Factors Affecting the Adoption of Agroforestry Practices: Insights from Silvopastoral Systems of Colombia

Abstract

In Colombia, one-third of the land is devoted to cattle farming, which is one of the main drivers of deforestation, land degradation, loss of biodiversity, and emissions of greenhouses gases. To mitigate the environmental impacts of cattle farming, agroforestry practices have been extensively promoted with mixed results. Despite research and extension efforts over the last 20-year period, agroforestry systems still involve a complex knowledge process among stakeholders that needs to be addressed. To understand the drivers of cattle farmers’ behavior with regard to adopting agroforestry practices, we apply a double hurdle regression for different social, economic and productive information to capture the decision to adopt and the intensity of the adoption as a joint decision of such practices. For this purpose, we use data from a survey (implemented as part of an international project) administered to 1605 cattle farmers located in five agro-ecological regions in Colombia. Our dependent variables are defined by the adoption of four agroforestry practices: scattered trees, trees and shrubs for forage production, forestry plantations, and management of native forest. The adoption decision of agroforestry practices was influenced by the access and use of credit, location, and the implemented livestock system. Herd size and participation in development projects that involved tree planting had a positive influence on the adoption and intensity of agroforestry practices, while the variable associated with presence of water springs tended to boost the intensity of adoption. The diffusion of these technologies might be increased among farmers who have adopted and who are potential adopters, and social capital and networking can play a crucial role in spreading agroforestry as sustainable practice.

Improving Hill Farming: From Maize Monocropping to Alternative Cropping Systems in the Thai Highlands

“…Those statements were: (i) HPRS practices require too much work and are difficult to understand; (ii) the HPRS requires major investment; (iii) the HPRS is not suitable for our farmland; (iv) HPRS implementation will face transport problems; (v) there is a shortage of labor exchange in the community; and (vi) economic returns take time to accrue. The proportion of the 'Yes' answers was calculated, where larger values indicated higher levels of complexity perceived by the household [43,65,75,77]. This variable is hypothesized to negatively influence land conversion to the HPRS.…”

“…Empirical evidence suggests that salient factors for the adoption of improved practices include knowledge transfer through social networks, such as extension agents and peer farmers [60,[65][66][67], economic implications (e.g., expected income increment and cost reduction) [68][69][70], and farmers' attitude toward human and environmental health [58].…”

Perceptions of smallholder farmers on nature-based income generating activities as potential livelihood and biodiversity conservation strategies in Uluguru Mountains, Tanzania

“…Famer's perception of NIGAs is therefore influenced by many factors, including the household's economic characteristics, such as, access to credits and the value of assets owned by the farmer (Ndambiri et al, 2013). In Colombia, for example, the adoption decision of agroforestry practices was influenced by the access and use of credit and location, among others (Jara-Rojas et al, 2020).…”

Practical strategies to mitigate ruminant greenhouse gas emissions

“…Although silvopasture has a higher return rate and net value than pasture, conversion requires a large capital investment with a payback period of around four years 77 . Government support and incentive payments can motivate farmers to adopt silvopasture systems 68,78,79 . Silvopasture establishment and maintenance cost US$3,129 ha -1 over 30 years but generates revenue of US$7,165 ha -1 (United States estimation from 2012; includes property taxes, forage and timber revenue) 80 .…”