IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/caa/jnljfs/v61y2015i11id30-2015-jfs.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Socioeconomic evaluation of agroforestry systems (Case study: Northern Iran)

Author

Listed:
  • M. Mohebi Bijarpas

    (Department of Forestry, Natural Resources Faculty, University of Guilan, Sowmeh Sara, Iran)

  • T. Rostami Shahraji

    (Department of Forestry, Natural Resources Faculty, University of Guilan, Sowmeh Sara, Iran)

  • S. Mohammadi Limaei

    (Department of Forestry, Natural Resources Faculty, University of Guilan, Sowmeh Sara, Iran)

Abstract

The aim of this research was to investigate the socioeconomic values of different land use in the agroforestry system. Questionnaires were used to collect social and economic data in two villages at Guilan province, northern Iran. Internal Rate of Return (IRR) and Profitability Index (PI) were used for cost-benefit analysis. Net Present Value (NPV) of different farming systems was determined. ANOVA test was used to compare the outcomes of different land use. The results indicated that there is a significant relationship between literacy and variety of land use in two villages. Results of IRR and PI indices show that these indices were higher in poplar plantation than in the other land use (paddy and tea field, horticulture and vegetable). Results of ANOVA test showed that there is a significant difference between net incomes from different farming systems in Tamchal village. Furthermore, the ANOVA test showed that there is no significant difference between net incomes from different farming systems in Narenj Bon Paeen village. The results showed that farmers tend to participate in training and promoting classes associated with the maximum use of land. Chi-squared test was used in order to determine the effect of participation in training and promoting classes on multiple uses of land, land use change, sericulture, and apiculture. The results of Chi-squared test showed that there is a significant and positive relationship between people's participation rates and the multiple use of land. In overall, results showed that traditional agroforestry systems provide a higher income than monoculture in the study area.

Suggested Citation

  • M. Mohebi Bijarpas & T. Rostami Shahraji & S. Mohammadi Limaei, 2015. "Socioeconomic evaluation of agroforestry systems (Case study: Northern Iran)," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 61(11), pages 478-484.
    • Handle: RePEc:caa:jnljfs:v:61:y:2015:i:11:id:30-2015-jfs
    DOI: 10.17221/30/2015-JFS
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://jfs.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/30/2015-JFS.html
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: http://jfs.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/30/2015-JFS.pdf
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17221/30/2015-JFS?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gregory S. Amacher & Markku Ollikainen & Erkki A. Koskela, 2009. "Economics of Forest Resources," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262012480, April.
    2. Thangata, P. H. & Alavalapati, J. R. R., 2003. "Agroforestry adoption in southern Malawi: the case of mixed intercropping of Gliricidia sepium and maize," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 78(1), pages 57-71, October.
    3. Satyasai, K.J.S., 2009. "Application of Modified Internal Rate of Return Method for Watershed Evaluation," Agricultural Economics Research Review, Agricultural Economics Research Association (India), vol. 22(Conferenc).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Deegen, Peter & Matolepszy, Kai, 2015. "Economic balancing of forest management under storm risk, the case of the Ore Mountains (Germany)," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 1-13.
    2. Szajkó, Gabriella & Rácz, Viktor József & Kis, András, 2024. "The role of price incentives in enhancing carbon sequestration in the forestry sector of Hungary," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    3. Susaeta, Andres & Carter, Douglas R. & Adams, Damian C., 2014. "Impacts of Climate Change on Economics of Forestry and Adaptation Strategies in the Southern United States," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 46(2), pages 1-16, May.
    4. Ku McMahan & Saad Usmani, 2022. "The Economic Benefits of Supporting Private Social Enterprise at the Nexus of Water and Agriculture: A Social Rate of Return Analysis of the Securing Water for Food Grand Challenge for Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-16, May.
    5. Wang, Yuhan & Lewis, David J., 2024. "Wildfires and climate change have lowered the economic value of western U.S. forests by altering risk expectations," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    6. Xu, Ying & Amacher, Gregory S. & Sullivan, Jay, 2016. "Optimal forest management with sequential disturbances," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 106-122.
    7. Olli Tahvonen, 2015. "Economics of Naturally Regenerating, Heterogeneous Forests," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 2(2), pages 309-337.
    8. Evelyne Gbénou-Sissinto & Ygué P. Adegbola & Gauthier Biaou & Roch C. Zossou, 2018. "Farmers’ Willingness to Pay for New Storage Technologies for Maize in Northern and Central Benin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-21, August.
    9. Miettinen, Jenni & Ollikainen, Markku & Nieminen, Tiina M. & Ukonmaanaho, Liisa & Laurén, Ari & Hynynen, Jari & Lehtonen, Mika & Valsta, Lauri, 2014. "Whole-tree harvesting with stump removal versus stem-only harvesting in peatlands when water quality, biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation matter," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 25-35.
    10. Wadjamsse Djezou, 2016. "Land Tenure Security and Deforestation: A case Study of Forest land conversion to Perennial crops in Côte d'Ivoire," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 36(1), pages 173-186.
    11. Susaeta, Andres, 2018. "On Pressler’s indicator rate formula under the generalized Reed model," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 32-37.
    12. Knoke, Thomas & Paul, Carola & Härtl, Fabian, 2017. "A critical view on benefit-cost analyses of silvicultural management options with declining discount rates," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 58-69.
    13. Marielle Brunette & Stephane Couture, 2018. "Risk management activities of a non-industrial privateforest owner with a bivariate utility function," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 99(3-4), pages 281-302.
    14. L. Ferreira & M. Constantino & J. Borges, 2014. "A stochastic approach to optimize Maritime pine (Pinus pinaster Ait.) stand management scheduling under fire risk. An application in Portugal," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 219(1), pages 359-377, August.
    15. Chang, Sun Joseph, 2018. "Forest property taxation under the generalized Faustmann formula," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 38-45.
    16. Martha Swamila & Damas Philip & Adam Meshack Akyoo & Stefan Sieber & Mateete Bekunda & Anthony Anderson Kimaro, 2020. "Gliricidia Agroforestry Technology Adoption Potential in Selected Dryland Areas of Dodoma Region, Tanzania," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-17, July.
    17. Moeller, Jonas C. & Susaeta, Andres & Deegen, Peter & Sharma, Ajay, 2024. "Profitability analysis of southern plantations through timber alone or timber and carbon integration in pine-sweetgum mixes," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    18. Edward Barbier & Philippe Delacote & Julien Wolfersberger, 2016. "The economic analysis of the forest transition," Working Papers 1605, Chaire Economie du climat.
    19. Amacher, Gregory S. & Ollikainen, Markku, 2024. "Prices versus quantities in forest regulation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    20. Daigneault, Adam J. & Sohngen, Brent L. & Sedjo, Roger, 2020. "Carbon and market effects of U.S. forest taxation policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:caa:jnljfs:v:61:y:2015:i:11:id:30-2015-jfs. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Ivo Andrle (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cazv.cz/en/home/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.