Agroforestry Systems

, Volume 75, Issue 2, pp 175–187 | Cite as

Identifying important biophysical and social determinants of on-farm tree growing in subsistence-based traditional agroforestry systems

Article

Abstract

Many expert-designed agroforestry projects enunciated in 1970s around the world, particularly in the developing countries, had uneven success due to inadequate adoption or abandonment after adoption. There are many empirical studies on factors affecting on-farm tree cultivation mainly where expert-designed agroforestry programmes were introduced but lacking in case of traditional agroforestry. Moreover, the concern to identify key factors influencing on-farm tree growing is gaining importance. The present study identifies key factors in on-farm tree growing based on investigation of traditional agroforestry using logistic regression approach. The study is based on household survey of 401 households located in Indian Western Himalaya. The factors affecting on-farm tree growing were grouped into: biophysical (included land use and infrastructural aspects) and social. Models predicting on-farm tree growing for each category were developed and key factors affecting on-farm tree growing in the respective category were identified. A composite model was also developed by combining biophysical and social factors. In the present study, farm size, agroclimatic zone, soil fertility, mobility and importance of tree for future generations respectively were the key factors which influenced tree growing. In contrast to many previous studies which considered either biophysical or social factors, the composite model in the present study reveals that both biophysical and social factors are simultaneously important in motivating the farmers to grow trees on their farms in traditional agroforestry. Moreover, the present study open vistas for using farmers’ experience and knowledge of adoption of agroforestry to stimulate on-farm tree growing. The wider implication of the study is that biophysical as well as social variables should be considered together in designing suitable agroforestry systems in various parts of the world.

Keywords

Logistic regression India Himalaya Traditional Social Biophysical Composite model Growers Non-growers 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The first author thanks Association of Commonwealth Universities for providing him Commonwealth Fellowship to carry out present study. The authors also thank University of Aberdeen for providing partial funding to carry field work in India. We also acknowledge the guidance of Prof K.J. Thomson and Dr. Tony Glendenning, University of Aberdeen in analysis of the data. The farmers of the study area deserve special mention for their keen participation in the study. The anonymous reviewer deserves special thanks for his keen and constructive criticism to improve the paper.

References

  1. Agarwal B (1986) Of social forestry and other tree-planting schemes. In: Agarwal B (ed) Cold hearths and barren slopes: the woodfuel crisis in the third world. Zed Books, London, pp 106–139Google Scholar
  2. Alexander MJ, Kidd AD (2000) Farmer’s capability and institutional incapacity in reclaiming disturbed land on the Jos Plateau, Nigeria. J Environ Manage 59:141–155. doi: 10.1006/jema.2000.0348 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burch WR Jr (1986) The uses of social science in agroforestry project design, implementation and evaluation. J Tree Sci 5:1–15Google Scholar
  4. Cernea MM (1992) A sociological framework: policy, environment and the social actors for tree planting. In: Sharma NP (ed) Managing the world’s forest: looking for the balance between conservation and development. Hunt, Iowa, pp 301–336Google Scholar
  5. Chambers R, Pacey A, Thrupp LA (1989) Farmer first: farmer innovation and agricultural research. Intermediate Technological Publications, London, p 279Google Scholar
  6. Christanty L, Iskandar J (1985) Development of decision making and management in traditional agroforestry: examples in West Java. In: Rao YS, Vergara NT, Lovelace GW (eds) Community forestry: socio-economic aspects, Regional Office for Asia and Pacific (RAPA). FAO, Bangkok, pp 199–214Google Scholar
  7. Critchley WRS (2000) Inquiry, initiative and inventiveness: farmer innovators in East Africa. Hydrol Oceans Atmos 25(3):285–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. de Foresta H, Michon G, Kusworo A (2000) Complex agroforests. ICRAF, Southeast Asia, Lecture Notes. ICRAF, Nairobi, p 14Google Scholar
  9. FAO (1986) Tree growing by rural people. FAO, Rome, p 130Google Scholar
  10. Fisher L, Bunch R (1996) Challenges in promoting forest patches in rural development efforts. In: Schelhas J, Greenberg R (eds) Forest patches in tropical landscape. Island Pressure, U.S.A, pp 381–400Google Scholar
  11. Forest Survey of India (FSI) (1999) State of forest report. Forest Survey of India (Ministry of Environment and Forests), Dehra Dun, p 113Google Scholar
  12. Mak S (2001) Continued innovation in a Cambodian rice-based farming system: farmer testing and recombination of new elements. Agric Syst 69:137–149. doi: 10.1016/S0308-521X(01)00022-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mercer D (2004) Adoption of agroforestry innovations in the tropics: A review. Agrofor Syst 58:311–328. doi: 10.1023/B:AGFO.0000029007.85754.70 Google Scholar
  14. Mercer DE, Miller RP (1998) Socio-economic research in agroforestry: progress, prospects, and priorities. Agrofor Syst 38:177–193. doi: 10.1023/A:1005964830133 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nair PKR (1998) Directions in tropical agroforestry research: past, present and future. Agrofor Syst 38:223–245. doi: 10.1023/A:1005943729654 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nair PKR, Dagar JC (1991) An approach to developing methodologies for evaluating agroforestry systems in India. Agrofor Syst 16:55–81. doi: 10.1007/BF00053197 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pattanayak SK, Mercer DE, Sills E, Yang J (2003) Taking stock of agroforestry adoption studies. Agrofor Syst 57:173–186. doi: 10.1023/A:1024809108210 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Raintree JB, Warner K (1986) Agroforestry pathways for intensification of shifting cultivation. Agrofor Syst 4:39–54. doi: 10.1007/BF01834701 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ruthenberg H (1980) Farming systems in the tropics, 3rd edn. Clarendon Press, Oxford, p 424Google Scholar
  20. Saxena NC, Ballabh V (1995) Farm forestry and the context of farming systems in South Asia. In: Saxena NC, Ballabh V (eds) Farm forestry in South Asia. Sage Publications, New Delhi, pp 23–50Google Scholar
  21. Scherr SJ (1994) Evaluation of agroforestry practices over time in the crop: livestock system of Western Kenya. In: Dvorák KA (ed) Social science research for agricultural technology development. Spatial and temporal dimensions. CAB International, Oxford, pp 119–143Google Scholar
  22. Sharma PD, Sharma SP, Ambiya SC (2000) An analysis of fuelwood extraction patterns in lower Shiwaliks of Himachal Pradesh. Indian J Soil Conserv 28:61–65Google Scholar
  23. Sinclair FL, Walker DH (1999) A utilitarian approach to the incorporation of local knowledge in agroforestry research and extension. In: Buck LK, Lassoie JP, Fernandes ECM (eds) Agroforestry in sustainable agriculture systems. CRC Press, LLC, USA, pp 245–275Google Scholar
  24. Singh RB (1999) Land use change, diversification of agriculture and agroforestry in Northwest India. In: Haque T (ed) Land use planning in India, Proceedings series, National Centre for Agricultural Economics and Policy Research, New Delhi, India, pp 122–130Google Scholar
  25. Sood KK (2003) Factors affecting tree growing in traditional agroforestry systems in Western Himalaya, India. Ph.D thesis (unpublished), University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK, p 376Google Scholar
  26. Sood KK, Sood S (2000) Social and agroforestry interventions for socio-economic and ecofriendly development around cement plant and limestone mining area in Western Himalaya. J Environ Pollut 7:17–22Google Scholar
  27. Tabachnick BG, Fidel LS (1996) Using multivariate statistics, 3rd edn. HarperCollins College Publishers, New York, p 880Google Scholar
  28. Verma KS, Mishra VK, Sharma SK (1989) Agroforestry in Himachal Pradesh: a case study. In: Singh RP, Ahlawat IPS, Saran G (eds) Agroforestry systems in India: Research and Development, pp 64–70. Papers presented in the National symposium on agroforestry systems in India, held at Central Institute for Dryland Agriculture, Hyderabad, 11–13 January, 1989. Indian Society of Agronomy, New DelhiGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of AgroforestrySher-e-Kashmir University of Agricutural Sciences and Technology-Jammu, Faculty of AgricultureJammuIndia
  2. 2.Kings CollegeCollege of Physical Sciences, University of AberdeenAberdeenScotland, UK

Personalised recommendations