Abstract
Few studies explicitly assess the temporal and spatial dynamics of agroforestry adoption occurring beyond the project cycle. Where ex-post evaluations are published, abandonment of introduced agroforestry after project cessation is often reported. This paper presents an analysis of agroforestry adoption in a poor, peri-urban village in semi-arid south India, where 97 % of initial adopters had retained their plots six to eight years after implementation. The intervention was facilitated by BAIF, an Indian non-governmental organisation specialising in natural resource management. The complex technological package promoted was known as ‘wadi’ and comprised fruit trees planted in crop fields, with a boundary of multi-purpose trees and integrated soil and water conservation measures. Sixty four agroforestry plots belonging to 43 households were surveyed in 2010/11 and interviews were held with both adopting and non-adopting farmers. Beyond retention, a quarter of adopters had expanded the practice on to additional areas of land and some diffusion to initially non-adopting farmers had also occurred. Adopters were found to have modified the practice to suit their own objectives, capabilities and constraints, highlighting that adoption is more than a simple binary choice. The study demonstrates the importance of external support for adoption of agroforestry. The intervention was not, however, especially pro-poor with adoption occurring disproportionately among relatively wealthier households with larger landholdings. Where poorer households adopted, this tended to occur later. Participation was entirely voluntary and, by 2011, conversion of suitable farmland to agroforestry had reached 18 %; while beneficial to individual adopters, this patchy coverage arguably limits the potential for enhanced ecosystem service provision at landscape-scale.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Union Government of India (various ministries and departments); State Governments of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Rajasthan; National Bank of Agriculture Rural Development (NABARD); Council for the Advancement of People's Action and Rural Technology (CAPART); various philanthropic trusts.
The European Union; German Development Bank—KfW Bankengruppe.
Trench-cum-bunds are constructed across the slopes of the plot and along field boundaries. Trenches are dug and the excavated soil is used to construct a bund along the lower side of the trench.
Abbreviations
- BAIF:
-
BAIF Development Research Foundation
- DFID:
-
Department for International Development (UK)
- GPS:
-
Global positioning system
- KML:
-
Keyhole markup language
- MPT:
-
Multi-purpose tree
- NABARD:
-
National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (India)
- NGO:
-
Non-governmental organisation
- NRM:
-
Natural resource management
- NRSP:
-
Natural Resources Systems Programme
- PUI:
-
Peri-urban interface
- SWC:
-
Soil and water conservation
- TDF:
-
Tribal Development Fund
References
Adesina AA, Chianu J (2002) Determinants of farmers’ adoption and adaptation of alley farming technology in Nigeria. Agrofor Syst 55:99–112
Atangana A, Khasa D, Chang S, Degrande A (2014) Tropical agroforestry. Springer, Dordrecht
BAIF (2011) Food for work forestry programme: a study of a development prototype. BAIF Development Research Foundation, Pune
BAIF (2012) Landscape approach for rural development. BAIF Development Research Foundation, Pune
BAIF (2013) Transforming lives: BAIF’s contribution to tribal development. BAIF Development Research Foundation, Pune
Barrett CB, Place F, Aboud A, Brown DR (2002) The challenge of stimulating adoption of improved natural resource management practices in African agriculture. In: Barrett CB, Place F, Aboud A (eds) Natural resource management in African agriculture: understanding and improving current practices. CABI, Wallingford, pp 1–21
Bhatt A (1990) Poverty, tribals and development: a rehabilitation approach. Manohar Publications, New Delhi
Brook RM, Purushothaman S, Purohit S (2003) Conclusions. In: Brook RM, Purushothaman S, Hunshal C (eds) Changing frontiers: the peri-urban interface, Hubli-Dharwad, India. Books for Change, Bangalore, pp 134–145
Browder JO, Wynne RH, Pedlowski MA (2005) Agroforestry diffusion and secondary forest regeneration in the Brazilian Amazon: further findings from the Rondonia Agroforestry Pilot Project (1992–2002). Agrofor Syst 65:99–111
Chambers R, Leach M (1989) Trees as savings and security for the rural poor. World Dev 17:329–342
Dahlquist RM, Whelan MP, Winowiecki L, Polidoro B, Candela S, Harvey CA, Wulfhorst JD, McDaniel PA, Bosque-Perez NA (2007) Incorporating livelihoods in biodiversity conservation: a case study of cacao agroforestry systems in Talamanca. Costa Rica Biodivers Conserv 16:2311–2333
de Graaff J, Amsalu A, Bodnar F, Kessler A, Posthumus H, Tenge A (2008) Factors influencing adoption and continued use of long-term soil and water conservation measures in five developing countries. J Appl Geogr 28:271–280
De Schutter O (2010) Report on the right to food. UN Human Rights Council, Geneva
Douthwaite B, Keatinge JDH, Park JR (2001) Why promising technologies fail: the neglected role of user innovation during adoption. Res Policy 30:819–836
Franzel S, Scherr SJ (2002) Introduction. In: Franzel S, Scherr SJ (eds) Trees on the farm: assessing the adoption potential of agroforestry practices in Africa. CABI, Wallingford, pp 1–10
Garrity D (2004) Agroforestry and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. Agrofor Syst 61:5–17
German L, Mowo J, Kingamkono M (2006) A methodology for tracking the “fate” of technological interventions in agriculture. Agric Hum Values 23:353–369
Gregory P, Mattingly M (2009) Goodbye to natural resource-based livelihoods? Crossing the rural/urban divide. Local Environ 14:879–890
Halkatti M, Purushothaman S, Brook RM (2003) Participatory action planning in the peri-urban interface: the twin city experience, Hubli-Dharwad, India. Environ Urbanization 15:149–158
Jerneck A, Olsson L (2013) More than trees! Understanding the agroforestry adoption gap in subsistence agriculture: insights from narrative walks in Kenya. J Rural Stud 32:114–125
Jose S (2009) Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: an overview. Agrofor Syst 76:1–10
Keil A, Zeller M, Franzel S (2005) Improved tree fallows in smallholder maize production in Zambia: do initial testers adopt the technology? Agrofor Syst 64:225–236
Kerr J, Milne G, Chhotray V, Baumann P, James AJ (2007) Managing watershed externalities in India: theory and practice. Environ Dev Sustainability 9:263–281
Kiptot E, Hebinck P, Franzel S, Richards P (2006) Sharing seed and knowledge: farmer to farmer dissemination of agroforestry technologies in western Kenya. Agrofor Syst 68:167–179
Kiptot E, Hebinck P, Franzel S, Richards P (2007) Adopters, testers or pseudo-adopters? Dynamics of the use of improved tree fallows by farmers in western Kenya. Agric Syst 94:509–519
Mahajan S, Newale M, Pednekar P (2002) Orchard development sets the tone of tribal development. Dev Pract 12:86–92
McIntyre BD, Herren HR, Wakhungu J, Watson RT (eds) (2009) Agriculture at a crossroads: international assessment of agricultural knowledge, science and technology for development (IAASTD). Island Press, Washington DC
Meijer SS, Catacutan D, Ajayi OC, Sileshi GW, Nieuwenhuis M (2015) The role of knowledge, attitudes and perceptions in the uptake of agricultural and agroforestry innovations among smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa. Int J Agric Sustainability 13:40–54. doi:10.1080/14735903.2014.912493
Mercado AR, Patindol M, Garrity DP (2001) The Landcare experience in the Philippines: technical and institutional innovations for conservation farming. Dev Pract 11:495–508
Mercer DE (2004) Adoption of agroforestry in the tropics: a review. Agrofor Syst 61–62:311–328
Mercer DE, Haggar J, Snook A, Sosa M (2005) Agroforestry adoption in the Calakmul Biosphere Reserve, Campeche, Mexico. Small-scale For Econ Manag Policy 4:163–184
Milne G (2007) Karnataka Watershed Development “Sujala” Project: innovation in participatory watershed development to improve natural resource productivity and rural livelihoods. Livelihoods Learning Series 1, Note No. 3. World Bank, Washington DC
Nunan F, Shindhe KC (2003) Urbanisation leading to changing land use trends. In: Brook RM, Purushothaman S, Hunshal C (eds) Changing frontiers: the peri-urban interface, Hubli-Dharwad, India. Books for Change, Bangalore, pp 11–30
Pattanayak SK, Mercer DE, Sills E, Yang JC (2003) Taking stock of agroforestry adoption studies. Agrofor Syst 57:137–150
Pretty JN, Shah P (1997) Making soil and water conservation sustainable: from coercion and control to partnerships and participation. Land Degrad Dev 8:39–58
Pretty J, Toulmin C, Williams S (2011) Sustainable intensification in African agriculture. Int J Agric Sustain 9(1):5–24
Rapidel B, Le Coq JF, DeClerk AJ, Beer J (2011) Measurement and payment of ecosystem services from agriculture and agroforestry: new insights from the Neotropics. In: Rapidel B, DeClerk AJ, Le Coq JF, Beer J (eds) Ecosystem services from agriculture and agroforestry: measurement and payment. Earthscan, London
Sanchez PA (1995) Science in agroforestry. Agrofor Syst 30:5–55
Scherr SJ, Müller EU (1990) Evaluating agroforestry interventions in extension projects. Agrofor Syst 11:259–280
Scherr SJ, Müller EU (1991) Technology impact evaluation in agroforestry projects. Agrofor Syst 13:235–257
Shiferaw BA, Okello J, Reddy RV (2009) Adoption and adaptation of natural resource management innovations in smallholder agriculture: reflections on key lessons and best practices. Environ Dev Sustainability 11:601–619
Tachikawa T, Hato M, Kaku M, Iwasaki A (2011) The characteristics of ASTER GDEM version 2, International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS), Vancouver, BC, Canada, July 24–29, 2011
Tripp R (2005) The performance of low external input technology in agricultural development: a summary of three case studies. Int J Agric Sustainability 3:143–153
Wambugu C, Place F, Franzel S (2011) Research, development and scaling-up the adoption of fodder shrub innovations in east Africa. Int J Agric Sustainability 9:100–109
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge funding from the UK Department of International Development (DFID), Natural Resources Systems Programme, project R8084. The views presented here, however, do not necessarily reflect those of DFID. Thanks go to the Tropical Agricultural Association (TAA) whose financial support allowed the first author to conduct two months of fieldwork in the summer of 2010 and to BAIF for their willingness to host the research and facilitate logistical arrangements. The authors are also grateful to Dr Sangeetha Purushothaman for her valuable inputs, to Meera Halkatti, R.B. Hiremath and Y.N. Somangouda for their help in data collection, and to the anonymous reviewers for their perceptive comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Brockington, J.D., Harris, I.M. & Brook, R.M. Beyond the project cycle: a medium-term evaluation of agroforestry adoption and diffusion in a south Indian village. Agroforest Syst 90, 489–508 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-015-9872-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-015-9872-0