International E-publication: Publish Projects, Dissertation, Theses, Books, Souvenir, Conference Proceeding with ISBN.  International E-Bulletin: Information/News regarding: Academics and Research

What motivates farmers to adopt agroforestry? a contingent valuation analysis

    , ,

Author Affiliations

  • 1College of Arts and Sciences (CAS), Northwest Samar State University, Calbayog City, Philippines
  • 2College of Arts and Sciences (CAS), Northwest Samar State University, Calbayog City, Philippines
  • 3College of Arts and Sciences (CAS), Northwest Samar State University, Calbayog City, Philippines

Int. Res. J. Social Sci., Volume 8, Issue (4), Pages 30-39, October,14 (2019)

Abstract

Up till this time the adoption of agroforestry as a sustainable land use technology has a low adoption in developing countries and among upland farmers in the Philippines particularly in Calbayog Pan-as Hayiban Protected Landscape (CPHPL), Calbayog City, Samar. Unlike many studies in agroforestry adoption which primarily deals with farming technologies and socioeconomic analysis, this study was conducted to analyse the factors of adoption of agroforestry as a sustainable land use practice among upland farmers in exchange for an incentive by participating in the program using economic modelling. A total of 294 upland farmers were randomly chosen as respondents to participate in the survey using a contingent valuation method with WTA approach. As a result, 77.21% of the farmers were willing to accept the incentive in the said program to shift from their current land use practice to agroforestry. In addition, shifting cultivation, with off farm income, age, and bid amount appears to be significant factor in WTA. Thus, policy makers need to be sure that farmers are compensated very well for their service provided to downstream communities. Further, we conducted cost-benefit analysis to determine the economic cost of participating in the program using four base case scenario to model economic trade-offs among upland farmers. Since farming is the bread and butter of this upland communities policy makers need to consider the economic and socio cultural aspect of the community as well as its political involvement. Often, incentive programs from government are lesser compared to the income that farmers would receive from their farming activity. As such, determining the amount to be given is very important because this would add to the success of the program. While it is true that poverty in general and farmer′s income (in particular) is not adequate in explaining land use change, market incentives (e.g. compensation to shift to sustainable land use practice) would enable payment for ecosystem services (PES) scheme to be successful. Unlike other agroforestry studies, we argue that the land use practice (e.g. shifting cultivation) should be considered in policy making for incentivizing farmers because aside from income, traditionally and culturally, in Philippines and other developing countries shifting cultivation has been the practice. As such, shifting cultivators needs to have alternative sustainable land use technology (e.g. agroforestry) with proper financing mechanism to properly implement and sustain the program.

References

  1. Fortenbacher D. and Alave K. (2014)., Upland agriculture in the Philippines: potential and challenges., Manila: Deutsche Gesellschaft fü3r Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ).
  2. Takasaki Y. (2013)., Deforestation , Forest Fallowing , and Soil Conservation in Shifting Cultivation., Theor. Econ. Lett., 30-38.
  3. Rahman S.A., Rahman M.F. and Sunderland T. (2012)., Causes and consequences of shifting cultivation and its alternative in the hill tracts of eastern Bangladesh., Agroforestry Systems, 84(2), 141-155.
  4. Mukul S.A., Herbohn J. and Firn J. (2016)., Co‐benefits of biodiversity and carbon sequestration from regenerating secondary forests in the Philippine uplands: implications for forest landscape restoration., Biotropica, 48(6), 882-889.
  5. Malabarbas G.T. and Celeste N.E. (2016)., The Role of Community-Based Forest Management on the Awareness of Watershed Protection and Conservation., South American Journal of Management, 1-8.
  6. Ketterings Q.M., Wibowo T.T., van Noordwijk M. and Penot E. (1999)., Farmers, Forest Ecology and Management, 120(1-3), 157-169.
  7. Ngilangil L.E., Olivar S.O. and Ballesil M.L.A. (2013)., Farmers Awareness and Knowledge on Climate Change Adaptation in Northern Luzon, Philippines., International Scientific Research Journal, 5(3), 74-82.
  8. Wunder S. (2005)., Payments for environmental services : Some Nuts and Bolts., Center for International Forestry Research.
  9. Cali C.A., Arances J.B., Tobias E.G.O., Sabado E.M., Alicante A.A., Ledres L.B. and Ramirez D.S. (2004)., Participatory Rural Appraisal in the Upland Ecosystem of Mt. Malindang, Misamis Occidental, Philippines.,
  10. Krantz L. (2001)., The Sustainable Livelihood Approach to Poverty Reduction., Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency.
  11. Wunder S. (2007)., The efficiency of payments for environmental services in tropical conservation., Conservation biology, 21(1), 48-58.
  12. Whittington D. and Pagiola S. (2012)., Using contingent valuation in the design of payments for environmental services mechanisms: a review and assessment., The World Bank Research Observer, 27(2), 261-287.
  13. Mercer D.E. and Pattanayak S.K. (2003)., Agroforestry adoption by smallholders. In Forests in a market economy., Springer, Dordrecht, 283-299.
  14. Meijer S.S., Catacutan D., Ajayi O.C., Sileshi G.W. and 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., International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 13(1), 40-54.
  15. Maluki J.M., Kimiti J.M., Nguluu S. and Musyoki J.K. (2016)., Adoption levels of agroforestry tree types and practices by smallholders in the semi-arid areas of Kenya : A case of Makueni County., 8, 187-196.
  16. Lutz F. (2013)., The Economics of Ecosystems from Ridge to Reef: A Compilation of Case Studies from the Visayas, Philippines, prepared for the Environment and Rural Development Program (EnRD)., Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ).
  17. Ahlheim M. and Buchholz W. (2019)., Reflections on the Difference between \\\"Willingness To Pay\\\" and \\\"Willingness to Accept.,
  18. Gunatilake H., Yang J., Pattanayak S. and Choe K.A. (2007)., Good Practices for Estimating Reliable Willingness-to-Pay Values in the Water Supply and Sanitation Sector., ERD TECHNICAL NOTE SERIES NO. 23. Asian Development Bank.
  19. Bateman I.J., Diamand E., Langford I. and Jones A. (1996)., Household Willingness to Pay and Farmers Willingness to Accept Compensation for Establishing a Recreational Woodland., J. Environ. Plan. Manag.39, 21-43.
  20. Whittington D., Adamowicz W. and Lloyd-Smith P. (2017)., Asking willingness-to-accept questions in stated preference surveys: a review and research agenda., Annual Review of Resource Economics, 9, 317-336.
  21. Lindhjem H. and Mitani Y. (2012)., Forest owners ′ willingness to accept compensation for voluntary conservation : A contingent valuation approach., J. For. Econ., 18, 290-302.
  22. Nyongesa J.M., Bett H.K., Lagat J.K. and Ayuya O.I. (2016)., Estimating farmers′ stated willingness to accept pay for ecosystem services: Case of Lake Naivasha watershed Payment for Ecosystem Services scheme-Kenya., Ecological Processes, 5(1), 15.
  23. Erni C. (2009)., Shifting the Blame? Southeast Asia′s Indigenous Peoples and Shifting Cultivation in the age of climate change., Indig. Aff., 38-49.
  24. Bugayong L.A. (2003)., Socioeconomic and environmental benefits of agroforestry practices in a community-based forest management site in the Philippines., In International Conference on Rural Livelihoods, Forests and Biodiversity, 19-23.
  25. Oddershede J.S. (2015)., Determinants of Farmers ′ Willingness to Accept Periodical Flooding of Their Land MSc in International Economic Consulting., (Unpublished Masteral Thesis) Aarhus University.
  26. MacDonald H.F. and Bowker J.M. (1993)., The Endowment Effect and WTA : A Quasi-Experimental Test., J. Agric. Appl. Econ., 26, 545-551.
  27. Hoffman E. and Spitzer M.L. (1993)., Willingness to Pay vs . Willingness to Accept : Legal and Economic Implications., Washingt. Univ. Law Rev., 71.
  28. Lambin E.F., Turner B.L., Geist H.J., Agbola S.B., Angelsen A., Bruce J.W. and George P. (2001)., The causes of land-use and land-cover change: moving beyond the myths., Global environmental change, 11(4), 261-269.
  29. McCall M.K., Bermudez R. and Granados J. (2017)., Signing up to PES ′ - Why Communities Participate in PES Programmes in Mexico.,