Agroforestry Systems

, Volume 76, Issue 1, pp 219–236 | Cite as

An evaluation of farmers’ experiences planting native trees in rural Panama: implications for reforestation with native species in agricultural landscapes

  • Eva J. Garen
  • Kristin Saltonstall
  • Jacob L. Slusser
  • Shane Mathias
  • Mark S. Ashton
  • Jefferson S. Hall
Article

Abstract

In the Republic of Panama, reforestation with native species is of great interest, but many landholders often do not participate in tree planting projects and little information exists about landholder interest in, or experiences with, native trees. This study evaluates the experiences of farmers participating in a native species reforestation initiative in rural Panama to identify lessons learned that can guide on-going or future tree planting efforts. Based on the results of a questionnaire administered to program participants and non-participants (n = 68), we found that trees are important to farmers for multiple reasons, primary a variety of environmental and economic benefits. No relationship between the size of landholdings or land tenure status and the desire to plant trees was found. All participants in the program considered their experience to be positive, few had problems with their plantations, and most were interested in planting more native trees. The program’s frequent and ongoing technical support was an important factor for farmers. These results indicate widespread interest in, and success with, planting native species and underscore the need to systematically examine farmers’ interests and perceptions when planning, implementing, and evaluating reforestation initiatives.

Keywords

On-farm trials Project evaluation Tree planting Agroforestry Silvopastoral Smallholder farmers PRORENA 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the farmers of Rio Hato and Los Santos for their participation and patience with this study. We are also grateful to PRORENA staff-members and affiliates who contributed to aspects of the design and implementation of this research, including Jairo Batista, Jose Deago, Brian Love, Emilio Mariscal, Anayansi Batista Vera, and Mark Wishnie. A special thank you to Dr. Amity Doolittle, Dr. Michael Dove, Bradford Gentry, and Helen Poulos from the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, as well as to Jose Manuel Perez, Dr. Rick Condit, and Dr. Stanley Heckadon for their guidance and input in various stages of this research. We also appreciate the efforts of Milton Sorano from STRI who produced the map for this analysis. Funding for this research was provided by the Agora Foundation and the Frank Levinson Family Foundation.

References

  1. Aguilar S, Condit R (2001) Use of native tree species by an Hispanic community in Panama. Econ Bot 55:223–235Google Scholar
  2. Albertin A, Nair PKR (2004) Farmers’ perspective on the role of shade trees in coffee production systems: an assessment from the Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica. Hum Ecol 32:443–463. doi: 10.1023/B:HUEC.0000043515.84334.76 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnold M (1997) Framing the issues. In: Arnold JEM, Dewees PA (eds) Farms, trees, and farmers: responses to agricultural intensification. Earthscan Publications Ltd, London, pp 3–17Google Scholar
  4. Arnold M, Dewees P (1998) Rethinking approaches to tree management by farmers. ODI Nat Res Perspec 26:1–9Google Scholar
  5. Bannister ME, Nair PKR (2003) Agroforestry adoption in Haiti: the importance of household and farm characteristics. Agrofor Syst 57:149–157. doi: 10.1023/A:1023973623247 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beer J (1991) Implementing on-farm agroforestry research: lessons learned in Talamanca, Costa Rica. Agrofor Syst 15:229–243. doi: 10.1007/BF00120190 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Craven D, Hall JS, Verjans JM (2008) Impacts of herbicide application and mechanical cleanings on growth and mortality of two timber species in S. spontaneum grasslands of the Panama Canal watershed. Restor Ecol. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-100x.2008.00408.x
  8. Current D, Scherr SJ (1995) Farmer costs and benefits from agroforestry and farm forestry projects in Central America and the Caribbean: implications for policy. Agrofor Syst 30:87–103. doi: 10.1007/BF00708915 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dagang ABK, Nair PKR (2003) Silvopastoral research and adoption in Central America: recent findings and recommendations for future directions. Agrofor Syst 59:149–155. doi: 10.1023/A:1026394019808 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Degrande A, Schreckenberg K, Mbosso C, Anegbeh P, Okafor V, Kanmegne J (2006) Farmers’ fruit tree-growing strategies in the humid forest zone of Cameroon and Nigeria. Agrofor Syst 67:159–175. doi: 10.1007/s10457-005-2649-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dove MR (1992) Foresters’ beliefs about farmers: a priority for social science research in social forestry. Agrofor Syst 17:13–41. doi: 10.1007/BF00122925 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dove MR (1997) The shift of tree cover from forests to farms in Pakistan: a long and broad view. In: Arnold JEM, Dewees PA (eds) Farms, trees, and farmers: responses to agricultural intensification. Earthscan Publications Ltd, London, pp 65–89Google Scholar
  13. Fink A (1995) How to analyze survey data. SAGE, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  14. Fischer A, Vasseur L (2000) The crisis in shifting cultivation practices and the promise of agroforestry: a review of the Panamanian experience. Biodivers Conserv 9:739–756. doi: 10.1023/A:1008939425511 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fischer A, Vasseur L (2002) Smallholder perceptions of agroforestry projects in Panama. Agrofor Syst 54:103–113. doi: 10.1023/A:1015047404867 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Godoy RA (1992) Determinants of smallholder commercial tree cultivation. World Dev 20:713–725. doi: 10.1016/0305-750X(92)90147-N CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Griscom HP, Ashton PMS, Berlyn GP (2005) Seedling survival and growth of native tree species in pastures: implications for dry tropical forest rehabilitation in central Panama. For Ecol Manag 218:306–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Griscom HP, Griscom BW, Ashton MS (2009) Forest regeneration from pasture in the dry tropics of Panama: effects of cattle, exotic grass, and forested riparia. Restor Ecol 17:117–126. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2007.00342.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hauff RD (1999) A case study assessment of agroforestry: the Panama Canal watershed. J Sustain For 8:39–51. doi: 10.1300/J091v08n03_04 Google Scholar
  20. Hecht S (1993) The logic of livestock and deforestation in Amazonia. BioSci 43:687–695. doi: 10.2307/1312340 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heckadon-Moreno S (1984) Panama’s expanding cattle front: the Santeño campesinos and the colonization of the forests, Dissertation, University of Essex, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  22. Hocking D, Hocking A, Islam K (1996) Trees on farms in Bangladesh. Agrofor Syst 33:231–247. doi: 10.1007/BF00055425 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lamb D, Erskine P, Parrotta JA (2005) Restoration of degraded tropical forest landscapes. Science 310:1628–1632. doi: 10.1126/science.1111773 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Love B (2008) Characterization of tree, maize, and upland rice genetic resources in the Azuero region of Panama. Ph.D Thesis Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, University of AlbertaGoogle Scholar
  25. Love B, Spaner D (2005) A survey of small-scale farmers using trees in pastures in Herrera Province, Panama. J Sustain For 20:37–65. doi: 10.1300/J091v20n03_03 Google Scholar
  26. Piotto D, Montagnini F, Kanninen M, Ugalde L, Vasquez E (2004) Forest plantations in Costa Rica and Nicaragua: Performance of species and preferences of farmers. J Sustain For 18:59–65. doi: 10.1300/J091v18n04_04 Google Scholar
  27. Roothaert RL, Franzel S (2001) Farmers’ preferences and use of local fodder trees and shrubs in Kenya. Agrofor Syst 52:239–252. doi: 10.1023/A:1011896921398 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Salam MA, Noguchi T, Koike M (2000) Understanding why farmers plant trees in the homestead: agroforestry in Bangladesh. Agrofor Syst 20:77–93. doi: 10.1023/A:1006403101782 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Simmons CS, Walker TW, Wood CH (2002) Tree planting by small producers in the tropics: a comparative study of Brazil and Panama. Agrofor Syst 56:89–105. doi: 10.1023/A:1021377231402 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Snelder DJ, Kelin M, Schuren SHG (2007) Farmers preferences, uncertainties and opportunities in fruit-tree cultivation in Northeast Luzon. Agrofor Syst 71:1–17. doi: 10.1007/s10457-007-9086-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Summers PM, Browder JO, Pedlowski MA (2004) Tropical forest management and silvicultural practives by small farmers in the Brazilian Amazon: recent farm-level evidence from Rondonia. For Ecol Manag 192:161–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Walters BB, Cadelina A, Cardano A, Visitacion E (1999) Community history and rural development: why some farmers participate more readily than others. Agric Syst 59:193–214. doi: 10.1016/S0308-521X(99)00003-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wishnie M (2003) Strategic plan: the PRORENA project. Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Panama CityGoogle Scholar
  34. Wishnie MH (2005) Annual report. The PRORENA project. Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, PanamaGoogle Scholar
  35. Wishnie MH, Dent DH, Mariscal E, Deago J, Cedeno N, Ibarra D, Condit R, Ashton PMS (2007) Initial performance and reforestation potential of 24 tropical tree species planted across a precipitation gradient in the Republic of Panama. For Ecol Manag 243:39–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zubair M, Garforth C (2006) Farm level tree planting in Pakistan: the role of farmers’ perceptions and attitudes. Agrofor Syst 66:217–229. doi: 10.1007/s10457-005-8846-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eva J. Garen
    • 1
  • Kristin Saltonstall
    • 1
  • Jacob L. Slusser
    • 2
  • Shane Mathias
    • 2
  • Mark S. Ashton
    • 3
  • Jefferson S. Hall
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Tropical Forest Science (CTFS)Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute Balboa, AncónRepublic of Panama
  2. 2.United States Peace Corps, Panamá American EmbassyClaytonRepublic of Panama
  3. 3.Yale School of Forestry and Environmental StudiesNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations