Abstract
Farmers are predominantly adopting two forms of agroforestry, traditional and improved practices, in the midhills of Nepal, but their efficacy on a comparative basis is poorly assessed, so farmers often confuse whether to continue the traditional practice or embrace the improved practice. We carried out a study in six villages of three districts, interviewed 210 farmers adopting each practice, organized six focus group discussions, and interacted with 24 key informants to compare agroforestry practices from income generation and forest conservation perspectives. An individual household adopting the improved practice annually generated 841.60 US$, which was more than two folds of the traditional practitioner. Similarly, the improved practitioner annually fulfilled 84% demand for forest products from the adopted agroforestry practice, whereas the traditional practitioner only fulfilled about 50%. The fodder, fuelwood, and timber productions were found to be significantly higher in the improved practice, whereas leaf litter production was found to be almost similar. The improved practitioners seemed to be self-sustained in forest products, where the traditional practitioners only satisfied half of their requirements from the agroforestry practice. The study concludes that the improved agroforestry practice is more beneficial compared to the traditional practice. Therefore, we suggest the traditional practitioners to modify their ongoing practice to enhance the contribution of agroforestry practice at the local level.
Highlights
Deepa Paudel,1 Krishna Raj Tiwari,1 Nani Raut,2 Bishal K
The improved practitioner annually fulfilled 84% demand for forest products from the adopted agroforestry practice, whereas the traditional practitioner only fulfilled about 50%. e fodder, fuelwood, and timber productions were found to be significantly higher in the improved practice, whereas leaf litter production was found to be almost similar. e improved practitioners seemed to be self-sustained in forest products, where the traditional practitioners only satisfied half of their requirements from the agroforestry practice. e study concludes that the improved agroforestry practice is more beneficial compared to the traditional practice. erefore, we suggest the traditional practitioners to modify their ongoing practice to enhance the contribution of agroforestry practice at the local level
Some farmers are doing modification in ancient agroforestry practice for commercial benefits along with satisfying household requirements of forest-based products, so two forms of agroforestry exist in Nepal, which are broadly classified as the traditional practice and the improved practice [2]. e traditional practice indicates growing of naturally regenerated trees on farmland with less intensive use of agriculture inputs, whereas the improved practice includes cultivation of high yielding varieties of trees with high use of agriculture inputs
Summary
Deepa Paudel ,1 Krishna Raj Tiwari, Nani Raut, Bishal K. Several scholars have highlighted that agroforestry practices have importantly contributed to local livelihood in many countries such as Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Kenya, and Nepal [2, 18,19,20,21]. In Nepal, rural households are depending on surrounding natural forest for fulfilling their demand of fodder, fuelwood, leaf litter, and timber which can be made available in own farmland through agroforestry practices [18]. Farmers have been knowingly or unknowingly adopting agroforestry practice and fulfilling requirements of forest products and generating household income [27,28,29]. Some farmers are doing modification in ancient agroforestry practice for commercial benefits along with satisfying household requirements of forest-based products, so two forms of agroforestry exist in Nepal, which are broadly classified as the traditional practice and the improved practice [2]. The comparative study became crucial to assess efficacy of both practices especially based on three major outputs: (a) supply of the forest products, (b) generation of the household income, and (c) contribution to forest conservations
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
