Advertisement

Climatic Change

, Volume 153, Issue 3, pp 379–394 | Cite as

Agroforestry as a climate change mitigation practice in smallholder farming: evidence from Kenya

  • Giovanna De GiustiEmail author
  • Patricia Kristjanson
  • Mariana C. Rufino
Article

Abstract

The promotion of agroforestry as a mitigation practice requires an understanding of the economic benefits and its acceptability to farmers. This work examines the agroecological and socio-economic factors that condition profitability and acceptance of agroforestry by smallholder farmers in Western Kenya. We differentiate the use of trees according to the permanence of carbon sequestration, introducing a distinction between practices with “high mitigation benefits” (timber) and practices with “low mitigation benefits” (fuelwood). This study goes beyond the analysis of incentives to plant trees to identify incentives to plant trees that lead to high mitigation outcomes. We show that environmental factors shaping the production system largely drive the choice for planting trees with high mitigation benefits. Most trees in the area are used for fuelwood, and the charcoal economy outweighs economic factors influencing planting of trees with high mitigation benefits. Larger households tend to produce more fuelwood, while high mitigation uses are positively related to the education level of the household head, and to the belief that trees play a positive role for the environment. Where trees contribute significantly to incomes, the norm is that they are owned by men. We conclude that although agroforestry is not perceived to be more profitable than traditional agricultural practices, it plays an important economic and environmental role by supporting subsistence through provision of fuelwood and could relieve pressure upon common forest resources. In areas with high tree cover, it also represents a way of storing capital to deal with risks and cope with uncertainty.

Keywords

Fuelwood Charcoal Profitability Acceptability Gender Labour 

Notes

Supplementary material

10584_2019_2390_MOESM1_ESM.docx (290 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 289 kb)

References

  1. Ajayi OC (2007) User acceptability of sustainable soil fertility technologies: lessons from farmers’ knowledge, attitude and practice in southern Africa. J Sustain Agric 30(3):21–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson EK, Zerriffi H (2012) Seeing the trees for the carbon: agroforestry for development and carbon mitigation. Clim Chang 115(3–4):741–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Backes MM (2001) The role of indigenous trees for the conservation of biocultural diversity in traditional agroforestry land use systems: the Bungoma case study: in-situ conservation of indigenous tree species. Agrofor Syst 52(2):119–132Google Scholar
  4. David S (1997) Household economy and traditional agroforestry systems in western Kenya. Agric Hum Values 14(2):169–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dorward P, Shepherd D, Galpin M (2007) Participatory farm management methods for analysis, decision making and communication. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  6. Franzel S (1999) Socioeconomic factors affecting the adoption potential of improved tree fallows in Africa. Agrofor Syst 47(1–3):305–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Franzel S, Coe R, Cooper P, Place F, Scherr SJ (2001) Assessing the adoption potential of agroforestry practices in sub-Saharan Africa. Agric Syst 69(1):37–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Förch W, Kristjanson P, Cramer L, Barahona C, Thornton PK (2014) Back to baselines: measuring change and sharing data. Agriculture & Food Security 3(1):13Google Scholar
  9. Hosier RH (1989) The economics of smallholder agroforestry: two case studies. World Dev 17(11):1827–1839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jama BA, Mutegi JK, Njui AN (2008) Potential of improved fallows to increase household and regional fuelwood supply: evidence from western Kenya. Agrofor Syst 73(2):155–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jerneck A, Olsson L (2014) Food first! Theorising assets and actors in agroforestry: risk evaders, opportunity seekers and ‘the food imperative’ in sub-Saharan Africa. Int J Agric Sustain 12(1):1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kiptot E, Franzel S (2012) Gender and agroforestry in Africa: a review of women’s participation. Agrofor Syst 84(1):35–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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(2):509–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kristjanson P, Neufeldt H, Gassner A, Mango J, Kyazze FB, Desta S, Sayula G, Thiede B, Förch W, Thornton PK, Coe R (2012) Are food insecure smallholder households making changes in their farming practices? Evidence from East Africa. Food Sec 4(3):381–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mbow C, Smith P, Skole D, Duguma L, Bustamante M (2014) Achieving mitigation and adaptation to climate change through sustainable agroforestry practices in Africa. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 6:8–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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 Sustain 13(1):40–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Montagnini F, Nair PKR (2012) Carbon sequestration: an underexploited environmental benefit of agroforestry systems. Agrofor Syst 61:281–295Google Scholar
  18. Okalebo JR, Othieno CO, Woomer PL, Karanja NK, Semoka JRM, Bekunda MA, Mukhwana EJ (2006) Available technologies to replenish soil fertility in East Africa. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 76(2–3):153–170Google Scholar
  19. Pisanelli A, Poole J, Franzel S (2008) The adoption of improved tree fallows in western Kenya: farmer practices, knowledge and perception. Forests Trees Livelihoods 18(3):233–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ramadhani T, Otsyina R, Franzel S (2002) Improving household incomes and reducing deforestation using rotational woodlots in Tabora district, Tanzania. Agric Ecosyst Environ 89(3):229–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Reardon T, Berdegué J, Barrett CB, Stamoulis K (2007) Household income diversification into rural nonfarm activities. Transforming the rural nonfarm economy: opportunities and threats in the developing world, 115–140Google Scholar
  22. Reed MS (2007) Participatory technology development for agroforestry extension: an innovation-decision approach. Afr J Agric Res 2(8):334–341Google Scholar
  23. Rice RA (2008) Agricultural intensification within agroforestry: the case of coffee and wood products. Agric Ecosyst Environ 128(4):212–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rosenstock TS, Rufino MC, Butterbach-Bahl K, Wollenberg E (2013) Towards a protocol for quantifying the greenhouse gas balance and identifying mitigation options in smallholder farming systems. Environ Res Letters 8(2):021003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rosenstock TS, Tully KL, Arias-Navarro C, Neufeldt H, Butterbach-Bahl K, Verchot LV (2014) Agroforestry with N2-fixing trees: sustainable development's friend or foe? Curr Opin Agric Sustain 6:15–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Roshetko JM, Lasco RD, Angeles MSD (2007) Smallholder agroforestry systems for carbon storage. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 12(2):219–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rufino MC, Quiros C, Boureima M, Desta S, Douxchamps S, Herrero M, Wanyama I (2013a) Developing generic tools for characterizing agricultural systems for climate and global change studies (IMPACTlite phase 2). Report to CCAFSGoogle Scholar
  28. Rufino MC, Thornton PK, Mutie I, Jones PG, Van Wijk MT, Herrero M (2013b) Transitions in agro-pastoralist systems of East Africa: impacts on food security and poverty. Agric Ecosyst Environ 179:215–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sood KK, Mitchell CP (2004) Do socio-psychological factors matter in agroforestry planning? Lessons from smallholder traditional agroforestry systems. Small Scale For Econ Manag Policy 3(2):239–255Google Scholar
  30. Swinkels R, Franzel S (1997) Adoption potential of hedgerow intercropping in maize-based cropping systems in the highlands of western Kenya 2. Economic and farmers’ evaluation. Exp Agric 33:211–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Verchot LV, Van Noordwijk M, Kandji ST, Tomich TP, Ong C, Albrecht A, Mackensen J, Bantilan C, Anupama KV, Palm CA (2007) Climate change: linking adaptation and mitigation through agroforestry. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 12:901–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Yesuf M, Bluffstone R (2018) Consumption discount rates, risk aversion and wealth in low-income countries: evidence from a field experiment in rural Ethiopia. J Afr EconGoogle Scholar
  33. Zubair M, Garforth C (2006) Farm level tree planting in Pakistan: the role of farmers’ perceptions and attitudes. Agrofor Syst 66(3):217–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Maseno UniversityMasenoKenya
  2. 2.IDEMS International Community Interest CompanyReadingUK
  3. 3.Environment & Natural Resources, World BankWashingtonUSA
  4. 4.Centre for International Forestry Research Institute (CIFOR)NairobiKenya
  5. 5.Lancaster Environment CentreLancaster UniversityBailriggUK

Personalised recommendations