IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i16p9841-d884000.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Adoption of Agroforestry Practices in and around the Luki Biosphere Reserve in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

Author

Listed:
  • Michel Mbumba Bandi

    (Department of Natural Resource Management, Faculty of Agronomic Sciences, University of Kinshasa, BP 127 Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo)

  • Martin Bitijula Mahimba

    (Department of Natural Resource Management, Faculty of Agronomic Sciences, University of Kinshasa, BP 127 Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo)

  • Paul Mafuka Mbe Mpie

    (Department of Natural Resource Management, Faculty of Agronomic Sciences, University of Kinshasa, BP 127 Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo)

  • Alphonse Roger Ntoto M’vubu

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Agronomic Sciences, University of Kinshasa, BP 127 Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo)

  • Damase P. Khasa

    (Centre for Forest Research and Institute of Integrative and Systems Biology, Department of Wood and Forest Sciences, Faculty of Forestry, Geography and Geomatics, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada)

Abstract

Despite the technical, socio-economic and environmental challenges, indigenous subsistence agroforestry, generally referred to as slash-and-burn agriculture or bush-fallow farming, is a common practice for local populations in the Democratic Republic of Congo. This study analyzed the proportion of adopters and non-adopters, together with other factors that influence farmers’ choices of adopting agroforestry or that discourage its adoption in the Luki Biosphere Reserve (LBR) area. Data were collected through a survey of 390 households using a structured questionnaire. A logistic regression model, with SPSS Statistics software was fitted to the data against a binary response (1 = adopt; 0 = not adopt). The proportion of adopters of agroforestry practices in the LBR area far exceeds (more than three-fold) that of non-adopters. Six factors exert a positive and significant ( p -value = 5%) effect on peasant decisions to adopt agroforestry practices in LBR, including age (51 to 60 years old), marital status, education level, main activity, land tenure and farmers’ membership in a local association. Gender, other age categories, household size, number of years of agroforestry experience, number of assets, distance between residence and fields, and access to credit did not positively influence the adoption of these practices. The results of this study would help engage the indigenous community with different sectors and disseminate agroforestry as a sustainable practice appropriate to the real needs of local populations.

Suggested Citation

  • Michel Mbumba Bandi & Martin Bitijula Mahimba & Paul Mafuka Mbe Mpie & Alphonse Roger Ntoto M’vubu & Damase P. Khasa, 2022. "Adoption of Agroforestry Practices in and around the Luki Biosphere Reserve in the Democratic Republic of the Congo," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-13, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:16:p:9841-:d:884000
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/16/9841/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/16/9841/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Neupane, Ramji P. & Sharma, Khem R. & Thapa, Gopal B., 2002. "Adoption of agroforestry in the hills of Nepal: a logistic regression analysis," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 72(3), pages 177-196, June.
    2. Haitao Wu & Shijun Ding & Sushil Pandey & Dayun Tao, 2010. "Assessing the Impact of Agricultural Technology Adoption on Farmers' Well‐being Using Propensity‐Score Matching Analysis in Rural China," Asian Economic Journal, East Asian Economic Association, vol. 24(2), pages 141-160, June.
    3. Guy BlaiseNkamleu & Ousmane Coulibaly, 2000. "Le choix des méthodes de lutte contre les pestes dans les plantations de cacao et de café au Cameroun," Économie rurale, Programme National Persée, vol. 259(1), pages 75-85.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Karl Wienhold & Luis F. Goulao, 2023. "The Embedded Agroecology of Coffee Agroforestry: A Contextualized Review of Smallholder Farmers’ Adoption and Resistance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-30, April.

    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. Zongo, Beteo & Diarra, Abdoulaye & Barbier, Bruno & Zorom, Malicki & Yacouba, Hamma & Dogot, Thomas, 2015. "Farmers’ Practices And Willingness To Adopt Supplemental Irrigation In Burkina Faso," International Journal of Food and Agricultural Economics (IJFAEC), Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University, Department of Economics and Finance, vol. 3(1), pages 1-17, January.
    2. Valeria Superti & Cynthia Houmani & Ralph Hansmann & Ivo Baur & Claudia R. Binder, 2021. "Strategies for a Circular Economy in the Construction and Demolition Sector: Identifying the Factors Affecting the Recommendation of Recycled Concrete," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-32, April.
    3. Reed, Brinton & Chan-Halbrendt, Catherine & Tamang, B.B. & Chaudhary, Narendra, 2014. "Analysis of conservation agriculture preferences for researchers, extension agents, and tribal farmers in Nepal using Analytic Hierarchy Process," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 90-96.
    4. Jabeen, Gul & Yan, Qingyou & Ahmad, Munir & Fatima, Nousheen & Jabeen, Maria & Li, Heng & Qamar, Shoaib, 2020. "Household-based critical influence factors of biogas generation technology utilization: A case of Punjab province of Pakistan," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 650-660.
    5. Soviadan, Mawussi Kossivi & Enete, Anselm Anibueze & Okoye, Chukwuemeka Uzoma & Kubik, Zaneta, 2023. "Determinants of Farmers' Participation in the Agricultural Sector Support Project for the Adoption of Improved Technology in Traditional Poultry Farming: Evidence from Rural Togo," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 116(2), pages 87-108.
    6. Nkamleu, Guy Blaise, 2006. "Poverty and Child Farm Labor in Africa: Wealth Paradox or bad Orthodoxy," MPRA Paper 15105, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Elisabeth Hettig & Jann Lay & Kacana Sipangule, 2016. "Drivers of Households’ Land-Use Decisions: A Critical Review of Micro-Level Studies in Tropical Regions," Land, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-32, October.
    8. Githiomi, Caroline & Muriithi, Beatrice & Irungu, Patrick & Mwungu, Chris M. & Diiro, Gracious & Affognon, Hippolyte & Mburu, John & Ekesi, Sunday, 2019. "Economic analysis of spillover effects of an integrated pest management (IPM) strategy for suppression of mango fruit fly in Kenya," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 121-132.
    9. Kishor Atreya, 2007. "Farmers’ willingness to pay for community integrated pest management training in Nepal," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 24(3), pages 399-409, September.
    10. Nkamleu, Guy Blaise & Keho, Yaya & Gockowski, James & David, Soniia, 2007. "Investing in agrochemicals in the cocoa sector of Côte d’Ivoire: Hypotheses, evidence and policy implications," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 1(2), pages 1-22, September.
    11. Campina Illa Prihantini & Nuhfil Hanani & Syafrial & Rosihan Asmara, 2024. "Environmental–Socioeconomic Factors and Technology Adoption: Empirical Evidence from Small-Scale Salt Farmers in Improving Technical Efficiency in the Madurese Coastal Area, East Java, Indonesia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(14), pages 1-16, July.
    12. Sood, Kamal Kishor & Mitchell, C. Paul, 2009. "Role of foresters' perspectives in orienting agroforestry programmes," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 213-220, July.
    13. Mishra, Ashok K. & Kumar, Anjani & Joshi, Pramod K. & D'souza, Alwin, 2016. "Impact of contracts in high yielding varieties seed production on profits and yield: The case of Nepal," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 110-121.
    14. Ha, Tuan M. & Bac, Ho Van, 2021. "Effects of Climate-Smart Agriculture Adoption on Performance of Rice Farmers in Northeast Vietnam," Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, Asian Economic and Social Society (AESS), vol. 11(04), April.
    15. Subir Bairagi & Ashok K. Mishra & Dat Q. Tran, 2022. "Disentangling gender‐differentiated impacts on food security and poverty: Empirical evidence from Vietnam," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(3), pages 493-511, April.
    16. Nazli, Hina & Orden, David & Sarker, Rakhal & Meilke, Karl D., 2012. "Bt Cotton Adoption and Wellbeing of Farmers in Pakistan," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126172, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Ntsama Etoundi, S. Mireille & Kamgnia Dia, Bernadette, 2008. "Determinants of the adoption of improved varieties of Maize in Cameroon: case of cms 8704," MPRA Paper 37783, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Palis, Florencia G. & Singleton, Grant R. & Casimero, Madonna C. & Hardy, Bill (ed.), 2010. "Research to Impact: Case Studies for Natural Resource Management for Irrigated Rice in Asia," IRRI Books, International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), number 164479.
    19. Huang, Wu & Zeng, Di & Zhou, Shudong, 2015. "Welfare Impacts of Modern Peanut Varieties in China," Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, Humboldt-Universitaat zu Berlin, vol. 54(3), pages 1-18, September.
    20. He, Xue-Feng & Cao, Huhua & Li, Feng-Min, 2007. "Econometric analysis of the determinants of adoption of rainwater harvesting and supplementary irrigation technology (RHSIT) in the semiarid Loess Plateau of China," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 89(3), pages 243-250, May.

    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:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:16:p:9841-:d:884000. 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: 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.