The rapid growth of the global population, changing living standards, and accelerated socioeconomic development have led to significant land-use changes, resulting in increased land fragmentation. This fragmentation reduces both land and labor productivity, thereby threatening agricultural sustainability (Chen et al., 2024). The challenge is particularly pronounced in developing countries, where weak agricultural management systems, poor infrastructure, and extreme land fragmentation not only increase the cost of agricultural production but also reduce the availability of high-quality farmland. These challenges undermine farmers’ ability to sustain livelihoods and hinder efforts to diversify household income sources (Wang et al., 2022).

To address these challenge, promoting green development and advancing the green transformation of agricultural practices have become essential strategies to resolve structural imbalances in agricultural supply and improve sustainability outcomes (Horlings and Marsden, 2011). Historically, agricultural productivity gains have relied heavily on chemical inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides. While these inputs have contributed to food security, they have also degraded soil fertility and caused environmental pollution (Hossain et al., 2022), ultimately compromising long-term sustainability. In response to the dual pressures of environmental degradation and the demand for economic growth, global attention is shifting toward green agricultural development (Li et al., 2023). Sustainable farming practices such as integrated pest management, organic farming, conservation tillage, crop rotation, precision agriculture, and agroforestry are increasingly being promoted to reduce chemical dependence, improve soil health, and enhance biodiversity. As farmers’ decisions are central to agricultural production, their adoption of green practices is crucial for transitioning from conventional to sustainable farming models (Zhang and Zhao, 2024). However, severe land fragmentation poses significant barriers to the implementation of such green practices, complicating this transition.

The traditional resource-intensive and environmentally harmful agricultural model is no longer viable (Dogaru et al., 2024). Consequently, a growing body of research has explored farmers’ green production behavior from both theoretical and empirical perspectives (Xu et al., 2024; Li et al., 2024). Green production emphasizes “resource conservation, environmental friendliness, ecological preservation, and product safety” through a range of practices including protective tillage before planting, green technologies during cultivation, and sustainable land management after harvest (Li et al., 2020). Prior studies highlight multiple factors influencing green behavior, such as farmers’ resource endowments, environmental attributes, and policy environments (Li et al., 2020). The scale of landholding also shapes production goals and input preferences, affecting willingness to adopt green technologies.

Moderate land consolidation can enhance production efficiency, reduce transaction costs, and promote environmentally friendly practices (Lu et al., 2018). However, land fragmentation complicates such scale-based strategies. Most studies argue that land fragmentation increases costs, decreases output, reduces land-use efficiency, and impedes the adoption of modern technologies, thereby constraining sustainable agricultural development (Wang et al., 2023; Paul and wa Gĩthĩnji, 2018). In contrast, some scholars suggest that fragmentation can promote crop diversification, labor flexibility, and risk mitigation in monoculture systems (Lu et al., 2019; Manjunatha et al., 2013). Others identify a complex, nonlinear relationship between land fragmentation and production efficiency, influenced by crop types and farmers’ off-farm employment (Sui et al., 2022).

Despite progress in understanding land fragmentation and agricultural practices, several important gaps remain. The relationship between varying degrees of land fragmentation and farmers’ adoption of green production behavior is still unclear. Moreover, the underlying mechanisms, threshold effects, and contextual factors influencing this relationship have not been fully explored. Particularly, little research has examined how livelihood strategies mediate this relationship or how farmers’ resource endowments (human, economic, and social capital) might moderate the effects of fragmentation. Addressing these gaps is crucial for designing effective policies to promote sustainable agricultural development in fragmented land contexts.

This study fills important gaps in the literature by analyzing how land fragmentation affects smallholder farmers’ adoption of green production practices in Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan provinces. Drawing on survey data collected in 2023, the research employs threshold effect models, along with mediation and moderation analyses, to explore the nonlinear impact of land fragmentation. It further examines the mediating role of livelihood strategies, the moderating influence of farmers’ resource endowments, and variations across generations. This research is particularly important as it provides a nuanced understanding of the challenges land fragmentation poses to sustainable agriculture an increasingly urgent issue in developing regions. In addressing these issues, the study seeks to answer key research questions: How does land fragmentation influence farmers’ adoption of green production practices? Is there a nonlinear (threshold) relationship between land fragmentation and green agricultural behavior? Do livelihood strategies mediate the relationship between land fragmentation and green production practices? And do farmers’ resource endowments such as land quality, financial investment, and access to technical services moderate this relationship? By integrating multiple analytical approaches, the study offers practical insights for policymakers and development agencies aiming to promote green farming in contexts of fragmented landholdings.

The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 reviews the empirical literature; Section 3 presents the theoretical framework and hypotheses; Section 4 outlines the research methodology; Section 5 discusses the results; Section 6 provides the analysis and interpretation; and Section 7 concludes with a summary and policy recommendations.

Research on land fragmentation and sustainable agriculture explores how the fragmentation of land ownership affects farmers’ ability to adopt eco-friendly practices and increase productivity. Fragmentation, particularly prevalent in developing countries, limits economies of scale and makes efficient use of inputs more challenging. Smaller, dispersed holdings require more labor, increasing costs and straining farmers’ resources, which in turn hinders their ability to invest in and adopt green technologies. This disjointed land structure complicates sustainability efforts by limiting practices such as resource conservation, organic farming, and quality assurance that are critical to increasing agricultural resilience and environmental health (Rahman and Rahman, 2009; Tan et al., 2010).

Historically, agricultural development has relied heavily on chemical fertilizers and pesticides to increase food production, but over time, this approach has led to environmental degradation and worsening soil health (Tilman et al., 2002; Matson et al., 1997). In response, sustainable agriculture has gained momentum, with green production technologies becoming viable alternatives. These technologies aim to reduce reliance on hazardous inputs and increase environmental responsibility through methods such as waste reduction, ecological monitoring, and resource-saving agricultural practices (Pretty et al., 2018). However, the shift to green agriculture is often fragmented and inconsistent, creating structural challenges that growers must address to achieve truly sustainable farming systems.

The study highlights the critical role of land ownership size in influencing the adoption of green farming practices. Moderate land expansion can streamline operations, reduce transaction costs, and increase the efficiency needed to implement environmentally sustainable practices (Giang et al., 2019; Kadigi et al., 2017). Conversely, excessive land fragmentation increases operating costs, complicates technology adoption, and hinders the transition to modern agricultural methods (Su et al., 2024). Nonetheless, smaller plots offer unique advantages, such as supporting crop diversification, reducing risk, and increasing labor adaptability (Tan et al., 2006; Wang et al., 2020). For instance, small-scale systems enable farmers to efficiently adjust their labor allocation, select crops suitable for different soil conditions, and avoid the risks of monocultures a flexibility that could prove valuable in areas vulnerable to climate change or market fluctuations (Di Falco and Chavas, 2009).

The complex relationship between land fragmentation and green agriculture follows a non-linear pattern, with evidence that an initial increase in fragmentation can lead to positive outcomes. However, beyond a certain threshold, these benefits diminish, forming an inverted “U”-shaped association (Qiu et al., 2020). This suggests that the level of fragmentation influences green adoption behavior, with an optimal scope of fragmentation supporting sustainable practices. However, exceeding this range can lead to inefficiencies and undermine economies of scale, ultimately hindering the adoption of green practices by increasing operational challenges and reducing resource efficiency (Su et al., 2024).

Further investigation revealed that farmers’ adoption of green practices is largely influenced by their livelihood strategies, resource availability, and support policies. Livelihood strategies, especially those that incorporate off-farm employment, can provide supplementary income, thereby reducing farmers’ reliance on intensive land use and promoting the adoption of sustainable practices. Furthermore, resource endowments, including financial capital, credit access, and machinery ownership, play a crucial role in overcoming the challenges posed by land fragmentation. These resources enable farmers to invest in sustainable technologies, optimize operations on dispersed plots, and ultimately reduce costs associated with dispersed land management (Marenya and Barrett, 2007; Feyisa, 2020).

The literature highlights the need for a deeper exploration of how land fragmentation affects green agricultural practices, particularly through livelihood strategies and resource endowments that may amplify or mitigate these effects. Specifically, research should aim to clarify how the impact of fragmentation on sustainable practices shifts from beneficial to harmful. This study addresses these gaps by examining the complex, non-linear effects of fragmentation on green practices in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan provinces of Pakistan. With this focus, it provides actionable insights into optimizing farmer behavior toward sustainable development, even amid structural barriers such as fragmented land ownership. These findings not only enhance our understanding of promoting green agriculture adoption but also highlight the importance of integrated land use planning and resource support. These strategies are critical to achieving sustainable agriculture and ensuring that farmers can balance productivity with ecological responsibility in areas where land fragmentation is common.

This study provides empirical evidence of the complex relationship between land fragmentation and farmers’ adoption of green production practices, contributing to the growing body of literature on sustainable agriculture and land tenure dynamics. The findings reveal an inverted U-shaped relationship, indicating that while moderate land fragmentation can encourage the adoption of green farming techniques, excessive fragmentation creates substantial barriers to sustainable agricultural development. This nuanced perspective advances current understanding by highlighting a threshold effect rather than a simple linear relationship, consistent with emerging research on land use patterns and environmental outcomes (Xu et al., 2016). One key insight is that land fragmentation initially facilitates green production practices by fostering farm diversification, enhancing risk distribution, and encouraging sustainable land use strategies. These mechanisms have been documented by various scholars who find that smaller, diversified plots can reduce the risk of crop failure and promote environmentally friendly techniques such as integrated pest management and organic fertilization (He et al., 2019; Shah and Wu, 2019). Moderate fragmentation often supports crop rotation and intercropping, which are well-known sustainable agricultural practices (Weißhuhn et al., 2017). However, as fragmentation intensifies, it disrupts farm operations, increases transaction and management costs, and limits the efficient allocation of inputs, thus discouraging the adoption of green practices. This negative impact aligns with findings by Hao et al. (2023) and Chi et al. (2022), who emphasize the diminishing returns of fragmentation on farm productivity and technology uptake due to coordination difficulties and labor inefficiencies.

The observed threshold effect suggests that policy interventions aimed at land consolidation should balance the benefits of diversification with the need to reduce excessive fragmentation. This echoes policy discussions in rural development contexts emphasizing “optimal plot size” for sustainable intensification (Fao, 2019). The mediating role of livelihood strategies in shaping green practice adoption is in line with Huang et al. (2022), who find that off-farm employment reduces farmers’ engagement with environmentally sustainable activities by diverting labor and financial resources away from farming. This dual livelihood perspective is critical, as it highlights how rural households balance economic security with environmental stewardship (Ellis, 2000). Moreover, livelihood diversification itself can be a risk management strategy, but may simultaneously reduce incentives for adopting practices that require sustained labor and capital investment (Deininger and Olinto, 2001). This study also underscores the moderating effects of resource endowments such as land quality, financial capital, and access to technical support on mitigating the negative impacts of fragmentation. Sui and Gao (2023) similarly report that resource availability cushions farmers from land constraints by enabling access to inputs and knowledge critical for green technology adoption. This finding resonates with broader agricultural innovation system literature emphasizing that financial and institutional support structures are vital for overcoming adoption barriers (Campuzano et al., 2023).

Generational differences further shape adoption behavior, with younger farmers demonstrating greater adaptability to fragmented land structures through the use of modern farming techniques and technologies (Nigussie et al., 2017). This generational effect echoes study by Pretty et al. (2011), which highlight the role of education, risk tolerance, and openness to innovation among younger farmers in driving sustainable agriculture transitions. In contrast, older farmers, often reliant on traditional knowledge and practices, may require targeted training and support to overcome barriers to green production.

Despite the statistical significance of our results, the relatively low explanatory power (R² generally under 0.1) reflects the inherent complexity of modeling farmer behavior in smallholder contexts. Such outcomes are common due to the multifaceted influences of socio-economic, cultural, institutional, and psychological factors that are difficult to fully capture quantitatively (Marenya and Barrett, 2007). Possible omitted variables include access to extension services, local environmental regulations, market conditions, social norms, and intrinsic motivations such as environmental awareness or risk attitudes (Feyisa, 2020). The inclusion of these dimensions could enhance future model performance. The cross-sectional nature of our data limits causal inference and the ability to observe behavioral dynamics over time, a limitation shared by many adoption studies (Pickles and Davies, 1989). Longitudinal or panel data approaches would better capture the evolution of adoption decisions in response to changing land and livelihood conditions (Gebru et al., 2021). Additionally, while we use instrumental variables to address endogeneity, further validation using natural experiments or randomized controlled trials would strengthen causal claims (Duflo et al., 2007).

In line with Feyisa (2020), our findings emphasize that adoption decisions extend beyond economic rationality to include factors such as access to advisory services, social capital, and perceived sustainability benefits. Future research should integrate qualitative approaches to explore farmers’ attitudes, knowledge systems, and community engagement, which are critical to understanding and supporting sustainable agricultural transitions (Šūmane et al., 2018). In conclusion, this study provides a comprehensive understanding of how land fragmentation interacts with livelihood strategies and resource endowments to shape the adoption of green production practices. The inverted U-shaped relationship and the role of mediators and moderators offer valuable insights for designing policies that promote sustainable land use and rural development. Supporting farmers with diversified livelihood options, improved access to resources and services, and targeted generational interventions will be key to optimizing green practices in fragmented land systems.

This study contributes to the growing body of research on land fragmentation and sustainable agriculture by demonstrating that its effects on green production practices are non-linear. While moderate fragmentation can enhance adoption, excessive fragmentation eventually impedes sustainable farming methods. These findings underscore the importance of contextual factors, such as livelihood strategies, resource endowments, and generational differences, in shaping agricultural sustainability. By identifying the threshold where fragmentation transitions from beneficial to detrimental, this research informs optimal land use strategies. It highlights the need for balanced land management policies that promote sustainable agricultural practices while mitigating excessive fragmentation’s adverse effects. Furthermore, the study advocates for integrated policy approaches considering economic, environmental, and social dimensions to foster resilient farming systems.

First, policies should be tailored to address land fragmentation’s challenges at different levels. For smallholders, promoting precision agriculture and integrated land management strategies can optimize land use and productivity. For larger farms, encouraging intensive, technology-driven farming can mitigate fragmentation’s negative impacts. Second, supporting resource integration is crucial. Investments in standardized farmland development, financial incentives for green farming, and enhanced technical training can help farmers overcome fragmentation constraints. Expanding social services to support farmers transitioning to non-farm employment can also enhance household resilience. Third, addressing generational differences in agriculture is essential. Younger farmers should receive financial and technical support to adopt advanced agricultural technologies, while older farmers should benefit from rural knowledge-sharing networks and practical training. Strengthening intergenerational learning can promote the diffusion of sustainable farming techniques and improve agricultural efficiency. Finally, future research should employ panel data to capture long-term changes in land fragmentation’s impact on green production behaviors. Longitudinal studies can provide deeper insights into trends in fertilizer and pesticide use, biodiversity conservation, and soil management. Such research will refine land management policies and advance sustainable agricultural development strategies.

While this study provides valuable insights, some limitations exist. The cross-sectional data restricts long-term analysis, and future research should use panel data to track changes over time. Additionally, the relatively low R² values suggest that other factors, such as institutional support and market access, may influence green production behavior. Expanding the model with these variables could improve explanatory power. Lastly, as the study focuses on Pakistan, findings may not be directly generalizable to other regions. Comparative studies could enhance the broader applicability of these results.