., 2022)

E.Siankwilimba et al.
1 3
to other needy countries. Even though Russia signed the agreement, it appears they were
not happy with how it was being carried out because grain was being sent to European
countries instead of Asian and African countries.
Prokopenko (2022) reported that Putin stated that Moscow was reviewing the grain con-
tract since Ukrainian grain is being delivered to Europe rather than the Middle East and
Africa, where it is most needed. At the time of Putin’s allegation, Prokopenko (2022) indi-
cated that 108 ships had departed Ukrainian ports, with 47% of the grain bound for Turkey
and Asian countries, 17% for Africa, and 36% for the European Union (EU). Putin admit-
ted in the same speech that neither of the two papers Russia signed to allow the shipment
of Ukrainian grain listed any destinations. This goes against the Kremlin’s comments on
caring about the food crisis in the poorest countries in the world.
Due to the current drought in southern Europe, Ukrainian grain is in high demand on the
global market. Almost immediately after the agreement was struck, Ukraine’s grain exports
returned to pre-war levels. According to the head of SovEcon analysis, Andriy Sizov, Kyiv
is likely to export roughly 4 million tons in September 2022, which is not far behind the
6–7 million tons it exported before the war, and significantly more than the 1–1.5 million
tons it managed to sell before the contract was made (Prokopenko, 2022). This shows that
war has changed the results of agricultural extension in ecosystems around the world.
3.9.1 Benefits ofparticipatory extension systems
As shown in Table4, communities should select and decide on their development priorities
through participatory extension. It improves communities’ ability to recognize and solve
problems independently and encourages them to revalue and connect their indigenous
knowledge systems with modern knowledge systems.
Consultative meetings between the industrialized countries that emit more carbon
dioxide and the less developed countries that are affected by these nations’ emissions are
required due to the critical and complex global constraints surrounding climate change
(Siankwilimba et al., 2021). For instance, if nations and businesses do not cooperate
Table 4 The benefits of participatory extension systems
Participatory approaches can aid in ensuring that ser-
vices are relevant and sensitive to local conditions
and meet consumers’ actual requirements
Participatory, farmer-centred approaches to the
extension that encourage a holistic perspective
and change the focus of attention from simple
production to the entire farm system broaden
the prospects for pushing technology to improve
farmer incomes
The risk of significant errors is reduced when
farmers’ traditional wisdom and new research
are merged into programmes. Traditional institu-
tions, for instance, benefit from the value of local
knowledge
Making farmers active participants in extension
services rather than passive recipients improves
the long-term viability of both the benefits of
new technology and the service itself. Further-
more, participatory methods can boost farmer
ownership of extension management-promoted
technologies, particularly if they are developed, at
least in part, by the clients themselves
Sharing of the cost associated with the daily imple-
mentation
As farmers take on more duties and "distance"
economies become more completely utilized,
some of these higher expenses can be offset by
fewer workers required

Bioecosystems towardssustainable agricultural extension…
1 3
to address the issues of climate change, the sustainable development goal will not be
achieved. Thus, the 26th and 27th Conference of the Parties of the UN (COP26-27), which
took place in Glasgow, Scotland, and Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, in 2021 and 2022, brought
together nations to resolve and recommit to finding long-term solutions to mitigate climate
change (Matthews, 2021; Nations, 2022; Power Shift Africa, 2022). The call is to use elec-
tric cars to achieve the goals of reducing the use of fossil fuels and replacing them with
biofuel (Athanasopoulou etal., 2019; Sovacool etal., 2018).
3.9.2 Hybrid extension communication
Cross and Gilly (2014) advise taking cultural competency into account when agricultural
extension workers decide on a promotional plan for traditional institutional ecosystems
when it comes to communication. A seller should think about not only gender roles but
also each society’s background and governing rules and regulations. According to Kip-
nis etal. (2012), extension marketing service providers and practitioners may benefit from
applying the created typology of traditional institutional orientations for segmentation and
developing well-branded communication strategies geared towards multispectral farmers.
According to Bartikowski and Walsh (2015), marketers may benefit from employing a
sustainable extension system when tailoring their communication efforts towards climate-
smart agricultural principles connected through the systems approach. Using homegrown
value prepositions that consider smallholder farmers as crucial market players promotes sus-
tainability, and the respected extension officers, Bartikowski and Walsh (2015), offered other
suggestions for bringing sustainability to the traditional extension ecosystem. The employ-
ment of country-of-origin phrases, for example, can be used to boost the national originality
and acceptability of business relationships between market players. According to Tu etal.
(2012), marketing practitioners need to understand farmers’ attitudes regarding local versus
global products to adapt brand positioning strategies successfully. For segmentation, they
recommend relying on the local–global identification scale they devised. According to Tu
etal. (2012), if you know about a customer’s local–global identity, you can be more success-
ful at personal selling and sales promotions consistent with their identity.
Other researchers have argued that resilience is another component that is critical in
achieving hybrid communication in extension service provision. Smallholder farmers face
far-reaching consequences when global calamities like the COVID-19 outbreak, climate
change, and financial depression pose substantial problems for farming businesses (Bailey
& Breslin, 2021). This is especially true for smallholder farmers whose farming activities
are subjected to varying degrees of unstable economic, environmental, and political crises
in their countries, necessitating equal extension provision management services (Siankwil-
imba etal., 2021). The concept of resilience is crucial in building an organization’s ability
to respond to external dangers, which relies on the strength of its personnel and the exten-
sion model in place (Bailey & Breslin, 2021; Nugraha etal., 2023). Resilience is probably
the most significant positive resource for navigating a tumultuous and stressful farming
system (Bailey & Breslin, 2021; Bavorova etal., 2020). According to Linnenluecke (2017),
building an organization’s resilience requires money to be spent in normal times to prepare
for and deal with problems that arise when a crisis happens in different parts of the world.
As a result, the agricultural industry must deliberately enhance its human extension
resources and skills to weather storms or calamities (Lee et al., 2022). This viewpoint
believes that building the farmers’ resilience through specialized skill intervention devel-
opment, such as training and development, can improve organizational resilience, resulting

E.Siankwilimba et al.
1 3
in favourable extension worker and farmer outcomes (Wang etal., 2014). To become more
resilient, farmers must, according to Bardoel etal. (2014), create social support network
ecosystems, farmer-aid programmes, extension development programmes, flexible farm-
ing practice arrangements, and health and safety systems. All of these activities should be
coordinated and targeted at farmers.
Therefore, such resilience helps build a hybrid extension model that enhances commu-
nication in the traditional ecosystem. Such hybrid extension management methods can pro-
duce the greatest durable competitive advantages, which most stakeholders need to take
advantage of. Collings and Mellahi (2009) contend this can be accomplished by cultivat-
ing a pool of high-potential and high-performing extension service providers and farmers
ready to occupy important strategic roles with a high level of value-added competencies
(Tariqueet al., 2021). These qualities are the backbone of smallholder farmers’ ability to
endure and thrive in times of crisis such as COVID-19 and climate change. However, skill
development has become increasingly difficult due to the worsening extension delivery
system, particularly in developing countries (Vaiman etal., 2019). In this way, single and
traditional extension models are becoming less and less sustainable, so many have turned
to hybrid models that work well for everyone, including traditional farmers who live in
their traditional ecosystems (Collings etal., 2021).
3.9.3 Systems offormal andinformal rules andregulations
While the details of how rules and regulations function vary from one location to another,
they may include tribe chiefs, village councils, headmen, and elders who have a role in
decision-making. The dangerous thing to note here is that these institutions are essential,
and any effort to engage with smallholder farmers must be made with the knowledge and
permission of the appropriate authority at the governance helm. For this reason, extension
service providers should be aware that the natural environment is an essential aspect of
community survival, and people always contribute to it by nurturing it from generation to
generation. Contributing to this debate, Chinsembu (2021) reported that local people have
been using the different wild plants as their source of livelihood, and therefore, in mod-
ern medicine, exploration should be advanced to reconcile and appreciate the traditional
ecosystem.
The symbiotic extension in the extension delivery system link is something that many
players have come to comprehend more and more as time goes on, but profit maximiza-
tion appears to lure them into ignoring this critical relationship (Cortner etal., 2019). The
world’s indigenous peoples have been conserving their environment and biodiversity for
millennia. The concepts of sustainable extension development cannot be accomplished by
looking at biodiversity, ecology, ecosystem services, and carbon dioxide (CO2) trapping
that were unknown to our forefathers and foremothers (Siankwilimba etal., 2021). How-
ever, they knew that protecting ecosystems, the environment, and biodiversity was impor-
tant for humans to stay alive and longevity (FAO, 2021).
With the increasing demand for food, lumber, and carbon storage on a limited quan-
tity of land, the globe must reverse the degradation of farms and pastures while reducing
agricultural-related greenhouse gas emissions. Funding for low-carbon agriculture, which
can sustainably feed 10 billion people by 2050, must be included in government policies
protecting and rehabilitating devastated ecosystems(World Resources Institute, 2021a).
Steffen etal. (2015) found that scientists are most concerned about the decline in bio-
diversity because it may result in the dissolution of ecological communities, which would

Bioecosystems towardssustainable agricultural extension…
1 3
negatively affect essential bioecosystem services and processes. The main disadvantage of
biodiversity is that it is subject to both official and unofficial laws. The most important
causes of biodiversity change and decline across the biosphere, according to Harvey etal.
(2022), are habitat modification, overexploitation, agrochemical pollution, biological inva-
sions, and anthropogenic climate change brought on by inadequate policies and regulations.
According to a section of the study by Harvey etal. (2022), insects, which are essential
components of many ecosystems, are one of the animal groups most negatively impacted
by climate change. The effect of the gradual rise in global surface temperature on insect
physiology, behaviour, phenology, distribution, and species interactions, as well as the
effect of increased frequency and duration of extreme events like heat waves and cold
waves, fires, droughts, and floods on these parameters, should be well governed by laws as
a public good; it is worth noting in this contribution to the scientists’ warning series. The
research by Harvey etal. (2022) warns that the ability of the world to build a sustainable
future based on healthy, functional ecosystems would be severely hampered if no effort is
made to better understand and limit the impact of climate change on insects.
As presented in Table5, the traditional extension ecosystem is governed by rules and
regulations, which are both formal and informal. Furthermore, Table5 shows the differ-
ence between rules and regulations and their applications.
Although the phrases "rules" and "regulations" are frequently used interchangeably,
there is a significant distinction between the two regarding how they should be applied.
While rules are general declarations or instructions that can be followed, regulations are
customary laws or legislation that applies to a specific law. As a result, while rules describe
the general sense, regulations explain the legal sense. This is the distinction between regu-
lations and rules applied in the extension ecosystem. By definition, rules refer to specific
standards, statements, or directions that must be followed when performing a task cor-
rectly. This word, however, cannot be applied to legal policies. As a result, rules define
basic instructions or principles to achieve the desired result. On the other hand, a definitive
statement or a statute concerning a legal policy or process is defined as a regulation. In
other words, it refers to the legal standards that must be followed to carry out a given piece
of legislation.
According to the Springfield Centre (2014), formal rules or written laws, government
policies, formal regulations, and industry standards are examples of formal rules that are
Table 5 Rules and regulations in the traditional extension ecosystem
Rules Regulations
Prescribed behaviour or activity standards for con-
trolling principles within the farming system
Rules or orders issued by a government’s executive
authority or regulatory agency that have legal force
The term can be applied extensively in the daily
farming extension services
It has legal implications as such acts as policing
instrument
Adjustments are possible, making it very adaptive Rigid, and only the legislature can change or adapt it.
This makes the regulations predictable and stands
the test of time
Could be regulated by specific organizations’, eco-
nomic, and social structures’ powers. This allows
the stakeholders to apply necessary innovation
in their quest to improve the service and product
delivery
Sanctioned by the government of the country’s execu-
tive powers, making it more linear in application

E.Siankwilimba et al.
1 3
formally documented and sometimes enforced. However, they are shaped and influenced
by informal societies or business community rules. As a result, they impact how informal
norms are expressed in the value chain’s performance. Informal rules are unspoken rules
that specify appropriate roles and activities for different people based on social conven-
tions, culture, and history. Any given business community (or group of value chain actors)
is likely to develop rules, codes of conduct, and regulations based on a mix of norms asso-
ciated with these many social institutions. These unwritten standards can sometimes cover
a void of informal regulation. Moreover, informal norms are frequently psychologically
internalized; they are unwritten and hidden from people’s conscious awareness (Springfield
Centre, 2014).
Kenny and Castilla-Rho (2022) point out that rules and regulations play a role in tra-
ditional extension sustainability. They improve our ability to solve challenges involving
complex economic, social, and environmental systems that hinder traditional farmers’ pro-
gression. In most cases, they aim to address the core causes of impediments with a more
nuanced knowledge of how human behaviour can reduce sabotage efforts by engaging all
players in the market system.
3.9.4 Information andknowledge ondisease control andmanagement
The community has its own way of managing diseases that they have inherited from past
generations in terms of disease management. The lessons have been taught to them by their
elders and parents to demonstrate lifelong sustenance. FAO (2021) demonstrated that com-
munities’ firmly held beliefs, which they express via participation in religious rites and tra-
ditional customs, as well as through their respectful connection with their communities, are
at the root of their commitment to one another when it comes to fighting complex problems
hindering information delivery for development.
According to FAO (2021), a study found that many individual community members
agreed that obtaining the "buy-in" from local individuals and their hierarchical power
requires essential co-initiatives for extension development firms if they are to succeed in
their extension projects. For example, one respondent remarked that "we would be unable
to get anything done unless we included the village council and obtained their permission
for our activities." When it comes to handling and monitoring the disease, it is imperative
to understand the functionality of society and how they have managed different diseases
over decades without necessarily condemning their models. Learning how to improve their
interrelationship with the natural environment would create sustained mitigation strate-
gies and synergies. For instance, communities have been using herbal medicines for body
steaming to treat different ailments (Ye & Morrell, 2015). These could be learned and used
to incentivize the community to adopt better disease control and management models if
only the rules and regulations governing information delivery and patents were more inclu-
sive. Therefore, a farmer’s health determinants hinge on life and death, and the extension
of education should be very participatory and inclusive. It also connects to spiritualism and
society’s rules and regulations (Siankwilimba etal., 2022). All these factors are considered
when a farmer is making an informed decision.
The results of this type of study could be used by the Food Safety Authority (FSA) to
fine-tune its communication tactics and answer citizens’ needs and concerns about food
safety, thereby avoiding commercial and societal failures (Siankwilimba etal., 2021). In
addition, these findings could be tremendously useful to regulators as they devise regu-
lations to lower search costs, restrict information asymmetry, and improve food market

Bioecosystems towardssustainable agricultural extension…
1 3
confidence (Delmastro & Zollo, 2021). It could also be very important for academics to
highlight the food issues that are most important to people, especially when they are con-
tentious, and for government officials to respond to build a more sustainable environment.
In the extension system, as presented in Table6, every stakeholder should uphold the val-
ues of competition and economic liberty and conduct their business according to those
ideas.
Depending on the laid down trading rules, the extension landscape should allow players
to compete with other companies actively, autonomously, and equitably. In some cases, a
contract should be signed to ensure the relationship between them and their collaborators
is strong.
In support of Table6, Daily and Matson (2008) made the case that leaders around the
world are starting to recognize bioecosystems as natural capital resources that offer incred-
ibly valuable services for sustaining both human life and the natural environment. Daily
and Matson (2008) contend that the path has not been straightforward because it is chal-
lenging to set up the frameworks and incentives that encourage sensible, significant invest-
ments in natural capital. As a result, it is advisable that agricultural extension develops in
three crucial areas: the science of mapping ecosystem production functions and services;
designing appropriate finance, policy, and governance systems; and the art of putting these
into practise in a variety of biophysical and social contexts. Although extension scientific
knowledge of how ecosystems produce food and other things is advancing quickly, it is
possible to argue that natural capital is still difficult to account for using national account-
ing systems and other methodologies unless use of market systems approach.
4 Findings andconclusion
Sustainable agricultural extension development cannot be achieved if local governance sys-
tems in various communities are not recognized and incorporated into the planning and
execution. Community and local leadership are immersed in rich and valuable govern-
ance and intertwined developmental systems that cannot be underrated by ignoring them.
The formal and informal rules and regulations are the fibres that hold them together, as
such, the extension service should take care of them. Movement from a non-functional to
a functional pathway of extension service provision in the traditional institution ecosystem
requires mutual benefits accrued by all players in the market system.
The Springfield Centre’s (2014) market systems approach and the authors’ conceptual
framework (refer Fig.1) are critical in the complex research study. The theories assert that
demand and supply are the core functions of every flourishing market, driven by private
sector players and supported by rules, regulations, and support functions.
Value addition, which comes with improved products and services, plays a critical role
in increasing the productivity and production of the traditional ecosystem for enhanced
cooperation. Moreover, cooperation or strategic alliances help unlock constraints that
hinder traditional farmers from achieving sustainable development. This helps solve chal-
lenges that would be difficult for a single player when working in a "silo" or isolation to
address.
The relationship between the community, their leadership, and the natural environment
is their source of livelihood. People have lived unchallenged, appreciating their existence.
Appreciating their symbiotic relationship is what makes them want to keep doing so.

E.Siankwilimba et al.
1 3
Table 6 The acceptable standards for achieving sustainable extension delivery systems on a level playing field
Stakeholders Acceptable competition Partnership
Obedience to the laid down the rule
Protect and respect the research information
Ethical principles
Acting with integrity
Protect the principles of farming business competition Willing to work together for the common good of both parties
Stewardship of the environment Human capital Extortion and corruption
Committed to environmental protection through
regenerative agricultural techniques
Inspires all stakeholders, particularly farmers, to develop
their inner wisdom
Dedicated to eliminating all forms of corruption from the
information value chain through the use of digital technol-
ogy systems

Bioecosystems towardssustainable agricultural extension…
1 3
Despite the numerous unintended consequences, many stakeholders suffer in the tradi-
tional ecosystem, and digital technologies are transforming agriculture and food markets,
significantly impacting economies and communities. However, despite significant improve-
ments in connectivity, there is still a digital divide between countries and citizens. With
digital technologies, multiple market failures may be rectified, and smallholder farmers’
integration into markets and value chains can be facilitated. They can also aid in the expan-
sion of international trade and the strengthening of market-based institutional structures to
attain long-term goals. In addition, digital applications can improve efficiency, traceability,
and transparency in marketplaces and value chains.
Local or traditional institutions play a vital role in the sustainability of extension deliv-
ery systems in agricultural development in rural areas. Extension programmes in rural
areas are crucial for connecting traditional institutions, local farmers, and other stake-
holders in the rural development agenda. Because traditional institutions have their own
governance systems that they respect and cherish, it is also required that all other exten-
sion service providers respect them because they are relevant to their sustainable market
development.
The framework posited in the research can be used to evaluate and assess the sustain-
ability of agricultural extension services in all spheres of design, implementation, and post-
implementation. It is a user-friendly framework.
5 Limitations ofthis research andfuture research
With few grade A papers available to support further discussion and analyse, the long-
term revolutionary impact and their risks are still unknown. Therefore, a research paper
based on primary data is needed explain how the extension affects the traditional institu-
tion’s prospects. As the review research was based on qualitative inquiry, a mixed research
inquiry could provide a balanced validation to the study, bringing out new and novel find-
ings. Therefore, future research should concentrate on this angle and, above all, should be
based on primary data collection, analysis, and broadcast. In addition, a more dynamic
systems thinking theory may bring new results. In this regard, this paper opens doors to
new research avenues for future prospects.
Funding No specific fund was used for this work.
Availability of data and material N/A.
Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Ethics approval and consent to participate Not required.
Consent for publication All authors have given their consent to publish this work.

E.Siankwilimba et al.
1 3
References
Abay, K., Abdelfattah, L., Clemens Breisinger, C., Glauber, J., & Laborde, D. (2022). The Russia-Ukraine
crisis poses a serious food security threat for Egypt. Retrieved March 19, 2022, from https:// www.
ifpri. org/ blog/ russia- ukrai ne- crisis- poses- serio us- food- secur ity- threat- egypt.
Adelaja, A., George, J., Jayne, T., Muyanga, M., Awokuse, T., Aromolaran, A., & Liverpool-Tasie,
L.S.O. (2020). How Conflicts Affect Land Expansion by Smallholder Farmers: Evidence from
Nigeria. APRA Working Paper 47, Brighton: Future Agricultures Consortium. Retrieved March
19, 2022, from https:// opend ocs. ids. ac. uk/ opend ocs/ bitst ream/ handle/ 20. 500. 12413/ 15830/
APRA% 20WP47_ How_ Confl icts_ Affect_ Land_ Expan sion_ by_ Small holder_ Farme rs_ Evide nce_
from_ Niger ia. pdf? seque nce=1
Adeyinka, A. A., Kath, J., Nguyen-Huy, T., Mushtaq, S., Souvignet, M., Range, M., & Barratt, J. (2022).
Global disparities in agricultural climate index-based insurance research. Climate Risk Manage-
ment, 100394. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. crm. 2022. 100394
African Union Department of Rural Economy and Agriculture. (2020). Comprehensive Africa Agricul-
ture Development Programme ( CAADP ) Biennial Review Report: the Second Biennial Review
Report of the African Union Commission — on the Implementation of the Malabo Declaration on
Accelerated Agricultural Growth and Transformation (Vol. 2, Issue June 2014).
Amoo, L. M. & Fagbenle, R. L. (2020) 15 - Climate change in developing nations of the world. In Fag-
benle, R. O., Amoo, O. M.,Aliu, S. & Falana, A. (Eds.)Woodhead Publishing Series in Energy,
Applications of Heat, Mass and Fluid Boundary Layers. Woodhead Publishing, (p. 437–471)
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ B978-0- 12- 817949- 9. 00023-2.
Andrachuk, M., Armitage, D., Dung Hoang, H., & Van Le, N. (2018). Building blocks for social-ecolog-
ical transformations: Identifying and building on governance successes for small-scale fisheries.
Ecology and Society, 23(2). https:// doi. org/ 10. 5751/ ES- 10006- 230226
Arias, M.A., Ibáñez, A.M., & Zambrano, A. (2018). Agricultural Production Amid Conflict: Separating
the Effects of Conflict into Shocks and Uncertainty. World Development 119, 165–184. Retrieved
March 19, 2022, from http:// agri. ckcest. cn/ file1/ M00/ 06/ 6A/ Csgk0 Fy35z uATeD gAA4y v-- ifa84
67. pdf
Arif. G., Riaz. M., Faisal, N., Khattak, M., Sathar, Z., Khalil, M., Saiq, M., Hussain, S., & Khan, K.
(2019) Climate, population, and vulnerability in Pakistan: Exploring evidence of linkages for
adaptation. Islamabad: Population Council. Retrieved December 29, 2022, from https:// knowl
edgec ommons. popco uncil. org/ depar tments_ sbsr- pgy/ 733
Ashraf, S., Hassan, Z. Y., & Ashraf, I. (2019). Dynamics of agricultural extension services in Paki-
stan: A history of national performance. Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences, 29(6), 1707–1717.
Retrieved March 19, 2022, from http:// www. theja ps. org. pk/ docs/ Accep ted/ 2019/ 29- 06/ 11. pdf
Asiedu-Darko, E. (2014). ICTs as Enabler in the Dissemination of Agricultural Technologies: A Study
in the East Akim District, Eastern Ghana. Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics &
Sociology, 3(3), 224–232. https:// doi. org/ 10. 9734/ AJAEES/ 2014/ 7661
Athanasopoulou, A., de Reuver, M., Nikou, S., & Bouwman, H. (2019). What technology enabled ser-
vices impact business models in the automotive industry? An exploratory study. Futures, 109,
73–83. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/J. FUTUR ES. 2019. 04. 001
Baffoe‐Bonnie, A., Martin, D. T., & Mrema, F. (2021). Agricultural extension and advisory services
strategies during COVID‐19 lockdown. Agricultural & Environmental Letters, 6(4). https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1002/ AEL2. 20056
Bailey, K., & Breslin, D. (2021). The COVID-19 pandemic: What can we learn from past research in
organizations and management? International Journal of Management Reviews, 23(1), 3–6.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ ijmr. 12237
Balanova, M. (2019). Business ecosystem as the environment for platform companies functioning. Sus-
tainable Development GOALS 2030: Challenges for South and Eastern European Countries and
the Black Sea Region, 256.
Balanova, M. (2020). Global social and economic challenges and regional development: Is a platform
ecosystem a new type of a market? Proceedings of the 16th International Conference of the Asso-
ciation of Economic Universities of South and Eastern Europe and the Black Sea Region. Asecu.
Gr, 188–195. http:// www. asecu. gr/ files/ 16th- inter natio nal- asecu- confe rence- 2020- novos ibirsk-
proce edings. pdf# page= 189
Bardoel, E. A., Pettit, T. M., De Cieri, H., & McMillan, L. (2014). Employee resilience: An emerging
challenge for HRM. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 52(3), 279– 297. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1111/ 1744- 7941. 12033

Bioecosystems towardssustainable agricultural extension…
1 3
Barnes, S. J. (2020). Information management research and practice in the post-COVID-19 world. Inter-
national Journal of Information Management, 55, 102175. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/J. IJINF OMGT.
2020. 102175
Bartikowski, B., & Walsh, G. (2015). Attitude toward cultural diversity: A test of identity-related ante-
cedents and purchasing consequences. Journal of Business Research, 68(3), 526–533. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1016/j. jbusr es. 2014. 09. 010
Bavorová, M., Unay-Gailhard, İ, Ponkina, E. V., & Pilařová, T. (2020). How do sources of agriculture infor-
mation shape the adoption of reduced tillage practices? Journal of Rural Studies, 79, 88–101. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jrurs tud. 2020. 08. 034
Bawden, R. J. (1992). Systems approach to agricultural development: The Hawkesbury experience. Agricul-
tural Systems, 40(1–3), 153–176. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ 0308- 521X(92) 90019-K
Biggs, R., De Vos, A., Preiser, R., Clements, H., Maciejewski, K., & Schlüter, M. (2021). The Routledge
Handbook of Research Methods for Social-Ecological Systems. Taylor & Francis.
Birner, R., Davis, K., Pender, J., Nkonya, E., Anandajayasekeram, P., Ekboir, J., Mbabu, A., Spielman, D. J.,
Horna, D., Benin, S., & Cohen, M. (2009). From Best Practice to Best Fit: A Framework for Design-
ing and Analyzing Pluralistic Agricultural Advisory Services Worldwide. The Journal of Agricultural
Education and Extension, 15(4), 341–355. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13892 24090 33095 95
Bjornlund, V., Bjornlund, H., & Van Rooyen, A. F. (2020). Why agricultural production in sub-Saharan
Africa remains low compared to the rest of the world–a historical perspective. International Journal
of Water Resources Development, sup1, 1–34. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 07900 627. 2020. 17395 12
Boon, H. J., Cottrell, A., King, D., Stevenson, R. B., & Millar, J. (2012). Bronfenbrenner’s bioecologi-
cal theory for modelling community resilience to natural disasters. Natural Hazards, 60, 381–408.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11069- 011- 0021-4
Brown, B., Nuberg, I., & Llewellyn, R. (2018). Further participatory adaptation is required for community
leaders to champion conservation agriculture in Africa. International Journal of Agricultural Sustain-
ability, 16(3), 286–296. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 14735 903. 2018. 14724 10
Burniston, S., Okello, A. L., Khamlome, B., Inthavong, P., Gilbert, J., Blacksell, S. D., Allen, J., & Wel-
burn, S. C. (2015). Cultural drivers and health-seeking behaviours that impact the transmission of
pig-associated zoonoses in Lao People’s Democratic Republic. Infectious Diseases of Poverty, 4(1),
1–12. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ 2049- 9957-4- 11
Burns, H. L. (2016). Learning sustainability leadership: An action research study of a graduate leadership
course. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2). 1–11. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 20429/ ijsotl. 2016. 100208
Butterfield, J., Bingham, S., & Savory, A. (2019). Holistic Management Handbook: Regenerating Your Land
and Growing Your Profits. 3rd ed. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press. https:// islan dpress. org/ books/
holis tic- manag ement- handb ook- third- editi on
Caffaro, F., Roccato, M., Micheletti Cremasco, M., & Cavallo, E. (2019). An ergonomic approach to sus-
tainable development: The role of the information environment and social-psychological variables in
the adoption of agri-environmental innovations. Sustainable Development, 27(6), 1049–1062. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1002/ sd. 1956
Carter, M., de Janvry, A., Sadoulet, E., & Sarris, A. (2017). Index insurance for developing country agricul-
ture: A reassessment. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 9(1), 421–438. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1146/
annur ev- resou rce- 100516- 053352
Ceddia, M. G., & Zepharovich, E. (2019). Corrigendum to “Jevons paradox and the loss of natural habitat
in the Argentinean Chaco: The impact of indigenous communities’ land titling and the forest law in
the province of Salta” [Land Use Policy 69 (2017) 608–617](S0264837717307317)(https:// doi. org/
10. 1016/j. landu sepol. 2017. 09. 044). In Land Use Policy (Vol. 82, p. 854). Elsevier Ltd. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1016/j. landu sepol. 2018. 10. 040
Springfield Centre. (2014). The Operational Guide for the Making Markets Work for the Poor (M4P)
Approach, 2nd Edition. London, UK: DFID (Department for International Development) and Bern,
Switzerland: SDC (Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation).
Chambers, R. (1994). Participatory rural appraisal (PRA): Challenges, potentials and paradigm. World
Development, 22(10), 1437–1454. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ 0305- 750X(94) 90030-2
Chambers, R, & Conway, G. R. (1992). Sustainable rural livelihoods: practical concepts for the 21st cen-
tury. Institute of Development Studies (UK), Discussion Paper, 296. Retrieved March 19, 2022, from
https:// opend ocs. ids. ac. uk/ opend ocs/ bitst ream/ handle/ 20. 500. 12413/ 775/ Dp296. pdf? seque nce=
1ANT
Chamlou, N. (2018). Gender and industrial policy: Considerations for Iran. In Industrial, Trade, and
Employment Policies in Iran: Towards a New Agenda (pp. 211–246). Springer International Publish-
ing. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978-3- 319- 94012-0_8

E.Siankwilimba et al.
1 3
Chandra, A., Dargusch, P., McNamara, K. E., Caspe, A. M., & Dalabajan, D. (2017). A Study of Climate-
Smart Farming Practices and Climate-resiliency Field Schools in Mindanao, the Philippines. World
Development, 98, 214–230. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. world dev. 2017. 04. 028
Chinsembu, K. C. (2021). Phytomedicines and nutraceuticals in the clinical management of COVID-19.
International Science and Technology Journal of Namibia, 14, 1–8. https:// doi. org/ 10. 32642/ ISTJN.
V14I. 1534
Chinsinga, B., Matita, M., Chimombo, M., Msofi, L., Kaiyatsa, S., & Mazalale, J. (2021). Agricultural
Commercialisation and Rural Livelihoods in Malawi: A Historical and Contemporary Agrarian
Inquiry. Agricultural Policy Research in Africa, Working Paper 75. Retrieved March 19, 2022, from
https:// opend ocs. ids. ac. uk/ opend ocs/ handle/ 20. 500. 12413/ 16945
Cinner, J. E., Adger, W. N., Allison, E. H., Barnes, M. L., Brown, K., Cohen, P. J., Gelcich, S., Hicks, C.
C., Hughes, T. P., Lau, J., Marshall, N. A., & Morrison, T. H. (2018). Building adaptive capacity
to climate change in tropical coastal communities. In Nature Climate Change (Vol. 8, Issue 2, pp.
117–123). Nature Publishing Group. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ s41558- 017- 0065-x
Collings, D., & Mellahi, K. (2009). Strategic talent management: A review and theoretical synthesis.
Human Resource Management Review, 19(4), 304–313. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. hrmr. 2009. 04. 001
Collings, D. G., McMackin, J., Nyberg, A. J., & Wright, P. M. (2021). Strategic human resource manage-
ment and COVID-19: Emerging challenges and research opportunities. Journal of Management Stud-
ies, 58(5), 1378–1382. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ joms. 12695
Cooper, G. S., Rich, K. M., Shankar, B., Rana, V., Ratna, N. N., Kadiyala, S., Alam, M. J., & Nadagouda,
S. B. (2021). Identifying “win-win-win” futures from inequitable value chain trade-offs: A system
dynamics approach. Agricultural Systems, 190, 103096. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agsy. 2021. 103096
Copetti, F., Gregoracci, G. B., Vadstein, O., & Schveitzer, R. (2021). Management of biofloc concentrations
as an ecological strategy for microbial control in intensive shrimp culture. Aquaculture, 543, 736969.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. aquac ulture. 2021. 736969
Correa, D. F., Beyer, H. L., Possingham, H. P., Kosim, M., Aji, J. M. M., & Hapsari, T. D. (2021). The
impact of agricultural extension on productivity of smallholder sugarcane farmers in East Java. Iop-
science.Iop.OrgPaperpile, 892(1), 012009. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1088/ 1755- 1315/ 892/1/ 012009
Cortner, O., Garrett, R. D., Valentim, J. F., Ferreira, J., Niles, M. T., Reis, J., & Gil, J. (2019). Perceptions
of integrated crop-livestock systems for sustainable intensification in the Brazilian Amazon. Land Use
Policy, 82, 841–853. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. landu sepol. 2019. 01. 006
Croppenstedt, A., Knowles, M., & Lowder, S. K. (2018). Social protection and agriculture: Introduction to
the special issue. Global Food Security, 16, 65–68. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. gfs. 2017. 09. 006
Cross, S. N., & Gilly, M. C. (2014). Cultural competence and cultural compensatory mechanisms in bina-
tional households. Journal of Marketing, 78(3), 121–139. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1509/ jm. 11. 0310
Dago, E. (2021). Armed conflicts and food insecurity - a short literature review. Montpellier (France):
INRAe/CIRAD/Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT. 14 p. Retrieved March 19, 2022, from
https:// hdl. handle. net/ 10568/ 114586
Daily, G. C., & Matson, P. A. (2008). Ecosystem services: From theory to implementation. Proceedings of
the national academy of sciences, 105(28), 9455–9456. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1073/ pnas. 08049 60105
Danso-Abbeam, G., Ehiakpor, D. S., & Aidoo, R. (2018). Agricultural extension and its effects on-farm pro-
ductivity and income: Insight from Northern Ghana. Agriculture & Food Security, 7(1), 74. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s40066- 018- 0225-x
Daum, T., & Birner, R. (2020). Agricultural mechanization in Africa: Myths, realities and an emerging
research agenda. Global Food Security, 26, 100393. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. gfs. 2020. 100393
Davis, Babu, S. C., & Ragas, C. (2020). Agricultural Extension: Global Status and Performance in Selected
Countries. (Vol. 38, Issue 975), Washington DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Davis, K., & Spielman, D. J. (2017). Applying the Best-Fit Framework to Assess and Strengthen National
Extension and Advisory Services. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education, 24,
80–90. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5191/ jiaee. 2017. 24307
Delmastro, M., & Zollo, F. (2021). Viewpoint: Social monitoring for food policy and research: Directions
and implications. Food Policy, 105, 102147. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. foodp ol. 2021. 102147
Dupas, P., & Miguel, E. (2016). Impacts and Determinants of Health Levels in Low-Income Countries.
Handbook of Economic Field Experiments, 2, 3–93. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ bs. hefe. 2016. 09. 003
Elkin, E Smith, N.A & Gross, S. (2022). How Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine Is Tearing Apart the Global
Food System. War in Europe’s breadbasket is taking its toll on the world’s food supply. Retrieved
March 18, 2022, from https:// www. bloom berg. com/ news/ artic les/ 2022- 03- 13/ how- russia- s- invas ion-
of- ukrai ne- is- teari ng- apart- the- global- food- system.

Bioecosystems towardssustainable agricultural extension…
1 3
Emeana, E. M., Trenchard, L., & Dehnen-Schmutz, K. (2020). The revolution of mobile phone-enabled
services for agricultural development (m-Agri services) in Africa: The challenges for sustainability.
Sustainability 12(2), 485. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su120 20485
FAO. (2012). Promoting improved infant and young child feeding facilitator’s book kupititsa patsogolo
kadyetsedwe koyenela ka ana acknowledgements. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, Rome. http:// www. unicef. org/ nutri tion/ index_ 58362. html
FAO. (2021). The White/Wiphala Paper on Indigenous Peoples’ food systems. Rome. https:// doi. org/ 10.
4060/ cb493 2en
FAO. (2020). The State of Agricultural Commodity Markets 2020. Agricultural markets and sustain-
able development: Global value chains, smallholder farmers and digital innovations. Rome, FAO.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 4060/ cb066 5en
Faure, G., Desjeux, Y., & Gasselin, P. (2012). New Challenges in Agricultural Advisory Services from
a Research Perspective: A Literature Review, Synthesis and Research Agenda. Journal of Agricul-
tural Education and Extension, 18(5), 461–492. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13892 24X. 2012. 707063
Food Security Information Network (FSIN). (2021). 2021 Global report on food crises. Rome, Italy:
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO); World Food Programme (WFP). Retrieved March 17,
2022, from https:// docs. wfp. org/ api/ docum ents/ WFP00 00127 413/ downl oad/?_ ga=2. 12955 2324.
93682 6810. 16272 91775- 16401 69547. 16272 91775
Galière, M., Peyre, M., Muñoz, F., Poupaud, M., Dehove, A., Roger, F., & Dieuzy-Labaye, I. (2019).
Typological analysis of public-private partnerships in the veterinary domain. PLoS ONE, 14(10),
e0224079. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1371/ journ al. pone. 02240 79
Gammoh, B. S., Koh, A. C., & Okoroafo, S. C. (2011). Consumer culture brand positioning strategies:
An experimental investigation. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 20(1), 48–57. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 10610 42111 11080 12
Gazoni, J. L., & da Silva, E. A. M. (2021). System Dynamics framework for tourism development man-
agement. Current Issues in Tourism, 25(15), 1–22. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13683 500. 2021. 19701
17
Gebrehiwot, K. G. (2015). The impact of agricultural extension on households’ welfare in Ethiopia. Interna-
tional Journal of Social Economics, 42(8), 733–748. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ IJSE- 05- 2014- 0088
George, J., Adelaja, A., & Awokuse, T. O. (2021). The agricultural impacts of armed conflicts: The case
of Fulani militia. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 48(3), 538–572. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1093/ erae/ jbaa0 22
Granskog, A., Hannon, E., Hieronimus, S., & Winkle, A. (2021). How companies capture the value of
sustainability : Survey findings. McKinsey & Company, April. Retrieved March 17, 2022, from
https:// www. mckin sey. com/ busin ess- funct ions/ susta inabi lity/ our- insig hts/ how- compa nies- captu re-
the- value- of- susta inabi lity- survey- findi ngs
Haggag, W. M. (2021). Agricultural digitalization and rural development in COVID-19 response plans:
A review article. International Journal of Agricultural Technology, 17(1), 67–74. Retrieved March
17, 2022 from http:// www. ijat- aatsea. com
Harvey, J. A., Tougeron, K., Gols, R., Heinen, R., Abarca, M., Abram, P. K., Basset, Y., Berg, M., Boggs,
C., Brodeur, J., Cardoso, P., de Boer, J. G., De Snoo, G. R., Deacon, C., Dell, J. E., Desneux, N.,
Dillon, M. E., Duffy, G. A., Dyer, L. A., & Chown, S. L. (2022). Scientists’ warning on climate
change and insects. Ecological Monographs. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ ECM. 1553
Hasimuna OJ, Maulu S, Nawanzi K, Lundu B, Mphande J, Phiri CJ, Kikamba E, Siankwilimba E, Sia-
vwapa S and Chibesa M (2023). Integrated agriculture aquaculture as an alternative to improving
small-scale fish production in Zambia. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 7:1161121. https:// doi. org/ 10.
3389/ fsufs. 2023. 11611 21
Head, B. W. (2019). Forty years of wicked problems literature: forging closer links to policy studies.
Policy and Society, 38(2), 180–197. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 14494 035. 2018. 14887 97
Hileman, J., Kallstenius, I., Häyhä, T., Palm, C., & Cornell, S. (2020). Keystone actors do not act alone:
A business ecosystem perspective on sustainability in the global clothing industry. PLoS ONE,
15(10), e0241453. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1371/ journ al. pone. 02414 53
Howell, R., van Beers, C., & Doorn, N. (2018). Value capture and value creation: The role of informa-
tion technology in business models for frugal innovations in Africa. Technological Forecasting
and Social Change, 131, 227–239. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. techf ore. 2017. 09. 030
Innovation Forum. (2020). How to enable transformation for farmers, institutions and supply chains.
International, S. C. (2021). 2021 Annual Report About the Seed Co. Retrieved March 19, 2022 from
https:// seedc ogroup. com/ repor ts/ 2021- annual- report/

E.Siankwilimba et al.
1 3
Islamic Development Bank. (2020). Inclusive Growth: Making Value Chains Work For Smallholder
Farmers. Islamic Development Bank. Retrieved March 19, 2022 from https:// www. isdb. org/ publi
catio ns/ inclu sive- growth- making- marke ts- work- for- small holder- farme rs- global- pract ices
Issahaku, A. R., Campion, B. B., & Edziyie, R. (2016). Rainfall and temperature changes and variability
in the upper east region of Ghana. Earth and Space Science, 3(8), 284–294. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1002/ 2016E A0001 61
Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. (2018). Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strategic Man-
agement Journal, 39(8), 2255–2276. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ SMJ. 2904
Jansen, J., Renes, R. J., & Lam, T. J. G. M. (2010). Evaluation of two communication strategies to improve
udder health management. Journal of Dairy Science, 93(2), 604–612. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3168/ jds.
2009- 2531
Jeong, S. J., & Choi, S. J. (2020). Agricultural literacy in the context of agricultural education in South
Korea: Using hierarchical linear modelling. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 26(4),
401–419. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13892 24X. 2020. 17486 70
Kariuki, S. W., & Hoffmann, V. (2021). Can information drive demand for safer food? Impact of brand-spe-
cific recommendations and test results on product choice. Agricultural Economics, 53(3), 454–467.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ AGEC. 12685
Katz, M. L., & Shapiro, C. (1994). Systems competition and network effects. Journal of Economic Perspec-
tives, 8(2), 93–115. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1257/ jep.8. 2. 93
Kenny, D. C., & Castilla-Rho, J. (2022). No Stakeholder Is an Island: Human Barriers and Enablers in Par-
ticipatory Environmental Modelling. Land, 11(3), 340. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ land1 10303 40
Kipnis, E., Emontspool, J., & Broderick, A. J. (2012). Living Diversity: Developing a Typology of Con-
sumer Cultural Orientations in Culturally Diverse Marketplaces: Consequences for consumption
Advances in Consumer Research North American Advances, 40,427–435 Retrieved March 19, 2022,
from http:// www. acrwe bsite. org/ volum es/ 10119 28/ volum es/ v40/ NA- 40
Konda, M., Dodda, B., Konala, V. M., Naramala, S., & Adapa, S. (2020). Potential Zoonotic Origins of
SARS-CoV-2 and Insights for Preventing Future Pandemics Through One Health Approach. Cureus
12(6). https:// doi. org/ 10. 7759/ CUREUS. 8932
Landholm, D. M., Pradhan, P., & Kropp, J. P. (2019). Diverging forest land use dynamics induced by armed
conflict across the tropics. Global Environmental Change, 56, 86–94. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. gloen
vcha. 2019. 03. 006
Euromoney Learning. (2020). What is blockchain? Retrieved March 17, 2022, from https:// www. eurom
oney. com/ learn ing/ block chain- expla ined/ what- is- block chain
Lee, J. Y., Yahiaoui, D., Lee, K. P., & Cooke, F. L. (2022). Global talent management and multinational
subsidiaries’ resilience in the Covid-19 crisis: Moderating roles of regional headquarters’ support and
headquarters–subsidiary friction. Human Resource Management, 61(3), 355–372. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1002/ hrm. 22100
Lenaghan, T., & Heffern, A. (2021). How Donor-Funded Economic Growth Projects are Adapting to
the Challenges of COVID-19. DAI. Retrieved March 19, 2022, from https:// dai- global- devel
opmen ts. com/ artic les/ how- donor- funded- econo mic- growth- proje cts- are- adapt ing- to- the- chall
enges- of- covid- 19
Linnenluecke, M. K. (2017). Resilience in business and management research: A review of influential pub-
lications and a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 19(1), 4–30. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1111/ ijmr. 12076
Liu, X., Zhang, W., Cheng, J., Zhao, S., & Zhang, X. (2022). Green credit, environmentally induced R&D
and low carbon transition: Evidence from China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research,
29(59), 89132–89155. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11356- 022- 21941-0
Lu, R., & Dudensing, R. (2015). What do we mean by value-added agriculture?. Choices, 30(4), 1–8.
Retrieved march 19, 2022, from https:// www. jstor. org/ stable/ choic es. 30.4. 05
Lyu, W., & Liu, J. (2021). Artificial Intelligence and emerging digital technologies in the energy sector.
Applied Energy, 303, 117615. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. apene rgy. 2021. 117615
Magouras, I., Brookes, V. J., Jori, F., Martin, A., Pfeiffer, D. U., & Dürr, S. (2020). Emerging Zoonotic Dis-
eases: Should We Rethink the Animal-Human Interface? Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 7, 582743.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fvets. 2020. 582743
Malamure, C. (2017). A Phenomenological Study on the causes of leadership succession disputes in the
Zion Apostolic Faith Mission (ZAFM) in Zimbabwe (PhD dissertation) Retrieved March 19, 2022,
from https:// ukzn- dspace. ukzn. ac. za/ handle/ 10413/ 17156
Matthews, A. (2021). Are the COP26 Climate Change Negotiations Ready to Embrace Agriculture? Euro-
Choices, 20(2), 4–10. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ 1746- 692X. 12325

Bioecosystems towardssustainable agricultural extension…
1 3
Mihai, F., & Iatu, C. (2020). Sustainable rural development under Agenda 2030. In Bastante-Ceca, M. J.,
Fuentes-Bargues, J. L.,, Hufnagel, L., Mihai, F., & Laut, C. (eds.) (2020) Sustainability Assessment at
the 21st Century. IntechOpen. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5772/ intec hopen. 78105
Miles, C. (2019). The combine will tell the truth: On precision agriculture and algorithmic rationality. Big
Data and Society, 6(1), 2053951719849444. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 20539 51719 849444
Minet, J., Curnel, Y., Gobin, A., Goffart, J. P., Mélard, F., Tychon, B., Wellens, J., & Defourny, P. (2017).
Crowdsourcing for agricultural applications: A review of uses and opportunities for a farm sourcing
approach. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 142, 126–138. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/J. COM-
PAG. 2017. 08. 026
Möller, K., Nenonen, S., & Storbacka, K. (2020). Networks, ecosystems, fields, market systems? Making
sense of the business environment. Industrial Marketing Management, 90, 380–399. https:// doi. org/
10. 1016/J. INDMA RMAN. 2020. 07. 013
Moores, D., & Hunter, A. (2018). Inclusive Market Systems Development: Sustainable growth for everyone.
June. worldvision.com.au Retrieved March 19, 2022, from https:// www. world vision. com. au/ media-
centre/ publi catio ns
Morris, C. (2017). Holistic Management – A Commonsense Revolution to Restore Our Environment (Third
Edition). African Journal of Range & Forage Science, 34(2), 143–144. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2989/ 10220
119. 2017. 13149 82
Mumba, C., Skjerve, E., Rich, M., & Rich, K. M. (2017). Application of system dynamics and participatory
spatial group model building in animal health: A case study of East Coast Fever interventions in Lun-
dazi and Monze districts of Zambia. PloS One, 12(12), e0189878. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1371/ JOURN
AL. PONE. 01898 78
Munguzwe, H., & Miyanda, M. (2020). Smallholder Perceptions and Incentives on Production and Con-
sumption of Nutritious Foods. IAPRI.
Munkombwe, J., Phiri, J., & Siankwilimba, E. (2022). Financial Innovation among Smallholder Farmers:
Enhancing the uptake of Weather Index Insurance through a Pragmatic Approach. Journal of Social
Sciences Advancement, 3(1), 01–19. https:// doi. org/ 10. 52223/ JSSA22- 030101- 27
Mwongera, C., Shikuku, K. M., Twyman, J., Läderach, P., Ampaire, E., Van Asten, P., Twomlow, S., &
Winowiecki, L. A. (2017). Climate-smart agriculture rapid appraisal (CSA-RA): A tool for prior-
itizing context-specific climate-smart agriculture technologies. Agricultural Systems, 151, 192–203.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agsy. 2016. 05. 009
Nations, U. (2022). COP27 Climate Change Conference: Delivering for people and the planet | United
Nations. UN. Retrieved December 10, 2022, from https:// www. un. org/ en/ clima techa nge/ cop27
Nchanji, E. B., Lutomia, C. K., Wollenberg, E., Vermeulen, S. J., Girvetz, E., Loboguerrero, A. M., Ram-
irez-Villegas, J., Burchi, F., De Muro, P., Liu, Y., Collinson, S., Cooper, S. C., Baglieri, D., Arnold,
R. D., Wade, J. P., Kafy, A.-A., Abdullah-Al-Faisal, R., & V., Rakib, A. Al, … Huemann, M. (2021).
The basics of writing a paper for the International Journal of Project Management. Global Food Secu-
rity, 38(6), 340–342. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijpro man. 2020. 08. 001
Nugraha, A. T., Prayitno, G., Azizi, F. A., Sari, N., Hidayana, I. I., Auliah, A., & Siankwilimba, E. (2023).
Structural Equation Model (SEM) of Social Capital with Landowner Intention. Economies, 11(4),
127; https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ econo mies1 10401 27
Nyanga, P. H., Umar, B. B., Chibamba, D., Mubanga, K. H., Kunda-Wamuwi, C. F., & Mushili, B. M.
(2019). Reinforcing ecosystem services through conservation agriculture in sustainable food systems.
In Euainamhodzi, L. (ed.) (2019) The Role of Ecosystem Services in Sustainable Food Systems, (pp.
119–133). Academic Press, Elsevier. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ B978-0- 12- 816436- 5. 00006-8
Olafsen, E. (2020). Accelerating Digital Transformation in Zambia: Digital Economy Diagnostic Report.
Retrieved March 19, 2022, from https:// polic ycomm ons. net/ artif acts/ 12718 53/ accel erati ng- digit al-
trans forma tion- in- zambia/ 18554 65/. CID: 20.500.12592/ffrwvh
Ortiz, O., Orrego, R., Pradel, W., Gildemacher, P., Castillo, R., Otiniano, R., Gabriel, J., Vallejo, J., Torres,
O., Woldegiorgis, G., Damene, B., Kakuhenzire, R., Kasahija, I., & Kahiu, I. (2013). Insights into
potato innovation systems in Bolivia, Ethiopia, Peru and Uganda. Agricultural Systems, 114, 73–83.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agsy. 2012. 08. 007
Parlasca, M. C. (2021). A vital technology: Review of the literature on mobile phone use among pastoralists.
Journal of International Development, 33(4), 780–799. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ JID. 3540
Parlasca, M. C., Mußhoff, O., & Qaim, M. (2020). Can mobile phones improve nutrition among pastoral
communities? Panel data evidence from Northern Kenya. Agricultural Economics, 51(3), 475–488.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ AGEC. 12566
Porter, M. E. (1990). Competitive Advantage of Nations New York: The Free Press.
Power Shift Africa. (2022). Climate summit on the frontlines: What COP27 means for Africa. Retrieved
December 10, 2022, from https:// www. power shift africa. org/ latest/ cop27/ clima te- summit- on- the- front

E.Siankwilimba et al.
1 3
lines- what- cop27- means- for- africa? gclid= Cj0KC QiAgr ibBhD kARIs AASA5 buP0x Xbp48 uLMIq
17g2R Z0pPe V5- l1b04 vtkbQ pe_ yQtW1 XvyXd wXIaA iFrEA Lw_ wcB
Prokopenko, A. (2022). Why Is Russia Jeopardizing the Ukraine Grain Deal? Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace. Retrieved March 19, 2022, from https:// carne gieen dowme nt. org/ polit ika/ 87930
Ragasa, C., & Mazunda, J. (2018). The impact of agricultural extension services in the context of a heavily
subsidized input system: The case of Malawi. World Development, 105, 25–47. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1016/j. world dev. 2017. 12. 004
Raworth, K. (2017). Doughnut Economics: Seven ways to think like a 21st-century economist. Chelsea
publisher.
ReliefWeb (2022). Amid Violence, Mass Forced Displacement, ‘Lives of Millions’ of Ukrainian Civilians
at Stake, Humanitarian Affairs Chief Tells Security Council. Retrieved March 19, 2022, from https://
relie fweb. int/ report/ ukrai ne/ amid- viole nce- mass- forced- displ aceme nt- lives- milli ons- ukrai nian- civil
ians- stake
Research global (2022). Blockchain Development Technology. Retrieved March 19, 2022, from https:// www.
mysea rchgl obalr ewards. com/ servi ce/ Block- Chain- Devel opment- Techn ology
Resnick, D., Diao, X., & Tadesse, G. (2020). Sustaining Africa’s Agrifood System Transformation: The
Role of Public Policies. ReSAKSS 2020 Annual Trends and Outlook Report. International Food Policy
Research Institute (IFPRI) and AKADEMIYA2063. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2499/ 97808 96293 946
Riahi, K., van Vuuren, D. P., Kriegler, E., Edmonds, J., O’Neill, B. C., Fujimori, S., Bauer, N., Calvin,
K., Dellink, R., Fricko, O., Lutz, W., Popp, A., Cuaresma, J. C., & KC, S., Leimbach, M., Jiang, L.,
Kram, T., Rao, S., Emmerling, J., … Tavoni, M. (2017). The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and
their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: An overview. Global Environmen-
tal Change, 42, 153–168. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. gloen vcha. 2016. 05. 009
Röling, N., & van de Fliert, E. (1994). Transforming extension for sustainable agriculture: The case of
integrated pest management in rice in Indonesia. Agriculture and Human Values, 11(2–3), 96–108.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ BF015 30451
Röling, N., Hounkonnou, D., Kossou, D., Kuyper, T. W., Nederlof, S., Sakyi-Dawson, O., Traoré, M., &
Van Huis, A. (2012). Diagnosing the scope for innovation: Linking smallholder practices and institu-
tional context: Introduction to the special issue. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 60–63,
1–6. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. njas. 2012. 06. 004
Salehi, L., Rezvanfar, A., Mohammadi, S., & Hosseini, S. (2015). Analysis of Communicative Factors
Affecting in Application of Sustainable Rice Farming Practices among Paddy Farmers of Mazandaran
Province. International Journal of Agricultural Management and Development, 5(2), 125. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 5455/ ijamd. 164538
Samboko, P. C., Sambo, J., & Luhana, J. (2018). Agricultural Finance in Zambia: How Can Smallholder
Inclusion Be Deepened? Working Paper 142 \. Lusaka: IAPRI (Indaba Agricultural Policy Research
Unit). Retrieved December 10, 2022, from http:// www. iapri. org. zm
Sharma S . ( 2020) .21 Amazing Examples of How Blockchain Technology Is Revolutionizing Everyday Life.
Retrieved March 19, 2022, from https:// www. class icinf ormat ics. com/ blog/ block chain- techn ology-
appli catio ns
Siankwilimba, E., Mwaanga, E. S., Munkombwe, J., Mumba, C., & Hang’ombe, B. M. (2021). Effective
Extension Sustainability in the face of COVID-19 Pandemic in Smallholder Agricultural Markets.
International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET) 9(XII)
https:// doi. org/ 10. 22214/ ijras et. 2021. 39403
Siankwilimba, E., Hiddlestone-Mumford, J., Hang’ombe Mudenda, B.M., Mumba, C., & Hoque, Md. E.
(2022). COVID-19 and the Sustainability of Agricultural Extension Models. International Jour-
nal of Applied Chemical and Biological Sciences, 3(1), 1–20. https:// ident ifier. visnav. in/1. 0001/
ijacbs- 21l- 05003/
Siankwilimba, E. (2019). Effects of Climate Change induced electricity load shedding on smallholder agri-
cultural enterprises in Zambia: The case of Five Southern Province Districts. IJRDO -Journal of Agri-
culture and Research, 5(8), 01–151. https:// doi. org/ 10. 53555/ ijrdo/ 3184
Siankwilimba, E. (2021). Determinants and Mitigations of Food Losses and Waste in the Agricultural
Supply Chain Globally in Razzokov, K. K., Cavaliere, L. P. L., Ahmad, A., & Ademoğlu, S. (eds).
3rd PROCEEDINGS e-BOOK. 24- 25 December 2021, CEOSSC 2021 – Ukraine, NCM Publishing
House pp. 522–542. Retrieved March 19, 2022, J. Soc. Sci. Adv. 3 (1) 2022. 01–1918. https:// www.
resea rchga te. net/ profi le/ Irem- Oezcan/ publi cation/ 35755 6312_3_ CEO_ Proce edings_ EBook/ links/
61d42 309d4 50060 81689 99c8/3- CEOPr oceed ings-E- Book. pdf
Sichibalo, K., Changula, K., Mumba, C., Mwila, N., Mubemba, B., Nalubamba, K. S., Muleya, W., Sim-
ulundu, E., & Report, S. (2021). Potential causes of Acaricide Resistance in Rhipicephalus and

Bioecosystems towardssustainable agricultural extension…
1 3
Amblyomma Ticks (Acari: Ixodidae) in Namwala District, Zambia. University of Zambia Journal of
Agricultural and Biomedical Sciences, 5(3), 1–12. https:// doi. org/ 10. 21203/ rs.3. rs- 10862 70/ v1
Small, N., Munday, M., & Durance, I. (2017). The challenge of valuing ecosystem services that have no
material benefits. Global Environmental Change, 44, 57–67. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/J. GLOEN
VCHA. 2017. 03. 005
Snapp, S., & Pound, B. (2017). Agricultural Systems: Agroecology and Rural Innovation for Development,
2nd Edition. Academic Press. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1201/ b10791- 10
Sovacool, B. K., Kester, J., Noel, L., & de Rubens, G. Z. (2018). The demographics of decarboniz-
ing transport: The influence of gender, education, occupation, age, and household size on electric
mobility preferences in the Nordic region. Global Environmental Change, 52, 86–100. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1016/j. gloen vcha. 2018. 06. 008
Steffen, W., Broadgate, W., Deutsch, L., Gaffney, O., & Ludwig, C. (2015). The trajectory of the anthro-
pocene: The great acceleration. The Anthropocene Review, 2(1), 81–98. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/
20530 19614 564785
Sterman, J., Franck, T., Fiddaman, T., Jones, A., McCauley, S., Rice, P., Sawin, E., Siegel, L., & Rooney-
Varga, J. N. (2015). WORLD CLIMATE: A Role-Play Simulation of Climate Negotiations. Simu-
lation and Gaming, 46(3–4), 348–382. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10468 78113 514935
Syngenta. (2020). Financial Report 2020. https:// www. synge nta. com/ sites/ synge nta/ files/ bond- inves tor-
infor mation/ finan cial- resul ts/ Synge nta- AG- 2020- Finan cial- Report. pdf
Tarique, J., Sapuan, S. M., & Khalina, A. (2021). Effect of glycerol plasticizer loading on the physical,
mechanical, thermal, and barrier properties of arrowroot (Maranta arundinacea) starch biopoly-
mers. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 13900.
Taye, H. (2013). Evaluating the impact of agricultural extension programmes in sub-Saharan Africa:
Challenges and prospects. African Evaluation Journal, 1(1), 9. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4102/ AEJ. V1I1.
19I
Teklewold, H., Gebrehiwot, T., & Bezabih, M. (2019). Climate-smart agricultural practices and gender-
differentiated nutrition outcome: Empirical evidence from Ethiopia. World Development, 122,
38–53. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. world dev. 2019. 05. 010
Todaro, M. P., & Smith, S. C. (2015). Economic development: The addison-wesley series in economics
(Twelfth ed). Pearson.
Tschumi, P., & Hagan, H.. (2008). A synthesis of The Making Markets Work for the Poor (M4P)
Approach. UK Department for International Development (DFID) and Swiss Agency for Develop-
ment and Cooperation (SDC).
Tu, L., Khare, A., & Zhang, Y. (2012). A short 8-item scale for measuring consumers’ local-global iden-
tity. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29(1), 35–42. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijres
mar. 2011. 07. 003
Uppsala University (2022). UCDP Definitions. Department of Peace and Conflict Research. Retrieved
March 19, 2022, from https:// pcr. uu. se/ resea rch/ ucdp/ defin itions/
Ullah, S. (2017). Climate change impact on agriculture of Pakistan-A leading agent to food secu-
rity. International Journal of Environmental Sciences & Natural Resources, 6(3), 76–79. DOI:
https:// doi. org/ 10. 19080/ IJESNR. 2017. 06. 555690
United Nations (2022). Amid Violence, Mass Forced Displacement, ‘Lives of Millions’ of Ukrainian
Civilians at Stake, Humanitarian Affairs Chief Tells Security Council. Retrieved March 19, 2022,
from https:// www. un. org/ press/ en/ 2022/ sc148 12. doc. htm
Vaidyanathan, V., Cheelo, C., Chulu, M., Nalwimba, N., Muyobozi, G. T. M., Tong, S., & Agarwal, W. M.
(2021). China-Zambia Economic Relations Perspectives From the Agricultural Sector Contributors-
ICS Monograph Number 6. Institute of Chinese Studies. Retrieved March 19, 2022, from https:// www.
icsin. org/ publi catio ns/ china- zambia- econo mic- relat ions- persp ectiv es- from- the- agric ultur al- sector
Vaiman, P. Sparrow, R., Schuler, S., & Collings, D. (Eds.). (2019). Macro talent management in emerg-
ing and emergent markets. Routledge.
Van’t Riet, J., & Ruiter, R. A. C. (2013). Defensive reactions to health-promoting information: An over-
view and implications for future research. Health Psychology Review, 7(SUPPL1), S104–S136.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 17437 199. 2011. 606782
Vasconez, J. P., Kantor, G. A., & Cheein, F. A. A. (2019). Human-robot interaction in agriculture: A sur-
vey and current challenges. Biosystems Engineering, 179, 35–48. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. biosy
stems eng. 2018. 12. 005
Wang, J., Cooke, F. L., & Huang, W. H. (2014). How resilient is the (future) workforce in China? A
study of the banking sector and implications for human resource development. Asia Pacific Jour-
nal of Human Resources, 52(2), 132–154. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ 1744- 7941. 12026

E.Siankwilimba et al.
1 3
Woo, J., Fatima, R., Kibert, C. J., Newman, R. E., Tian, Y., & Srinivasan, R. S. (2021). Applying block-
chain technology for building energy performance measurement, reporting, and verification
(MRV) and the carbon credit market: A review of the literature. Building and Environment, 205,
108199. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. build env. 2021. 108199
World Resources Institute. (2021b, November 30). A Food Systems Approach for Better Nutrition and
Planetary Health | World Resources Institute. Retrieved March 19, 2022, from https:// www. wri.
org/ events/ 2021b/ 12/ food- syste ms- appro ach- nutri tion- growth
World Resources Institute. (2021a). Creating a Sustainable Food Future a Creating A Sustainable Food
Future World Re Source S Rep Or T. Retrieved March 19, 2022, from www. Susta inabl eFood
Future. org
Ye, M., & Morrell, J. J. (2015). Effect of post-treatment processing on copper migration from Douglas-fir
lumber treated with ammoniacal copper zinc arsenate. Journal of Environmental Management, 152,
268–272. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jenvm an. 2015. 02. 001
Zabaniotou, A. (2020). A systemic approach to resilience and ecological sustainability during the COVID-
19 pandemic: Human, societal, and ecological health as a system-wide emergent property in the
Anthropocene. Global Transitions, 2, 116–126. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/J. GLT. 2020. 06. 002
Zeweld, W., Van Huylenbroeck, G., Tesfay, G., Azadi, H., & Speelman, S. (2020). Sustainable agricultural
practices, environmental risk mitigation and livelihood improvements: Empirical evidence from
Northern Ethiopia. Land Use Policy, 95. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. landu sepol. 2019. 01. 002
Zhou, Y. (2010). Smallholder Agriculture, Sustainability and the Syngenta Foundation. Foundation for Sus-
tainable Agriculture, 1–15. https:// cites eerx. ist. psu. edu/ viewd oc/ downl oad? doi= 10.1. 1. 187. 3595&
rep= rep1& type= pdf
Ziestman, J. (2014). Man, Cattle and Veld (First). BEFFpower LLC.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under
a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable
law.
Authors and Aliations
EnockSiankwilimba1 · ChisoniMumba2 · BernardMudendaHang’ombe3·
JoshuaMunkombwe1· JacquelineHiddlestone‑Mumford4 ·
MunyaradziA.Dzvimbo5,6· MdEnamulHoque7
* Enock Siankwilimba
enocksiankwilimba@gmail.com
* Jacqueline Hiddlestone-Mumford
j.hiddlestone-mumford@jackaloz.com.au
* Md Enamul Hoque
enamul1973@gmail.com
Chisoni Mumba
sulemumba@yahoo.com
Bernard Mudenda Hang’ombe
mudenda68@gmail.com
Joshua Munkombwe
mutabi.munkombwe@gmail.com
Munyaradzi A. Dzvimbo
munyadzvimbo@gmail.com
1 Graduate School ofBusiness, University ofZambia, Lusaka, Zambia

Bioecosystems towardssustainable agricultural extension…
1 3
2 School ofVeterinary Medicine, Department ofDisease Control, University ofZambia, Lusaka,
Zambia
3 Africa Centre ofExcellence forInfectious Diseases ofHumans andAnimals (ACEIDHA),
Microbiology Unit, School ofVeterinary Medicine, University ofZambia, Lusaka, Zambia
4 Management School, University ofLiverpool, Liverpool, UK
5 Department ofGeography, University oftheFree State, Bloemfontein, SouthAfrica
6 Department ofDevelopment Studies, University ofSouth Africa, Pretoria, SouthAfrica
7 Department ofBiomedical Engineering, Military Institute ofScience andTechnology (MIST),
Dhaka, Bangladesh