Economic assessment of sustainable management approaches and technologies in agriculture: A systematic literature review Upeksha Hettiarachchi, Wei Zhang, Neville Suh, Grace Lan October 2025 Technical report Economic assessment of sustainable management approaches and technologies in agriculture: A systematic literature review | Page 1 of 21 CGIAR Economic assessment of sustainable management approaches and technologies in agriculture: A systematic literature review Upeksha Hettiarachchi, Research Analyst, International Food Policy Research Institute, u.hettiarachchi@cgiar.org Wei Zhang, Senior Research Fellow, International Food Policy Research Institute, w.zhang@cgiar.org Neville Suh, Monitoring and Impact Specialist, Africa Rice Center, suhneville@gmail.com (independent consultant at the time of conducting the literature review) Grace Lan, Hanover High School, New Hampshire, US, grace.lan.hanover@gmail.com mailto:u.hettiarachchi@cgiar.org mailto:w.zhang@cgiar.org mailto:suhneville@gmail.com mailto:grace.lan.hanover@gmail.com CGIAR Economic assessment of sustainable management approaches and technologies in agriculture: A systematic literature review | Page 2 of 21 Contents Introduction 4 Methodology 4 Guide to using the report 5 Practices 6 Economic and financial indicators 6 Environmental outcomes 7 Summary of results 7 Share of papers by practice 7 Number of practices and share of papers by geographic region 7 Outcomes for Economic and Financial Indicators 8 Main results 9 Economic Indicators 9 Economic and Financial Returns of SAPs 9 High Investment Costs and Longer Payback Periods 9 Type of Costs and Input Use 10 Yield Outcomes 10 Practices With Limited Evidence 10 Environmental outcomes 11 Biodiversity Outcomes 11 Soil Health and Nutrient Cycling 11 Environmental Trade-Offs and Negative Externalities 11 Factors of adoption 12 Economic Incentives and Financial Barriers to Adoption 12 Environmental Motivations for Adopting SAPs 12 Role of Government Support 12 Household and Farmer Characteristics Shaping Adoption 13 Unclear Drivers and the Need for Further Context-Specific Research 13 Gaps in the literature 13 Limited Economic Analysis of Sustainable Agricultural Practices 13 Sparse Evidence Across Regions and Practices 14 Lack of Data on Labor Costs and Labor Intensity 14 Conclusions 14 Economic assessment of sustainable management approaches and technologies in agriculture: A systematic literature review | Page 3 of 21 CGIAR Acknowledgements 15 References 15 Annex 18 CGIAR Economic assessment of sustainable management approaches and technologies in agriculture: A systematic literature review | Page 4 of 21 Introduction The agricultural sector faces multiple sustainability challenges while meeting the rising food and nutrition demands of the global population.1 These challenges include biodiversity loss, land degradation, resource depletion, and disruptions of nutrient cycles caused by the very farming systems that feed us, thereby compromising food production for future generation.2 Agricultural activities contribute nearly 30 – 35% of GHG emissions, mainly due to livestock farming, deforestation, rice farming, and direct emissions from fertilized soils.3 Additionally, estimates show that irrigation and livestock farming contributes nearly 70% of freshwater withdrawals.4 With a rising global population, climate risks, rising cost of energy, and changes in people’s diet preferences, it is estimated that by 2050, approximately 70% more food must be produced sustainably to meet food security goals.5 Against this backdrop, a transition to sustainable agricultural farming systems is urgently needed to ensure global food security and environmental sustainability. Conventional farming systems generate considerable environmental impacts, including biodiversity loss and pollution of the ecosystem.6 Sustainable farming systems, however, have been criticized for lower yields, higher risk of yield instability, and a relatively lower ability to respond promptly to pests and disease.7 Gonçalves et al.,8 and Campbell et al.,9 conclude that there is limited information available on the economic performance of sustainable farming systems in the literature. This literature synthesis draws on insights from primary studies based on a systematic literature review to assess the available evidence on the economic assessment of sustainable agricultural practices (SAPs) across different economic or financial indicators. We also explore differences in environmental outcomes under sustainable and conventional farming systems. Methodology The systematic literature review was conducted following the “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses” (PRISMA) protocols.10 The systematic review protocols were registered in OSF11. Annex 1 presents all search terms, search logic, search databases, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the screening decision for each article included or excluded for this review. The study was guided by the framework from Koutsos et al.,12 which aligns explicitly with the PRISMA protocols for systematic agricultural science reviews. Annex 2 shows a flow diagram for the PRISMA protocols that were followed for this review. The following steps were adopted: Step 1: Scoping Relevant literature, including previous reviews and meta-analysis, was identified, which informed the development of the review protocols and design of the aim of the review. Step 2: Planning Key search terms and Boolean operators to be used in the search string were identified through rounds of selection processes with the team (Annex 1). Scopus, Web of Science, EconLit, and Google Scholar, were identified as relevant search engines. 1 Boschiero, Martina, Valeria De Laurentiis, Carla Caldeira, and Serenella Sala. 2023. “Comparison of Organic and Conventional Cropping Systems: A Systematic Review of Life Cycle Assessment Studies.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 102 (September):107187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2023.107187. 2 Kuila, Debashis, and Somdatta Ghosh. 2022. “Aspects, Problems and Utilization of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal (AM) Application as Bio-Fertilizer in Sustainable Agriculture.” Current Research in Microbial Sciences 3 (January):100107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crmicr.2022.100107.; Poore, J., and T. Nemecek. 2018. “Reducing Food’s Environmental Impacts through Producers and Consumers.” Science 360 (6392): 987–92. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216. 3 Crippa, M., E. Solazzo, D. Guizzardi, F. Monforti-Ferrario, F. N. Tubiello, and A. Leip. 2021. “Food Systems Are Responsible for a Third of Global Anthropogenic GHG Emissions.” Nature Food 2 (3): 198–209. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00225-9.; Foley, Jonathan A., Navin Ramankutty, Kate A. Brauman, Emily S. Cassidy, James S. Gerber, Matt Johnston, Nathaniel D. Mueller, et al. 2011. “Solutions for a Cultivated Planet.” Nature 478 (7369): 337–42. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10452. 4 WWAP (UNESCO World Water Assessment Programme). 2019. The United Nations World Water Development Report 2019: Leaving No One Behind. Paris, UNESCO.; Foley, Jonathan A., Navin Ramankutty, Kate A. Brauman, Emily S. Cassidy, James S. Gerber, Matt Johnston, Nathaniel D. Mueller, et al. 2011. “Solutions for a Cultivated Planet.” Nature 478 (7369): 337–42. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10452. 5 Ravi, V., G. Suja, R. Saravanan, and Sanket J. More. 2021. “Advances in Cassava-Based Multiple-Cropping Systems.” In Horticultural Reviews, 153–232. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119750802.ch3. 6 Boschiero, Martina, Valeria De Laurentiis, Carla Caldeira, and Serenella Sala. 2023. “Comparison of Organic and Conventional Cropping Systems: A Systematic Review of Life Cycle Assessment Studies.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 102 (September):107187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2023.107187.; Eyhorn, Frank, Adrian Muller, John P. Reganold, Emile Frison, Hans R. Herren, Louise Luttikholt, Alexander Mueller, et al. 2019. “Sustainability in Global Agriculture Driven by Organic Farming.” Nature Sustainability 2 (4): 253–55. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0266-6. 7 Connor, David J. 2024. “Analysis of Farming Systems Establishes the Low Productivity of Organic Agriculture and Inadequacy as a Global Option for Food Supply.” Npj Sustainable Agriculture 2 (1): 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44264-023-00009-7.; Beauchet, Sandra, Anthony Rouault, Marie Thiollet-Scholtus, Marguerite Renouf, Frédérique Jourjon, and Christel Renaud-Gentié. 2019. “Inter-Annual Variability in the Environmental Performance of Viticulture Technical Management Routes—a Case Study in the Middle Loire Valley (France).” The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 24 (2): 253–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1516-y. 8 Gonçalves, Claudia de Brito Quadros, Madalena Maria Schlindwein, and Gabrielli do Carmo Martinelli. 2021. “Agroforestry Systems: A Systematic Review Focusing on Traditional Indigenous Practices, Food and Nutrition Security, Economic Viability, and the Role of Women.” Sustainability 13 (20): 11397. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011397. 9 Campbell, Bruce M., Sonja J. Vermeulen, Pramod K. Aggarwal, Caitlin Corner-Dolloff, Evan Girvetz, Ana Maria Loboguerrero, Julian Ramirez-Villegas, et al. 2016. “Reducing Risks to Food Security from Climate Change.” Global Food Security, 2nd International Global Food Security Conference, 11 (December):34–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2016.06.002. 10 Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & Prisma Group. (2010). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. International journal of surgery, 8(5), 336-341. 11 Registration link for review protocols (https://osf.io/registries/drafts/66157d96c175c30842c7732e/metadata). 12 Koutsos, Thomas M., Georgios C. Menexes, and Christos A. Dordas. 2019. “An Efficient Framework for Conducting Systematic Literature Reviews in Agricultural Sciences.” Science of The Total Environment 682 (September):106–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2023.107187 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crmicr.2022.100107 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216 https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00225-9 https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10452 https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10452 https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119750802.ch3 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2023.107187 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0266-6 https://doi.org/10.1038/s44264-023-00009-7 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1516-y https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011397 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2016.06.002 https://osf.io/registries/drafts/66157d96c175c30842c7732e/metadata https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.354 Economic assessment of sustainable management approaches and technologies in agriculture: A systematic literature review | Page 5 of 21 CGIAR Step 3 – Identification/search Papers were sourced from Scopus (888 articles), Web of Science (586 articles), EconLit (23), and Google Scholar (20) using the search logic presented in Annex 1. The last search was run on March 18th, 2024. A time frame of 19 years (2005 – March 18th, 2024) was considered for the search, and only papers written in English were included. A total of 1494 papers were identified from the four databases. The included papers cover a broad range of disciplines, including social science and humanities, environmental sciences, and natural sciences. Only peer- reviewed papers, in press (early access), book chapters, reviews, data papers, and editorial materials were included. Review articles that fell in our search were not included in the review. However, we included 21 relevant papers from selected review papers into our database. Step 4 – Processing and Screening All articles were exported in RIS format from the searched databases into Zotero and then uploaded into the web application Covidence for screening. Two independent reviewers screened and processed the papers in Covidence. Screening in Covidence was carried out in three stages: Identification, Title, Abstract and Keywords screening, and Full-text screening. Step 5 – Selection of studies. First, all duplicates were eliminated (496). Second, Title, Abstract, and Keyword screening was conducted for each paper in line with the inclusion criteria. Papers with the key search terms were included in the full-text screening. Lastly, full-text screening was done for each paper, and relevant papers (61) with economic analysis were retained for data extraction. The following inclusion criteria were used to assess the eligibility of papers: • Studies with economic analysis for sustainable agricultural practices compared with conventional agricultural practices • Studies with economic implications (directionality) for sustainable compared with conventional agricultural practices. • Studies with economic analysis for sustainable agricultural practices compared with other sustainable agricultural practices. • Studies with economic analysis or economic implications for sustainable agricultural practices • Economic implications/analysis on the environmental performance of sustainable and conventional agricultural practices. Step 6 – Data extraction and analysis At the data extraction stage, information was extracted from each paper according to the established protocol. Each paper was assigned a unique ID. The data extracted included data collection methodology, sample size, sampling approach, sustainable practice and economic data. To calculate economic benefits or costs such as ‘increase in yield’ or ‘reduced costs,’ we calculated the difference between economic values in sustainable and conventional farming systems. The extracted data from the selected 61 papers are analyzed and presented in graphs and tables in the following sections. Step 7 – Presentation and interpretation Key findings from the systematic reviews were presented and discussed. Limitations in current studies were highlighted, and future research gaps were identified. Concluding remarks were made, including policy recommendations. Guide to using the report We stress that the report is based on a qualitative literature synthesis, not a quantitative meta-analysis. That is, as there are a limited number of studies and results of each study are highly context dependent, drawing generalizable findings from the literature review for each sustainable agricultural practice (SAP) is not recommended. We refrain from computing averages and ranges of indicator values across studies because interpreting such results would not be straightforward without knowledge of the individual study contexts. Instead, this report can draw attention to patterns and trends of evidence such as the prevalence of a directionality of economic outcomes for different practices and factors of adoption of each practice. However, if the findings are to be used to inform investment decisions for clients, it is recommended that the original publications are referred to understand the contextual details and nuances of the analysis because many factors (such as location, practices, farming systems, farm sizes CGIAR Economic assessment of sustainable management approaches and technologies in agriculture: A systematic literature review | Page 6 of 21 and the definition of the economic indicators used) jointly affect the economic assessment results in individual studies. Practices This review identified a total of 15 single practices and 4 bundled practices. Among the 15 single practices or SAPs, two practices, integrated farming systems and improved seed variety, are not included in the list of 15 practices identified in the series “Agricultural Management Practices to Mitigate Nature Loss.” Micro-irrigation and multipurpose trees, practices which are in the list of 15 nature-positive practices identified in the agricultural management practices to mitigate nature loss series, are not included in this review as relevant papers were not identified in the search. Integrated farming systems includes systems that include mixed farming, in this study this is systems that include not only crops but also aquaculture. Aquaculture is included under this category as some of the studies on integrated farming systems had aquaculture as part of the integrated farming system. Improved seed variety includes using improved seed varieties which may include varieties that are more resistant to extreme weather conditions or have other environmental benefits such improving soil quality and increasing yield. The 4 bundled practices were grouped according to the title and keywords of the paper. Papers that had ‘climate smart agriculture,’ ‘organic farming,’ and ‘conservation agriculture’ in their titles or keywords were grouped into the three different categories. All other papers that did not fall into the above-mentioned categories were categorized under ‘other.’ Economic and financial indicators We present the description of results in terms of profitability (BCR and profit), components of profitability (cost, revenue, yield, price, fertilizer use, pesticide use and water use), performance of capital investment (NPV, IRR and payback period) and factors of production. Unless specifically mentioned, the results in the papers did not have any temporal dimension. We also provide the change in magnitude for each indicator. This is the percentage change of the value of the economic or financial indicator for a given SAP relative to the conventional practice. For papers where the value of both the SAP and the conventional practice were unavailable, the change in magnitude could not be calculated. The factors of adoption that we report in section 5 are drawn from primary data from the papers in the review. We expand on the factors of production in section 6 with literature that is outside of this review. The definitions of the economic and financial indicators in this review are listed in Table 1 below: Table 1: Description of economic indicators Economic Indicator Description Benefit-Cost-Ratio (BCR) The ratio of the benefits to the costs of the investment in the practice. Cost Definitions of costs varied across papers. However, most defined costs as all input costs, excluding labor. Fertilizer use The total amount of fertilizer used, typically expressed in kg/ha. Internal Rate of Return (IRR) The discount rate at which the NPV is equal to zero. Net Present Value (NPV) The current value of the investment's costs and benefits over a specified time period. Payback period The number of years it takes to break even. Pesticide use The total amount of pesticides used, typically expressed in kg/ha. Price The market price of agricultural products. This may increase due to premiums from organic production, for example. Profit The difference between revenue and cost. In most cases the profit is gross profit as labor costs were not accounted for. Revenue Income generated by agricultural production. Water use The total amount of water used. Yield The quantity of crop or multiple crops produced. https://cgspace.cgiar.org/items/d9ade2f0-705c-4f63-b162-68b4fbe779a4 https://cgspace.cgiar.org/items/c6fb5649-ec98-4c3d-b0ac-f05c2e84297a Economic assessment of sustainable management approaches and technologies in agriculture: A systematic literature review | Page 7 of 21 CGIAR Environmental outcomes Environmental outcomes are reported in this paper only if they were quantified in the reviewed studies. The environmental outcomes were not grouped and are reported directly from the studies. Definitions of these outcomes vary across studies, and it is recommended to refer to the original publications for further details. Some of the environmental outcomes reported in the studies include carbon sequestration, coastal protection, biodiversity protection and soil nitrogen content. Summary of results Share of papers by practice Figure 1: Share of papers by practice. In blue are the practices identified by 3.1. In purple are practices identified by this review. In orange are categories of bundled practices. Most of the papers in the review that reported economic information for single practices focus on agro-silvo- pastoralism, which makes up 22% of the total. Minimum tillage is the second largest group at 14%, as well as organic fertilizers, also at 14%. Integrated farming systems account for 10%, while organic fertilizers represent 9%. Improved seed variety make up 9%, crop rotation is 7%, and intercropping is 7% of the total group of papers. Integrated nutrient management and mechanical soil and water conservation both make up 5%, while integrated pest management and sustainable manure management each represent 3%. Practices with only one paper each, biocontrol, farming with alternative pollinators, green manure, and waste to animal feed, contribute to 2% of the total. As for papers reporting results on bundled practices, climate-smart agriculture accounts for 14% of the papers and organic farming represents 12% of the papers. The other category makes up 10% of the papers. Conservation agriculture accounts for 3% and finally, conservation-minded practices represent 2% of the overall total. Number of practices and share of papers by geographic region 22% 14% 14% 10% 9% 7% 7% 5% 5% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 14% 12% 10% 3% 2% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% S h a re o f p a p e rs ( % ) Practice Share of papers by practice (60 papers) CGIAR Economic assessment of sustainable management approaches and technologies in agriculture: A systematic literature review | Page 8 of 21 Figure 2: Number of practices and share of papers by geographic region. Figure 2 illustrates the number of agricultural practices reported by geographic region, divided into single practices and bundled practices. There are a total of 15 single practices and 4 bundled practices in this review. Asia has the highest number of practices represented in the studies with 12 single practices and 5 bundled practices, followed by Africa with 9 single practices and 3 bundled practices. Europe has 6 single practices and 1 bundled practice, while North America reports 4 single practices and 1 bundled practice. South America has the lowest figures, with 2 single practices and 1 bundled practice. Overall, Asia and Africa are well represented, but the Americas remain poorly represented in the practices in comparison. Outcomes for Economic and Financial Indicators Figure 3: Directionality of economic indicators The directionality of the economic indicators are presented in Figure 3. Figure 3 also presents the share of papers that report results for each economic indicator. Yield is the most frequently measured indicator, appearing in 70% of the papers, with 32 papers reporting increases in yield and 24 reporting decreases in yield. Profit and revenue 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Asia Africa Europe North America South America Number of practices and share of papers by geographic region (60 papers) Single practices Bundle practices Share of papers (%) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 S h a re o f p a p e rs N u m b e r o f p a p e rs Economic and financial indicators Directionality of Economic and Financial Indicators (60 papers) Increase Decrease No Change Share of papers Economic assessment of sustainable management approaches and technologies in agriculture: A systematic literature review | Page 9 of 21 CGIAR are also commonly studied and make up 28% and 37% of the studies, respectively. Most papers with profit, revenue, NPV, and IRR data report an increase in the value of the indicators compared to conventional practices. 38% of the papers have data on cost, with equal numbers of papers reporting increases and decreases in cost. NPV and BCR are reported in 17% and 12% of the papers, respectively. Both NPV and BCR show more increases than decreases. Fertilizer and pesticide use, appear in a total of 8 and 6 studies respectively and only show decreases in use results in these studies. The papers in this review assess a wide range of economic and financial indicators, with the majority reporting an increase in the indicator, particularly the economic indicators of terms of yield, profit, and revenue. Main results There is considerable heterogeneity between the 60 papers included in this review. As shown in the tables for each practice, there is often only a single study for each combination of practice, economic or financial indicator and country. This underscores the highly context-specific nature of implementing and assessing the SAPs. Multiple factors, including regional, crop, and socio-economic conditions, shape the outcomes, making generalization across studies challenging. However, we attempt to draw some overarching conclusions by identifying general trends across all the SAPs. While we make some conclusions about economic outcomes of these SAPs below, we also hope to draw attention to the context-specific nature of the results. Economic Indicators Economic and Financial Returns of SAPs Most SAPs demonstrated positive economic and financial returns, with indicators like profits, BCR, NPV, IRR, and payback periods generally favoring SAPs. Practices such as agro-silvo-pastoralism, organic farming, crop rotation, mechanical soil and water conservation, improved seed varieties, CSA, and integrated farming systems consistently outperformed conventional practices in terms of profitability and returns on investment. Where NPV was negative, it was due to differences in crop type and farm size. For example, minimum tillage in Ghana showed negative NPV and IRR due to declining watermelon yields, while wheat under minimum tillage had a positive NPV and IRR. In the case of integrated farming systems in India, the value of NPV varied depending on the combination of crops grown in the integrated system and the size of the farm. The effect of intercropping, agro-silvo-pastoralism and conservation agriculture on economic and financial indicators is less clear. For agro-silvo-pastoralism, profitability varies depending on the system and farm size. In India, small farms showed higher benefits from eucalyptus-wheat agroforestry systems, while larger farms had lower BCRs. In Italy and Sudan, agroforestry systems also demonstrated higher profitability compared to monocropping systems. However, in Brazil, the profitability of agroforestry systems fluctuated, with integrated systems being less profitable than pure crop systems. Intercropping systems also present mixed results. While costs were higher in Tanzania, Uganda, and Vietnam, yield outcomes varied by crop. For example, maize-bean intercropping in Uganda and maize- soybean intercropping in Tanzania led to increased costs and yield declines. In Ghana, however, intercropping resulted in higher yields for certain crops like cassava and peppers, while maize yields declined. Conservation agriculture showed both cost reductions and variable yield outcomes. In Ghana, soybean-maize rotations under minimum tillage resulted in lower costs and varying BCRs. In Cambodia, crops like beans and cabbage showed yield increases, while others, like cucumber, experienced declines. High Investment Costs and Longer Payback Periods While NPVs were generally higher for SAPs, payback periods were longer compared to conventional systems, meaning it takes more time for farmers to recoup their investments. Two papers in this review classify payback periods exceeding two years as ‘high’. If we consider 2 years to be ‘high’, payback periods for SAPs take a longer timeframe to cover initial investments as payback periods typically range from 2 to 8 years. In Indonesia, organic farming has a payback period of 8 years. In Tanzania, Ng’ang’a et al., (2020) report a payback period of 5 years for early maturing soybeans and 7 years for late maturing soybeans. CSA practices are also characterized by longer payback periods in comparison to conventional methods. The payback period for CSA practices ranges from 2–4 years, while conventional practices typically have a shorter payback period of 1 year. This trend indicates that while SAPs offer long-term financial benefits, higher initial investments may act as barriers to adoption. For practices such as intercropping, integrated farming systems, crop rotation and minimum tillage, implementation costs were higher when compared to conventional practices. The authors identified these higher implementation costs as a barrier to adoption. Lan et al, (2018) find that the high costs of implementing rice-shrimp systems make it affordable only to farmers in higher income groups, even though the profitability of the practice was high compared to other CSA practices. In Tanzania, maize-soybean intercropping incurred higher implementation costs than the CGIAR Economic assessment of sustainable management approaches and technologies in agriculture: A systematic literature review | Page 10 of 21 business as usual scenario, with installation costs being the largest expense, followed by maintenance and operational costs. In the case of minimum tillage, high upfront investment costs for labor and equipment led to negative NPV and IRR, while declining yields meant that costs could not be covered without a subsidy in Italy and Germany. In Italy, minimum tillage had positive and negative NPV outcomes, depending on whether conservation agriculture subsidies were provided. Without subsidies, farms experienced losses, but with the subsidy, farms became profitable. The same results are seen in Germany. This highlights the role of government support in ensuring the sustainability of practices like minimum tillage. The study finds that the EU should support the profitability of farmers in the short run by using subsidies for conservation agriculture to secure long term food security through preserving soil fertility and soil productivity. Type of Costs and Input Use Costs varied widely by the type of practice and the type of cost, ranging from installation costs, operating costs, maintenance costs or input costs. The stage at which the costs were incurred also played a role in the outcomes of costs for SAPs. Practices such as organic fertilizer, organic farming, integrated pest management, green manure, and sustainable manure management reported a decrease in input costs like fertilizers, herbicides and water usage. This reduction in the dependency on inputs was the main driver of the reduction in total costs for these SAPs. In Sub-Saharan Africa, Mutenje et al., (2019) find the same outcomes, as farmers were not likely to adopt sustainable manure management as the increased initial costs of implementation compared to their current practice of applying fertilizer to the soil was a barrier for risk-averse farmers. Crop rotation also saw increased implementation costs In Vietnam, Uganda, and Tanzania, implementation costs for crop rotation increased. Despite higher initial costs for these practices, profits were generally greater than for conventional practices. In these cases, the high initial cost of implementation here act as a barrier to adoption, but in the longer term, NPV is positive and farmers can benefit from implementing these practices. Yield Outcomes Crop type, environmental conditions, farm size and farming systems were factors that determined the outcomes of yield. Organic farming and organic fertilizers generally resulted in decreased yields, such as pakchoi in China, which performed up to 38.3% worse than conventional fertilizers, and soybean in production in Tanzania, which saw yield declines of 12%. The magnitude of the decrease in yield was dependent upon the size of the farm in India. However, cost reductions in fertilizer inputs and price premiums for organic products often offset the losses from decreases in yield, and the practices are still profitable. For example, ancient wheat varieties in Italy and medicinal plants in Mongolia commanded higher market prices which offset the costs of lower yields. Improved seed varieties and crop rotation showed mostly positive trends in yield. The influence of climate and crop type on yield is clear with improved seed varieties which generally had higher yields than conventional varieties. In Nepal, rice grown under zero tillage benefitted from monsoon rains, which provide sufficient nutrients despite reduced soil disturbance under minimum tillage. Wheat yields, however, decline under zero tillage during the drier winter season, when the absence of rain means that the soil aeration and water infiltration does not take place at all. Similarly, in Southern Africa, Mutenje et al., (2019) found that agroecological zones with favorable rainfall produced higher yields compared to low-potential, drought-prone zones. Although most papers did not report on temporal dimensions of yield, the few that did found that yields increase over time. In India, organic farming had higher yields than conventional systems using synthetic fertilizers over a seven-year period. Similarly, integrated nutrient management and sustainable manure management in Kenya showed steady yield increases over a 21-year period. Climate-smart agriculture in Canada also resulted in increasing potato yields during the first two years of implementation. These practices may suggest that there is potential for long-term productivity improvements when SAPs improve soil health. Practices With Limited Evidence The practices of farming with alternative pollinators, biocontrol, green manure and waste to animal feed only had one paper for each practice in the review. As such, it is difficult to draw conclusions about the practice based on one paper. Outcomes for biocontrol and farming with alternative pollinators were positive. For biocontrol, revenues increased as apple yield increased with bats acting as pest predators in Italy. Results for yield, cost and revenue were positive for pollination with honeybees in China and the practice performed much better than artificial pollination. Outcomes for waste to animal feed and green manure were less clear. Yield under green manure varied depending on crop type in Canada. Waste-to-animal feed showed mixed results in Ghana, with an increase in the number of sheep but no observed change for cattle. Economic assessment of sustainable management approaches and technologies in agriculture: A systematic literature review | Page 11 of 21 CGIAR Environmental outcomes Most practices reported positive environmental externalities, including impacts on climate change, air quality, soil health, biodiversity conservation, ecosystem services, water quality, energy use, and human health. There were no environmental impacts in the review for SAPs biocontrol, farming with alternative pollinators, integrated pest management and intercropping. Biodiversity Outcomes Direct impacts on biodiversity were seen in organic farming practices and agro-silvo-pastoralism practices. Organic farming in rice paddies enhanced biodiversity by providing more habitats for species compared to monocultures.13 In France, organic farming and the inclusion of meadows in oilseed rape fields increased pollinator populations, particularly bees, while reducing pests as the fields shelter pest enemies.14 Agroforestry systems also increased biodiversity as farms implementing the practice provide more diverse habitats for species, with cocoa agroforestry showing positive impacts on biodiversity compared to conventional cocoa production. Both Kurniawan15 and Perrot16 find that reducing the application of synthetic fertilizers or pesticides plays a role in increasing biodiversity. The adoption of CSA practices like crop rotation and minimum tillage also increases soil biodiversity and farm biodiversity. Soil Health and Nutrient Cycling Results on soil health are well represented in the studies, with practices like crop rotation, green manure, improved seed variety, integrated farming systems, intercropping, and minimum tillage reporting improvements in soil health. Results from the studies on green manure, organic fertilizer, and sustainable manure management demonstrate the important role of organic matter in increasing soil organic carbon and nutrient content, leading to higher nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium levels in the soils.17 Practices such as integrated farming in rice-crab systems18 and crop rotation improved nutrient cycling, reducing the amount of synthetic fertilizer application needed. Organic farming consistently led to high levels of soil organic carbon. For example, in the North China Plain, organic vegetable cultivation with poultry manure and biological pest control increased soil carbon sequestration by 12,037.7 kg CO₂/ha compared to conventional systems.19 In India, organic plots showed a 39% increase in soil organic carbon.20 Environmental Trade-Offs and Negative Externalities Negative externalities were seen for agro-silvo-pastoralism, which showed increases in freshwater ecotoxicity and eutrophication. A comparison between cocoa agroforestry and full-sun cocoa farming systems in Ghana found that because of higher yields in full-sun systems compared to cocoa agroforestry and equal pesticide use per hectare for both farming systems, the full-sun systems had a lower negative result in terms of freshwater ecotoxicity and eutrophication.21 However, cocoa agroforestry, due to its lower intensity, had nearly three times less harmful impact on biodiversity. While most sustainable agricultural practices provide significant positive environmental externalities, particularly in improving biodiversity, soil health, and ecosystem services, there also exist potential trade-offs, such as increased carbon emissions or eutrophication. 13 Kurniawan, Andreas Hendracipta, Satoru Sato, Weiguo Cheng, Putri Kusuma Dewi, and Kazuhiko Kobayashi. 2021. “Animal Abundance and Soil Properties Affected by Long-Term Organic Farming in Rice Paddies in a Typical Japanese Yatsuda Landscape.” Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 193 (1): 273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-020-08813-1. 14 Parra-Paitan, Claudia, and Peter H. Verburg. 2022. “Accounting for Land Use Changes beyond the Farm-Level in Sustainability Assessments: The Impact of Cocoa Production.” Science of The Total Environment 825 (June):154032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154032. 15 Kurniawan, Andreas Hendracipta, Satoru Sato, Weiguo Cheng, Putri Kusuma Dewi, and Kazuhiko Kobayashi. 2021. “Animal Abundance and Soil Properties Affected by Long-Term Organic Farming in Rice Paddies in a Typical Japanese Yatsuda Landscape.” Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 193 (1): 273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-020-08813-1. 16 Perrot, Thomas, Vincent Bretagnolle, and Sabrina Gaba. 2022. “Environmentally Friendly Landscape Management Improves Oilseed Rape Yields by Increasing Pollinators and Reducing Pests.” Journal of Applied Ecology 59 (7): 1825–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.14190. 17 Das, Anup, D. P. Patel, Manoj Kumar, G. I. Ramkrushna, Atanu Mukherjee, Jayanta Layek, S. V. Ngachan, and Juri Buragohain. 2017. “Impact of Seven Years of Organic Farming on Soil and Produce Quality and Crop Yields in Eastern Himalayas, India.” Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 236 (January):142–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.09.007.; Hu, Liangliang, Liang Guo, Lufeng Zhao, Xiaoyu Shi, Weizheng Ren, Jian Zhang, Jianjun Tang, and Xin Chen. 2020. “Productivity and the Complementary Use of Nitrogen in the Coupled Rice-Crab System.” Agricultural Systems 178 (February):102742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102742.; Kurniawan, Andreas Hendracipta, Satoru Sato, Weiguo Cheng, Putri Kusuma Dewi, and Kazuhiko Kobayashi. 2021. “Animal Abundance and Soil Properties Affected by Long-Term Organic Farming in Rice Paddies in a Typical Japanese Yatsuda Landscape.” Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 193 (1): 273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-020-08813-1. 18 Hu, Liangliang, Liang Guo, Lufeng Zhao, Xiaoyu Shi, Weizheng Ren, Jian Zhang, Jianjun Tang, and Xin Chen. 2020. “Productivity and the Complementary Use of Nitrogen in the Coupled Rice-Crab System.” Agricultural Systems 178 (February):102742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102742 19 Xu, Qiang, Kelin Hu, Hongyuan Zhang, Hui Han, and Ji Li. 2020. “Organic Vegetable Cultivation Reduces Resource and Environmental Costs While Increasing Farmers’ Income in the North China Plain.” Agronomy 10 (3): 361. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10030361. 20 Das, Anup, D. P. Patel, Manoj Kumar, G. I. Ramkrushna, Atanu Mukherjee, Jayanta Layek, S. V. Ngachan, and Juri Buragohain. 2017. “Impact of Seven Years of Organic Farming on Soil and Produce Quality and Crop Yields in Eastern Himalayas, India.” Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 236 (January):142–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.09.007 21 Parra-Paitan, Claudia, and Peter H. Verburg. 2022. “Accounting for Land Use Changes beyond the Farm-Level in Sustainability Assessments: The Impact of Cocoa Production.” Science of The Total Environment 825 (June):154032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154032. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-020-08813-1 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154032 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-020-08813-1 https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.14190 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.09.007 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102742 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-020-08813-1 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102742 https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10030361 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.09.007 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154032 CGIAR Economic assessment of sustainable management approaches and technologies in agriculture: A systematic literature review | Page 12 of 21 An interesting finding in Ghana showed that carbon emissions were lower at the farm level in cocoa agroforestry systems but higher at the landscape level due to different scenarios and socio-economic factors in the models. Definitions of carbon emissions varied across studies. For example, Luo et al.22 assessed emissions from pesticide, fertilizer use, and agricultural films in agroforestry systems in China, while Parra-Paitan et al.,23 examined emissions related to land use change in cocoa agroforestry. Factors of adoption Despite the potential for SAPs to improve productivity, welfare, and food security, the adoption rates of SAPs have been perceived to be generally low, especially in developing countries24. A very complex and wide-ranging variety of factors affect the decision to adopt SAPs and policy interventions are needed to encourage adoption. Economic Incentives and Financial Barriers to Adoption Economic outcomes are very important in incentivizing adoption of SAPs. Farmers are more likely to adopt practices if there are clear economic benefits. However, financial barriers are a significant constraint on the adoption of SAPs, particularly due to the high initial costs of investment and potential short term reductions in yields. Many SAPs, such as conservation agriculture and agroforestry, require substantial upfront investments in technologies like improved seeds, machinery for reduced tillage, or tree planting, which can be prohibitive for smallholder farmers with limited access to credit or financial support. Environmental Motivations for Adopting SAPs Beyond economic factors, environmental benefits also motivate farmers to adopt SAPs, particularly those interested in producing pesticide-free, healthy foods, ensuring the longevity of tree crops, reducing dependence on external inputs, or benefiting from premium prices associated with these practices.25 Adoption of SAPs are often linked to ecological benefits. Organic farming systems and organic fertilizers also offer long term benefits in terms of soil health26, which can encourage adoption. Improvements in soil quality and water efficiency drive adoption of conservation agriculture in soybean-maize farming in Ghana27 and vegetable farming in Cambodia28. Agroforestry practices are tied to biodiversity conservation and carbon sequestration, which offer further environmental incentives for adoption. Role of Government Support Access to information, training, and extension services play a crucial role in supporting farmers transition from conventional systems to SAPs. Government support in the form of payments for conservation agriculture or subsidies support adoption by mitigating the relatively high costs of investments in SAPs29. Yin et al.,30 find that economies of scale contribute to cost differences between CAPs and SAPs and suggest that government intervention should focus on encouraging larger scale sustainable farming. Government intervention is essential in creating an enabling environment for adoption of SAPs. 22 Luo, Xing, Kangning Xiong, Juan Zhang, and Dong Chen. 2021. “A Study on Optimal Agroforestry Planting Patterns in the Buffer Zone of World Natural Heritage Sites.” Sustainability 13 (20): 11544. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011544. 23 Parra-Paitan, Claudia, and Peter H. Verburg. 2022. “Accounting for Land Use Changes beyond the Farm-Level in Sustainability Assessments: The Impact of Cocoa Production.” Science of The Total Environment 825 (June):154032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154032. 24 Oyetunde-Usman, Zainab, Kehinde Oluseyi Olagunju, and Oyinlola Rafiat Ogunpaimo. 2021. “Determinants of Adoption of Multiple Sustainable Agricultural Practices among Smallholder Farmers in Nigeria.” International Soil and Water Conservation Research 9 (2): 241–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2020.10.007. 25 Riar, Amritbir, Lokendra S. Mandloi, Randhir S. Poswal, Monika M. Messmer, and Gurbir S. Bhullar. 2017. “A Diagnosis of Biophysical and Socio-Economic Factors Influencing Farmers’ Choice to Adopt Organic or Conventional Farming Systems for Cotton Production.” Frontiers in Plant Science 8 (July). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01289. 26 Das, Anup, D. P. Patel, Manoj Kumar, G. I. Ramkrushna, Atanu Mukherjee, Jayanta Layek, S. V. Ngachan, and Juri Buragohain. 2017. “Impact of Seven Years of Organic Farming on Soil and Produce Quality and Crop Yields in Eastern Himalayas, India.” Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 236 (January):142–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.09.007.; Hu, Liangliang, Liang Guo, Lufeng Zhao, Xiaoyu Shi, Weizheng Ren, Jian Zhang, Jianjun Tang, and Xin Chen. 2020. “Productivity and the Complementary Use of Nitrogen in the Coupled Rice-Crab System.” Agricultural Systems 178 (February):102742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102742.; Kurniawan, Andreas Hendracipta, Satoru Sato, Weiguo Cheng, Putri Kusuma Dewi, and Kazuhiko Kobayashi. 2021. “Animal Abundance and Soil Properties Affected by Long-Term Organic Farming in Rice Paddies in a Typical Japanese Yatsuda Landscape.” Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 193 (1): 273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-020-08813-1. 27 Naab, Jesse B., George Y. Mahama, Iddrisu Yahaya, and P. V. V. Prasad. 2017. “Conservation Agriculture Improves Soil Quality, Crop Yield, and Incomes of Smallholder Farmers in North Western Ghana.” Frontiers in Plant Science 8 (June). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.00996. 28 Edralin, Don A., Gilbert C. Sigua, Manuel R. Reyes, Michael J. Mulvaney, and Susan S. Andrews. 2017. “Conservation Agriculture Improves Yield and Reduces Weeding Activity in Sandy Soils of Cambodia.” Agronomy for Sustainable Development 37 (5): 52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-017-0461-7. 29 Lan, L., Sain, G., Czaplicki, S., Guerten, N., Shikuku, K. M., Grosjean, G., & Läderach, P. (2018). Farm-level and community aggregate economic impacts of adopting climate smart agricultural practices in three mega environments. PLOS ONE, 13(11), e0207700. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207700; Vastola, A., Zdruli, P., D’Amico, M., Pappalardo, G., Viccaro, M., Di Napoli, F., Cozzi, M., & Romano, S. (2017). A comparative multidimensional evaluation of conservation agriculture systems: A case study from a Mediterranean area of Southern Italy. Land Use Policy, 68, 326–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.07.034 30 Yin, Yanshu, Yingnan Zhang, Shu Wang, Ke Xu, Yang Zhang, Thomas Dogot, and Changbin Yin. 2024. “Integrating Production, Ecology and Livelihood Confers an Efficiency-Driven Farming System Based on the Sustainable Farmland Framework.” Agricultural Systems 220 (October):104049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2024.104049. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011544 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154032 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2020.10.007 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01289 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.09.007 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102742 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-020-08813-1 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.00996 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-017-0461-7 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207700 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.07.034 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2024.104049 Economic assessment of sustainable management approaches and technologies in agriculture: A systematic literature review | Page 13 of 21 CGIAR Household and Farmer Characteristics Shaping Adoption Household characteristics also significantly influence the adoption of SAPs. For example, in Southern Africa, women’s decision making power in households is identified as a significant factor in the adoption of CSA practices as female headed households in Mozambique and Malawi are more likely to adopt lower-risk, higher-labor-intensity CSA technologies.31 Similar findings are reflected in the research showing that women with higher bargaining power within the household are more likely to adopt CSA practices.32 Age also plays a role in adoption as younger farmers are more likely to adopt SAPs than older farmers who may have less to gain from adopting SAPs as they will be farming for a shorter time period,33 and older farmers are also more likely to be risk averse than younger farmers34. However, older farmers are more likely to adopt traditional farming practices, as seen with older farmers in Vietnam, who are more likely to adopt organic farming as they are familiar with the technique35. Education has a positive impact on the adoption of SAPs. In Bangladesh, educated farmers were three times more likely to adopt SAPs than uneducated farmers36. This trend is echoed among maize producers in Uganda, where higher education levels are positively correlated with the adoption of SAPs.37 Unclear Drivers and the Need for Further Context-Specific Research Some studies suggest that the factors driving the adoption of SAPs remain unclear. Giller et al.,38 emphasize this uncertainty, particularly for smallholder farmers with limited resources. The authors find that that competing uses for cover crops, such as for animal feed versus mulch, and the increased labor burden on women for weeding complicate adoption. Additionally, the specific farming conditions in which conservation agriculture can achieve production goals are yet to be fully identified, especially in small-scale manual vegetable farming. There is a need for further investigation into the key factors that influence adoption of SAPs across different contexts. Gaps in the literature Limited Economic Analysis of Sustainable Agricultural Practices There is a vast body of economic studies on sustainable and conventional farming practices.39 However, there is a much smaller body of literature on the economic analysis of sustainable farming systems compared to conventional systems, making it challenging to fully evaluate the economic outcomes of sustainable agricultural practices against conventional ones.40 Furthermore, the studies with economic analysis studies have several limitations. For example, some reviews focus only on yield and environmental impacts.41 There is a need for economic analyses that allow for comparison between SAPs and conventional practices. Most of the papers in this review did not have a temporal dimension to the results. Deeper exploration of this element will allow for a better understanding of the economic and financial outcomes of SAPs. 31 Mutenje, Munyaradzi Junia, Cathy Rozel Farnworth, Clare Stirling, Christian Thierfelder, Walter Mupangwa, and Isaiah Nyagumbo. 2019. “A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Climate-Smart Agriculture Options in Southern Africa: Balancing Gender and Technology.” Ecological Economics 163 (September):126–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.05.013. 32 Farnworth, Cathy Rozel, Clare Stirling, Tek B. Sapkota, M. L. Jat, Michael Misiko, and Simon Attwood. 2017. “Gender and Inorganic Nitrogen: What Are the Implications of Moving towards a More Balanced Use of Nitrogen Fertilizer in the Tropics?” International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 15 (2): 136–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2017.1295343. 33 Rajendran, N., Y. S. Tey, M. Brindal, S. F. Ahmad Sidique, M. N. Shamsudin, A. Radam, and A. H. I. 1Abdul Hadi. 2016. “Factors Influencing the Adoption of Bundled Sustainable Agricultural Practices: A Systematic Literature Review. | EBSCOhost.” December 15, 2016. https://openurl.ebsco.com/contentitem/gcd:119017236?sid=ebsco:plink:crawler&id=ebsco:gcd:119017236. 34 Priya, and S. P. Singh. 2024. “Factors Influencing the Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Practices: A Systematic Literature Review and Lesson Learned for India.” Forum for Social Economics 53 (1): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/07360932.2022.2057566. 35 Pham, Huong-Giang, Swee-Hoon Chuah, and Simon Feeny. 2021. “Factors Affecting the Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Practices: Findings from Panel Data for Vietnam.” Ecological Economics 184 (June):107000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107000. 36 Murtaza, Ghulam Murtaza Ghulam, Siraj Bashir, and Abdul Khaliq. 2021. “Barriers in Adopting Sustainable Agricultural Practices (SAPs) under Changing Climate in Balochistan, Pakistan.” Pakistan Journal of Applied Social Sciences 12 (1): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.46568/pjass.v12i1.542. 37 Midamba, Dick Chune, Mary Kwesiga, and Kevin Okoth Ouko. 2024. “Determinants of Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Practices among Maize Producers in Northern Uganda.” Cogent Social Sciences 10 (1): 2286034. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2286034. 38 Giller, Ken E., Ernst Witter, Marc Corbeels, and Pablo Tittonell. 2009. “Conservation Agriculture and Smallholder Farming in Africa: The Heretics’ View.” Field Crops Research 114 (1): 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2009.06.017. 39 Volken, Sandra, and Patrick Bottazzi. 2024. “Sustainable Farm Work in Agroecology: How Do Systemic Factors Matter?” Agriculture and Human Values 41 (3): 1037– 52.; Kannan, M., N. Bojan, J. Swaminathan, G. Zicarelli, D. Hemalatha, Y. Zhang, M. Ramesh, and C. Faggio. 2023. “Nanopesticides in Agricultural Pest Management and Their Environmental Risks: A Review.” International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 20 (September):10507–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-023- 04795-y.; Kuila, D., & Ghosh, S. (2022). Aspects, problems and utilization of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal (AM) application as bio-fertilizer in sustainable agriculture. Current Research in Microbial Sciences, 3, 100107. 40 Gonçalves, Claudia de Brito Quadros, Madalena Maria Schlindwein, and Gabrielli do Carmo Martinelli. 2021. “Agroforestry Systems: A Systematic Review Focusing on Traditional Indigenous Practices, Food and Nutrition Security, Economic Viability, and the Role of Women.” Sustainability 13 (20): 11397. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011397.; Clark, Michael, and David Tilman. 2017. “Comparative Analysis of Environmental Impacts of Agricultural Production Systems, Agricultural Input Efficiency, and Food Choice.” Environmental Research Letters 12 (6): 064016. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6cd5.; Tuomisto, H. L., I. D. Hodge, P. Riordan, and D. W. Macdonald. 2012. “Does Organic Farming Reduce Environmental Impacts?--A Meta-Analysis of European Research.” Journal of Environmental Management 112 (December):309–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.08.018. 41 Boschiero, Martina, Valeria De Laurentiis, Carla Caldeira, and Serenella Sala. 2023. “Comparison of Organic and Conventional Cropping Systems: A Systematic Review of Life Cycle Assessment Studies.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 102 (September):107187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2023.107187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.05.013 https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2017.1295343 https://openurl.ebsco.com/contentitem/gcd:119017236?sid=ebsco:plink:crawler&id=ebsco:gcd:119017236 https://doi.org/10.1080/07360932.2022.2057566 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107000 https://doi.org/10.46568/pjass.v12i1.542 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2286034 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2009.06.017 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-023-04795-y https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-023-04795-y https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011397 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6cd5 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.08.018 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2023.107187 CGIAR Economic assessment of sustainable management approaches and technologies in agriculture: A systematic literature review | Page 14 of 21 Sparse Evidence Across Regions and Practices In terms of geographic representation, Asia had the highest number of practices represented in this review, followed by Africa, Europe, and the Americas. There were only four studies on South America, which focused on agro-silvo- pastoralism, organic fertilizers, and bundled practices. Biocontrol, farming with alternative pollinators, green manure, and waste-to-animal feed had only one study each. Integrated pest management, which is a well-established practices in the field of sustainable agriculture42, but this review identified only two studies for this practice. There were no studies on micro-irrigation and multipurpose trees. While many studies examine the biophysical benefits of SAPs, there is a notable lack of research evaluating their economic outcomes. Lack of Data on Labor Costs and Labor Intensity Another significant gap is the consideration of labor costs. In many studies, labor costs were not included in calculations of cost, revenue, and profit indicators. The discussions also did not address the increase in labor intensity that accompanies the adoption of many SAPs.43 In sub-Saharan Africa, the adoption of conservation agriculture has been shown to increase labor intensity44 and Teklewold et al., (2013) 45 find that labor demand increases when conservation agriculture is adopted in Ethiopia. This is consistent with findings from Montt et al., who find that conservation agriculture often increases labor demand due to the lack of specialized machinery and chemical inputs needed to reduce labor requirements.46 Rajendran et al., (2016) and Teklewold et al., (2013) find that the burden of the increase in labor when adopting SAPs frequently falls on women and children rather than on externally hired labor.47 However, honeybee pollination in China48 and reduced weeding in conservation agriculture in Cambodia49 lowered labor costs. There remains a lack of empirical evidence on the overall effects of SAPs on labor intensity. There is also room for further research into the gendered effects of adoption of SAPs. The differences in results across geographies and practices further underscore the need for an assessment of the conditions under which SAPs are best suited to farming in different regions. A deeper understanding of how these practices perform under varying environmental and socio-economic conditions is essential for determining their broader applicability and potential benefits. Conclusions The findings of this review draw attention to the context-specific nature of SAPs and their economic and environmental outcomes. While SAPs generally demonstrate mostly positive long-term financial and environmental benefits, factors such as high initial costs, longer payback periods, and variability in outcomes across geographies and farming systems influence the directionality of economic and financial indicators for each practice. The results highlight the need for tailored approaches that address the unique socio-economic and environmental factors that determine the successful adoption of SAPs. Moreover, bridging knowledge gaps, particularly regarding labor costs, gendered impacts, and underrepresented practices and geographies, is critical for developing effective policies to scale SAPs globally. 42 Kogan, M. 1998. “Integrated Pest Management: Historical Perspectives and Contemporary Developments.” Annual Review of Entomology 43:243–70. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ento.43.1.243. 43 Pashaei Kamali, Farahnaz, Miranda P. M. Meuwissen, Imke J. M. de Boer, Corina E. van Middelaar, Adonis Moreira, and Alfons G. J. M. Oude Lansink. 2017. “Evaluation of the Environmental, Economic, and Social Performance of Soybean Farming Systems in Southern Brazil.” Journal of Cleaner Production, Cleaner production towards a sustainable transition, 142 (January):385–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.135. 44 Montt, Guillermo, and Trang Luu. 2020. “Does Conservation Agriculture Change Labor Requirements? Evidence of Sustainable Intensification in Sub-Saharan Africa.” Journal of Agricultural Economics 71 (2): 556–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12353. 45 Teklewold, Hailemariam, Menale Kassie, Bekele Shiferaw, and Gunnar Köhlin. 2013. “Cropping System Diversification, Conservation Tillage and Modern Seed Adoption in Ethiopia: Impacts on Household Income, Agrochemical Use and Demand for Labor.” Ecological Economics 93 (September):85–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.05.002. 46 Baker, J, K Saxton, W Ritchie, Tim Chamen, Don Reicosky, F Ribeiro, Scott Justice, and Peter Hobbs. 2006. “No-Tillage Seeding in Conservation Agriculture.” No-Tillage Seeding in Conservation Agriculture: Second Edition, November. 47 Rajendran, N., Y. S. Tey, M. Brindal, S. F. Ahmad Sidique, M. N. Shamsudin, A. Radam, and A. H. I. 1Abdul Hadi. "Factors influencing the adoption of bundled sustainable agricultural practices: A systematic literature review." International Food Research Journal 23, no. 5 (2016).; Teklewold, Hailemariam, Menale Kassie, Bekele Shiferaw, and Gunnar Köhlin. 2013. “Cropping System Diversification, Conservation Tillage and Modern Seed Adoption in Ethiopia: Impacts on Household Income, Agrochemical Use and Demand for Labor.” Ecological Economics 93 (September):85–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.05.002. 48 Zhang, Shemei, Jiliang Ma, Liu Zhang, Zhanli Sun, Zhijun Zhao, and Nawab Khan. 2022. “Does Adoption of Honeybee Pollination Promote the Economic Value of Kiwifruit Farmers? Evidence from China.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19 (14): 8305. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148305. 49 Edralin, Don A., Gilbert C. Sigua, Manuel R. Reyes, Michael J. Mulvaney, and Susan S. Andrews. 2017. “Conservation Agriculture Improves Yield and Reduces Weeding Activity in Sandy Soils of Cambodia.” Agronomy for Sustainable Development 37 (5): 52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-017-0461-7. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ento.43.1.243 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.135 https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12353 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.05.002 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.05.002 https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148305 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-017-0461-7 Economic assessment of sustainable management approaches and technologies in agriculture: A systematic literature review | Page 15 of 21 CGIAR Acknowledgements This study was prepared to support preparation of the World Bank report Rooted: Agriculture Rooted in Biodiversity. It was supported by and benefited from the CGIAR Nature Positive Initiative and Multifunctional Landscapes Science Program. We are grateful for the financial support of the World Bank Group in preparing this study. The World Bank is not responsible for the content or accuracy of this study. References Adhikari, Keshav R., Khem R. Dahal, Zueng-Sang Chen, Yih-Chi Tan, and Jihn-Sung Lai. 2017. “Rice–Wheat Cropping System: Tillage, Mulch, and Nitrogen Effects on Soil Carbon Sequestration and Crop Productivity.” Paddy and Water Environment 15 (4): 699–710. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10333-015-0511-1. Ancillotto, Leonardo, Massimiliano Borrello, Francesco Caracciolo, Fabio Dartora, Michela Ruberto, Rosario Rummo, Chiara Scaramella, Arturo Odore, Antonio Pietro Garonna, and Danilo Russo. 2024. “A Bat a Day Keeps the Pest Away: Bats Provide Valuable Protection from Pests in Organic Apple Orchards.” Journal for Nature Conservation 78 (March):126558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2024.126558. Barbeau, Christine D., Maren Oelbermann, Jim D. Karagatzides, and Leonard J. S. Tsuji. 2015. “Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change: Producing Potatoes (Solanum Tuberosum L.) and Bush Beans (Phaseolus Vulgaris L.) for Improved Food Security and Resilience in a Canadian Subarctic First Nations Community.” Sustainability 7 (5): 5664–81. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7055664. Behera, U. K., and J. France. 2016. “Chapter Four - Integrated Farming Systems and the Livelihood Security of Small and Marginal Farmers in India and Other Developing Countries.” In Advances in Agronomy, edited by Donald L. Sparks, 138:235–82. Advances in Agronomy. Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.agron.2016.04.001. Benjamin, Emmanuel O., Oreoluwa Ola, and Gertrud Buchenrieder. 2018. “Does an Agroforestry Scheme with Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) Economically Empower Women in Sub-Saharan Africa?” Ecosystem Services 31 (June):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.03.004. Boschiero, Martina, Valeria De Laurentiis, Carla Caldeira, and Serenella Sala. 2023. “Comparison of Organic and Conventional Cropping Systems: A Systematic Review of Life Cycle Assessment Studies.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 102 (September):107187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2023.107187. Caicedo-Vargas, Carlos, David Pérez-Neira, Julio Abad-González, and David Gallar. 2022. “Assessment of the Environmental Impact and Economic Performance of Cacao Agroforestry Systems in the Ecuadorian Amazon Region: An LCA Approach.” Science of The Total Environment 849 (November):157795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157795. Clark, Michael, and David Tilman. 2017. “Comparative Analysis of Environmental Impacts of Agricultural Production Systems, Agricultural Input Efficiency, and Food Choice.” Environmental Research Letters 12 (6): 064016. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6cd5. Connor, David J. 2024. “Analysis of Farming Systems Establishes the Low Productivity of Organic Agriculture and Inadequacy as a Global Option for Food Supply.” Npj Sustainable Agriculture 2 (1): 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44264-023-00009-7. Darras, Kevin F. A., Marife D. Corre, Greta Formaglio, Aiyen Tjoa, Anton Potapov, Fabian Brambach, Kibrom T. Sibhatu, et al. 2019. “Reducing Fertilizer and Avoiding Herbicides in Oil Palm Plantations—Ecological and Economic Valuations.” Frontiers in Forests and Global Change 2 (November). https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2019.00065. Das, Anup, D. P. Patel, Manoj Kumar, G. I. Ramkrushna, Atanu Mukherjee, Jayanta Layek, S. V. Ngachan, and Juri Buragohain. 2017. “Impact of Seven Years of Organic Farming on Soil and Produce Quality and Crop Yields in Eastern Himalayas, India.” Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 236 (January):142–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.09.007. “Experiences with Adopting the Catchment Approach in Sustainable Land Management: The Case of Kagera TAMP Tanzania.” n.d. In ResearchGate. Accessed December 4, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41238- 2_21. Fahmi, Mustafa Kamil Mahmoud, Dafa-Alla Mohamed Dafa-Alla, Markku Kanninen, and Olavi Luukkanen. 2018. “Impact of Agroforestry Parklands on Crop Yield and Income Generation: Case Study of Rainfed Farming in the Semi-Arid Zone of Sudan.” Agroforestry Systems 92 (3): 785–800. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-016-0048-3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10333-015-0511-1 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2024.126558 https://doi.org/10.3390/su7055664 https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.agron.2016.04.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.03.004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2023.107187 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157795 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6cd5 https://doi.org/10.1038/s44264-023-00009-7 https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2019.00065 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.09.007 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41238-2_21 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41238-2_21 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-016-0048-3 CGIAR Economic assessment of sustainable management approaches and technologies in agriculture: A systematic literature review | Page 16 of 21 Farnworth, Cathy Rozel, Clare Stirling, Tek B. Sapkota, M. L. Jat, Michael Misiko, and Simon Attwood. 2017. “Gender and Inorganic Nitrogen: What Are the Implications of Moving towards a More Balanced Use of Nitrogen Fertilizer in the Tropics?” International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 15 (2): 136–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2017.1295343. Foley, Jonathan A., Navin Ramankutty, Kate A. Brauman, Emily S. Cassidy, James S. Gerber, Matt Johnston, Nathaniel D. Mueller, et al. 2011. “Solutions for a Cultivated Planet.” Nature 478 (7369): 337–42. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10452. Gonçalves, Claudia de Brito Quadros, Madalena Maria Schlindwein, and Gabrielli do Carmo Martinelli. 2021. “Agroforestry Systems: A Systematic Review Focusing on Traditional Indigenous Practices, Food and Nutrition Security, Economic Viability, and the Role of Women.” Sustainability 13 (20): 11397. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011397. Gualandi, Guido, and D. Williams-Gualandi. 2021. “Transformative Change Through Ecological Consumption and Production of Ancient Wheat Varieties in Tuscany, Italy.” In Fostering Transformative Change for Sustainability in the Context of Socio-Ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS), edited by Maiko Nishi, Suneetha M. Subramanian, Himangana Gupta, Madoka Yoshino, Yasuo Takahashi, Koji Miwa, and Tomoko Takeda, 95–114. Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-6761-6_6. Han, Ruifeng, Danni Yang, Danial Hassani, Xiaoli Wang, Xiaosong Liu, and Danfeng Huang. 2017. “Evaluation of the Yield, Nitrogen Use Efficiency and Adaptation in Pakchoi Cultivars under Organic and Conventional Management Systems during Two Successive Seasons.” Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B — Soil & Plant Science 67 (1): 85–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/09064710.2016.1225812. Hu, Liangliang, Liang Guo, Lufeng Zhao, Xiaoyu Shi, Weizheng Ren, Jian Zhang, Jianjun Tang, and Xin Chen. 2020. “Productivity and the Complementary Use of Nitrogen in the Coupled Rice-Crab System.” Agricultural Systems 178 (February):102742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102742. Issahaku, Gazali, and Awudu Abdulai. 2020. “Sustainable Land Management Practices and Technical and Environmental Efficiency among Smallholder Farmers in Ghana.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 52 (1): 96–116. https://doi.org/10.1017/aae.2019.34. Jamil, Ihsan, Wen Jun, Bushra Mughal, Junaid Waheed, Hadi Hussain, and Muhammad Waseem. 2021. “Agricultural Innovation: A Comparative Analysis of Economic Benefits Gained by Farmers under Climate Resilient and Conventional Agricultural Practices.” Land Use Policy 108 (September):105581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105581. Jena, Pradyot Ranjan, Purna Chandra Tanti, and Keshav Lall Maharjan. 2023. “Determinants of Adoption of Climate Resilient Practices and Their Impact on Yield and Household Income.” Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 14 (December):100659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2023.100659. Jiang, Linlin, Yuan Chen, Xiaoqin Wang, Wenfang Guo, Yaqiong Bi, Chunhong Zhang, Jianhua Wang, and Minhui Li. 2022. “New Insights Explain That Organic Agriculture as Sustainable Agriculture Enhances the Sustainable Development of Medicinal Plants.” Frontiers in Plant Science 13 (September). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.959810. Kaihura, Fidelis, and Stefan Schlingloff. 2016. “Experiences with Adopting the Catchment Approach in Sustainable Land Management: The Case of Kagera TAMP Tanzania.” In Climate Change and Multi-Dimensional Sustainability in African Agriculture: Climate Change and Sustainability in Agriculture, edited by Rattan Lal, David Kraybill, David O. Hansen, Bal Ram Singh, Theodosy Mosogoya, and Lars Olav Eik, 395–409. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41238-2_21. Kannan, M., N. Bojan, J. Swaminathan, G. Zicarelli, D. Hemalatha, Y. Zhang, M. Ramesh, and C. Faggio. 2023. “Nanopesticides in Agricultural Pest Management and Their Environmental Risks: A Review.” International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 20 (September):10507–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-023-04795-y. Khatri-Chhetri, Arun, Jeetendra P. Aryal, Tek B. Sapkota, and Ritika Khurana. 2016. “Economic Benefits of Climate-Smart Agricultural Practices to Smallholder Farmers in the Indo-Gangetic Plains of India.” Current Science 110 (7): 1251–56. Kogan, M. 1998. “Integrated Pest Management: Historical Perspectives and Contemporary Developments.” Annual Review of Entomology 43:243–70. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ento.43.1.243. Kühling, Insa, Shohrukh Atoev, and Dieter Trautz. 2018. “Sustainable Intensification in Dryland Cropping Systems—Perspectives for Adaptions across the Western Siberian Grain Belt.” Agriculture 8 (5): 63. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture8050063. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2017.1295343 https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10452 https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011397 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-6761-6_6 https://doi.org/10.1080/09064710.2016.1225812 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102742 https://doi.org/10.1017/aae.2019.34 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105581 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2023.100659 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.959810 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41238-2_21 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-023-04795-y https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ento.43.1.243 https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture8050063 Economic assessment of sustainable management approaches and technologies in agriculture: A systematic literature review | Page 17 of 21 CGIAR Kuila, Debashis, and Somdatta Ghosh. 2022. “Aspects, Problems and Utilization of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal (AM) Application as Bio-Fertilizer in Sustainable Agriculture.” Current Research in Microbial Sciences 3 (January):100107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crmicr.2022.100107. Kurniawan, Andreas Hendracipta, Satoru Sato, Weiguo Cheng, Putri Kusuma Dewi, and Kazuhiko Kobayashi. 2021. “Animal Abundance and Soil Properties Affected by Long-Term Organic Farming in Rice Paddies in a Typical Japanese Yatsuda Landscape.” Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 193 (1): 273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-020-08813-1. Lan, Le, Gustavo Sain, Stanislaw Czaplicki, Nora Guerten, Kelvin Mashisia Shikuku, Godefroy Grosjean, and Peter Läderach. 2018. “Farm-Level and Community Aggregate Economic Impacts of Adopting Climate Smart Agricultural Practices in Three Mega Environments.” PLOS ONE 13 (11): e0207700. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207700. Luo, Xing, Kangning Xiong, Juan Zhang, and Dong Chen. 2021. “A Study on Optimal Agroforestry Planting Patterns in the Buffer Zone of World Natural Heritage Sites.” Sustainability 13 (20): 11544. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011544. Meng, Fanqiao, Yuhui Qiao, Wenliang Wu, Pete Smith, and Steffanie Scott. 2017. “Environmental Impacts and Production Performances of Organic Agriculture in China: A Monetary Valuation.” Journal of Environmental Management 188 (March):49–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.11.080. Meyer-Aurich, Andreas. 2005. “Economic and Environmental Analysis of Sustainable Farming Practices – a Bavarian Case Study.” Agricultural Systems 86 (2): 190–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2004.09.007. Moher, David, Alessandro Liberati, Jennifer Tetzlaff, Douglas G. Altman, and PRISMA Group. 2010. “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement.” International Journal of Surgery (London, England) 8 (5): 336–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007. Murtaza, Ghulam Murtaza Ghulam, Siraj Bashir, and Abdul Khaliq. 2021. “Barriers in Adopting Sustainable Agricultural Practices (SAPs) under Changing Climate in Balochistan, Pakistan.” Pakistan Journal of Applied Social Sciences 12 (1): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.46568/pjass.v12i1.542. Mutenje, Munyaradzi Junia, Cathy Rozel Farnworth, Clare Stirling, Christian Thierfelder, Walter Mupangwa, and Isaiah Nyagumbo. 2019. “A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Climate-Smart Agriculture Options in Southern Africa: Balancing Gender and Technology.” Ecological Economics 163 (September):126–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.05.013. Naab, Jesse B., George Y. Mahama, Iddrisu Yahaya, and P. V. V. Prasad. 2017. “Conservation Agriculture Improves Soil Quality, Crop Yield, and Incomes of Smallholder Farmers in North Western Ghana.” Frontiers in Plant Science 8 (June). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.00996. Nkonya, Ephraim, Jawoo Koo, Edward Kato, and Timothy Johnson. 2018. “Climate Risk Management through Sustainable Land and Water Management in Sub-Saharan Africa.” In Climate Smart Agriculture : Building Resilience to Climate Change, edited by Leslie Lipper, Nancy McCarthy, David Zilberman, Solomon Asfaw, and Giacomo Branca, 445–76. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61194-5_19. Oyetunde-Usman, Zainab, Kehinde Oluseyi Olagunju, and Oyinlola Rafiat Ogunpaimo. 2021. “Determinants of Adoption of Multiple Sustainable Agricultural Practices among Smallholder Farmers in Nigeria.” International Soil and Water Conservation Research 9 (2): 241–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2020.10.007. Parra-Paitan, Claudia, and Peter H. Verburg. 2022. “Accounting for Land Use Changes beyond the Farm-Level in Sustainability Assessments: The Impact of Cocoa Production.” Science of The Total Environment 825 (June):154032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154032. Pashaei Kamali, Farahnaz, Miranda P. M. Meuwissen, Imke J. M. de Boer, Corina E. van Middelaar, Adonis Moreira, and Alfons G. J. M. Oude Lansink. 2017. “Evaluation of the Environmental, Economic, and Social Performance of Soybean Farming Systems in Southern Brazil.” Journal of Cleaner Production, Cleaner production towards a sustainable transition, 142 (January):385–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.135. Perrot, Thomas, Vincent Bretagnolle, and Sabrina Gaba. 2022. “Environmentally Friendly Landscape Management Improves Oilseed Rape Yields by Increasing Pollinators and Reducing Pests.” Journal of Applied Ecology 59 (7): 1825–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.14190. Pham, Huong-Giang, Swee-Hoon Chuah, and Simon Feeny. 2021. “Factors Affecting the Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Practices: Findings from Panel Data for Vietnam.” Ecological Economics 184 (June):107000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107000. Ravi, V., G. Suja, R. Saravanan, and Sanket J. More. 2021. “Advances in Cassava-Based Multiple-Cropping Systems.” In Horticultural Reviews, 153–232. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119750802.ch3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crmicr.2022.100107 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-020-08813-1 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207700 https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011544 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.11.080 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2004.09.007 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007 https://doi.org/10.46568/pjass.v12i1.542 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.05.013 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.00996 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61194-5_19 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2020.10.007 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154032 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.135 https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.14190 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107000 https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119750802.ch3 CGIAR Economic assessment of sustainable management approaches and technologies in agriculture: A systematic literature review | Page 18 of 21 Reis, Júlio César dos, Geraldo Stachetti Rodrigues, Inácio de Barros, Renato de Aragão Ribeiro Rodrigues, Rachael D. Garrett, Judson Ferreira Valentim, Mariana Y. T. Kamoi, Miqueias Michetti, Flávio Jesus Wruck, and Saulo Rodrigues-Filho. 2023. “Fuzzy Logic Indicators for the Assessment of Farming Sustainability Strategies in a Tropical Agricultural Frontier.” Agronomy for Sustainable Development 43 (1): 8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593- 022-00858-5. Rezgui, Ferdaous, Adolfo Rosati, Fatima Lambarraa-Lehnhardt, Carsten Paul, and Moritz Reckling. 2024. “Assessing Mediterranean Agroforestry Systems: Agro-Economic Impacts of Olive Wild Asparagus in Central Italy.” European Journal of Agronomy 152 (January):127012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2023.127012. Riar, Amritbir, Lokendra S. Mandloi, Randhir S. Poswal, Monika M. Messmer, and Gurbir S. Bhullar. 2017. “A Diagnosis of Biophysical and Socio-Economic Factors Influencing Farmers’ Choice to Adopt Organic or Conventional Farming Systems for Cotton Production.” Frontiers in Plant Science 8 (July). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01289. Sardar, Asif, Adiqa K. Kiani, and Yasemin Kuslu. 2021. “Does Adoption of Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA) Practices Improve Farmers’ Crop Income? Assessing the Determinants and Its Impacts in Punjab Province, Pakistan.” Environment, Development and Sustainability 23 (7): 10119–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020- 01049-6. Schmitt, Laetitia Helene Marie, and Cecile Brugere. 2013. “Capturing Ecosystem Services, Stakeholders’ Preferences and Trade-Offs in Coastal Aquaculture Decisions: A Bayesian Belief Network Application.” PloS One 8 (10): e75956. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075956 Suleimenov, Mekhlis, Zheksenbai Kaskarbayev, Kanat Akshalov, and Aibek Tulegenov. 2016. “Principles of Conservation Agriculture in Continental Steppe Regions.” In Novel Methods for Monitoring and Managing Land and Water Resources in Siberia, edited by Lothar Mueller, Askhad K. Sheudshen, and Frank Eulenstein, 667–79. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24409-9_30. Tuomisto, H. L., I. D. Hodge, P. Riordan, and D. W. Macdonald. 2012. “Does Organic Farming Reduce Environmental Impacts?--A Meta-Analysis of European Research.” Journal of Environmental Management 112 (December):309–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.08.018. Tziolas, Emmanouil, Stefanos Ispikoudis, Konstantinos Mantzanas, Dimitrios Koutsoulis, and Anastasia Pantera. 2022. “Economic and Environmental Assessment of Olive Agroforestry Practices in Northern Greece.” Agriculture 12 (6): 851. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12060851. Vastola, Antonella, Pandi Zdruli, Mario D’Amico, Gioacchino Pappalardo, Mauro Viccaro, Francesco Di Napoli, Mario Cozzi, and Severino Romano. 2017. “A Comparative Multidimensional Evaluation of Conservation Agriculture Systems: A Case Study from a Mediterranean Area of Southern Italy.” Land Use Policy 68 (November):326–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.07.034. Xu, Qiang, Kelin Hu, Hongyuan Zhang, Hui Han, and Ji Li. 2020. “Organic Vegetable Cultivation Reduces Resource and Environmental Costs While Increasing Farmers’ Income in the North China Plain.” Agronomy 10 (3): 361. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10030361. Yin, Yanshu, Yingnan Zhang, Shu Wang, Ke Xu, Yang Zhang, Thomas Dogot, and Changbin Yin. 2024. “Integrating Production, Ecology and Livelihood Confers an Efficiency-Driven Farming System Based on the Sustainable Farmland Framework.” Agricultural Systems 220 (October):104049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2024.104049. Zhang, Shemei, Jiliang Ma, Liu Zhang, Zhanli Sun, Zhijun Zhao, and Nawab Khan. 2022. “Does Adoption of Honeybee Pollination Promote the Economic Value of Kiwifruit Farmers? Evidence from China.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19 (14): 8305. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148305. Annex Annex 1: Decision Criteria for article selection Criteria for systematic Review Search terms Economic assessment Economic viability Economic feasibility Economic evaluation Economic efficiency Financial assessment Financial viability Financial feasibility https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-022-00858-5 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-022-00858-5 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2023.127012 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01289 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-01049-6 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-01049-6 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075956 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24409-9_30 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.08.018 https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12060851 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.07.034 https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10030361 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2024.104049 https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148305 Economic assessment of sustainable management approaches and technologies in agriculture: A systematic literature review | Page 19 of 21 CGIAR Financial evaluation Financial efficiency Investment Cost effective Cost-effective Cost-benefit Benefit-cost Model Sustainable agricultural practice Sustainable agricultural approach Sustainable agricultural technology Sustainable agricultural management Sustainable agricultural solution Sustainable farm practice Sustainable farm approach Sustainable farm technologies Sustainable farm management Sustainable farm solution Sustainable production practice Sustainable production approach Sustainable production technology Sustainable production management) Sustainable production solution Sustainable land use practice Sustainable land use approach Sustainable land use technology Sustainable land use management Sustainable land use solution Agroforestry Bioeconomy Sustainable landscape practice Sustainable landscape approach Sustainable landscape technology Sustainable landscape management Sustainable landscape solution Environment Nature Biodiversity Agrobiodiversity Search logic/string (ABS(economic assessment*) OR ABS(economic* viab*) OR ABS(economic* feasib*) OR ABS(economic evaluat*) OR ABS(economic efficienc*) OR ABS(financial assessment*) OR ABS(financial* viab*) OR ABS(financial* feasib*) OR ABS(financial evaluat*) OR ABS(financial efficiency) OR ABS(invest*) OR ABS(cost effective*) OR ABS(cost-effective*) OR ABS(cost-benefit) OR ABS(benefit-cost) OR ABS(model*)) AND (ABS(sustainable agricultur* practice*) OR ABS(sustainable agricultur* approach*) OR ABS(sustainable agricultur* technolog*) OR ABS(sustainable agricultur* management) OR ABS(sustainable agricultur* solution*) OR ABS(sustainable farm* practice*) OR ABS(sustainable farm* approach*) OR ABS(sustainable farm* technolog*) OR ABS(sustainable farm* management) OR ABS(sustainable farm* solution*) OR ABS(sustainable production practice*) OR ABS(sustainable production approach*) OR ABS(sustainable production technolog*) OR ABS(sustainable production management) OR ABS(sustainable production solution*) OR ABS(sustainable land use practice*) OR ABS(sustainable land use approach*) OR ABS(sustainable land use technolog*) OR ABS(sustainable land use management) OR ABS(sustainable land use solution*) OR ABS(agroforestry) OR ABS(bioeconomy ) OR ABS(sustainable landscape practice*) OR ABS(sustainable landscape approach*) OR ABS(sustainable landscape technolog*) OR ABS(sustainable landscape management) OR ABS(sustainable landscape solution*)) AND ABS((environment OR nature) AND (biodiversity OR agrobiodiversity)) AND PUBYEAR > 2004 AND PUBYEAR < 2025 AND) Search engines Scopus Web of Science Google scholar EconLit Inclusion criteria Subject areas: CGIAR Economic assessment of sustainable management approaches and technologies in agriculture: A systematic literature review | Page 20 of 21 ➢ Social science and humanities ➢ Environmental sciences ➢ Natural sciences Document of type (included all categories): ➢ Review articles ➢ Early access/In press ➢ Book chapter ➢ Review ➢ Data paper ➢ Editorial material Timeframe: ➢ 2005 – 2024 Language: ➢ English Scope: ➢ Global Screening decision for articles Two-level screening based on inclusion/exclusion criteria: ➢ Title, Abstract and Keywords ➢ Full Text Last search date March 18, 2024 Annex 2: PRISMA diagram Studies included in review (n = 58) Id e n ti fi c a ti o n Studies screened (n = 1021) Studies sought for retrieval (n = 209) Studies assessed for eligibility (n = 209) References removed (n = 496) Duplicates identified manually (n = 2) Duplicates identified by Covidence (n = 494) Studies excluded (n = 812) Studies not retrieved (n = 0) Studies excluded (n = 151) Wrong indication (n = 147) In c lu d e d S c re e n in g Studies from databases/registers (n = 1517) Scopus (n = 888) Web of Science (n = 586) EconLit (n=23) Google Scholar (n = 20) Economic assessment of sustainable management approaches and technologies in agriculture: A systematic literature review | Page 21 of 21 CGIAR