Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Taking stock of agroforestry adoption studies

  • Published:
Agroforestry Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In light of the large number of empirical studies of agroforestry adoption published during the last decade, we believe it is time to take stock and identify general determinants of agroforestry adoption. In reviewing 120 articles on adoption of agricultural and forestry technology by small holders, we find five categories of factors that explain technology adoption within an economic framework: preferences, resource endowments, market incentives, biophysical factors, and risk and uncertainty. By selecting only empirical analyses that focus on agroforestry and related investments, we narrow our list down to 32 studies primarily from tropical areas. We apply vote-counting based meta-analysis to these studies and evaluate the inclusion and significance of the five adoption factors. Our analysis shows that preferences and resource endowments are the factors most often included in studies. However, adoption behavior is most likely to be significantly influenced by risk, biophysical, and resource factors. In our conclusion, we discuss specific recommendations for the next generation of adoption studies and meta-analyses that include considering a fuller menu of variables, reporting key statistics and marginal probabilities, and conducting weighted meta-regressions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adesina A. and Chianu J. 2001. Alternatives to Slash-and-Burn: Determinants of Adoption of Alley Farming and Variants by Farmers in Nigeria (unpublished).

  • Adesina A.A., Mbila D., Nkamleu G.B. and Endamana D. 2000. Econometric analysis of the determinants of adoption of alley farming by farmers in the forest zone of southwest Cameroon. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 80(3): 255–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alavalapati J., Luckert M. and Gill D. 1995. Adoption of agroforestry practices: a case study from Andhra Pradesh, India. Agroforestry Systems 32: 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen J. 1990. Homestead tree planting in two rural Swazi communities. Agroforestry Systems 11: 11–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amacher G., Hyde W. and Rafiq M. 1993. Local adoption of new forestry technologies: an example from Pakistan's NW Frontier Province. World Development 21(3): 445–453.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson D., Wilson P. and Thompson G. 1999. The adoption and diffusion of level fields and basins. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 24(1): 186–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson J. 1992. On laboring and lobbying for lignomics: discussion. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 74(3): 816–817.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ayuk E. 1997. Adoption of agroforestry technology: the case of live hedges in the central plateau of Burkina Faso. Agricultural Systems 54(2): 189–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baidu-Forson J. 1999. Factors influencing adoption of land-enhancing technology in the sahel: lessons from a case study in Niger. Agricultural Economics 20: 231–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Besley T. 1995. Property rights and investment incentives: theory and evidence from Ghana. Journal of Political Economy 103(5): 902–937.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caveness F.A. and Kurtz W.B. 1993. Agroforestry adoption and risk perception by farmers in Senegal. Agroforestry Systems 21: 11–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caviglia J. and Kahn J. 2001. Diffusion of sustainable agriculture in the Brazilian tropical rain forest: a discrete choice analysis. Economic Development and Cultural Change 49(2): 311–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clay D., Reardon T. and Kangasniemi J 1998. Sustainable intensification in the highland tropics: Rwadan farmers' investments in land conservation and soil fertility. Economic Development and Cultural Change 46(2): 351–378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook T., Cooper H., Corday D., Hartmann H., Hedges L., Light R. et al. 1992. Meta-Analysis for Explanation: A Casebook. Russell Sage Foundation, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Current D., Lutz E. and Scherr S. 1995a. The costs and benefits of Agroforestry to farmers. The World Bank Research Observer 10(2): 151–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Current D., Lutz E. and Scherr S. 1995b. Costs, Benefits, and Farmer Adoption of Agroforestry: Project Experience in Central America and the Caribbean. The World Bank, Washington, D.C. World Bank Environment Paper No. 14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feather P. and Amacher G 1994. Role of information in the adoption of best management practices for water quality improvement. Agricultural Economics 11: 159–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feder G., Just R. and Zilberman D. 1985. Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries: a survey. Economic Development and Cultural Change: 255–297.

  • Franzel S. and Scherr S. (eds.) 2002. Trees on the Farm: Assessing the Adoption Potential of Agroforestry Practices in Africa. CABI Publishing, 208 pp.

  • Glendinning A., Mahapatra A. and Mitchell C.P. 2001. Modes of communication and effectiveness of agroforestry extension in eastern India. Human Ecology 29(3): 283–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godoy R. 1992. Determinants of smallholder commercial tree cultivation. World Development 20(5): 713–725.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lapar M.L. and Pandey S. 1999. Adoption of soil conservation: the case of the Philippines uplands. Agricultural Economics 21: 241–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linde-Rahr M. 1999. Rural Reforestation: Gender Effects on Private Investments in VietNam (unpublished).

  • Lucas D. and Nwonwu F. 2000. A Study of Socio-economic Factors that Affect Adoption of Farm Forestry in Busia Districts, Kenya (unpublished).

  • McCloksey D. and Ziliak S. 1996. The standard error of regressions. Journal of Economic Literature 35: 97–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercer E. and Pattanayak S.K. 2003. Agroforestry adoption by smallholders. In: Sills E. and Abt K. (eds), Forests in a Market Economy. Forestry Sciences Series by Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Pages 283–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercer E. and Snook A. 2000. A Stated and Revealed Preference Analysis of Adoption of Tree Planting by Farmers in the Calakmul Biosphere Reserve, Campeche, Mexico. In: presented at Conference of Latin American Geopgraphers 2000. Jan 6-8, 2000, University of Texas at Austin. presented at Conference of Latin American Geopgraphers 2000. Jan 6-8, 2000, University of Texas at Austin.

  • Mercer D.E. and Miller R.P. 1998. Socioeconomic research in agroforestry: progress, prospects, priorities. Agroforestry Systems 38: 177–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Otsuka K., Suyanto S., Sonobe T. and Tomich T. 2001. Evolution of land tenure institutions and development of agroforestry: evidence from customary land areas of Sumatra. Agricultural Economics 25: 85–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owubah C.E., Le Master D.C., Bowker J.M. and Lee J.G. 2001. Forest tenure systems and sustainable forest management: the case of Ghana. Forest Ecology and Management 149(1-3): 253–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pattanayak S. 2000. Conservation Investments in Flores, Indonesia (unpublished).

  • Pattanayak S. and Mercer D.E. 1998. Valuing soil conservation benefits of agroforestry: contour hedgerows in the Eastern Visayas, Philippines. Agricultural Economics 18: 31–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pender J. and Kerr. J. 1998. Determinants of farmers' indigenous soil and water conservation investments in semi-arid India. Agricultural Economics 19: 113–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pisaneli A., Franzel S., DeWolf J., Rommelse R. and Poole J. 2001. The Adoption of Improved Tree Fallows in Western Kenya: Farmer Practices, Knowledge and Perception (unpublished).

  • Pomp M. and Burger K. 1995. Innovation and imitation: adoption of cocoa by Indonesian smallholders. World Development 23(3): 423–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reardon T. 1992. Challenges from agroforestry: discussion. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 74(3): 818–819.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salam M., Noguchi T. and Koike M. 2000. Understanding why farmers plant trees in the homestead agroforestry in Bangladesh. Agroforestry Systems 50(1): 77–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez P.A. 1995. Science in agroforestry. Agroforestry Systems 30: 5–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherr S. 1992. Not out of the woods yet: challenges for economics research on agroforestry. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 74(3): 802–808.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherr S. 2000. A downward spiral? Research evidence on the relationship between poverty and natural resource degradation. Food Policy 25: 479–498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiferaw B. and Holden S. 1998. Resource degradation and adoption of land conservation technologies in the Ethiopian Highlands: a case study in Andit Tid, North Shewa. Agricultural Economics 18: 233–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shively G. 1997. Consumption risk, farm characteristics, and soil conservation adoption among low-income farmers in the Philippines. Agricultural Economics 17: 165–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shively G. 1999. Risks and returns from soil conservation: evidence from low-income farms in the Philippines. Agricultural Economics 21: 53–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith V.K. and Pattanayak S.K. 2002. Is meta-analysis the Noah's ark for non market valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics 22(1-2): 271–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanley T.D. 2001. Wheat from chaff: meta-analysis as quantitative literature review. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 15 (Summer): 131–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thacher T., Lee D. and Schellas J. 1997. Farmer participation in reforestation incentive programs in Costa Rica. Agroforestry Systems 35(3): 269–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Traore N., Landry R. and Amara N. 1998. On farm adoption of conservation practices: the role of farm and farmer characteristics, perceptions, and health hazards. Land Economics 74(1): 114–127.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC, US

    Subhrendu K. Pattanayak & Jui-Chen Yang

  2. Southern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, US

    D. Evan Mercer

  3. College of Natural Resources, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, US

    Erin Sills

Authors
  1. Subhrendu K. Pattanayak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D. Evan Mercer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Erin Sills
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jui-Chen Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. Evan Mercer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pattanayak, S.K., Evan Mercer, D., Sills, E. et al. Taking stock of agroforestry adoption studies. Agroforestry Systems 57, 173–186 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024809108210

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024809108210

Search

Navigation