ReviewGates open research2024
Informing climate-smart agriculture in low resource settings for practitioners: A review and analysis of interactive tools.
Review in Gates open research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Agricultural producers in developing countries are uniquely vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and have the least ability to adapt. While there is a growing consensus that more financing and resources are needed to address these impacts, information on how to direct funding and support adaptation is dispersed and difficult to find. Agricultural development stakeholders and investors can leverage increasingly available data from a range of online sources to inform their climate smart agriculture investments, but it is not always clear which data tools are easily accessible and which can support different aspects of their programs. Methods: This analysis aims to inform stakeholders how different tools can inform their climate smart investments. Hundreds of interactive tools were reviewed from multiple sources and a set of criteria was developed to simplify and elucidate the landscape of resources available that support adaptation and GHG mitigation for agricultural producers in low-income countries. The search strategy included a literature review, discussions with key stakeholders, and a review of existing databases of tools (e.g., NDC Partnership Toolbox). Results: Ultimately 29 tools were identified and compared in terms of how they address both climate risk, adaptation, and mitigation. The data sources behind the tools were also compared, and illustrative user groups were identified. Many valuable, easy-to-use tools exist offering non-climate experts' opportunities to gain insights into the relationship between climate and small-scale farming systems. However, the tools available are insufficient and should not be relied upon exclusively for informing investments. Conclusions: This review provides a valuable resource for those looking to inform investments and programming in small-scale agriculture. This set of tools can provide insights that can be leveraged in various ways for a wide range of users, but they also have considerable limitations. This review can help users understand how these tools can be useful and the types of additional context-specific and local information that should be sought.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.