A scoping review on incentives for adoption of sustainable agricultural practices and their outcomes

Growing pressure to achieve global food security while preventing environmental degradation requires transitioning agricultural systems toward sustainability, including practices such as crop rotation, cover crops, reduced tillage, integrated pest management, livestock–crop integration, agroforestry and precision farming. Sustainable agriculture can contribute directly to multiple SDGs. Adoption of these practices typically requires incentives and support from governments and other actors, but adoption is not binary and depends on programme conditions, farmer preferences, economics and culture, plus market trends. This review systematically evaluates the evidence on incentives for adoption of sustainable practices and their links to environmental, productivity and economic outcomes across market and non-market, regulatory and cross-compliance incentives, and considers broader demographic, social, environmental and economic factors influencing the incentive–adoption–outcome chain.

The review identifies gaps in the literature regarding interrelationships between incentives, adoption and outcomes. While many studies discuss incentives like payments for ecosystem services, certifications, taxes, technical support and regulatory measures, evidence on environmental outcomes is often qualitative and based on farmer perceptions. Regulatory approaches are less documented than market/non-market and cross-compliance mechanisms. There is a lack of randomized controlled trials and robust causal identification linking incentives to adoption and outcomes, highlighting the need for methods to detect causal pathways and quantify connections.

Following PRISMA-SCR and Joanna Briggs Institute guidance, the team conducted a comprehensive search across CAB Abstracts, Web of Science, Scopus, EconLit and grey literature using tested search strategies. After deduplication via Python scripts (using cosine similarity thresholds), 17,936 citations underwent title and abstract screening (initially double-blind, then a rapid single-screener approach after confirming substantial inter-rater reliability). Inclusion criteria required explicit focus on incentives for sustainable practices, adoption, and connections to outcomes (environmental, income/production/productivity/profits), and original research or reviews since 1994. From title/abstract screening, 1,792 articles advanced; 577 met inclusion for relevance. A stratified random sample of 99 citations was drawn using vectorization (smooth IDF, cosine distances) and Ward’s hierarchical clustering into 20 clusters to ensure topic coverage; 93 were available for full-text data extraction; 44 contained the complete incentive–adoption–outcome chain. Machine learning metadata aided topic tagging and clustering. Data extraction used a standardized template to record incentive types (market/non-market, regulatory, cross-compliance), outcomes (environmental, productivity, profitability), study design and quality. An evidence quality appraisal (scale 1–5) assessed research clarity, methodological justification and robustness. Additional tools included automated PDF retrieval scripts and the Covidence platform for screening; inter-rater reliability checks (Fleiss’ kappa ≈ 0.7) indicated substantial agreement.

- Programmes linked to short-term economic benefits have higher adoption than those solely targeting ecological services. - Long-term adoption is strongly motivated by farmers’ perceived positive outcomes for their farm or environment. - Technical assistance, training and extension services consistently increase adoption across incentive mechanisms. - Market and non-market incentives are the most prevalent; all three incentive categories (market/non-market, regulatory, cross-compliance) are used to achieve environmental outcomes. Profitability outcomes typically require balanced incentives; productivity outcomes are more market/non-market oriented. - Among the 44 full-text studies with full logic: incentives distribution was approximately 45% market/non-market, 30.4% cross-compliance, 24.6% regulatory; outcomes were 42.8% environmental, 32.5% profitability, 24.7% productivity. - Programme types in the broader set clustered into ecosystem, socioeconomic and technology categories, with 36% technical, 32% ecosystem and 32% socioeconomic. - Evidence quality: 23% scored 5, 32% scored 4, 39% scored 3; fewer than 10% scored below 3. There is strong evidence linking cross-compliance incentives to environmental outcomes and market/non-market incentives to profitability outcomes; regulatory approaches are less documented despite relatively strong methodologies. - Clear quantitative measurement of environmental outcomes is limited; many studies rely on qualitative perceptions. Few analyses connect the full chain from incentive to adoption to outcomes; no randomized controlled trials were found. - Adoption is influenced by farmer characteristics (income, assets, age, risk, education), biophysical conditions, institutional context and market trends. Voluntary programmes have uncertain uptake unless payments compensate opportunity costs; compulsory regulatory measures can reduce uncertainty if enforcement is effective.

Findings show that incentive design substantially affects adoption and outcomes: coupling incentives with short-term economic benefits drives initial uptake, while perceived long-term farm and environmental benefits sustain practices. Technical assistance and extension mitigate complexity and improve understanding, increasing take-up and retention across incentive types, particularly for regulatory instruments. The likelihood of adoption depends on whether incentives are voluntary or compulsory and on alignment with farmer preferences and opportunity costs. Broader contextual factors (institutions, markets, infrastructure, social protection) condition the effectiveness of incentives. Policymakers must address trade-offs among environmental objectives and between equity and efficiency: targeting wealthier landowners may yield larger environmental gains but can widen income disparities, while targeting vulnerable areas enhances additionality. Multipronged, integrated interventions aligning productivity, profitability and environmental goals are more prevalent and promising, but robust evidence on environmental impacts remains limited, underscoring the need for better measurement and causal identification.

This scoping review synthesizes evidence on how market/non-market, regulatory and cross-compliance incentives influence farmers’ adoption of sustainable practices and associated environmental, productivity and profitability outcomes. Key contributions include demonstrating the centrality of short-term economic benefits for adoption, the importance of perceived long-term benefits, and the critical role of technical assistance and tailored programme design. Future research should prioritize rigorous causal designs (including randomized controlled trials), improved measurement of environmental outcomes, and analyses of regulatory approaches’ scope and efficacy. Policy should employ combinations of incentives, keep instruments simple, tailor to farmer heterogeneity, plan for long time horizons, and create enabling environments. Better data on ecosystem service baselines and participation costs are needed to inform targeting, address trade-offs and enhance additionality.

- Limited quantitative measurement of environmental outcomes; many studies rely on qualitative farmer perceptions. - Few studies link the full incentive–adoption–outcome chain; lack of randomized controlled trials and robust causal identification strategies. - Regulatory approaches are less documented compared to market/non-market and cross-compliance mechanisms. - Time lags between adoption and observable outcomes complicate evaluation. - As a scoping review, evidence strength assessment was subjective (though structured), and the sample of full-logic papers (n=44) may limit generalizability of some patterns.