Perception of agroforestry practices and factors influencing adoption among shifting cultivators in Tripura, India

References

• Rajesh. 2018. Rural-urban differential in the size of household in India. Natl J Adv Res. 4(2):29–32.
   Google Scholar
• Arunachalam A, Khan ML, Arunachalam K. 2002. Balancing traditional jhum cultivation with modern agroforestry in eastern Himalaya – a biodiversity hot spot. Curr Sci. 83:117–118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bani T, Deuri M, Wangpan T, Tangjang S, Arunachalam A. 2022. Tradition in transition: the transformation of traditional agriculture in Arunachal Pradesh, North East India. Curr Sci. 123(2):220. doi: 10.18520/cs/v123/i2/220-225.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basu JP. 2014. Agroforestry, climate change mitigation and livelihood security in India. N Z J For Sci. 44(Suppl 1):1–10. doi: 10.1186/1179-5395-44-S1-S11.
   Google Scholar
• Begum M, Haque MA, Karim MR, Akter M, Wadud MA. 2012. Study on homestead agroforestry and plant diversity in Gopalpur upazila of Tangail district. J Agrofor Environ. 7(1):135–138.
   Google Scholar
• Behera RN, Nayak DK, Andersen P, Maren IE. 2016. From jhum to broom: agricultural land-use change and food security implications on the Meghalaya Plateau, India. Ambio. 45(1):63–77. doi: 10.1007/s13280-015-0691-3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bekele B, Yeshiwas E, Kassie M, Zewde A. 2023. Determinants of the agroforestry practices in Mana districts, Oromyia Region, Ethiopia. [accessed on 2023 September 4]. doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2567727/v1>.
   Google Scholar
• Boonkird SA, Fernandes ECM, Nair PKR. 1984. Forest villages: an agroforestry approach to rehabilitating forest land degraded by shifting cultivation in Thailand. Agrofor Syst. 2(2):87–102. doi: 10.1007/BF00131268.
   Google Scholar
• Camilli F, Pisanelli A, Seddaiu G, Franca A, Bondesan V, Rosati A, Moreno GM, Pantera A, Hermansen JE, Burgess PJ. 2018. How local stakeholders perceive agroforestry systems: an Italian perspective. Agrofor Syst. 92(4):849–862. doi: 10.1007/s10457-017-0127-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chand S, Behera B. 2023. Does secured forest land tenure enhance forest dwellers’ food security? Empirical evidence from West Bengal, India. For Trees Livelihoods. 32(3):125–143. doi: 10.1080/14728028.2023.2217838.
   Google Scholar
• Chavan SB, Keerthika A, Dhyani SK, Handa AK, Newaj R, Rajarajan K. 2015. National agroforestry policy in India: a low hanging fruit. Curr Sci. 25:1826–1834.
   Google Scholar
• Current D, Lutz E, Scherr SJ. 1995. Costs, benefits, and farmer adoption of agroforestry: project experience in Central America and the Caribbean. World Bank Environment Paper. 14:209.
   Google Scholar
• Das AK, Bordoloi J. 2021. Socio-economic transformation of reang primitive tribal group through rubber plantation in Tripura. Study no. 155. Sponsored by Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare. Assam: Assam Agricultural University.
   Google Scholar
• Das T, Das AK. 2005. Inventorying plant biodiversity in homegardens: a case study in Barak Valley, Assam, North East India. Curr Sci. 10:155–163.
   Google Scholar
• Dasgupta M. 1986. Jhumias of Tripura. Econ Pol Weekly. 21:1955–1960. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4376302
   Google Scholar
• Devvarma NC, editor. 2012. Shifting cultivation in Tripura. India (IN): Tripura Research and Cultural Institute, Governement of Tripura.
   Google Scholar
• Dhakal A, Rai RK. 2020. Who adopts agroforestry in a subsistence economy? —lessons from the Terai of Nepal. Forests. 11(5):565. doi: 10.3390/f11050565.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Directorate of Economics & Statistics. 2023.Economic Review of Tripura 2021-22. Agartala: Directorate of Economics & Statistics, Planning (Statistics) Department, Government of Tripura. https://ecostat.tripura.gov.in/sites/default/files/FINAL%20ECONOMIC%20REVIEW_0.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Djalilov BM, Khamzina A, Hornidge AK, Lamers JP. 2016. Exploring constraints and incentives for the adoption of agroforestry practices on degraded cropland in Uzbekistan. J Environ Plan Manag. 59(1):142–162. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2014.996283.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doshi P, Brockington J, Brook R. 2015. Assessing agroforestry adoption in tribal areas of Maharashtra, India. 12–16. https://www.bangor.ac.uk/natural-sciences/courses/distancelearning/documents/AssessingAgroforestryWeb.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Elagib NA, Al-Saidi M. 2020. Balancing the benefits from the water–energy–land–food nexus through agroforestry in the Sahel. Sci Total Environ. 742:140509. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140509.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer A, Vasseur L. 2002. Smallholder perceptions of agroforestry projects in Panama. Agrofor Syst. 54(2):103–113. doi: 10.1023/A:1015047404867.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). 2015. Agroforestry: definition. [accessed 2023 July 28]. https://www.fao.org/forestry/agroforestry/80338/en/.
   Google Scholar
• FSI. 2019. India State of Forest Report 2019. Dehradun: Forest Survey of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India.
   Google Scholar
• García de Jalón S, Burgess PJ, Graves A, Moreno G, McAdam J, Pottier E, Novak S, Bondesan V, Mosquera-Losada R, Crous-Durán J, et al. 2018. How is agroforestry perceived in Europe? An assessment of positive and negative aspects by stakeholders. Agrofor Syst. 92(4):829–848. doi: 10.1007/s10457-017-0116-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garrity DP. 2004. Agroforestry and the achievement of the millennium development goals. Agrofor Syst. 61:5–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goswami K, Choudhury HK, Saikia J. 2012. Factors influencing farmers’ adoption of slash and burn agriculture in North East India. For Pol Econ. 15:146–151. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2011.11.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gupta AK. 2000. Shifting Cultivation and Conservation of Biological Diversity in Tripura, Northeast India. Human Ecol. 28:605–629. doi: 10.1023/A:1026491831856.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gupta SR, Dagar JC, Teketay D. 2020. Agroforestry for rehabilitation of degraded landscapes: achieving livelihood and environmental security. Agrofor Degrad Landsc: Recent Adv Emerg Chall. 1:23–68.
   Google Scholar
• Hanif MA, Roy RM, Bari MS, Ray PC, Rahman MS, Hasan MF. 2018. Livelihood improvements through agroforestry: evidence from Northern Bangladesh. Small-Scale For. 17(4):505–522. doi: 10.1007/s11842-018-9400-y.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmes I, Kirby KR, Potvin C. 2017. Agroforestry within REDD+: experiences of an indigenous Emberá community in Panama. Agrofor Syst. 91(6):1181–1197. doi: 10.1007/s10457-016-0003-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ickowitz A, McMullin S, Rosenstock T, Dawson I, Rowland D, Powell B, Mausch K, Djoudi H, Sunderland T, Nurhasan M, et al. 2022. Transforming food systems with trees and forests. Lancet Planet Health. 6(7):632–639. doi: 10.1016/S2542-5196(22)00091-2.
   Google Scholar
• Islam MA, Aktar LA, Jubair SR, Dey T, Biswas R. 2021. Addressing farmer’s perceptions-attitudes and constraints to adopt agroforestry adjacent to the coastal belt of Sundarbans, Bangladesh. European J Agric Food Sci. 3(4):78–88. doi: 10.24018/ejfood.2021.3.4.304.
   Google Scholar
• Islam MA, Quli SMS. 2016. Motivation strategy for agroforestry intensification among small holders. Adv Life Sci. 5(10):3878–3883.
   Google Scholar
• Jessy MD, Joseph P, George S. 2017. Possibilities of diverse rubber based agroforestry systems for smallholdings in India. Agrofor Syst. 91(3):515–526. doi: 10.1007/s10457-016-9953-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jha S, Kaechele H, Sieber S. 2021. Factors influencing the adoption of agroforestry by smallholder farmer households in Tanzania: case studies from Morogoro and Dodoma. Land Use Pol. 103:105308. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105308.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khosla A, Bhattacharya P. 2018. Tracking the implementation of forest Rights Act, 2006 and its impact on the livelihood of forest dependent people in the state of Tripura, India. IOSR J Humanit Soc Sci. 23(3):01–13.
   Google Scholar
• Kittitornkool J, Kaewwongsri P, Tongkam P, Bumrungsri S, Sawangchote P. 2019. Livelihoods of small-scale rubber farmers: a comparative study of rubber agroforestry systems and monocropping rubber plots in Southern Thailand. Kasetsart J Soc Sci. 40(2):420–426.
   Google Scholar
• Kittur BH, Bargali SS. 2013. Perspectives of agroforestry: present and future facets. J Progress Agric. 4(2):91–94.
   Google Scholar
• Kumar V. 2016. Multifunctional agroforestry systems in tropics region. Nat Environ Pollut Technol. 15(2):365.
   Google Scholar
• Lasco RD, Delfino RJP, Espaldon MLO. 2014. Agroforestry systems: helping smallholders adapt to climate risks while mitigating climate change. Wiley Interdiscip Rev: Climate Change. 5(6):825–833. doi: 10.1002/wcc.301.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Masum KM, Alam MS, Abdullah-Al-Mamun MM. 2008. Ecological and economical significance of homestead forest to the household of the offshore island in Bangladesh. J For Res. 19(4):307–310. doi: 10.1007/s11676-008-0055-y.
   Google Scholar
• Mathur I, Bhattacharya P. 2022. Transition from shifting cultivation to agroforestry: a case study of regrouped villages in Tripura, India. Environ Chall. 7:100471. doi: 10.1016/j.envc.2022.100471.
   Google Scholar
• Mbow C, Van Noordwijk M, Luedeling E, Neufeldt H, Minang PA, Kowero G. 2014. Agroforestry solutions to address food security and climate change challenges in Africa. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 6:61–67. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2013.10.014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercer DE, Pattanayak SK. 2003. Agroforestry adoption by smallholders. In: Sills E Abt K, editors Forests in a market economy. Netherlands (NL): Springer; pp. 283–299.
   Google Scholar
• Michon G, De Foresta H. 1997. Agroforests: pre-domestication of forest trees or true domestication of forest ecosystems? Netherlands J Agric Sci. 45(4):451–462. doi: 10.18174/njas.v45i4.505.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michon G, de Foresta H, Kusworo A, Levang HP. 2000. The damar agro-forests of Krui, Indonesia: justice for forest farmers. In: Zerner C, editor. People, plants, and justice. The politics of nature conservation. New York: Columbia University Press; pp. 159–203.
   Google Scholar
• Mwase W, Sefasi A, Njoloma J, Nyoka BI, Manduwa D, Nyaika J. 2015. Factors affecting adoption of agroforestry and evergreen agriculture in Southern Africa. Environ Nat Resour Res. 5(2):148. doi: 10.5539/enrr.v5n2p148.
   Google Scholar
• Nair PKR. 1987. Soil productivity under agroforestry. In: Gholz HL, editor. Agroforestry: realities, possibilities, and potentials. Netherlands (NL): Martinus Nijhoff Publishers; pp. 21–30.
   Google Scholar
• Nair PR. 2012. Climate change mitigation: a low-hanging fruit of agroforestry. Agroforestry-the future of global land use. New York (NY): Springer; pp. 31–67.
   Google Scholar
• Nath TK, Jashimuddin M, Kamrul Hasan M, Shahjahan M, Pretty J. 2016. The sustainable intensification of agroforestry in shifting cultivation areas of Bangladesh. Agrofor Syst. 90(3):405–416. doi: 10.1007/s10457-015-9863-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nath AJ, Sahoo UK, Giri K, Sileshi GW, Das AK. 2020. Incentivizing hill farmers for promoting agroforestry as an alternative to shifting cultivation in Northeast India. Agrofor Degrad Landsc: Recent Adv Emerg Chall. 1:425–444.
   Google Scholar
• Ndakara EO, Ohwo O. 2022. The impacts of Hevea brasiliensis (rubber tree) plantation on soil nutrients in Southern Nigeria. Nusantara Biosci. 14(2): doi: 10.13057/nusbiosci/n140215.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neupane RP, Sharma KR, Thapa GB. 2002. Adoption of agroforestry in the hills of Nepal: a logistic regression analysis. Agric Syst. 72(3):177–196. doi: 10.1016/S0308-521X(01)00066-X.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ollinaho OI, Kröger M. 2021. Agroforestry transitions: the good, the bad and the ugly. J Rural Stud. 82:210–221. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.01.016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pandey DN. 2007. Multifunctional agroforestry systems in India. Curr Sci. 25:455–463.
   Google Scholar
• Panklang P, Thoumazeau A, Chiarawipa R, Sdoodee S, Sebag D, Gay F, Thaler P, Brauman A. 2022. Rubber, rubber and rubber: how 75 years of successive rubber plantation rotations affect topsoil quality? Land Degrada Dev. 33(8):1159–1169. doi: 10.1002/ldr.4171.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pant RM, Tiwari BK, Choudhary D. 2018. Report of Working Group III. Shifting Cultivation: Towards a Transformational Approach. India: NITI Aayog.
   Google Scholar
• Puri S, Nair PK. 2004. Agroforestry research for development in India: 25 years of experiences of a national program. Agrofor Syst. 61:437–452.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rahman SA, De Groot WT, Snelder DJ. 2008. Exploring the agroforestry adoption gap: financial and socioeconomics of litchi-based agroforestry by smallholders in Rajshahi (Bangladesh). In: Snelder D, and Lasco R, editors Smallholder tree growing for rural development and environmental services: lessons from Asia. Netherlands: Springer; pp. 227–243.
   Google Scholar
• Rahman SA, Jacobsen JB, Healey JR, Roshetko JM, Sunderland T. 2017. Finding alternatives to swidden agriculture: does agroforestry improve livelihood options and reduce pressure on existing forest? Agrofor Syst. 91(1):185–199. doi: 10.1007/s10457-016-9912-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rasul G, Thapa GB. 2006. Financial and economic suitability of agroforestry as an alternative to shifting cultivation: the case of the Chittagong hill tracts. Bangladesh Agric Syst. 91(1–2):29–50. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2006.01.006.
   Google Scholar
• Reang D, Hazarika A, Sileshi GW, Pandey R, Das AK, Nath AJ. 2021. Assessing tree diversity and carbon storage during land use transitioning from shifting cultivation to indigenous agroforestry systems: Implications for REDD+ initiatives. J Environ Manag. 298:113470. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113470.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reang D, Sahoo UK, Giri K, Hazarika A, Nath AJ. 2022. Ethnic homestead forests of North-East India revealed as diverse land-use systems. Agrofor Syst. 96(4):1–14. doi: 10.1007/s10457-021-00700-z.
   Google Scholar
• Roy B, Rahman MH, Fardusi M. 2013. Status, diversity, and traditional uses of homestead gardens in Northern Bangladesh: a means of sustainable biodiversity conservation. Int Sch Res Not. 2013:1–11. doi: 10.1155/2013/124103.
   Google Scholar
• Safa MS. 2005. Socio-economic factors affecting the income of small-scale agroforestry farms in hill country areas in Yemen: a comparison of OLS and WLS determinants. Small-Scale For Econ, Manag Policy. 4(1):117–134. doi: 10.1007/s11842-005-0008-7.
   Google Scholar
• Sagastuy M, Krause T. 2019. Agroforestry as a biodiversity conservation tool in the atlantic forest? Motivations and limitations for small-scale farmers to implement agroforestry systems in north-eastern Brazil. Sustain. 11(24):6932. doi: 10.3390/su11246932.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saha R, Chaudhary RS, Somasundaram J. 2012. Soil health management under hill agroecosystem of North East India. Appl Enviro Soil Sci. 2012:1–9. doi: 10.1155/2012/696174.
   Google Scholar
• SAPROF Team for Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC). 2006. Special assistance for project formation (SAPROF) for Tripura forest environmental improvement and poverty alleviation project. India: Final Report, Volume I: Main Report
   Google Scholar
• Sharma P, Singh MK, Tiwari P, Verma K. 2017. Agroforestry systems: opportunities and challenges in India. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 6(6S):953–957.
   Google Scholar
• Sollen-Norrlin M, Ghaley BB, Rintoul NL. 2020. Agroforestry benefits and challenges for adoption in Europe and beyond. Sustain. 12(17):7001. doi: 10.3390/su12177001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sood KK, Mitchell CP. 2004. Do socio-psychological factors matter in agroforestry planning? Lessons from smallholder traditional agroforestry systems. Small-Scale For. 3(2):239–255. doi: 10.1007/s11842-004-0017-y.
   Google Scholar
• Suja G, Nedunchezhiyan M. 2018. Crop diversification with tropical tuber crops for food and livelihood security. J Root Crops. 44(1):3–11.
   Google Scholar
• Tafere SM, Nigussie ZA. 2018. The adoption of introduced agroforestry innovations: determinants of a high adoption rate – a case-study from Ethiopia. For Trees Livelihoods. 27(3):175–194. doi: 10.1080/14728028.2018.1493954.
   Google Scholar
• Van Vliet N, Mertz O, Heinimann A, Langanke T, Pascual U, Schmook B, Adams C, Schmidt-Vogt D, Messerli P, Leisz S, et al. 2012. Trends, drivers and impacts of changes in swidden cultivation in tropical forest-agriculture frontiers: a global assessment. Glob Environ Change. 22(2):418–429. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.10.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Villa PM, Rodrigues AC, Martins SV, de Oliveira Neto SN, Laverde AG, Riera-Seijas A. 2021. Reducing intensification by shifting cultivation through sustainable climate-smart practices in tropical forests: a review in the context of UN decade on ecosystem restoration. Curr Res Environ Sustain. 3:100058. doi: 10.1016/j.crsust.2021.100058.
   Google Scholar
• Viswanath S, Lubina PA, Subbanna S, Sandhya MC. 2018. Traditional agroforestry systems and practices: a review. Adv Agric Res Technol J. 2(1):18–29.
   Google Scholar
• Warren‐Thomas E, Nelson L, Juthong W, Bumrungsri S, Brattström O, Stroesser L, Chambon B, Penot É, Tongkaemkaew U, Edwards DP, et al. 2020. Rubber agroforestry in Thailand provides some biodiversity benefits without reducing yields. J Appl Ecol. 57(1):17–30. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.13530.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wulandari C. 2017. Policies that transform shifting cultivation and encourage community-based forest management in Lampung province, Indonesia. In: Cairns M, editor. Shifting cultivation policies: balancing environmental and social sustainability. UK: CABI; pp. 1–21.
   Google Scholar
• Yashmita-Ulman SM, Kumar A, Sharma M, Sharma M. 2021. Conservation of plant diversity in agroforestry systems in a biodiversity hotspot region of northeast India. Agric Res. 10(4):569–581. doi: 10.1007/s40003-020-00525-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar