Advertisement

Agroforestry Systems

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 29–39 | Cite as

Economic aspects of agroforestry

  • A. M. Filius
Article

Abstract

Agroforestry is analysed by means of economic concepts. The paper is mainly theoretical, since there are little adequate data to test the conceptual framework.

Agroforestry needs not be limited to integration of agriculture and forestry on a plot, but may also include integration on a holding. Design and evaluation of agroforestry systems require thorough knowledge of relationships between agriculture and forestry. Complementary and supplementary relationships, mainly resulting from biological factors, were identified, which make agroforestry an efficient system of land use.

Agroforestry can be an appropriate technology in areas with fragile ecosystems and subsistence farming. The objectives of participants in an agroforestry programme may not coincide with social objectives, and so do not lead to the socially optimum combination of agriculture and forestry. For that social optimum institutional arrangements will often be required.

Keywords

Conceptual Framework Optimum Combination Agroforestry System Biological Factor Institutional Arrangement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bish RL (1977) Environmental Resource Management: Public or private? In: Hardin G, Baden J, ed, Managing the commons. San Francisco: Freeman, pp 217–228.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Christanty L, Priyono (1979) Measurement of photosynthesis in home-garden plants. Paper. V Int Symp Trop Ecol, Kuala Lumpur.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Combe J, Budowski G (1979) Classification of agroforestry techniques. Proc Symp Agrofor systems in Latin America. Turrialba, Costa Rica: CATIE, pp 17–47.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dasgupta AK, Pearce DW (1974) Cost-benefit analysis: Theory and practice. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Douglas JS, Hart RA de J (1976) Forest farming: Towards a solution to problems of world hunger and conservation. London: Watkins.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Duerr WA, Teeguarden DW, Christiansen NB, Gutenberg S (1979) Forest resource management. Philadelphia: Saunders.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dykstra DP (1980) Food and fuelwood: A preliminary mathematical programming analysis for an Ujamaa village in Tanzania. Paper. Nat Semin Agrofor. Univ. of Nairobi/ICRAF, Nairobi.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gordon HS (1954) The economic theory of a common property resource: The fishery. J. Pol Econ 62 (2): 124–142.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Greenland DJ (1975) Bringing the Green Revolution to the shifting cultivator. Science 190 (4217): 841–844.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Groenendijk L (1979) Cacao, schaduwbomen en bosprodukten: Een boslandbouwsysteem op de eilanden S. Tomé en Principle. Thesis. Dept. of Silviculture, Wageningen.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hardin G (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science 162: 1243–1248.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harwood RR, Price EC (1976) Multiple cropping in tropical Asia. In: Stelly M, ed, Multiple cropping. ASA Spec Publ no 27, Madison, pp 11–40.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hofstad O (1978) Preliminary evaluation of the taungya system for combined wood and food production in North-Eastern Tanzania. Division of Forestry, University of Dar es Salaam. Morogoro. Tanzania. Record no. 2.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    ICRAF (International Council for Research in Agroforestry) (1979) Newsletter 1 (1).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    King KFS, Chandler MT (1978) The waste lands: The programme of work of ICRAF. International Council for Research in Agroforestry, Nairobi.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kuyvenhoven A (1978) Economische waardering van aangepaste technologie. Econ-Stat Ber 63 (3179): 1153–1155.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    National Academy of Sciences. (1979) Tropical legumes: Resources for the future. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ostrom E (1977) Collective action and the tragedy of the commons. In: Hardin G, Baden J, ed, Managing the commons. San Francisco: Freeman, pp 173–181.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ostrom V, Ostrom E (1977) A theory for institutional analysis of common pool problems. In: Hardin G, Baden J, ed, Managing the commons. San Francisco: Freeman, pp. 157–172.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pierson CL (1974) Changes of farming systems in areas of shifting cultivation. In: Shifting cultivation and soil conservation in Africa. FAO, Soils Bull (Rome) 24: 325–336.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rae AN (1977) Crop management economics. London: Crosby Lockwood Staples.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Raintree JB (1981) Bioeconomic considerations in the design of agroforestry intercropping systems. Paper. Consult Meet Plant Res Agrofor, ICRAF, Nairobi.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ruthenberg H (1974) Agricultural aspects of shifting cultivation. In: Shifting cultivation and soil conservation in Africa. FAO, Soils Bull. (Rome) 24: 99–111.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Soekartiko B (1980) Experiences with intensified taungya on forest lands. In: Proc. Sem Experiences Agrofor on Java. Forestry Faculty, Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta, pp 141–158.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Squire L, van Tak HG (1975) Economic analysis of projects. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Upton M (1973) Farm management in Africa: The principles of production and planning. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wickens GE (1969) A study of Acacia albida Dal. Kew Bull 23 (2): 181–202.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wiersum KF (1981a) Outline of agroforestry concept. In: Wiersum KF, ed, Viewpoints on agroforestry. Departments of Forestry, Agricultural University, Wageningen.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wiersum KF, ed, (1981b) Viewpoints on agroforestry. Departments of Forestry, Agricultural University, Wageningen.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wileey RW (1975) The use of shade in coffee, cocoa and tea. Hortic Abstr 45 (12): 791–798.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Willey RW (1979) Intercropping — Its importance and research needs. Fields Crop Abstr 32 (1): 2–10, 32 (2): 73–85.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff/Dr W. Junk Publishers 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. M. Filius
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Forest ManagementAgricultural UniversityWageningen

Personalised recommendations