IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2022i2p145-d727084.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

African Forest-Fringe Farmers Benefit from Modern Farming Practices despite High Environmental Impacts

Author

Listed:
  • Emmanuel Opoku Acheampong

    (Division of Tropical Environments and Societies, College of Science and Engineering, James Cook University, Smithfield, QLD 4878, Australia)

  • Sean Sloan

    (Division of Tropical Environments and Societies, College of Science and Engineering, James Cook University, Smithfield, QLD 4878, Australia
    Department of Geography, Vancouver Island University, 900 Fifth Street, Nanaimo, BC V9R 5S5, Canada)

  • Jeffrey Sayer

    (Faculty of Forestry, Forest and Conservation Sciences, Forest Sciences Center, University of British Columbia, 2424 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada)

  • Colin J. Macgregor

    (Division of Tropical Environments and Societies, College of Science and Engineering, James Cook University, Smithfield, QLD 4878, Australia)

Abstract

Agricultural expansion has led to a significant loss of habitat and biodiversity in Ghana and throughout West Africa and the tropics generally. Most farmers adopt both organic and inorganic inputs to boost production, with the potential to slow agricultural expansion, but with relatively little consideration of related environmental impacts. In Ghana, where high-input modern farming is rapidly overtaking traditional organic agricultural practices, we examined five stakeholder groups in regard to their perceptions of the environmental, economic, and social costs and benefits of modern, mixed-input, and traditional farming systems. The stakeholder groups included farmers adopting different agricultural practices, as well as governmental and non-governmental natural resource managers. Our findings indicate that the overall perceived costs of modern farming, attributable to large quantities of inorganic inputs, are higher than the overall perceived benefits. Farmers are, however, still motivated to practice modern farming because of perceived higher returns on investment, regardless of environmental impacts, which they tend to discount. Traditional farmers do not use inorganic inputs and instead rely on swidden ‘slash-and-burn’ practices, resulting in declining productivity and soil fertility over time. Since traditional farmers are ultimately forced to encroach into nearby forests to maintain productivity, the perceived environmental sustainability of such farming systems is also limited. Mixed-input farming is not significantly different from modern farming with respect to its perceived environmental and economic traits, because it incorporates agro-chemicals alongside organic practices. Stakeholders’ perceptions and the apparent environmental outcomes of different farming systems suggest that reducing the use of inorganic inputs and promoting the adoption of organic inputs could minimise the negative impacts of agro-chemicals on the forest environment without necessarily compromising productivity. Campaigns to promote low-input or organic agriculture on environmental grounds in West Africa may falter if they fail to recognise farmers’ relatively favourable perceptions of the environmental implications of modern farming practices.

Suggested Citation

  • Emmanuel Opoku Acheampong & Sean Sloan & Jeffrey Sayer & Colin J. Macgregor, 2022. "African Forest-Fringe Farmers Benefit from Modern Farming Practices despite High Environmental Impacts," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-28, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:2:p:145-:d:727084
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/2/145/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/2/145/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wenhao Song & Chunhui Ye, 2022. "Impact of the Cultivated-Land-Management Scale on Fertilizer Reduction—Empirical Evidence from the Countryside of China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-15, July.

    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:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:2:p:145-:d:727084. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.